The perfect candidate rolls on…
Originally posted on Malia Litman's Blog:
Remember Sarah Palin’s fondness for Trump?
Former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, Donald Trump and Mrs Trump as they sit down for Pizza at LaFamiglia restaurant at West 50th and Broadway arrive , Manhattan for a chat with Donald Trump what is rumored to be her asking Donald to be her running mate in her bid to run for President. Original Filename: DSC_0117A.jpg
Remember Palin’s identification of Trump as a hero?
An unfortunate aspect of the Trump phenomenon is that now the white supremacists are coming out of the woodwork and into the open. It would really be better if they went back where they came from, but that’s the wrong attitude. The weird thing is they’re people too, totally normal 99% of the time. Just with a little something very deeply poisoned in there, and when it comes out, it’s capable of some awful shit.
At some point, about 15 years ago maybe, I told myself, it is better to face reality about these things. This is not shaping up to be a pretty election season. Not the first nor last time, i’m sure. The “American Psyche”, if we pretend for just a moment that there is such a thing — there isn’t but it’s a useful concept — we’re evolving into something better but we’re a long way from being there. Hopefully whatever transformation is taking place isn’t in so fragile a state that the political “process” can screw it up. For example, by refocusing regional, political, and economic/class tensions into racial ones. The bad cop in the Republican/Democrat good-cop/bad-cop team is playing with fire, methinks. Very un-smooth. Surely the powers that be are not that desperate.
In any case, out in the open with it, whatever it is. We’ll see what happens.
As a follow-up to yesterday’s post on Iran and oil, I just picked up a 2010 book by George Friedman, of Stratfor, entitled “The Next Decade”. Read about halfway thru it, not in order though. So this impression is a little premature.
His reasoning seems to be very classic, geopolitics, driven by mainly by geography and material considerations – more so than cultural.
Friedman advocates / predicts that US leadership, i.e., presidents, embrace their role as managers of an empire, and act as a sort-of enlightened despot, a-la Machiavelli. But with a kind of moral compass, in that leaders ought to act in the national interest rather than fall victim to some form of corruption. I didn’t see a description of a mechanism that ensures this.
The technique of empire-management he advocates / predicts is to selectively create and/or feed regional conflicts, and exploit them to prevent any other power from challenging the US. (this seems to be quite in line with the impression I get from US Government (USG) and think tank publications). The primary regions of concern are the ME and Russia. (again, no surprise there.)
While he recognizes what a spectacular disaster Iraq has been, he does not seem inclined to draw more generalized conclusions from that example — so far I haven’t read from him the possibility, that fostering regional conflicts and/or using destabilization as the primary tool, or more generally, broader belief in the proactive exercise of power, may have drawbacks that outweigh the benefits.
He also picks up on the contradictions between the values of the US as a republic (i.e., wishes of the founding fathers, democracy, freedom, well-being of citizens, well-being of humans in general), vs the practical considerations of power and geopolitics. He attempts to synthesize these contradictions into something, but I think the book is a little weak on that subject, compared to the chapters on specific regional power balance considerations, which I think are quite good overall. The synthesis he gets out, as far as I can tell, seems to be the enlightened-despot concept, per above.
It all makes sense, for the most part, if one accepts the premises, and the reasoning about the method of empire management, which I must confess I don’t at all. But more importantly, to what degree does it describe actual reasoning in the USG? English language musings from some Russians, for one, seem quite willing to project Friedman’s interpretations onto their interpretation of USG thinking — another reason I decided to read it.
This is about Hillary Clinton’s alleged use of private email (i.e., not secure as far as official USG policy is concerned), for classified materials, while she was Secretary of State. Since she’ll never be officially accused of selling out to the highest private sector bidder, nor of extreme war-mongering, this is probably the best anyone can do.
Democrats should welcome this because Clinton could never win a general election — the devil himself could run against her and Repub’s would come out in droves just to see her lose.
Republicans should welcome this, because they don’t like her.
Progressives too, because she, like most of the Democrat party, Clinton is a phony sell-out.
But not the New York Times. When Clinton says sit, the NYT sits. Clinton says roll over, NYT changes the headline and text of its story to soften it up and make it seem like maybe she wasn’t the person who used her email account…
This is actually pretty cool. Using twitter to track people’s DREAMS!
ever see the movie “inception” ? closer….