Juxtapositions

The other day, I awoke, sipped coffee and in my drowsy state, checked Twitter and saw the initial news reports of the terrorist attack in Brussels.  I padded downstairs to retrieve the morning paper, unfolded it and saw this photo of Barack and Raul splashed across the front page.

Similarly, another photo of Obama standing at attention directly under a wall mural of Che Guevara was circulating.  As I noted in my earlier post "Words and Symbols," symbols matter greatly, in my view. Symbolism was not lost on Obama when Nikki Haley and the rest of the country after the church shooting in South Carolina as we went into hysteria over the Confederate.  Amidst great fanfare, the Confederate flag was removed from the state capitol and  schools municipalities removed statues of Confederate generals and war heroes.  Yet somehow, the symbol of  the leader of the Free World standing under Che eluded Team Obama.

I wish I could find a word to describe, "Way Beyond Tone Deaf."

But he was not finished.  Later, as the body count in Brussels rose, and we learned that Americans were among the injured and missing, did Obama cut short his visit and meet with his national security team and confer with European allies?  Nope. We later saw him doing the wave at a baseball game with Communist thug, Raul Castro, unaffected by events that sent Europe reeling, breezily laughing and joking with the leader of the regime that almost started a nuclear holocaust, and just hours earlier jailed dissidents and forcibly removed the courageous "Ladies in White."

And another juxtaposition that caught my attention was the scene of the nuns of the Little Sisters of the Poor at the Supreme Court steps fighting for religious liberty as they took the Obama Administration to court over the birth control mandate of the ACA.  With fines totaling $70 million hanging over the charity's head, it is clear that the Obama administration may not have a clear strategy to fight ISIS, but it does have one to fight the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Of course, not to be outdone, the Republican candidates had their own overlays.  The day before the Brussels attacks, Donald Trump announced that we should get out NATO and that we should consider using tactical nuclear weapons against ISIS.  It's hard to imagine two worse options to exercise. Nukes are not terribly effective at defeating surreptitious guerrilla wars. And we should be leading and strengthening NATO, not pulling out.  Ted Cruz was not doing much better a few weeks ago, advocating carpet bombing to defeat ISIS. Meanwhile, the leading Republican candidates were making unseemly and nasty comments about each other's wives in an exchange more appropriate to the Jerry Springer Show than a contest for the leadership of the free world.

While reports surfaced that 400 ISIS fighters have been dispatched to Europe, Obama was smiling and doing the tango in Argentina.   In ordinary times, the photos of a U.S. president would be of him looking pensively across the table at the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, peppering him with questions about his ISIS Action Plan.  Not this president.  Instead, he casually announced that, "ISIS was on the top of his priority list (details to follow)," but then followed up quickly with his statement that "ISIS is not an existential threat" to the U.S.  Apparently,  Cuba has been removed from the "state sponsors of terrorism," list and the entire European continent has been removed from the "vital to Western Civilization" list.   The President promptly returned to cha-cha-cha-ing and telling the Argentinians that Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are basically co-equals and that they should "chose what works."  Oh, and he didn't fail to issue the obligatory apology for America's past sins toward Argentina.

But, wait, there's more.  Today, it was announced that 7 Iranians were indicted for hacking into U.S. banks, only a day after it was reported that the Obama administration is in secret negotiations with Iran for the release of another $2 billion to them.  The Iranians haven't yet caught on to the fact that with this administration, you don't have to do computer espionage to get money--just make them a lot of false promises of things you say you will do in the future and they will GIVE it to you.

In summary, with the world in chaos, the Obama administration's reaction was to make a perfunctory statement about the attack and on the West tell the world that "if people's lives get interrupted, the terrorists win." He evidently missed the nuance that HIS life is SUPPOSED to be interrupted so that the rest of us can feel safe enough to go on with ours.  The Republicans, on the other hand, expressed a desire to either nuke or carpet bomb them, which is sure to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims world over.

John Kerry chimed in, too, this week, stating that the "presidential campaign has been an embarrassment for the U.S."  This is the same John Kerry who, when informed that a former Gitmo prisoner was engaged in terrorist activity, said, "He's not supposed to be doing that."  And the same John Kerry that thanked Iran for returning our captured sailors that they held at gunpoint and videotaped for worldwide propaganda distribution.  John Kerry is somewhat an authority on embarrassing the U.S.

And if that isn't enough, while Obama was cavorting with one Communist dictator, the other one was vying for his attention as Kim Jong-un spent the week firing off missiles, showing off a miniature warhead and threatening to launch a first strike against the U.S.  This is the other regime that a Democrat negotiated a nonproliferation agreement with, as you will recall.  So, if we follow Obama logic---that 60 years of isolation isn't working and we should unilaterally change course, we would expect a delegation from the U.S. to visit Pyongyang, profusely apologize for the imperialist aggression of General MacArthur, drop the embargo, and bring Dennis Rodman with to accompany Dear Leader to a basketball game. After all, whatever we are doing isn't working.

This was probably the worst week in foreign affairs that I remember in the past 40 years.  The once proud and strong America of Ronald Reagan and George Shultz has turned into the Keystone Kops.  I recall the tensions over the shootdown of KAL 007 by the Soviets.  If that had occurred with this team in charge, you can bet Obama would not have canceled his tee time and Kerry would have mumbled meekly, "They're not supposed to do that."

These are dark days for the West and I do not see anyone in the field of candidates right now that I am confident will put us on a saner path.

Mobocracy

I had an opportunity to witness a political event up close and personal last weekend.  Following a business meeting, I walked past the Palmer House in downtown Chicago, when I noticed a crowd gathered in front of the hotel.  I immediately suspected it was some union protesting the working conditions at the hotel but the crowd was bigger than I normally see.  As I drew closer, it became clear to me that it was part of the group gathered to protest Donald Trump’s rally at UIC. 

The crowd was approximately half African American with a substantial portion of Occupy Wall Street types thrown in.   There were several people on megaphones, and most of the signs were hand marked, with either messages damning Donald Trump, or Republican governor Bruce Rauner, or demanding free this or free that.  If anyone in the crowd actually worked in an office, I would be surprised.  It was quite discomfiting, a middle aged businessman in a dark suit and tie, walking past the menacing sneers and glares.  This was not just a group of peaceful protesters.  This was an angry mob, yelling, fists punched in the air, girding for battle, and, as I learned later, organized to disrupt Donald Trump’s planned rally.  It occurred to me that if I had donned on of Trump’s red “Make America Great Again,” caps, I clearly would have been confronted or at least verbally assaulted.

This gathering was classic Saul Alinsky—deliberately designed to disrupt the process and shut down free speech.  And it is going on all across the country on college campuses.  It is pure thuggery, organized to implicitly threaten, intimidate and stifle dissent.

I got my first taste of mob disruption late last spring.  The University of Chicago has its annual awards ceremony at graduation and a friend of mine was to receive the Norman Maclean Faculty Award for extraordinary contributions to teaching at the University.  Others were to receive other academic and service awards.  Parents and relatives from all over the country came to see their family members receive these honors.   A group demanding that the U of C house a trauma center at its hospital disrupted the program, shouted everyone down, as the protesters marched around with placards yelling and giving speeches.  They were not going to leave without a physical confrontation with the authorities (which   clearly wanted).   As a result, the families and recipients had their day ruined.  Some of the recipients (including my friend) had worked tirelessly for a lifetime only to have the only day when their sacrifices and achievements were to be publicly recognized by the institution and their families ruined. 

The problem is that the bullying worked.  This February, the University announced plans for its new Level 1 Trauma Center.

I have a lot of problems with Donald Trump as the nominee of the Republican Party.  I do not like his stance on trade.  His foreign policy positions do not sit well with me.   His assertion  that “Bush lied” to get us into the war with Iraq was outrageous.  I’m  not partial to his interrupting, bullying style.

Nonetheless, Trump and his supporters absolutely have the right to speak and to whip up more support in an unimpeded forum.  Surely, BLM and the Marxists Moveon.org folks also have the right to speak.  But they do not have a license to disrupt legitimate political discourse, even if the person they are opposing is appealing to emotion.  Like the bunch that disrupted things at U of C, the protesters were spoiling for a fight.  Thoughts of Russia in 1917 flashed through my mind.

The Left has elevated its bullying tactics---disrupt to get what it wants or to shut down speech with which it disagrees.    It is working marvelously on college campuses across the country.  The U of C caved into their demands and will commit to millions to sustain its trauma center.  Donald Trump cancelled his appearance in Chicago.  Condi Rice was shouted down in Vermont last year and canceled an appearance at Rutgers.  Worse, immediately following the terrorist attack in San Bernardino,   General Loretta Lynch vowed to aggressively prosecute anti-Muslim speech (we are attacked and our government acts to curtail 1^st Amendment rights).

This is a scary development. More and more, we are allowing thuggery to change policy and to curtail free speech.  This is not how we make decisions or engage in debate and discourse.  We have institutions and political systems with structures in place to manage decision making and dissent.  Our bicameral legislature, for instance, was deliberately designed to cool mob passions. 

The Left has figured out how to manipulate and intimidate and, as a result, if we do not check this, we are in danger of descending into mobocracy. Seeing the angry mob with my own eyes was a stark reminder of how close we are to descending into chaos and violence as interest groups simply bully institutions into complying with their wishes.  This will be a terrible direction for our republic, and it needs to be checked now.  We haven’t seen this sort of thing since 1968.  But the flames are burning hotter and it was an unsettling thing to witness it in person.

The mob had an opposite effect on me.  I left the scene wondering if I should vote for Trump out of sheer defiance.

Why Now?

I visited with an old friend of mine last week-- a rare individual, a skilled and knowledgeable economist that also has Democratic leanings.  We spent a great deal of time discussing the economy, America's place in the world and the absolute circus that are the primary races.  He asked the question, "Why now?"  We are facing trends that have been headed in the same direction for decades (slow or no income growth, contraction in manufacturing employment, income disparity).  Why is the political explosion happening at this particular time?  While the fissures are less pronounced on the Democratic side, the strong showing of Bernie Sanders and the anger expressed in Democratic exit poles show frustration and anger on both sides of the aisle.  With Republicans, it has caused a complete rupture of the existing order.

Why now?  I believe that the answer is almost entirely economic, with national pride mixed in.

Like an earthquake, the political melee, I believe, is the result of tectonic forces that have been gradually building over a long period of time.  Real wages have been stagnant for 35 years.  That is not a new development.  Wage stagnation was patched over with the dotcom bubble and the real estate bubble, but we now have been in a period of sub-3% growth for 10 years.   People don't feel that they are getting ahead.   Worse, their kids can't get ahead. Prior to the collapse of real estate, many parents financed their childrens' college education through home equity loans.  With that vehicle no longer available, we are seeing the explosion of student debt over the past eight years. Couple the student loan hangover with the worst post-WWII expansion ever, you can almost feel the frustration build.  With the worst labor participation rate in 35 years, the real unemployment rate is probably in the 10-12% range.  Many college graduates are still residing in their parents' basements, several years into the expansion.  The '81-'82 recession was nasty (I graduated into that), but it was over quickly and followed by rapid growth under Reagan.  It is one thing to see your own opportunity flatten-- it is another to see that happen to your children.  

The Democrats have a simple answer and that is to promise more free things to people.  Bernie Sanders was able to garner enthusiastic support from young people because they have been steeped in the progressive bubble of college, and the prospect of free things has an irresistible.  Argentinians fell for it and they are just now able to return to the capital markets after being banished for 15 years. Hillary is selling a more muted version of that, but it is basically the same elixir: higher taxes (we just have to hunt down more wealthy people) and more regulation (going after Wall Street--never mind that we already did that with Dodd-Frank) with special attention toward pandering to special interest groups (both Sanders and Clinton almost tripped over themselves chasing after Al Sharpton).

Republicans have a much different problem, and are a more fractious, unruly group.  Someone once joked that there were actually two Republican parties:  the Libertarians and the Nazis.  Actually, there are three broad segments-- Libertarians (me), Democrat lite (Boehner), and Evangelical.  All are suspicious of one another, and they don't get along very well.  The problem is that each time the party has run a Democrat lite (or some version of it), the Republicans have lost.  Dole, Bush '92, McCain, and Romney.  

The long grind of this virtually zero growth expansion has created enormous pressures that exposed the fissures in the Republican party.  But the real spark has been the Obama administration.  He articulated his disdain for working class middle America when he wrote them off as bitterly clinging to their guns and religion and then accused them of bigotry.  This is also a very patriotic segment of America.  And an Obama that began with an apology tour, forfeited hard earned victories in places like Fallujah, shows deference to CAIR, released terrorists from Gitmo only to return to battle and permitted our sailors to be held at gunpoint by the Iranians while thanking the mullahs angered this group.  It is mostly their sons and daughters that sacrificed in Iraq and would be sailing in those vessels.  They see economic stagnation and America in retreat or humiliated in every corner of the world.

Why now?  The wooden, patrician Democrat-lite Republican Establishment watered down message lost its force. Its demise was foreshadowed by Eric Cantor's loss and John Boehner's ouster.  It could only promise tax cuts (which Democrats disabled quickly as being for "the wealthy").  Jeb Bush and John Kasich never got very much traction at all.  Marco Rubio made too many tactical errors and, beginning with the Gang of 8, showed a penchant for walking into ambushes, as he did with Christie, then fell into a name calling contest with Trump (which he was sure to lose).  

Trump's message is simple, "Make America Great Again" and "I will bring back jobs."  For a lot of middle America, a lot of sins will be forgiven if you can deliver on those two things.  Trump is scary, ham fisted, and has said things that are reminiscent of strongmen of an earlier era ("I'll bring back waterboarding and worse," "Bush lied," "Mrs. Ricketts should be careful").   His stance on trade smacks of Smoot-Hawley (and we know how that ended).  His stated admiration of Putin is scary.  

The comparisons with 30's fascists will continue unless he is able to tone things down and present himself as more presidential.  We would do well to remember that Germany turned ultra nationalistic through a democratic process under economic stresses and international humiliations in an earlier era.

Why now?  Trump is a result of the perfect storm.  He is the stepchild of an Obama administration that has presided over economic stagnation, and that has turned its back on American exceptionalism and global leadership.  Rather than advance liberty, democracy and human rights, the administration has made large concessions to Communists, Islamists, and Oligarchs that are antithetical to American values.  But Trump is also consequence of an inept, overly patrician, stagnant Republican party that lost the ability to connect and message with working class middle America, and has completely ignored black America.  

Why now?  Bill Clinton had it right over 20 years ago--It's the economy, stupid.There is anger and frustration across the political spectrum and it is being personified in different ways.  Black Lives Matter expresses its frustration differently than the ardent Trump supporters, but in essence, they are both raging at a political system that has failed them.   Voters on the right believe that the 47% getting government benefits that we can no longer afford are weighing down the economy.  Voters on the left believe that the "system is rigged," and have valid gripes about a government that bailed out Wall Street.  With an economy that can't seem to get its legs, the anger is starting to manifest itself in unusual, ugly ways.   The stagnation has gone on too long.

Robert Kagan is correct to be concerned about the rise of Trumpism.   But the insidious authoritarianism of Big Government that Sanders and Clinton are peddling may be just as dangerous and damaging to the country.