Karl's Bog

The murky world of politics (and other things) as seen from the Bog

Time to read:

5–7 minutes

Tag: Trump

  • War! Again.

    War! Again. 

    For the third time in my life, the US is going to war under what appear to be false pretenses.  In 1964, there was an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin near Viet Nam which was presented as an attack on US navy ships.  It was later determined to be faulty intelligence that went uncorrected.  Forty-seven thousand Americans were killed as a result of hostile action.  Why?  We wanted to overthrow a communist government.  We failed. 

    In 2003, the US government went to great lengths to sell the country on the idea that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.   We attacked Iraq to destroy their nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities.  There was evidence before the war that the chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed to avoid sanctions.  There was no solid evidence of a nuclear program.  We used the existence of metal tubes as proof of gas centrifuge construction for enriching uranium.  Four thousand Americans killed and thirty-two thousand wounded.  Why?  We wanted to overthrow a regime we didn’t like.  The situation in Iraq is still unstable more than 20 years later. 

    Now, we claim that Iran can produce nuclear bombs and deliver them to the US on missiles.  Eight months ago we claimed to have “obliterated” their nuclear development capacity. Maybe their missile production capability is vastly superior to analytical estimates but there is no support for that argument.  Maybe we want regime change to save the population that we encouraged to rise up against the tyrannical government. That was before we abandoned them as tens of thousands were murdered by the regime.   There has been no serious effort to prepare the nation for this war nor to explain why it is necessary.  So why this time?

    Tim Snyder in the Substack “Thinking About” suggests that there may be two other motives.  One is to enhance Trump’s personal fortune by helping to eliminate Iran as a gulf region power.  That enables countries that have been exceedingly generous to him – gifts of 747s, lucrative financial deals for his family, sale of AI chips to rich Emirati Sheiks – to influence him to use American military strength to eliminate their rival.  This is a personal corruption motive. 

    It is also possible that the goal of a foreign war is to create instability, division and fear at home and to use that fear to either cancel or constrain upcoming elections.  That might be helpful to Trump as well as to Netanyahu in Israel.  If peace and tranquility return to Israel, Netanyahu will face trial.  Trump may be concerned at the same thing as he has said numerous times that he will be impeached, again, if the Republicans lose the House of Representatives in November.  If a war is in progress, the president may argue that elections must wait and will certainly press the “rally ‘round the flag” message as Netanyahu does. 

    In “Lucid” on SubStack, February 28, Vali Nasr, professor and middle east expert, is quoted by Ruth Ben-Ghiat saying, “this war, which Prime Minister Netanyahu lobbied for, is part of a dream to expand Israeli power in the region. In support of this imperialist aim, messianic Orthodox and secular nationalist Israeli ideologies come together with Christian nationalist views”. These views coincide with much of the Trump administration as well, including Hegseth, Rubio and Ambassador Huckabee. 

    Another possible motive is regime change.   There is skepticism about regime change because we encouraged Iranians to fight the regime.  Then after the Iranian military and police killed tens of thousands doing that, we did nothing.  A bigger problem is same one we encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It is easy enough to overthrow a regime but without preparation for what comes next, the war will fail.  After we overthrew the Taliban and left Afghanistan, the Taliban returned.  They were the only well-organized group in the country that had the history, breadth, and power to do so.  Same after first gulf war.  Hussein stayed in power.  As explained in Why Nations Fail, by Acemoglu and Robinson, there must be existing institutions and institutional memory to recover. Absent that, there is no pattern for the new leaders to follow to a new society.  Iranians alive today lived all or most of their lives under the Shahs or the Ayatollahs so we would expect little in the way of better institutional models. 

    When a regime is overthrown and the over-thrower does not stay to set up shop, the groups most likely to take power are the ones with guns, organization, and expertise in infrastructure management.  In Iran, that is the IRGC and their thuggish state police the Basij.  It is possible that a technocratic organization of state bureaucrats and technicians could come to power but there is no sign of a leader.  The son of the late Shah has the name but no guns, nor organization and the last Shah was chased out of the country.

    Preparation for this follow up is key.  How will we find the nuclear and missile sites and ensure they are destroyed this time?  That needs someone’s boots on the ground! How will we communicate with the rebels if they do rise up?  How will they communicate? Our international communications organizations have been gutted as have our support organizations.  Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and their Radio Farda used to be the open airwave to Iranians.  When the attack began, Radio Farda had been severely limited by Trump and Kari Lake cuts.  It is still operating but at a deficit.  USAID which used to deliver aid of all types is absorbed somewhere in the State Department and not able to operate independently. 

    We are attacking a country that represses its citizens brutally, interferes with nearby governments through their proxy fighters, and has at least a civilian nuclear and maybe a missile building program that could bear fruit in ten years.  There is another country that has already invaded a sovereign country, demands its territory, restrictions on what international organizations it can join, and the removal of its elected president.  The justification for the attack is that the invader wants the territory, is afraid the victim might join its enemies, and is a threat. They have been at war continuously for four years with over a million casualties.  Why isn’t that a higher priority for us than Iran?

    This essay will also be published on SubStack. And take a look at Tim Snyder’s “Thinking About …” and Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s Lucid SubStacks.

  • Embarrassment at Davos

    Trump’s presentation at Davos was embarrassing. I began drafting this essay thinking I would direct blame for some of this administration’s self-inflicted chaos to Republicans in congress, cabinet members, and both official and unofficial advisors.  It’s not that they deserve more blame than the Don for the costs, chaos and corruption of the government but I don’t think they get enough.  I kept coming back to the fact that Donald J. Trump is president of the United States of America and they are not.  The buck stops with him no matter how hard he tries to redirect it.  So here it is, focused on the main driver.

    I was embarrassed by the POTUS display at Davos.  What I found most embarrassing was the fact that this man-child elected by my fellow citizens has virtually no understanding of the world.  He may know how to make business deals that enrich him but he doesn’t know much else. Take geography for example.  He appears to believe that the Mercator flat map projection gives an accurate perception of the size of continents.  In fact, it makes everything nearer the poles appear much larger than they really are.  Hence his preoccupation with Greenland.  That and the fact that he has friends with business interests there.  Also, he thinks that adding that much territory will enhance his legacy.

    He also seems unaware of the ocean conditions in the far north. Greenland is in the middle of an ice pack. In winter it occupies the entire eastern and northern coasts and lurks to the west on Canadian shores. If a nation is to be successful protecting sea lanes, exploring, researching or commercializing Greenland and surrounding territory, it needs icebreakers.  Big ones!  Not for river ice but for Arctic sea ice.  The US might have 2 capable icebreakers.  The rest of NATO has between 30 and 45.  Russia has in the neighborhood of 40-50.    We are planning to build more. Seven more.  Based a design from Finland.  Pushing NATO away while trying to make a case for securing Greenland under these circumstances is at best self defeating.

    Disparaging NATO activity during the Ahgan and Iraq wars should embarrass all veterans and any American who paid any attention at all to the news. Denmark lost more soldiers per capita supporting the US on the front lines than we did. I thank you NATO.

    Another cost of pushing NATO allies away is that may cause them to consider creating a stronger European alliance that is less dependent on America.  The European Union, which includes all the NATO nations in Europe, is the world’s largest market outside the US.  China follows closely.  If Europe is sufficiently worried by the saber rattling and decides to move closer to China or to expand markets in South America, Africa or South East Asia, it would be at the expense of the US.   

    By the way, federal funding for agencies that used to produce reports on sea conditions and ice concentration has been cut.  The National Snow and Ice Data Center is no longer funded to produce reports on the extent and concentration of sea ice among others.  If we are serious about defending Greenland, wouldn’t we want to know the latest and best information about conditions in the Arctic Ocean? This is an administration whose right hand that doesn’t appear to know what the left hand already did.  

    Trump also appears not to know or care that we already have an agreement with Denmark and Greenland that gives us free rein over our military operations in Greenland.  We had many bases there from the 1950s until after the cold war.  Those bases can be resurrected and we can build others in coordination with Denmark and Greenland.  Instead of the chaos he created at Davos, he could have had agreement to proceed and we could be building or upgrading as many of the old facilities as we want or building new ones right now!  Instead of maintaining warm relations with NATO countries, he managed to irritate almost everyone in Europe, especially in Greenland and Denmark. I wonder how that will work if we actually build new bases.  Will we have to import all the workers because locals don’t want to work with us?  That should save money!  

    Tariffs, being Trump’s favorite word, also came up at Davos.  Trump threatened an additional 25% tariffs on several European countries if he did not get his way on Greenland. Canada would be in for 100% tariff if they entered a free trade agreement with China.  He also admitted that the reason for all the Greenland chaos is that it is very important to own things for him, pyschologically.  Are the tariff threats, bullying, the attacks on NATO all because of his psychological needs? 

    So, in how many ways has Trump embarrassed not only me but the whole country?  

    He is illiterate on geography, unaware of practical issues of defending the island, oblivious to loss of funding for important information about Greenland, ignorant of existing agreements, uncaring about economic damage, disparaging of our allies, and really only interested for his own psyche and his friends’ enrichment.  Not bad for a single conference!

    And all that was before the ICE disaster in Minneapolis unfolded.

    ————–

    This essay will also be published in Substack.

     

     

     

  • Making America Weak Again

    MAGA means “Make American Great Again” but what is actually happening is “Making America Weak Again”.

    The role of a national government is often described as needing to protect life, liberty and property or pursuit of happiness along with other elements that depend on the type of government. Nations that are strong do those things well. Nations that are great do them very well and do them with the success of their people in mind. Nations that are great understand that they live in a world with others. Nations that are great protect their people from foreign military adventures, from domestic and international criminals and government corruption. Their businesses are protected by strong laws securing property rights and by honest courts. They protect against unfair competition both at home and abroad. The great countries attract strong allies with whom they can share intelligence, markets and defense burdens. I assert that they also have a guiding moral direction that appeals to the people of other nations as well as their own and underlies the strength of their alliances.

    Unfortunately, America is well on the road to weakness by squandering many of those assets.

    President Trump is doing tremendous harm to America’s greatness, not making us great again.

    It began with the refocusing of FBI, CIA, DEA, DHS and other agencies’ workers away from their intended jobs and toward immigration enforcement. While it is fine to find and remove undocumented immigrants, we also have to deal with drugs, murder, kidnapping, fraud, terrorism, espionage, money laundering, human trafficking and other crimes at the national level. The staff that used to track those problems is now largely dedicated to chasing and deporting people who are for the most part law abiding citizens and productive members of the community.

    Threatening to grab Greenland is making us even weaker. First, it is an appalling moral approach. He is saying to another sovereign country that he wants their land and they should concede because he likes real estate. Consider that Russia might want Alaska back or Mexico might want Texas, Oklahoma and the rest of the land we took from them. Or China makes the stronger case for Taiwan. Or for Japan. Or Australia. China can easily argue that they need Japan and Australia for security because they stand between the US and themselves. 

    Grabbing Greenland by any means seems likely to destroy NATO. We would then lose intelligence sources, allied troops and material, the European NATO members then would be occupied on two fronts – trying to keep Russia in check in the east and trying to figure out what we are doing in the west. 

    Leaving NATO would make the security of Greenland more tenuous. If NATO is not there to help us, as they were in Afghanistan and Iraq, we lose major military support. We lose trained and experienced winter and cold weather troops. We lose military equipment. We lose major sources of intelligence from the region where the Russian navy sails on its way to the Atlantic and to the Arctic Ocean. If we want to keep Greenland out of Russia’s hands, it is far better to combat them with a larger united force. 

    Greenland is causing more domestic disruption. It is another burden on Trump’s popularity and is beginning to affect his ability to accomplish his domestic agenda. (I’m in favor of his not succeeding with his domestic agenda but rationally his Greenland stance seems to work against it). On top of the turmoil caused by ICE and reaction to ICE, it is causing Republicans in Congress to push back. It is already being suggested by – Republicans! – that moving against Greenland could cause another impeachment.

    It is also making China stronger. Countries that feel they can no longer depend on us for markets or support are turning to China. Mark Carney from Canada just visited China to build trade relations. Chinese exports to the US are down due to the tariffs but up overall as other countries have stepped up. 

    The chaos and domestic disruption could have an effect on US bonds. If lenders think they are facing more risk with American bonds, they will demand higher interest making it harder for us to sustain our debt and driving up the cost of mortgages. That’s a huge problem if it lasts beyond the current presidential term. 

    Just today, Trump threatened higher tariffs on our NATO allies who support Greenland’s independence. That promises even more costly European imports.

    Lastly, the chaos and disruption in the US and Europe means less attention being paid by the already depleted foreign relations staff to Northern Africa and the Sahel and also to southeast Asia. When no one is watching the strongmen and militias and war lords, they are freer to do as they please which is good for no one. It was when no one was watching Al-Qaeda that 9/11 happened.

    As I look at this, even considering that the US would have a huge expanse of land with rich minerals in areas, it looks like a weaker America. And a failed real estate deal.

    This essay is also published on Karl’s Substack

  • The Democrats’ Huge Responsibility

    The Democratic Party has a huge responsibility. It is must nominate a person to save the United States from a drift toward autocracy and oligarchy as well as saving the world from disintegration into more aggressive and disputatious tribes. Oh, and by the way, the nominee also has to win, to administer the government of the US and to establish some reasonable policies around oh, so many things.

    That the Trump administration thumbs its nose at the rule of law and at congressional oversight is no revelation. Nor is its appointment of incompetent sycophants in key positions (23 year old director of personnel anyone? How about a Director of National Intelligence lacking the intelligence experience mandated by law?) Not even its constant “exaggeration” of the truth and reflexive lying. One area that may not be as obvious is the harm to national security. Many people of both parties have tired of our frequent misguided international adventures. However, the solution is to reduce the need for adventures by helping to manage chaotic and increasingly complex international relationships, not to withdraw and pretend everything is ok as long as we win each individual transaction.

    We are almost certainly at higher risk now than three years ago. There is no evidence that North Korea has slowed down its nuclear program. Iran has been given a green light to proceed with theirs, Turkey is becoming a very unreliable member of NATO. NATO has been threatened by Trump if they don’t pay up or pay us for our support. Russia now holds greater power in the middle east. China is not being challenged in the South China Sea. Military experience is ignored in matters of military discipline and law. Military budget is diverted for non-military for pet projects. Ambassadorships are unfilled. The State Department and several others have been trashed. The list goes on and on.

    The main concern raised by this list is that collectively it shows a disregard for the value of foreign partnerships and alliances. A bunch of bilateral transactions cannot be as strong as a few multi-lateral, multi-national agreements that serve common interests rather than only our own. The Trump administration cannot see the value in that and assume that if each individual event is in our favor, then the whole game must be a victory. The next president must begin to reestablish the credibility of the US in foreign policy. That, in turn requires rebuilding the State Department and repopulating ambassadorships and many mid- and lower level positions within State.

    There is growing division within the country and it is lead by the president. We see the politicization of everything, much of it emanating from the White House. That is not to say that Democrats are above politics, just that they are not as good at it! Which is another reason they have to win! It is essential that we return to fixing problems and establishing policies that work for people rather than policies that just have good, outrage-generating political sound bites.

    However, the threat I am most worried about is to American values both in the short and long term. Conservatives complained that Obama’s administration was a threat to American values too. So let me make clear I’m not talking about pro-choice/pro-life, pro or con gun rights, big government vs small government, deficit management – oh, wait, that one is not on anyone’s list any more. The thrust toward autocratic processes, court manipulation and total opaqueness in government dealings sounds and looks remarkably like the move toward a police state. I don’t see this as a short term issue but one that could be firmly entrenched wth another five years of Trumpism.

    This is a threat not only to the United States but to the world. And not just the so-called “free world”. The US has had its hands in many sordid international adventures that raise doubt about our values and the president has in fact said we’re no different from anyone else (“We’re no angels”). The saving grace of the Shining City on the Hill or American Exceptionalism has always been the existence and pursuit of values denoted in our “sacred documents” – the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist papers and others over the years that lay out the goals of a government that derives its authority from the people. It allows for mistakes as long as we try to return to the path forward.

    This administration is not trying. In fact it seems completely happy to erase the bread crumb trail so we won’t be able to find out way back. This is not only an issue of the Trump administration but seemingly across the globe in countries that once seemed destined for the rule of law by consent of the governed – Turkey, Hungary, the Philippines to name a few. As alliances crumble, there is no longer leadership to help resolve disputes. Trade disagreements and disputes over sovereignty reign. That’s why the UK is leaving the EU.

    The next president must take on all of these challenges while working with the Republicans on budgets, health care immigration, housing and more. You – Democratic Party primary voters – must nominate someone who can replace the current president and begin to build new coalitions and ideas that will unite us. Barring that, we may as well begin mandatory Chinese language and culture lessons in Kindergarten because China will soon be in charge of a disintegrated America.

  • A Theory of Everything Trump

    Pundits often attempt to explain the president’s actions and motivations.  I catalogued many Trump actions, tweets and comments in a framework based on my characterization of him.  Almost everything he does can be explained if viewed through this framework.  Simply, the framework describes the president as a

    • thin-skinned,
    • narcissistic,
    • bully,
    • whose only goal is his personal brand management.

    (more…)

  • Real News

    Let’s be clear. I still think the Donald is a thin-skinned, narcissistic bully whose only goal is self-promotion.

    Nonetheless, CNN and other media outlets must de-escalate the Russia story and find more time for other news. There are two reasons for this. First, there is other important news. Second, roughly one-third of the country doesn’t care. If you want to maintain (or reestablish) a reputation for fair coverage, you can’t spend all your on-air time talking about something a third of your potential viewers think is unimportant and won’t be interested in unless something much more definitive comes to light. It looks more like harassment than news coverage to a lot of people and is divisive. Don’t stop reporting on new facts related to Russian election-meddling, possible collusion and hacking. Just don’t spend all day and all night covering the same issues. (more…)

  • Resistance is not enough

    Let’s get this clear before I go on.  I am no fan of Donald Trump.  I believe he is a 12-year-old, thin-skinned bully – a very talented and clever bully it must be said – in the body of a 71-year-old ego-maniac.  Taking that perspective I think gives tremendous insight into his actions and motivations.  Nonetheless, this story is not about him.  It is about the Democrats and how they are going to continue to lose.  It is to some extent also about how the press is helping them lose.   (more…)

  • US Steps Back

    International agreements are enormously complex.  They cannot be explained in sound bites so no one understands them completely except the negotiators and the handful of speed-readers who are dedicated enough to read through them.  Both political parties can find some language in them support their positions. So how are we to know whether the Trump administration should be applauded for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord or castigated?  Three possible answers.

    1. It is a Trump administration decision so anyone with a brain
      1. should oppose it
      2. should support it
    2. It was negotiated by the Obama administration so anyone with a brain
      1. should oppose it
      2. should support it
    3. Other

    Ok – that was a trick question.  The answer is (more…)

  • Why Not Trump?

    Why not Trump for president?  He has expressed some good ideas.  For example, he has indicated the value of his being “self funded” to avoid being beholden to special interests. He is for improving the US infrastructure, repairing our tax structure, fixing the VA, fixing immigration, updating or replacing the ACA, expanding the economy, reviewing our trade policies and fixing Social Security while reducing the national debt.  Those are all goals I can support.  Those are also all goals that Hillary supports.

    They differ mostly on how they would review trade policy and on tax cuts and how they would implement some of the goals above.  Trump says he’ll rip up our current trade agreements and start over; HRC says she’ll work to make sure they are fair.  Donald will cut taxes across the board; Hillary will raise taxes on the rich.  Hillary’s resulting budget deficits will be about the same as projected under current law resulting in a debt of 86% of GDP in 10 years.  Trump’s will be higher resulting in 106% of GDP in ten years.  Trump says he’ll generate so much growth that we will cut the deficits and start bringing down the debt.  Non-partisan economists say that won’t happen.  Actually, pretty much all economists that are not part of his advisory council say the same thing.

    Overall, his policies are somewhat different from mainline Republican ideas but if you remove the rhetoric, most are not extreme.  So why are some people so against him?  I’ll get back to that.

    Hilary’s policies are not outrageous either.  She is a politician and an insider.  As a result, people don’t like her.  She has added to the normal dislike and distrust of politicians by her own actions.  Her political instincts were sharpened in Washington and she has been under attack for a long time.  I don’t understand the deep-seated antipathy some politicians have toward her but I would guess it comes from the ill-fated “Hillarycare” she managed under her husband’s presidency.  Hillary has been under intense scrutiny for 30 or more years.  The Donald has not.  Hillary’s every flaw is well known.  Donald’s are not.  He has not only been fined by the Justice Department for violating a consent decree regarding housing discrimination but investigated for bribery, corruption in a construction project, sale of two housing units to members of the mob, stock dealings, illegal loans from his father to his casinos, improper lobbying, misleading earnings reports and Trump University .  Hillary is far from perfect but she is  very well known.  The Donald is known mostly to followers of the Apprentice.  Running the United States is not a reality TV show.

    Why not Trump?  If his policies, absent the exaggeration and hyperbole, are not totally despicable and in many ways not that different from Clinton’s, and their record of federal investigations are not dissimilar, why not take a chance on the outsider?  Here’s why.

    1. He is making bullying an acceptable behavior.  If a presidential candidate can make his arguments almost entirely through innuendo and ad hominem attacks, then that must be ok.  When said candidate uses social media extensively for the sole purpose of name calling, it must be normal.  Schools no longer need to teach the elements of logic nor critical thinking because all you need to win an argument is a bag of clever insults.  The idea of punching back regardless of the issue and punching harder means it is ok to beat up the little kid who gets in your way or to take his lunch if he insults you.  Sixth grade bullies have a how-to guide from the Republican candidate.  Way cool!  Ironically, Melania Trump spoke out against cyber-bullying and related her own wonderful story of coming to America.  However, the largest group of cyber bullies I know of are from Breitbart, InfoWars, 4Chan and of course, @theRealDonaldTrump.  Some of their most frequent targets are immigrants and immigration.  In other words, her husband and some of his most energetic backers.  Bullying is not ok; it is not an acceptable model for the president; and it coarsens the country and reduces its intellectual capability.
    2. Impetuosity is a liability in foreign affairs.  Combined with his bullying instincts, I can imagine him going off-script and upsetting multiple foreign heads of state.  Why do we care?  We need information and intelligence sharing with as many countries as possible in the fight against terrorism.  We need economic cooperation to improve or even maintain our trade deals.  We need our allies to believe we have their backs.  There are enough countries that don’t like us already.  We don’t need to add to the list by insulting a European head of state, for example, for being behind on NATO payments.
    3. The country needs to be united; he is a divider.  What ever you feel about Clinton or the press, inciting crowds with “Lock her up” chants and inviting insulting and abusive behavior to the press should not be acceptable.  We have due process laws.  They even apply to Democrats.  Hillary has not been charged  with any crime in the 30 years she has been in Washington.  We do not lock up people who have not been indicted.  The First Amendment is just as important as the Second (and all the rest) but it was first for a reason.  The writers of the Constitution knew the importance of the press and right to assemble.  Whether Donald does or not is less important than how his followers perceive the message and who they choose in the years to come at state and local levels.  Will press freedom begin to diminish?  Attacks on due process increase?  Where will that lead?  I don’t know but it won’t be a country governed by our Constitution.
    4. But the biggest problem is cynicism.  A campaign that panders to and reinforces the legitimate fears and concerns of a large part of the nation but has no credible plan to fix those problems is just cynical. I said earlier that fixing our immigration system is a good idea.  Trump has taken he good idea though and turned it into an element of divisiveness, not over how to fix the policy but over the immigrants and refugees themselves.  Even though Trump’s policies are not tremendously out of line with many candidates, his rhetoric is.  Listening to him makes it sound like the barbarians are not only at the gate but have broken the hinges and only he can now save us.  I find this appeal to the worst and most fearful elements of natures to be the best explanation of “why not Trump”.

    Why HRC?  See above.  If the Democrats ran a normal candidate or even Bernie Sanders, there would be no contest.  Hillary has many flaws but she should not be further tainted by the sins of her husband.  The one thing that sets her apart (for this election) is that she worked effectively across the aisle when she was a Senator and developed good working relationships with a number of Senators who are still there.  She has some small chance of unifying the country.  Mr. Trump does not appear to me as though he wants to unify it.

  • Trump’s Needed Apologies – 4 in an unending series

    Donald Trump is redefining America as a third world country in which the press is a tool of the government, political opponents are threatened with jail, truth is an unnecessary luxury, elections are stolen by the elites and only the fervor of your supporters matters.

    It is these last two items that are of most concern.  The campaign has insinuated for some time that the election is “rigged”.  It seems that the only way Mr. Trump loses is if the fight is unfair.  Otherwise, he is so smart, talented and charismatic that such a result is inconceivable.  Regardless of the laughability of that statement, if enough of his followers are rabid enough to believe the election process is unfair or is somehow controlled by some outside agency like the “elites”, we could see the beginning of a long, slow, tortuous trip to third world status for the several countries that used to be the USA.

    There is no discussion of how this “rigging” happens.  Maybe through voter fraud from illegal immigrants recruited by the Clintons.  Maybe just outright cheating in the vote count by election officials.  Or the Russians could be hacking the voting systems to make sure the Trumpanistas don’t win.  Perhaps it is through the “crooked media”.  Interestingly, it is the media that made him in the first place by reporting on all the outrageous things he says.  That attracted many people.  As the election grows nearer, more people are paying attention.  The press still reports on everything he says but to a larger audience with more uncommitted voters. The expanded audience is more likely to be skeptical of Trump’s claims.  He doesn’t like that.  Therefore, rigged.

    However, it would be a mistake to blame everything on the Donald.  He has a 30 year or more platform of growing distrust in the government sparked primarily but not exclusively by the right.  There are multiple possible starting points from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to Newt Gingrich.  All of them and their successors in Republican politics have railed against government being the problem, being in the way, being too big, too slow, too impersonal and more recently just inept and incapable.   Bernie Sanders and his band made similar points about the failure of governmentto execute its responsibilities.  Oddly enough, those two threads are closely related.  And they are not wrong.  Broadly speaking, they are about Congress not doing its job for a very long time.  Congress has focused not on solving problems but on serving conflicting philosophies.  Their approaches to politics has created more polarized  constituencies and allowed them to hold up any legislation that either creates a political risk for them or fails to meet their philosophy completely.  ACA is a good case.  Democrats can’t admit it has any flaws and Republicans can’t admit it has any benefits.  So it can’t get any better and no progress can be made on afordable healthcare.  The same logic applies to immigration, jobs, economy, inequality and security.  No progress, no agreement.  It leads to a lot of bubbling in the political and social cauldrons.

    So what do I want him to apologize for this time?  For using the wretched situation our Congress has created to inflame passions instead of offering solutions.  I know that he has put forward some immigration, tax, education and other plans.  But he prefers, it seems, to incite the crowds to jeer the press corps and cast outrage at those who oppose him.  And he continually takes the spotlight off his plans anytime there is anything that dims the light on him! This leaves him behind in the polls (which irritates him to no end) and causes him to cast about for excuses.

    On November 9th, I hope to have heard a concession and a plea to Congress to stop fighting begin working on solutions regardless of who wins.  America can’t afford more division.