Even before the election the present administration had established its style, loud, obnoxious, prone to exaggeration and out right lies. In your face shout downs replaced reasoned debate and differing opinions or facts became enemies to be destroyed. The transition period is the time for recruiting highly qualified staff and development of a viable administration plan. Instead it was a continuation of a scream and shout management style and unprecedented contravention of the still governing administration.
The presidential inauguration 2017 ushered in a governing period of alternate reality where everything was the largest, first and most popular. By divine dictate, facts are denied, shouted down and buried under a PR blitz resulting in plunging approval ratings.
After little more than 80 days in office the administration seized an opportunity to distract its domestic public with a foreign threat. Launching 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base for only limited damage (the base was reported operational within a few days) the administration saw a slight bump in approval with its 50 million-dollar putt.
The administration has finally achieved an honest to goodness official first if not exactly a largest claim. In a case of using your number two club may get a bigger bump, the administration dropped the United States' first weapon of mass destruction (WMD) since World War Two. (WMD is defined as a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g., buildings), natural structures (e.g., mountains), or the biosphere.)
The bomb (GBU-43) was touted as the world's largest but both the United States and the Russians have larger bombs. It is its the first use so its cost includes both development and unit cost totaling around 330 million dollars. According to estimates it "may" have killed up to 36 terrorist, or about ten million per KIA. The immediate blast area of the WMD is two miles across with secondary damage far larger. The Afghan target area is traditional farmland and environmental damage may linger for years. The friendly Afghan government was not informed of the unilateral American strike.
The data are not yet in on a possible bounce but international voices note it was an administration political move. Some claim it as a warning to other nations that the United States had gone rouge. With the administration's planning record so far it is doubtful that there was any thought beyond poll numbers.
The employment of WMD shocked European, Russian and Chinese power houses. It was also seen as a direct threat by North Korea and various terrorist organizations, not known to be wrapped to tight and may respond by going down swinging at anything American. Donald Trump touted the bomb as "another successful job," huh?
As a show and tell the two strikes spent nearly 400 million and the administration is cutting education, social services, environment etc? Talk about shooting the country in the foot. We create our own enemies, foreign and domestic.
Monday, April 17, 2017
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Power 040717
A political scientist penned a doggerel years ago that, "Presidents have more power than they ought, but not as much as most people thought." It may not be the exact quote but close enough (failing memory) and maybe more relevant today than it was decades ago.
Back in the days the keys to American power were relatively easy to define. There was sharing between a president and legislature with a court acting as a referee. The fourth estate (media) was the gatekeeper of information. The media of the time was comparatively small, three networks, a couple of wire services and a few national newspapers. This small cadre of gatekeepers attempted to present world events, explain the pros and cons and courses of actions while representing public interest.
The term fourth estate was coined in the mid-eighteenth century as the fourth power of a nation (after nobility, the church, and commoners.) The United States, as a sectarian state, saw church power wax and wane over time. Consider the nobility as the President and Senate while the House supposedly represents the commoners. With the rise of professional politicians controlling Congress commoners were better represented by the fourth estate. The right condemned the leftist media while the left complained of rightist control of the message. In general it was a balanced presentation for the commoners to consider, evaluate and vote. That was 19th century thinking.
In the 21st century power has shifted in America. The four estate is still around but more diffused, technologies' social media has become the major gatekeeper. Analysis by respected media commentators is gone, replaced by the contradicting clamor of partisan polls and divergent radical voices. These exert immense pressure on the country's old power structure.
The Donald (isn't that the name of an angry duck) mastered tweets to entertain, deceive and attack everyone and everything with duck like rants. He parlayed his tweets to Whitehouse power. There he continues to rave at opponents of his divine rights and has now discovered the limits of executive power. The administration attempted to force Twitter to surrender personal information on a government critic. The request was clearly a political ploy, possibly for an addition to The Donald's self-proclaimed enemies' list.
Twitter filed a federal lawsuit against the administration's illegal request and violation of the Constitution. The ACLU joined the case with the public lambasting the administration attempted intimidation of the increasing public outpouring of criticism. It was the administration that became intimidated and withdrew its demand. (The lawsuit is on hold in case of another attempt to end run the Constitution.)
Can we expect an Executive Order that declares the illegal, legal? What's next for Trump's Troops, secret informer reports of suspected opposition voices? Will the IRS gear up an audit hit list or should we fear "Night and Fog" from the rich white power house?
Back in the days the keys to American power were relatively easy to define. There was sharing between a president and legislature with a court acting as a referee. The fourth estate (media) was the gatekeeper of information. The media of the time was comparatively small, three networks, a couple of wire services and a few national newspapers. This small cadre of gatekeepers attempted to present world events, explain the pros and cons and courses of actions while representing public interest.
The term fourth estate was coined in the mid-eighteenth century as the fourth power of a nation (after nobility, the church, and commoners.) The United States, as a sectarian state, saw church power wax and wane over time. Consider the nobility as the President and Senate while the House supposedly represents the commoners. With the rise of professional politicians controlling Congress commoners were better represented by the fourth estate. The right condemned the leftist media while the left complained of rightist control of the message. In general it was a balanced presentation for the commoners to consider, evaluate and vote. That was 19th century thinking.
In the 21st century power has shifted in America. The four estate is still around but more diffused, technologies' social media has become the major gatekeeper. Analysis by respected media commentators is gone, replaced by the contradicting clamor of partisan polls and divergent radical voices. These exert immense pressure on the country's old power structure.
The Donald (isn't that the name of an angry duck) mastered tweets to entertain, deceive and attack everyone and everything with duck like rants. He parlayed his tweets to Whitehouse power. There he continues to rave at opponents of his divine rights and has now discovered the limits of executive power. The administration attempted to force Twitter to surrender personal information on a government critic. The request was clearly a political ploy, possibly for an addition to The Donald's self-proclaimed enemies' list.
Twitter filed a federal lawsuit against the administration's illegal request and violation of the Constitution. The ACLU joined the case with the public lambasting the administration attempted intimidation of the increasing public outpouring of criticism. It was the administration that became intimidated and withdrew its demand. (The lawsuit is on hold in case of another attempt to end run the Constitution.)
Can we expect an Executive Order that declares the illegal, legal? What's next for Trump's Troops, secret informer reports of suspected opposition voices? Will the IRS gear up an audit hit list or should we fear "Night and Fog" from the rich white power house?
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Boom 040117
There is a well-established foreign affairs ploy of governments faced with domestic unrest or low ratings in national polls. The ploy is used not only by totalitarian regimes but also by supposedly democratic governments. It works on an ounce of truth and tons of lies that creates and demonizes a foreign "enemy." Alternate facts are widely broadcast to suppress immediate popular decent, leaving the real facts to be dug out by scholars 50 to 100 year in the future after the responsible participants have passed on.
The Lincoln administration attempted to generate another war with Mexico with the expectation that both North and South would rally around and forget their differences. Mexico was a likely target; the United States had already fought two wars and taken half of the country. Mexico was expected to be an easy victory that could satisfy the north's business interest and the south's quest for honor. Fortunately for Mexico the government procrastinated, unfortunately for the United States which erupted into its bloodiest war. North/South animosity lingers on only moderated somewhat by WWII's amalgamating the two in single formations.
France repeatedly went to war to "save" French Catholic missionaries, while the British "protected" Protestant missionaries. Often the missionaries were surprised that they needed to be protected or saved but were happy to serve the home countries' colonial land grabs. Not to be left out the United States demonized weakling Spain to seize its own foreign empire. The Wilson administration again invaded Mexico to divert attention from the Great War in Europe. Between the two World Wars the United States fought demons in Central America and its overseas empire.
After World War Two there emerged only two demons the Soviets and the Americans (depending on perspective) who fought a series of proxy wars around the globe mostly in Africa and Asia but also in South America. John Foster Dulles foreign policy was, "If you aren't for us you are against us," as some nations attempted to stay out of the great power struggle. After almost three-quarters of a century as the targets of demonization there should be no surprise at wide spread distrust of great power intentions. The little countries will smile at U.S. largest but they count their fingers after every gift and still go their own way.
For the foreign demon ploy to appease domestic turmoil there must be a credible demon and a clear goal that is achievable. There have been more long-term failures than victories utilizing this ploy. The classic failure would be Hitler's invasion of little Poland that touched off wide spread destruction and changed the world forever.
Before utilizing the ploy to distract from government's domestic difficulties administrations should have clear, attainable goals. It should consider future potential effects and remember that it makes its own enemies, who have very long memories. It may also fail in its political objective of distracting domestic unrest. The question is who is the target. Is it the generated foreign threat, the domestic turmoil or the administrations own inability to govern?
The Lincoln administration attempted to generate another war with Mexico with the expectation that both North and South would rally around and forget their differences. Mexico was a likely target; the United States had already fought two wars and taken half of the country. Mexico was expected to be an easy victory that could satisfy the north's business interest and the south's quest for honor. Fortunately for Mexico the government procrastinated, unfortunately for the United States which erupted into its bloodiest war. North/South animosity lingers on only moderated somewhat by WWII's amalgamating the two in single formations.
France repeatedly went to war to "save" French Catholic missionaries, while the British "protected" Protestant missionaries. Often the missionaries were surprised that they needed to be protected or saved but were happy to serve the home countries' colonial land grabs. Not to be left out the United States demonized weakling Spain to seize its own foreign empire. The Wilson administration again invaded Mexico to divert attention from the Great War in Europe. Between the two World Wars the United States fought demons in Central America and its overseas empire.
After World War Two there emerged only two demons the Soviets and the Americans (depending on perspective) who fought a series of proxy wars around the globe mostly in Africa and Asia but also in South America. John Foster Dulles foreign policy was, "If you aren't for us you are against us," as some nations attempted to stay out of the great power struggle. After almost three-quarters of a century as the targets of demonization there should be no surprise at wide spread distrust of great power intentions. The little countries will smile at U.S. largest but they count their fingers after every gift and still go their own way.
For the foreign demon ploy to appease domestic turmoil there must be a credible demon and a clear goal that is achievable. There have been more long-term failures than victories utilizing this ploy. The classic failure would be Hitler's invasion of little Poland that touched off wide spread destruction and changed the world forever.
Before utilizing the ploy to distract from government's domestic difficulties administrations should have clear, attainable goals. It should consider future potential effects and remember that it makes its own enemies, who have very long memories. It may also fail in its political objective of distracting domestic unrest. The question is who is the target. Is it the generated foreign threat, the domestic turmoil or the administrations own inability to govern?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)