Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

[Stavros]

The short version is this: if we use the language of political existentialism, we are all in a life or death situation. The condition of the USA after Obama was so bad that it was about to die, and only drastic measures can save it -or, it is this President who is determined to destroy what America was, in order to re-construct it as it used to be, a country that was created by, and for white chiristian people.

[Stavros]

This is the longer version-

I am writing this, probably more for myself that you. But I challenge you to bring up any issue, and I/we could address the underlying spiritual issue, and that would point to a path for a more positive solution. I could lay out the issue of congress woman Omar. But for now, I want to see, what you think of my central idea, of spiritual/philosophical warfare?

I think at the level you are thinking of, we should be or could be talking about what used to be called the 'zeitgeist'. If you look back at the political, economic and cultural factors that created the Third Reich, and without over-simplifying them, you can see how in the German case in particular there is the question of how Germany coalesced around a unified state in 1870, and what the impact on it was of the modernization taking place in politics and the economy, but where social forms were thus challenged, with a particular divide between the rural and the urban. Why Germany took the path that it did to dictatorship has been the cause of much debate, but there is a rough consensus that the negative energy you refer to was created by the impossible demands of Unification and Imperialism -Germany's desire for an Empire comparable in size and wealth to the British, French, Dutch and Russian Empires- but the collapse of these ideals in the First World War, and the crisis of identity that followed as Germany lost control of lands that had been in its domain -and where many people were born German and only spoke German rather than Czech or Polish- led to a belief that something had been lost, that a united Germany had in some way 'gone wrong'. Germans then saw and heard a discordant and visually deformed national culture, registered in the atonal music of the Second Viennese School, the twisted and contorted images of contemporary art, the growth of materialism and atheism -in other words, all those ingredients that led Oswald Spengler to write his famous, but miserable book, The Decline of the West, in 1923.

The narrative that the Nazis created and manipulated, was thus a negative one: Germany had lost the war and lost its Empire, but had lost through betrayal; Germany was in reaity a great country, brought low by Germans who had sold their land to those who were not truly German -the Jews and the Communists becoming the cause of defeat and pollution. The positive view of Germany the Nazis offered, was a false one, derived from ancient writings and historical figures, of poets and composers recruited to a cause they would not have supported, but essential to an idea of what it meant to be German, a nationalism that by definition asked the question 'Do you belong here?' with the answer, if it is No, then you must leave, or be thrown out. In this either/or perspective in which the Nazi Party and the Leadership of Adolf Hitler defined the purpose of the Nation, you could only be for it, or against it.

If the crisis in modernization in Weimar Germany was distilled in the music of Schoenberg and the economic crisis that did so much to fracture German society -Schoenberg, the bankers and the media barons all being Jews, of course- you can see how the same tropes have been revived by Bannon and Miller to present a narrative of the USA since the 1960s in which all the forces that made America great have been replaced, traduced, above all betrayed by liberals. God, Family and Country have thus been replaced by atheistic materialism, one-parent families on welfare, and a country 'flooded' with immigrants.

But whereas the Positive perspective of America was of a place where the citizen was equally free to be religious or non-religious, a country where families could, and did prosper regardless of the number of its parents and children, and a country that without immigration would not exist, the element of Race, so crucial to the German experience, and a constant factor in American public life since Jamestown, gives the alt-right perspective almost the same one that characterised the German experience, but with Jews replaced for the most part by Muslims and Black Americans -Black Americans being in the privileged position of being historically the existential threat to White America, just as, since 9/11 it has been convenient to add Muslims to that threat.

So I think that the negative energy comes from the political existentialism that has become central to the Republican narrative, but one it may have borrowed from Israel, which to some extent actually has an existential dilemma the US does not, but one which is exaerbated by Netanyahu's fascist attempt to use Judaism is a form of territorial nationalism, and where it does look politically inept to absorb into the state against their will, a million Palestnians who hate it. But if the extremists in Israel view 'transfer' as a means of solving their Palestinian 'problem', there are extremists in the USA who view the solution to the Black 'problem' another form of transfer known as 'Go back to Africa'. Again there are now Germans who view the influx of refugees in 2015 to be an existential threat to what it means to be German, just as Marine le Pen in France makes the distinction that there is no more left or right in France, the distinction that only matters is between 'Globalists' and 'Patriots', language that has also been used in the US.

And, sitting between the people and their destiny, their true destiny, are the political classes who are the real traitors, legislators and decision makers who put their own interests, and the interests of their clients first with no regard for the 'little man' who is just there to work and pay taxes. With an existential crisis of this proportion, extreme measures are required to correct the mistake, which is why the most extreme individual you can think of occupies an Office of state which he treats with contempt, hoping that by the time he is finished with it, the American people will choose to dismantle their governmental institutions, reduce the Presidency to ceremonial duties, and American democracy be a 'democracy of markets' and self-regulating, self-armed communities, just like it used to be before America was ruined by the Jews, the Liberals and the Muslims.

Barack Obama played against this narrative with its stark alternative: hope and change. To his critics this sounded like something from Sunday School or Sesame Street, but Obama had the belief (Michelle talks about this in her book, Becoming) that America is at its best when it comes together, when it chooses to ignore differences, rather than to exploit them. It is the central dilemma too in election campaigns: do you go for a positive message and refrain from dishing the dirt on your rivals, or do you take them head on with the same negative ads and even vitiolic abuse they throw at you? I think Blackchubby has argued the Democrats need to play rough and promote a more radical agenda to counter the Republican campaign.

But, is the USA going through the traumas of the Civil War withut the bloodshed? Has the question -what is America for, who is America for, now become the coded message that lies beneath this astonishing moment in history when not only is the truth irrelevant, but lies are the flags waving in the crowd because people prefer lies to the truth? Given that the polls were right, and that Hillary Clinton won the vote, the result was clearly close enough to confirm that this is an intensely contested Presidency. But, the President has enough allies in Congress, specifically the Senate who are prepared to allow the most blatant and gross abuses of the Office of the Presidency on the basis it can be controlled and used to their benefit, which is how politicians in the Reichstag viewed 'Herr Hitler' in 1933; and the President only won his selection by the Electoral College by small margins of votes, while polls suggest his support has not diminished, implying those margins could be won again.

2020 could be repeated, or the President lose by margins sufficient to replace him, even with the narrative that already claims 2020 has been 'stolen' from the President -the question thus, must be -can a Democrat appeal to enough voters to win, and what tone, what message will they employ to win? On bread and butter issues, if the US shows signs of an economic downturn, Democrats could argue that the economy they handed on was in good shape but the President has run it down through his tariff barriers and sanctions and tax cuts. They could argue that the reality of immigration is that it is a blessing not a burden, and counter all the scare stories, expose the lies.

Just as in the UK there is a sense of despair with conventional politics, that in France Macron's idealism and reform has been strangled by yellow vests, hit a brick wall, is going down in flames like the Gothic tower of Notre-Dame de Paris, so it is easy to believe we are thinking dark thoughts, that we need drastic measures to resolve existential problems or we will see the break-up of the UK into its constituent parts, the USA will be torn between the coastal states and the inland empire, the Union and the Confederacy, that the EU will dissolve, and Iran and Saudi Arabia develop nuclear weapons, and the failure to tackle climate change condemn waterlogged islands to a very real extinction, and 50 million flee for their lives from south to north...

Or this is just a blip, and in 2020 the US will return to normal; the UK will end up remaining in the EU; de-industrialization will reduce the world's carbon footprint, families will be smaller, the world's population decline, and everyone will be happy.

[yodajazz]

Great post, Stavros! I read extensively about the rise of nazi germany, but presented, things i did not know. I particularly was interested, in how the 'art music' of the time, was considered, in a larger social context. In makes a lot of sense. And there were other things, as well.

But my main thrust now, is to specifically look at not just current issues, but also the spiritual issues at the roots of those issues. I have been spending time, answering YouTube reader comments, on politically themed vids. and it is the public discourse, (if you can call it that,) that really draws me in. The opinions amaze me sometimes with the lack of logic. There are still people out refusing to believe that russia conducted cyber warfare on the US. It was a smart move by Putin. It did a lot more damage than one of the US 100 million dollars apiece, F-35 fighter. Putin helped to inject negative mindset energy into the US/West. Whether there was collusion, or not makes little difference, if similar negative energies are used. And a very ironic thing that lots of negativity is put by religious groups. You know the routine, as they say. Speaking of negative energy, I curious if the under ground narrative was a witch/worshipper of Satan, reached to England? (Plus I heard some sickening rumors related to that). I know the root of how one of was based.

Call it 'Zeitgeist warfare' if you want, but 'spiritual warfare' is more broadly used here. But it is also true within the traditional religious institutions, and movements. The evangelical christian movement often has had specific views certain political positions. And the most stringent ones frame democrat/left behaviors in apocalyptic terms. I have been saying this; Democrats need to take back Jesus. I saw this expressed in one video sent to me. It was great, but I feel like it should be the mantra of the entire democratic party. But I must add, it is not, and should not be about doctrine, specific facts, (.i.e. died on the cross, etc), but on Jesus's words, in how we should act, live, and treat one another. Jesus spoke on the poor several times in the Bible. He even spoke once about eunuchs, a class of them, what we call, transgenders. And I say he was spot on, on that. (But what did he know,). lol

I'll keep you posted on my idea. Its always good to hear what's coming from the other side. Thanks!

[Stavros]

Yodajazz, I think the 'spiritual' aspect of the political environment may be more resonant for Americans than it is for us in the UK, where religion as a component of politics has, in its Christian sense, been eclisped by the view that religion is just not important. Indeed, the irony in a largely secular society is that Muslims and Orthodx Jews are probably the most concerned in the UK with issues that link politics to religion, specifically a half-hearted campaign to ban Halal butchery, which by extension means a ban on Kosher butchery too, but not an issue that has reached Parliament. It is seen by people like me as a means of smuggling in anti-Islamic and anti-Jewish politics into a debate on animal welfare, as if cows and lambs preferred to be stunned before being slaughtered when most, indeed all, were quite happy munching grass in a field.

Religion has become weaponized in central Europe, notably in Poland and Hungary, where the public support for 'Christian' government is in part a reflection of the decades when the Communist State viewed the Church as a rival if not also an enemy. Re-discovering faith is one thing, using it to make a distinction between Christians and 'the others' has obvious problems given the fate of the Jews in Poland and Hungary, but the crisis of 2015 when Muslim refugees (though not all refugees from Syria were Muslims, some were Christian), presented European states with an oppotunity to so promote a 'Christian' culture that it would both deny those refugees sanctuary in Hungary, and oppose any attempt by the EU to absorb any in a 'quota' system. Although religion may be more important in Germany than it is in the UK, the 'backlash' against this sudden influx of refugees has tended to benefit extremist parties such as the AfD who perceive both mainstream parties, the Social Democrats and Chancellor Merkel's Christian Democrats as soft on immigration even before the 2015 crisis. Steve Bannon has thus latched on to public disquiet about the influx of Muslims and Arabs, Kurds, Turks and anyone else east of Istanbul, as constituting an attack on the foundations of Christian Europe, and has thus been campaigning for the removal of Pope Francis who he sees as another 'traitor' to the cause.

If this resonates in the US, it is because of what I see as a peculiar form of Christianity which, in the case of the so-called 'Evangelical Christians' is almost literally a 'death cult', a view of Christianity that thrives on a sense of crisis, of danger, but of a crisis whose resolution can only be, and should only be the end of the world, the second coming of Jesus and all the armageddon stuff that attends it. It seems to me, by contrast that Black American Christians, who may share the view that all shall be judged when the time comes, are more concerned with living a Christian life in the here and now, which means, as Martin Luther King argued before he was shot, that poverty is the fundamental sin of America, though I expect I am simplifying his message. Religion has for some, articulated a response to failure, and one should be aware that political Islam that took various forms before the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, coalesced around the view that the Arabs had been losers when their states were run by liberals, socialists and military dictators -it was easy for the man in the street to identify with the slogan 'Islam is the solution' yet in practice, Islam in government, be it in Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan or 'Daesh' has been a disaster, the quality of life has declined, with the almost bizarre situation in which Muslims whose primary duty is to live and to love, take options that were only meant for extreme situations and places them at the centre of their faith so that a Muslim can say 'we value our death more than you value life'.

As with Islam so in the US so-called Christians present the crisis in their country as a loss of faith that must be restored, and see in liberal social policies on same-sex marriage, abortion and divorce, a fundamental cleavage between what the US was created for, and what it has become. For this reason, it doesn't matter if the President is a crook, a con-man, a racist, a sexist and homophobe. As long as he says he will defend and promote their campaign to 're-Christianize' America, to put God at the forefront of American life, then he can do and say anything he likes -even if it is clear in his personal life he has little that amounts to Christian humility and virtue- so desperate they are, so willing to set aside the existing laws and institutions that represent all Americans rather than just Christians -thus States will make abortion all but illegal through 'heartbeat' laws, because America is a Christian country, it belongs to them, and they will implement at State level what the President cannot do Federally, and it does not matter what the majority of Americans think and want.

And America may not want to talk about poverty as MLK wanted them to, because its solutions might be too 'socialist' if the argument is that poverty can be alleviated through social programs, while libertarians could just as argue that as they see government as the principal obstacle to prosperity, Black Americans ought to support their project.

Another strand of thinking relates the crisis of the age with government, the bureaucracy, and those beneficiaries in high finance and the corporate world. It is thus interesting that Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have come under much scrutiny, yet there is also an argument, even Elizabeth Warren has advanced it, that in spite of the size, wealth and reach of Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon, there is no need for new anti-trust laws to break up these 'titans' of the new economy'.

But what the crisis also provides is the contradiction of the President and his clan sneering at public service, even though they themselves are public servants. A culture of blame and humiliation has now gripped the political discourse so that senior figures in established institutions like the CIA, the FBI, the Justice Department, can be publicly humiiated, abused, ridiculed, and the President expects everyone to agree with him (or doesn't care), just as members of Congress and the Press are condemned as traitors and liars. Why would anyone now consider public service something honourable? Even those who have not themselves been in service have had to suffer the ridicule and abuse of the President if their husband was killed on armed service, but the Gold Star widow does not take kindly to the President being able to pronounce his name correctly. There was no apology, but there was abuse, because that is the kind of man he is, but crucially, because he knows that by acting the way he does, he is demeaning the Office of the Presidency, so that instead of being a revered position, people will look at the Presidency as part of the problem.

This sneering conempt for politcians is part of the campaign by Bannon and a revived Fascism to identify a crisis that exists because modernization, immigration and globalization has transformed the societies in which we live, and by making them multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural, and multi-sexual undermines the security of tenure that once guaranteed White Christians would be the beneficiaries of capitalism, and while they have in spite of their complaints, benefited most from globalization, people like Bannon see in the 'left behind' a new opportunity to dismantle government to replace it with markets. In effect, neo-liberalism was just chapter one of an experiment whose story is just beginning.

If there is a spiritual element to any of this, it seems to be registered as a kind of emptiness or despair, but if this does characterize where many people are, and the reistance that emerged with the survivors of Parkland has been important, with the NRA facing dissolution, it may also be due to the 'left' failing to convince themselves as well as the public that they have concrete policies that will bridge the gap between rich and poor, that will sustain even create jobs that pay a living wage, and manage the environment so that generations can enjoy its beauty and riches and not end up in a dystopian soup where the sun never shines and the Tyrrell Corporation owns everything.

Maybe we need more to believe in each other, rather than gods and monsters, and do something about the man David Frum desribed on tv last night, as 'America's No 1. Liar'. And we all know who that is.

[Stavros]

Nobody can be surprised that the President has used his veto to render worthless a bi-partisan resolution in Congress to end the USA's materiel and moral support for the Kingdom of 9/11's campaign in the Yemen. The opportunity this gives to America's closest Arab ally and friend to abort the lives, stop the heartbeats of men, women and children, to destroy their homes and their schools, their hospitals and their businesses, to turn the poorest country on the Arabian Peninsula into a garbage dump, is an opportunity that cannot be resisted.

It is why they have given the President lovely dollars, to buy his support for mass murder in the Yemen, to buy his support for the torture of the women in Saudi Arabia's prisons who have been arrested because they thought the 'liberal reforms' of Mohammed bin Salman trumpted by Jared Kushner actually meant something, even as MSB ordered the hands, feet and head of Jamal Khashoggi to be sawn off without anaesthetic, a crime the US supports through its President, soaked as he is in lovely dollars, incapable of distinguishing right from wrong unless it has his name on a money order followed by seven deadly digits.

Congress is either an obstacle to freedom, or an irrelevant nuisance. There is no separation of powers, as the Mueller Report was designed from its inception to protect the most corrupt President since his idol, 'Indian Killer' Andrew Johnson, and the most incompetent manager ever to have disgraced the Office of the President, which now stands exposed to ridicule as being merely the cashpoint for dictators the world over, who have their greatest supporter in the White House ATM. When the price is right, American will act on their behalf, and laugh at anyone who thinks 'yuman rights' and the law have any meaning. Just as nobody is surprised he cheats at golf.

[Stavros]

The 'Indian Killer' was Andrew Jackson, not Johnson, my mistake.

[buttslinger]

On the Hannity show they were laughing that if there had been a Fox News when Watergate happened, Nixon would not have been impeached. I think they're right.
True respect is a dear thing, difficult and demanding. Fake respect is much better, and you don't have to read 400 pages. The Republicans will stonewall to eternity.
I cannot believe that Trump didn't get nabbed on Money Laundering, and that would have been in the redacted stuff, so I think it's probable all those cases Mueller referred to New York will haunt him to his grave. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

[yodajazz]

Don't get too down, yet. The game is not over. Congress is the one who has the Constitutional authority to make their own decision on obstruction. Bill Clinton was found guilty, on obstruction, but he was able to remain in office. Nixon was going to be tried, on obstruction before he resigned. The charge is for Congress to decide.

I think Barr's logic, in his conclusion will be tested. Two of his arguments, are that 1. you cant be guilty of obstruction, if you aren't guilty of the underlying crime. 2. By Trump doing things openly, cannot be called obstruction. However that is not a strong argument, because with congress having the authority, to impeach him, the public has influence on congress. His public comments, were made to influence the public. Plus can you name any other crime, that is not a crime, if you do it openly? Plus I believe that Mueller intended for Congress to make the determination, not someone hired by Trump to protect him. Barr had a prejudgment that a president could not obstruct justice before he took the job. I call that prejudiced. Barr's son-law, now works for the White House legal team. I joke that, if Trump is impeached, Barr's son-law will be out of a job. And Barr's daughter and family may have to move back into his family home.! lol

By the way, Barr's original letter did not, question that russia was involved in election interference. So Trump has to still reckon with 'hoax' issue, and address if he even admit whether he believes US Intelligence. . But the other thing, is still those spin-off investigations. I know they will try to knock them off one be one, but that's still coming. So don't let Trump's victory lap claims, fool you. The report hasn't been digested yet. I doubt that the 'no evidence' mantra, will survive. So no, it ain't over!

[filghy2]

In any normal universe Trump would be in deep trouble as a result of Mueller's report. It's telling that his initial reaction to Mueller's appointment according to a witness was "This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked." The conclusion on obstruction of justice alone is pretty damning:
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. We are unable to reach such a judgment.”

There are precedents for people being convicted of obstruction of justice even they they were not found guilty of an underlying crime, eg Martha Stewart. Nixon was not forced to resign because he was involved in the Watergate burglary, but because he obstructed justice by trying to cover it up. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-be-obstructi/

And even if Mueller ultimately concluded that he could not establish clear evidence of a criminal conspiracy, there was clearly plenty of evidence of concerning behaviour. The fact that Republicans are spinning this as a complete exoneration speaks volumes for how deeply corrupted that party has become.

[yodajazz]

I believe in the report, stated the Mueller said he would respect DOJ guidelines, to not indict a sitting president. Knowing the Congress, would be the one to try any case against the president, he ultimately decided to hand off to Congress, and let them decide. Strategically in his public campaign of obstruction, Trump has made the case, that 'angry democrats' , 'Hillary loyalists', 'deep state', are engaging in coup, to remove him from office. So Mueller, recommending indictment, would more or less put the blame, directly on him. Whereas Congress is ultimately responsible to its constituency. Also the standard for impeachment does not require a conviction of a crime, They have the power to judge for themselves.

Yes, that "complete exoneration" was just a trick. They calculated that a percentage of people, would only remember what they first heard.