Diplomacy From the Bottom Bunk

“Be polite, be professional, and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.”

-Retired General James Mattis (attributed)

Donald Trump, Viceroy for Russian North America, has lost his Defense Secretary, James Mattis, and he’s also engineered a government shutdown for Christmas that nobody wanted. The two events are quite likely related.

In regard to the first event, it’s interesting that the consensus of the Trump apologist media is incredulity that Trump is being criticized for something that a lot of his own critics wanted all along. One of the columnists in Pat Buchanan’s The American Conservative pointed out, “It is telling and not to Mattis’ credit that ending an illegal war in Syria was the one policy disagreement with Trump that Mattis couldn’t stomach.” As even Andrew Sullivan says, “Neoconservatism, it seems, never dies.”

For quite some time, libertarians, leftists and the Buchanan Right have been skeptical of the American establishment continuing to set this country up as the World’s Policeman. Some of us are more skeptical of Trump (and Republicans in general) than others. But then many of Trump’s fans are in the foreign policy establishment, and it’s telling that even many of them are uneasy with the current direction, especially since the closest thing to consistency in the Trump foreign policy was hostility to Iran, and removing American forces (and by extension, the Kurds) as a buffer zone in the region cannot help but assist the Iranians’ strategy of breaking American containment.

Yes, all the Rachel Maddows of the Left are suddenly complaining now that the Evil Empire of the United States is retrenching rather than expanding its commitments. But then, 20 years ago, the same camp was okay with a president being involved in shady real estate deals and cover-ups of consensual affairs that may have been a political liability. At the time, “conservatives” were screaming like it was a second Holocaust. Now their boy is doing the same thing in spades, and they don’t even blink.

But partisanship is to be expected. In this case, it’s not even the point. The reason that Maddow and others who study history are suspicious of everything Trump does, regardless of what it is, really IS because Trump is the one doing things. Because unless you have foolishly pinned all your hopes on the Republican Party and/or Trump, you have seen enough of him to know that nothing he says or does can be taken on good faith. You have to look for an ulterior motive in everything – because there always is.

This is why the resignation letter of Jim Mattis is important. For while it is professionally worded, it targets the areas of disagreement that he had with the president, and why Trump’s positions cannot be taken as the good-faith actions of an executive acting in the national interest. Simply reciting what a Defense Secretary (or President) needs to do merely displays where Trump as a statesman is deficient. Mattis says, “While the US remains the indispensable nation of the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies.” As opposed to selling out the Kurds and strengthening Iran at the expense of Iraq and Israel. “It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model-” and if this needs to be pointed out to Trump, he is either not clear about this or is on board with what China and Russia are doing.

“My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues.” Experience that Trump does not have. In any event, Trump does not treat allies with respect, nor is he clear-eyed about malign actors, because he does not see an interest outside his own ulterior goals, nor does he have the temperament to shape his behavior towards diplomacy.

Donald Trump has only two postures toward the outside world: Either bossy arrogance or bottom-bunk submissive.

General Mattis told Trump, “you have the right to a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects”. Unfortunately, Floyd R. Turbo died in 2005.

After the fact, reporters revealed that “President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw American troops from Syria was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials.” Specifically on December 14, the White House took a phone call from Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in which Erdogan pressured Trump to withdraw our forces from the Kurdish part of the Syrian front, by threatening to attack Kurdish forces while Americans were still camped with them. Despite Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary Mattis being in on the call, despite both men counseling Trump to stand firm, and despite the fact that Trump had previously sided with his advisors, he suddenly decided to agree with Erdogan.

For one thing, we still don’t know exactly what Michael Flynn was doing on behalf of the Turkish government, or why.

The fact that people were still taking Trump on good faith when they should have known better is the reason for the other clusterfuck of the moment. After not only refusing to negotiate with Democratic leaders in Congress but saying to Chuck Schumer’s face that he would take credit for a government shutdown, most of Congress, not wanting to be blamed for yet another shutdown over the holidays, made plans to avoid it. On December 19, the Senate took a voice vote to pass a bill without Trump’s wall. But then the same day the true believers saw which way things were going and they LOST THEIR SHIT. In her feed, conservative attack Whippet Ann Coulter said:

“Trump is doing exactly what I feared he would do in the worst conceivable way. He’s not building the wall, while making ridiculous promises right up until the second before he folds.
“…The basic factory setting on the perception of Trump is: gigantic douchebag. This is a man who manufactured fake Time magazine covers featuring himself with the headline, “Donald Trump: The ‘Apprentice’ is a television smash!” so that he could put framed copies of it on the walls of his clubs. “His business is convincing people with lowbrow taste to give him their money.

“…It’s not as if a majority of his voters weren’t clear-eyed about what kind of man he is. If anything, Trump’s vulgar narcissism made his vow to build a wall more believable. Respectable politicians had made similar promises over the years — and they always betrayed the voters. Maybe it took a sociopath to ignore elite opinion and keep his word.
“On the basis of his self-interest alone, he must know that if he doesn’t build the wall, he has zero chance of being re-elected and a 100 percent chance of being utterly humiliated.
“But when Trump is alone with Ivanka, they seem to agree that the wall has nothing to do with it. The people just love him for who he is! In a country of 320 million people, I’m sure there are some, but I have yet to meet a person who said, Yeah, I don’t really care about immigration or trade, I just love his personality!
“What else were we going to do? He was the only one talking sense. Unfortunately, that’s all he does: talk. He’s not interested in doing anything that would require the tiniest bit of effort.
“In the end, we’ll probably find out “wall” was Trump’s “safe word” with Stormy Daniels. It’s just something he blurts out whenever he’s in trouble.”

Coulter and Rush Limbaugh may be bigoted and unhinged, but unlike Trump, they’re not actually idiots. They might swallow their qualms to a certain extent, but they’re not going to let Trump piss on their heads and tell them it’s raining. At the same time, they are proof that intelligence is not a barrier to being a Trump cultist, if one is sufficiently bigoted and unhinged. Coulter just proves that such cultists are not limited to the working class in “flyover country” that the coastal media love to look down on. Some of them, like Coulter and Tucker Carlson, ARE in the coastal media. And then you have the Kochs and the Mercers and a whole bunch of people who are supposed to be “experts” in the same way that the Beltway interventionists are “experts” on everything but getting us out of war. When Trump fans say that they care about immigration and trade and don’t care about his personality, that’s BS. Personality is all Trump offers, and that’s all they got. Really, they want to be lied to. But even a couple of them are wondering how much unreality they can take.

So because some of the people who brought the Republican Party to this state not only noticed they were being had, but were willing to say so, we had a situation where House Republicans were literally waiting for Trump’s say so before voting on a budget measure. And that’s how we got to where we are. Not because Trump is pressuring Republicans, but because Republicans, through Trump, are being pressured by their “base.”

However, Trump displays an idiot savant level of skill (emphasis on the idiot) when it comes to grifting, conniving, and self-preservation. In fact, the longer this bullshit goes on, the more he reminds me of Ray Donovan’s dad. And vice versa. Have you noticed, for instance, that even now, Trump has never said anything bad about Michael Flynn, and not much of anything about Paul Manafort, when he’s done everything he could to badmouth Michael Cohen? Have you ever noticed that Trump only compliments another person when he needs something from them? And that as soon as he doesn’t need them anymore, he treats them like one of his ex-wives?

You look at the big picture and you see that there is a sort of cornered-rat strategy to what Trump is doing. Even he could notice that that the odds were not good on a president keeping the House in the midterms, while there was still an outside chance that Democrats could retake the Senate. Where politics is local and people talk about “kitchen table” issues, Democrats win. Where politics is national and conservatives can focus on the “culture war”, they win. Knowing that he would more than likely get investigated by the House next year, prompting demands for impeachment, Trump pulled stunts like militarizing the border in order to mobilize the bigots to come out of statewide Senate races and other races (like DeSantis’ campaign for Florida Governor) where those votes were critical. In so doing, Trump saved the Senate, which is the main reason he can’t just be removed from office. Trump certainly isn’t acting in the best interest of the nation, and he isn’t even acting in the best interest of the Republican Party, otherwise he would have been more help in close House races. Everything Trump does as president is for the same reason he did everything as a civilian: loot the suckers while staying out of jail.

There’s just one problem with all of Trump’s conniving: It is only made necessary by Trump being Trump, and it is critically undermined by the fact that Trump continues to be Trump. For all his unpleasant yowling, Trump is not operating from a position of strength, but of weakness. If Trump hadn’t made promises to Russia and Turkey (possibly after they called in their chips), he wouldn’t have lost Mattis, which might alienate hawk Republicans. And after constantly whining about a wall and having nothing to show for it, Trump proactively demanded a government shutdown, which cooler heads were trying to avoid, but if Trump went along with them he would be alienating the grievance media and red-meat Republicans who are finally starting to admit to themselves that they were conned. But to pacify them, he has to risk alienating the Republican Senate – in whose hands his fate will rest after an impeachment.

Look, imagine you’re Mitch McConnell. And as leader of the Senate Republicans, you’ve been engaged in a mostly successful campaign to stymie Washington Democrats at every turn. Then imagine that Donald Trump – your leader – has given Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer a propaganda coup that they never could have scored through the liberal media. (Except insofar as HE invited them there to film the whole thing live.)

Now imagine, as McConnell, you’ve gotten your Senate to take a voice vote on a bill without a wall, because you realize “the Wall” is just political theater that isn’t going to resolve this country’s real immigration problems as well as e-Verify and other measures that put the pressure on the employers of illegal labor, where it belongs. You’re getting Paul Ryan to count his votes in the House. Now imagine that your precious little boy tosses the building blocks all over the floor because he and his Ann Coulter constituency didn’t get their lolly.

And you wonder why Paul Ryan announced his retirement before the primaries even started.

But that’s what happens when policy is made from the bottom bunk.

Happy Festivus, everybody! Remember, the shutdown isn’t over until Trump is pinned to the floor.

Christmas Music That I Can Actually Stand

I’m sure you have at least had peripheral contact with this year’s campaign of the annual War on Christmas, where at least one radio station took “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” off their annual list of “holiday” songs because it suggests a woman being pressured into sex because it’s too cold outside to go home. And while the current regard to unequal power relationships means that people are more sensitive to this sort of thing, the song was written at a time when people were expected to be coy about their romantic desires, and just as the standard of political correctness has changed, in the future, the context of the song may change even more. For example, in previous generations, it used to get cold outside.

About the only area where I agree with my more cynical leftist friends is that we could use “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” as a means of purging all the other stupid “Christmas” songs that really have nothing to do with Christmas as a religious festival and much more to do with a bygone time where “traditional” Christmas characters were literally created by department stores to sell stuff. Not that I can stand most modern music, but it’s not quite so obvious on the PA systems of every store and gas station I go into the way Christmas music is. “White Christmas,” “Last Christmas,” the entire Mannheim Steamroller catalog… truly, Christmas is the whitest holiday of the year.

So it requires a certain exercise of intellect and taste for me to think of the Christmas songs that I actually like. And there are quite a few. Some of these are just as well exposed as the other classics, and a few are more obscure.

Here in no particular order:

Nat King Cole, “The Christmas Song”

What is my all time favorite Christmas song? “The Christmas Song” (‘Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire’) as sung by Nat King Cole.

What is my least favorite Christmas song? ‘Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire’ as sung by ANYBODY ELSE.

“Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy”, David Bowie and Bing Crosby

Quite possibly the strangest premise for a duet in pop music history. This scene was recorded for a Bing Crosby Christmas special just months before Bing died of a sudden heart attack, and the show featured several celebrity guests including Bowie. Bing Crosby was a traditional (as in, conservative) American music icon. Bowie was… Bowie. At the time, Bowie had an ambivalent relationship to Christianity (much like his relationship to heteronormativity) and he didn’t want to do a traditional Christmas song. So the show’s writers created an original tune on the set and rehearsed it for Bowie to sing in counterpoint with Bing. This is the result.

The Pogues, “Fairytale of New York”

Featuring guest singer Kristy MacColl and lead singer Shane MacGowan (‘like Tom Waits, only less articulate’), this latter-day classic is less about Christmas than about the Irish experience in America, and less about a love-hate romance with a person than the Irish romantic relationship with New York City. Other aspects of the Irish experience in this video include: allusions to ‘Galway Bay,’ substance abuse, jail and slurred obscenities.

King Diamond, “No Presents for Christmas”

Because, really.

“Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas”

Several friends have pointed out to me that while the version popularized by Frank Sinatra and other singers was re-written to be more universal and tuneful, it was originally written for the 1944 musical Meet Me In St. Louis, in the context of a hard-luck story where one of the main characters gets a marriage proposal on Christmas Eve but is told on the same day that her father is moving the family and she may never see her fiance again. This was also in the context of a country where many young men were at war and did not know if they would ever come back. The song as originally done had the bridge in the past tense as “Once again as in olden days/Happy golden days of yore/Faithful friends who were dear to us/Will be near to us once more”. And the last verse was “Someday soon, we all will be together/if the fates allow/Until then, we’ll have to muddle through somehow”. In fact, this was not even the draft version, as Judy Garland and the producers asked the songwriter to make the lyrics less depressing. Most of the time, it’s delivered with the same sort of cool gaiety as “The Christmas Song,” but many purists insist that if you’re not singing “Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas” as a tragic ballad, you’re missing the point.

Anyway, here’s the original Judy Garland version. Just to make it extra sad.

Cheech & Chong, “Santa Claus and His Old Lady”

This is much more of a sketch than a song, but it illustrates in a silly way how various communities have, throughout history, made up their own Christmas myths, some of which are now taken more seriously than others.

“A Charlie Brown Christmas” Soundtrack Album

The whole thing. It’s that good. It actually has a sort of raw, spontaneous feeling compared to modern production, like with the children’s choir on “Christmas Time is Here.” A modern version of the same thing would end up much more polished. An example of how music can be “quiet” and still have complexity and energy.

Bob and Doug McKenzie, “The Twelve Days of Christmas”
I like how the choir just breaks in with “TWELVE!” so they can get the whole thing over with.

The Kinks, “Father Christmas”

Silly premise. Serious message. Serious rock.

Greg Lake, “I Believe in Father Christmas”

Greg Lake was lead singer of Emerson, Lake and Palmer (and original singer of King Crimson). Like David Bowie, Lake was ambivalent toward religion (at least at the time he wrote this song) and the song addresses the matter of how one can believe in the Christmas holiday when one has been disillusioned by both religion and “the holiday season.” In the end the singer finds a greater meaning in the event. “Hallelujah, Noel, be it Heaven or Hell/At Christmas, we get we deserve.”

Sacred Music (ex. Silent Night, O Holy Night)

As John Podhoretz points out, the Anglosphere’s greatest Christmas story, Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, never mentions the name Jesus and barely mentions church. But it’s largely because of that one story that Christmas has such a high priority in the secular calendar when in the Christian calendar it is necessarily secondary to Easter.

In 1976, Ayn Rand said: “A national holiday, in this country, cannot have an exclusively religious meaning. The secular meaning of the Christmas holiday is wider than the tenets of any particular religion: it is good will toward men—a frame of mind which is not the exclusive property (though it is supposed to be part, but is a largely unobserved part) of the Christian religion.

“The charming aspect of Christmas is the fact that it expresses good will in a cheerful, happy, benevolent, non-sacrificial way. One says: “Merry Christmas”—not “Weep and Repent.”

And the well documented fact that so many composers of the Great American Songbook were Jewish, and did so much to create the American Christmas with songs like Irving Berlin’s “White Christmas” just points up the fact that in this country, where we have both the First Amendment and an official holiday on December 25, Christmas Day represents the various community traditions that celebrate a holiday on or near the Winter Solstice.

Artists pulled away from Christianity and emphasized only the happy, humanist stuff that anyone could agree with, as opposed to the deep theological conflicts that led to Byzantine Empire politics, Church schisms and the Thirty Years War. In this way, our generic Christmas does a lot more to promote “Peace on Earth, and good will toward men” than a religion that frequently delivers the exact opposite.

But if American Christmas delivers an ecumenical, (small c) catholic message of hope, the flip side is that our commercial “holiday season” isn’t really about anything other than itself. Which is why, despite being atheist, I often find myself liking the specifically religious music more than the Tin Pan Alley stuff, which almost seems intended to be insipid. Which has nothing to do with its religious content or lack thereof. When I say “insipid” I mean that such music lacks character or complexity. (There is a category of explicitly faith-based music that still qualifies as insipid: Christian rock.)

So when done right, such music can be genuinely inspirational. Such as:

Or:

Or even:

I mean, there was one point where Cartman got hit with the cattle prod and he almost sounded like Jim Nabors.

George H. W. Bush, RIP

We got a thousand points of light
On a homeless man
We got a kinder, gentler machine gun hand

-Neil Young, “Rockin’ in the Free World”

George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st President of the United States, died over the weekend. He was 94 years old. His wife had died only recently, and he wasn’t really sick until the last few years of his life. In all, that’s as good as we can expect from a limited existence.

Of course when you have various people rendering their obituaries on the man, the common theme is that Bush was an example of decency and decorum in the White House. And since such people are trying to set a standard of decency and decorum, they do not need to say the implied follow-up,
“as opposed to the incontinent clown boy who’s stinking the place up now.”

I feel no such restrictions. I am rather proud of the fact that I have never voted for anybody named Bush, on principle. I was too young to vote for Reagan. I voted Libertarian for the first time because Bush frankly struck me as a letdown. “Read my lips- no new taxes” was that time’s version of “if you like your doctor, you can keep him” – maybe the president wasn’t actually lying, but he was certainly willing to make a promise he really couldn’t keep, while hoping his die-hards wouldn’t notice. As Nick Gillespie’s obituary in Reason put it, “There’s a reason he did not elicit strong negative responses or inspire enthusiasm: He lacked what he called “the vision thing.” And “from a specifically libertarian view, there is little to celebrate and much to criticize regarding his presidency” – Bush supported and expanded the War on Drugs to the extent of militarizing it with overseas adventures like the collar of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.

If Mr. Bush still looks good in hindsight, it only serves to justify my axiom, “every new president somehow lowers the bar.”

Because there’s another current Reason article by Jesse Walker, where he says: “I think he was wrong on issues ranging from drugs to taxes to the S&Ls, from the Iran-contra pardons to the invasion of Panama. But it soon became clear that he was far from the worst president I’d live to see. He wasn’t even the worst one named Bush.
“So here’s to the times he moved in the right direction. Here’s to keeping his head as the Communist bloc collapsed, and here’s to overseeing an actual reduction in military spending after the Cold War ended. Here’s to a relatively even-handed approach to the Palestinian conflict. Here’s to easing up the saber-rattling in Nicaragua and letting a Central American–led peace process play out. None of those policies were perfect, but I can imagine how another leader in a similar situation could have done worse. In some cases, I don’t have to imagine it.”

This leads to another of my axioms, “it is possible for two different things to be true at the same time.”

I am reminded of how Dana Carvey on Saturday Night Live made his career as an impressionist by doing his take on President Bush for the show. At one point, someone asked Carvey how he managed to capture the character, and Carvey said it seemed difficult, but he finally hit on the idea of combining John Wayne with Mister Rogers. And to me, that was Bush conservatism in a nutshell. He acted like Mister Rogers when he should have acted like John Wayne – and he acted like John Wayne when he should have acted like Mister Rogers.

In other words, there is a time to be accommodating and compassionate, and a time to take a hard stand on principles, and the pre-Trump Republican Party could never figure out which was which.

I again recall candidate Bush’s appearance with Ronald Reagan in 1980 where the two men were asked about illegal immigration, and both men were capable of giving an intelligent response that acknowledged both the needs of the immigrants and the need of this country for labor. But intelligent and considerate policy wasn’t what their party called for.

Similarly with Bush Senior’s famous break with his no-taxes pledge. Right-wingers have been telling liberals for quite some time that America can’t afford all the government we think we want. But Republicans in particular have been very bad about making that clear. And when Bush made that pledge, he was locking himself in knowing that he might need budget flexibility in the future. And rather than ask both parties to prioritize what spending we actually needed and ask his hardliners what the consequences would be if they refused to increase revenue, Bush first played to that wing with his speeches and then played to the “moderates” by reversing himself. That’s what happens when you don’t have a “vision thing,” or a political operating system. It would of course have been worse if Bush had stayed doctrinaire, but it’s not like he wasn’t being doctrinaire in taking that position in the first place.

One thing is for sure, though: As a patrician (and someone who remembered the era when taxation was truly confiscatory) Bush would not have tried to balance the budget on the backs of the working class, as Paul Ryan did. But I could be wrong. After all, Bush Senior was also from the period when Republicans were often pro-choice. That went by the wayside so that he could join the Reagan team (just as Reagan himself had previously legalized abortion as California Governor before playing to the Moral Majority). Bush was the one who called Reagan’s policy “voodoo economics.” We can look at plenty of cases where Bush and other Republicans showed a certain standard of character, or willingness to buck their own party’s “political correctness”, that you don’t see these days, and in most of those cases, we can see where they abandoned those standards of character for the sake of votes, or to appeal to donors and lobbyists. And the Republican fire-breathers never gave such moderates credit for “compromise” because they knew they weren’t acting on principle in the first place and had no idea when they’d flip back around. So in retrospect you see the same patterns that served to sink Jeb Bush in the last presidential race, where the “professional” class of politician tried to tack hard right to win primaries so they could win nomination and pretend to be moderate to the rest of us. By that point the plebes had discovered they could draw their reactionary politics straight from the tap.

Recently one of my Facebook friends said, “if the Republican Party ceased to exist tomorrow, the result would be that half of the Democratic Party would turn into Berniecrats (which is what the Democratic Party used to be 30 years ago) and the other half would align with Hillary Clinton (which is what the Republican Party used to be 30 years ago).”

And I agree with this to a great extent.

But…

I can’t help but think that a large part of how things got to this point is that the country is getting increasingly sick and tired of a “two” party establishment where both sides by and large dropped the ball when each was in charge, and yes, that does include Obama. I mean really: would anybody, Republican or otherwise, have voted for such an unqualified candidate as Donald Trump if they thought the “qualified” people were up to snuff? Would Hillary have lost so many votes relative to Obama if they thought the qualified people had done well for the folks in Pennsylvania and the Midwest? If people actually liked the two parties from thirty years ago, then why did they change? We’ve already seen that the Republicans are sick of being sane and sensible. Now they’re scared to death of a Democrat faction that has learned from them that passion succeeds, and if “democratic socialism” has a chance in the current setting, it’s not so much a matter of it being “loony” or extreme as some people seeing a course correction from a political party that went all the way in the other direction.

Nostalgia aside, George HW Bush is an example that serves to remind us of the limitations of “prudent”, ideology-free, draw-within-the-lines governance. We are currently quite familiar with the limitations of the opposite approach.