As the world changes the US no longer needs to support Europe to counter Russia (or former USSR). So, let Europe defend itself. Let Europe protect their trade routes. Let Europe insure their own supply lines for fuel and raw materials. The US has subsidized Europe (for good US national security reasons) but it has cost the American citizenry. Who cares if the Europeans whine? Europeans have whined my whole life, and at times have gently back-stabbed us as we were giving them aid.
We still need to help keep Iran from dominating the Middle East, but that means support for Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
We still need to keep international trade routes open for US commerce. But, does that mean protecting Indian Ocean trade routes (which benefits China as much or more than the US)?
To keep China (the modern US threat) at bay we do need to help Japan, S Korea, Australia, Taiwan, et al.
The only time in the whole history of NATO that the famous Article 5 was invoked, and NATO members rallied to support an attacked member, was after 9/11. A whole lot of those Europeans you are scorning sent their sons and daughters to war in Afghanistan at the request of the United States. Those numbers show how many did not come back.
my memory goes back to the 60's and protests against vietnam (we were there because the french could no longer maintain their presence in SE asia - we picked up their mess). fresh and recent criticisms for using nuclear bombs on Japan. years of comments about the millions of innocents we killed in Iraq. european criticism for arming Israel against innocents in gaza. comments about repressing cuba and venezuela.
"Isolation is no longer possible or desirable." Know who said that? President William McKinley. In 1901. His point was that the world was so deeply interconnected, thanks to technology, migration, and trade, that isolationism -- of the sort you are expressing -- "was no longer possible or desirable." In 1901. Today, the world is vastly more interconnected. And the idea that the United States can simply ignore a content is even more wrong than in McKinley's era. (For more of McKinley's speech, see https://dgardner.substack.com/p/oceanic-folly )
did i advocate isolationism (which you did not define btw)? i don't think so. i think i said that as dynamics change our international involvement needs to change...
Fair enough. I shouldn't have used that label. But what I'm suggesting is that the world is far too interconnected and interdependent to draw the neat and clean lines you are drawing. You say, eg, Europeans should "insure their own supply lines for fuel and raw materials." Name even an ordinary consumer good, take a look at the supply chain, and you'll find it is incredibly international. A simple example: the US is rightly focused hard on the threat to Taiwan posed by China in part because Taiwan churns out the computer chips that are the foundation of the US economy. But who makes the machines that churn out those chips? A Dutch company. So for reasons of national security, the US has no choice but to concern itself in the affairs of Taiwan. And the Netherlands/the EU. And that's just one example. There's an endless list of them. As I said, the world is incredibly interconnected and interdependent -- far too much so for the US or any other major nation to simply wash its hands and walk away.
The world being interconnected and interdependent means that *every* country has an interest in keeping trade routes open, in keeping goods, services, and capital freely flowing. This is not a unique interest of the USA. It follows from your own premise, ipso facto, that the USA should *not* be paying the lion's share of the world's costs in blood and treasure to maintain that status quo. Europe is almost the same size as the USA in terms of population and economic output; Japan, South Korea, India, and the rest of the free Asia are, too. It is rather inconsistent to say that the world is interconnected and that's why the USA has a unique obligation to continue forever to be the world's police force. Everyone else has an interest in contributing, too, according to their means. As far as I know, that is all Trump has ever said in the subject.
yes, I understand I grew up in Europe after 1944. I learned to understand that Powerful Nations come to your rescue if it suits them. Nothing else to add; Trump or not
“really would shatter the fundamentals of American leadership as the world has known it”
I’m the only person I know who thinks this and I know that both nobody agrees with me and it will never happen but if Trump does win in November (or frankly if he gets above 45%) then a rich country like Australia with all the required scientific expertise and the required Uranium in our soil should realise we can’t trust the US nuclear umbrella anymore (or the US alliance full stop despite our politicians all viewing the ANZUS treaty like a holy document) and should create our own bomb
I strongly suspect that the day after a Trump win, precisely this conversation will start, quietly, in the highest offices of half a dozen countries or more. If it hasn't already.
Dan, I gained a new perspective on isolationism that will help shape my view of current events. The comment section grew stale pretty quickly but inspired me to rewatch this Python piece: https://youtu.be/uLlv_aZjHXc?feature=shared
Your "gangsterism" accusation comes out of thin air at the end, completely bereft of evidence or examples. Was leading the fight against ISIS in the Levant, and winning in short order, "gangsterism"? (Or even "isolationism"?) Was keeping Taiwan safe from the ambitions of China "gangsterism?" Was meeting with the leader of North Korea to try to reach a peace agreement "gangsterism"? Were the Abraham Accords "gangsterism"? This is just a bizarre take.
If the goal was to attack Trump at the end, maybe you should have spent more time discussing Trump's 4-year record rather than giving a long history lesson about events 100 years before Trump. And maybe the history lesson could have been more balanced. You write glowingly about the massive American military being the world's police force, resulting in a Pax Americana since WWII. Have you tried to count the number of attempted regime changes the American military is responsible for? When American Presidents were busy propping up the Shah of Iran, and toppling Allende, was that not "gangsterism"? How many "red lines" did Obama draw in the sand for Asad to cross? - and then did nothing when the lines were crossed. How many tens of billions did Obama/Biden give to the terrorist- abetting regime in Iran? Imagine getting a Nobel Peace Prize for funding Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah, and all the other client groups of the more deranged member of the current axis of evil... It's not for nothing that a lot of the world, especially the Third Word, are not impressed by America's international interventions on the whole. If it takes a "gangster" to get the USA to exit the business of international regime changing and meddling, maybe that would be a good thing.
Are the foreign agents who say they will "never trust Trump" the same geniuses who ignored him when he suggested they stop buying Russian oil & gas? Don't stake your opinion on anonymous sources who in all likelihood were complete blithering idiots in the recent past.
I'm not here to defend Trump. His international record is checkered, not much of a deviation from past presidents, and not much more successful on the whole. I'm just marveling at how strong your TDS is lately - approaching Coyne-like levels. <smh>
And frankly, for a former American president who says Russia can “do whatever the hell it wants” to my country, unless we “pay up,” calling it “gangsterism” hardly seems wildly overstated.
We all know that Trump speaks in hyperbole for effect. Two effects, principally: (i) just to get people talking about him; and (ii) to make himself unpredictable for strategic reasons. What Trump says and what he does are two different things. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, which is why his record during his 4 years in office is more relevant than his campaign rhetoric.
(In this respect, Trump is only marginally better than our own PM Trudeau - who also speaks in absurd rhetorical terms. In fact, Trudeau threatens and vilifies *his own citizens* with reckless abandon. He allows terrorist-sympathizers to terrorize Jewish Canadians for months on end. Is that not gangsterism? Trudeau played the gangster when truckers camped out in Ottawa for a few days - suspending bank accounts among other things. Trudeau ran an entire election campaign by vilifying the unvaxxed as misogynists and racists who take up space; then he shut the unvaxxed out of society so that his kids wouldn't catch covid on the trains and planes. He said he did than on the basis of expert advice, even though there was no such advice and we all knew by then that the jabs don't stop transmission anyway... Talk about real-life "gangsterism!)
So, yeah, when Trump says Russia can do whatever it likes with NATO allies like Canada who chronically under-fund their military, he's mostly blowing off steam. I don't like Trump's bombast any more than the next person, but really it only scares the pearl-clutching TDS sufferers and makes his base laugh. He does it to get in the news cycle, to get everyone talking - and you fall for it every time.
In the first place, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Russia will do anything to Canada in the next 4 or 5 years while Trump could be around to not react. Russia has its plate full now with Ukraine. And even if Putin tried something, Trump would certainly go back on his rhetoric as he has so often before - as every politician has so often before. Obviously Trump isn't going to allow one of America's biggest trading partners, with the longest undefended land border in the world, to fall into enemy hands.
You have to stop taking Trump literally, and start taking him seriously. Trump will defend Canada and other NATO allies if push comes to shove; but he won't be giving us any of the sweetheart deals prior presidents gave us, either. He will make us suffer for our foolishness before he commits to helping. As I explained in response to your previous essay, fair is fair. It's long past time for NATO to pull its weight without depending on the good ole USA to do all of the heavy lifting.
Advising you to buy home insurance is not the same thing as threatening to fire-bomb you if you don't pay protection money. The first is what Trump does; the second is "gangsterism." Learn the difference.
Here's a fun tidbit for you, Grant: "In recent months, Donald Trump has been trying out a new routine. At rallies and town halls across the country, he compares himself to Al Capone. 'He was seriously tough, right?' Mr. Trump told a rally in Iowa in October, in an early rendition of the act. But 'he was only indicted one time; I’ve been indicted four times.' (Capone was, in fact, indicted at least six times.) The implication is not just that Mr. Trump is being unfairly persecuted but also that he is four times as tough as Capone. 'If you looked at him in the wrong way,” Mr. Trump explained, “he blew your brains out.'" https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/25/opinion/trump-al-capone.html?pgtype=Article&action=click&module=RelatedLinks
Dan, if you are trying to goad me into defending *everything* Trump says or does, it isn't going to work. I loathe the man, and I fear he has been getting worse since the 2020 election. (So has Biden, in case you haven't noticed.) Trump's worst instincts are understandable, though: he has been far more sinned against than sinning since he entered politics. The D.C. swamp knows that he is their mortal enemy, and they (on both sides of the aisle) have been out to get him for 9 years with every nefarious tool they have. The machinery of the state has been fully weaponized against their political enemy. Half of Americans see that as a greater threat to democracy than Trump is - and they are probably right. It's an awful scene from every side. I'm a libertarian, so I instinctively expect the worst from politics and politicians.
At least half of Americans think that the country is going in the wrong direction, on nearly every current issue. As Scott Adams says, Trump is at least "directionally right." He was never going to build a wall right across the Mexican border, and make Mexico pay for it; but taking serious measures to curb illegal migration was the right direction to take and Americans who are fed up with the flood of illegals coming into the country could forgive Trump's hyperbole. Same with almost every issue Trump hypes. Trump captures the mood of the people, the direction of the people.
I set out to defend Trump's 4-year record on foreign policy, especially against the Obama-Biden catastrophe. That's what your essays were ostensibly about, after all. Just because I loathe the man's personality doesn't mean I can't be objective about his record. That seems to be asking too much of the punditocracy, though. The respectable thinking is that since "orange man bad," then everything he says and does must be bad. It's like climate change in that respect: everything must be worse as a result of climate change; nothing is better. And everything that is getting worse must connected to climate change somehow. It's idiot thinking. You have probably published a book where that type of fallacy is discussed.
(I'm glad the author you link to characterized the Trump rhetoric about Capone as a "routine." Most of Trump's campaign is a comedy routine. But he isn't a Dave Chappelle or a Bill Mahar. He's not good at doing comedy, and it falls flat for anyone who isn't a true fan. The routine just gives fodder to Trump's critics, who foolishly take him literally.)
In 2016, when I expressed shock about something Trump said, people insisted "it's just talk." Or "he's just blowing off steam" (a man who has so little control over himself should never be given power.) But this isn't 2016. The man incited a violent insurrection. To continue to give him this pass, which is given no other politician, is folly.
And the end of your note? That isn't my analogy. "Learn the difference"? Learn to read.
Ah, yes, the insurrectionist. Another hysterical over-reaction. Communists have actually set off bombs and killed congressmen and that wasn't deemed an insurrection. The perpetrator was even pardoned by Clinton! But an unarmed crowd storming through open gates and open doors after Trump implored people to protest peacefully is. Again, I'm not defending the folks who did property damage to the Capitol, but you lack all perspective on this sad event in American democracy.
Didn't you see the video of the Capitol police ushering the Q-Anon shaman and others through the halls, trying to open doors for him? Hours of such video, also showing police welcome the mob in, pulling barricades away, etc. Some of it staged with videographers from various angles simultaneously... A lot of bad shit went down, but a lot of it was extremely suspicious, too.
The congressional investigation was a travesty. It didn't tell even half the story.
Yeah, all his mob did was smash through police lines and storm the legislature. While the man who egged them on watched and did nothing despite being implored to act by many, including the vice president he exposed to death threats for the awful offence of having done his constitutional duty. How "hysterical" to call that an insurrection. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-final-report-from-the-jan-6-committee
No, the FBI would *never* think of egging on a Trump crowd, right? Never do anything like make up a plot to kidnap the Governor of Michigan... Fifty-one intelligence experts would never collude to convince the American public that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, to try to swing the election, right? Don't settle for half of the infor... The problem with censorship is XXXXXXX.
Trump did not egg them on. He told them to protest peacefully. In fact, in the days before Jan 6th, Trump urged the authorities to call in the national guard - which they strikingly refused to do, even though that was common on such occasions. Capitol security was the responsibility of Pelosi and Schumer, the majority leaders. They were the ones guilty of dereliction of duty. It is as though they *wanted* an "insurrection" for political reasons.
Also, it came out at the trials that there were at least 200 undercover feds in the crowd that day, "egging them on." Suspicious, isn't it?
The "gangsterism" comment was no better supported in the earlier essay than in this one. As I pointed out last week, you took a couple of things Trump said out of context, misinterpreted them hysterically, and used that as a basis for accusing him of thinking America has no interest in maintaining a free-trading world order. None of that was remotely accurate. You weren't even talking about "gangsterism" in that earlier essay; and you certainly did not give examples of actions from Trump's 4-year record on the international geopolitical stage to support it. It's all a house of cards.
Yeah, a former president of the United States calling in Russia to invade Canada if we don’t “pay up” is nothing unusual, right? No big deal. How hysterical of me.
Yes, it is hysterical of you. First, because Trump did not "call in Russia to invade Canada;" and second because it is an absurd prospect in any event. You worry about stupid shit while having nothing to say about Trudeau welcoming actual foreign interference into the Parliament... Trudeau is perfectly content with Chinese police stations located on Canadian soil for years on end - how's that for "gangsterism"? Your TDS messes with your priorities. Get a grip, man!
Most of my followers aren't Canadian. My books sell around the world. I almost never write about Canadian politics. So, yeah, I haven't written about the latest Canadian news. How awful. And friend, may I remind you this is my little old blog. If you think I'm such a dreadful writer... stop reading.
I humbly suggest that you would do your world-wide readers a much bigger service by throwing light on the very real gangsterism happening in Canada right now than the speculative and mostly imaginary "gangsterism" that Trump might inflict. If it can happen to nice, affluent, compassionate Canada, it can happen anywhere where bleeding hearts run away with bloody heads. Canada, small as we are, is an object-lesson to the world.
The current version of Americanism is unsustainable for multiple reasons from economic depletion to oppression of native populations globally. No one in the career political and bureaucratic class established in DC appears to have had a new idea since the 1960s. Anyone but the current leadership and legacy political parties offers a better way forward.
There's heaps of legitimate criticism that can be made. But your last sentence isn't called for: There are plenty of people and ideologies that would be far, far worse than the status quo. Proof? I offer all of human history.
Study the rise of the Third Reich and one can see the striking similarities between their tactics and the ever-increasing police state guided by unelected bureaucrats and "career" politicians who have not faced a legitimate election in decades. The USA has never been perfect, but it has never gone this far off-track before. National political parties must go. The federal bureaucracy must be significantly reduced in scope. Corporate media propaganda must be broken up and the voice of communities returned to communities. The dispensation of untested vaccines, the withholding of potential lifesaving treatments, and the forced isolation of ill-individuals - together constitutes a mass science experiment on humanity in direct violation of The Nuremburg Code - despite however the propagandists might wish to construe it otherwise.
The last good Republican president, by my estimation, was Lincoln. But time after time we've misunderestimated them at our peril. As for article 5 and the euros, the Germans went into Afghanista with specific "caveats" which meant they held the very safe north of Afghanistan and I believe never lost a soldier.
As the world changes the US no longer needs to support Europe to counter Russia (or former USSR). So, let Europe defend itself. Let Europe protect their trade routes. Let Europe insure their own supply lines for fuel and raw materials. The US has subsidized Europe (for good US national security reasons) but it has cost the American citizenry. Who cares if the Europeans whine? Europeans have whined my whole life, and at times have gently back-stabbed us as we were giving them aid.
We still need to help keep Iran from dominating the Middle East, but that means support for Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
We still need to keep international trade routes open for US commerce. But, does that mean protecting Indian Ocean trade routes (which benefits China as much or more than the US)?
To keep China (the modern US threat) at bay we do need to help Japan, S Korea, Australia, Taiwan, et al.
You might also be interested in the chart that is on the right side of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan .
The only time in the whole history of NATO that the famous Article 5 was invoked, and NATO members rallied to support an attacked member, was after 9/11. A whole lot of those Europeans you are scorning sent their sons and daughters to war in Afghanistan at the request of the United States. Those numbers show how many did not come back.
my memory goes back to the 60's and protests against vietnam (we were there because the french could no longer maintain their presence in SE asia - we picked up their mess). fresh and recent criticisms for using nuclear bombs on Japan. years of comments about the millions of innocents we killed in Iraq. european criticism for arming Israel against innocents in gaza. comments about repressing cuba and venezuela.
I think the Cuban and Venezuelan governments are doing a fine job of repressing their own citizens, without any help from the USA.
"Isolation is no longer possible or desirable." Know who said that? President William McKinley. In 1901. His point was that the world was so deeply interconnected, thanks to technology, migration, and trade, that isolationism -- of the sort you are expressing -- "was no longer possible or desirable." In 1901. Today, the world is vastly more interconnected. And the idea that the United States can simply ignore a content is even more wrong than in McKinley's era. (For more of McKinley's speech, see https://dgardner.substack.com/p/oceanic-folly )
did i advocate isolationism (which you did not define btw)? i don't think so. i think i said that as dynamics change our international involvement needs to change...
Fair enough. I shouldn't have used that label. But what I'm suggesting is that the world is far too interconnected and interdependent to draw the neat and clean lines you are drawing. You say, eg, Europeans should "insure their own supply lines for fuel and raw materials." Name even an ordinary consumer good, take a look at the supply chain, and you'll find it is incredibly international. A simple example: the US is rightly focused hard on the threat to Taiwan posed by China in part because Taiwan churns out the computer chips that are the foundation of the US economy. But who makes the machines that churn out those chips? A Dutch company. So for reasons of national security, the US has no choice but to concern itself in the affairs of Taiwan. And the Netherlands/the EU. And that's just one example. There's an endless list of them. As I said, the world is incredibly interconnected and interdependent -- far too much so for the US or any other major nation to simply wash its hands and walk away.
The world being interconnected and interdependent means that *every* country has an interest in keeping trade routes open, in keeping goods, services, and capital freely flowing. This is not a unique interest of the USA. It follows from your own premise, ipso facto, that the USA should *not* be paying the lion's share of the world's costs in blood and treasure to maintain that status quo. Europe is almost the same size as the USA in terms of population and economic output; Japan, South Korea, India, and the rest of the free Asia are, too. It is rather inconsistent to say that the world is interconnected and that's why the USA has a unique obligation to continue forever to be the world's police force. Everyone else has an interest in contributing, too, according to their means. As far as I know, that is all Trump has ever said in the subject.
i did not say that the US should wash its hands and walk away either. i said:
- we subsidize Europe. is that wrong?
- i said Europe can take care of itself (implying we can redeploy our significant but limited resources to better benefit the US). why is that wrong?
yes, I understand I grew up in Europe after 1944. I learned to understand that Powerful Nations come to your rescue if it suits them. Nothing else to add; Trump or not
“really would shatter the fundamentals of American leadership as the world has known it”
I’m the only person I know who thinks this and I know that both nobody agrees with me and it will never happen but if Trump does win in November (or frankly if he gets above 45%) then a rich country like Australia with all the required scientific expertise and the required Uranium in our soil should realise we can’t trust the US nuclear umbrella anymore (or the US alliance full stop despite our politicians all viewing the ANZUS treaty like a holy document) and should create our own bomb
I strongly suspect that the day after a Trump win, precisely this conversation will start, quietly, in the highest offices of half a dozen countries or more. If it hasn't already.
Dan, I gained a new perspective on isolationism that will help shape my view of current events. The comment section grew stale pretty quickly but inspired me to rewatch this Python piece: https://youtu.be/uLlv_aZjHXc?feature=shared
Your "gangsterism" accusation comes out of thin air at the end, completely bereft of evidence or examples. Was leading the fight against ISIS in the Levant, and winning in short order, "gangsterism"? (Or even "isolationism"?) Was keeping Taiwan safe from the ambitions of China "gangsterism?" Was meeting with the leader of North Korea to try to reach a peace agreement "gangsterism"? Were the Abraham Accords "gangsterism"? This is just a bizarre take.
If the goal was to attack Trump at the end, maybe you should have spent more time discussing Trump's 4-year record rather than giving a long history lesson about events 100 years before Trump. And maybe the history lesson could have been more balanced. You write glowingly about the massive American military being the world's police force, resulting in a Pax Americana since WWII. Have you tried to count the number of attempted regime changes the American military is responsible for? When American Presidents were busy propping up the Shah of Iran, and toppling Allende, was that not "gangsterism"? How many "red lines" did Obama draw in the sand for Asad to cross? - and then did nothing when the lines were crossed. How many tens of billions did Obama/Biden give to the terrorist- abetting regime in Iran? Imagine getting a Nobel Peace Prize for funding Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah, and all the other client groups of the more deranged member of the current axis of evil... It's not for nothing that a lot of the world, especially the Third Word, are not impressed by America's international interventions on the whole. If it takes a "gangster" to get the USA to exit the business of international regime changing and meddling, maybe that would be a good thing.
Are the foreign agents who say they will "never trust Trump" the same geniuses who ignored him when he suggested they stop buying Russian oil & gas? Don't stake your opinion on anonymous sources who in all likelihood were complete blithering idiots in the recent past.
I'm not here to defend Trump. His international record is checkered, not much of a deviation from past presidents, and not much more successful on the whole. I'm just marveling at how strong your TDS is lately - approaching Coyne-like levels. <smh>
And frankly, for a former American president who says Russia can “do whatever the hell it wants” to my country, unless we “pay up,” calling it “gangsterism” hardly seems wildly overstated.
We all know that Trump speaks in hyperbole for effect. Two effects, principally: (i) just to get people talking about him; and (ii) to make himself unpredictable for strategic reasons. What Trump says and what he does are two different things. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, which is why his record during his 4 years in office is more relevant than his campaign rhetoric.
(In this respect, Trump is only marginally better than our own PM Trudeau - who also speaks in absurd rhetorical terms. In fact, Trudeau threatens and vilifies *his own citizens* with reckless abandon. He allows terrorist-sympathizers to terrorize Jewish Canadians for months on end. Is that not gangsterism? Trudeau played the gangster when truckers camped out in Ottawa for a few days - suspending bank accounts among other things. Trudeau ran an entire election campaign by vilifying the unvaxxed as misogynists and racists who take up space; then he shut the unvaxxed out of society so that his kids wouldn't catch covid on the trains and planes. He said he did than on the basis of expert advice, even though there was no such advice and we all knew by then that the jabs don't stop transmission anyway... Talk about real-life "gangsterism!)
So, yeah, when Trump says Russia can do whatever it likes with NATO allies like Canada who chronically under-fund their military, he's mostly blowing off steam. I don't like Trump's bombast any more than the next person, but really it only scares the pearl-clutching TDS sufferers and makes his base laugh. He does it to get in the news cycle, to get everyone talking - and you fall for it every time.
In the first place, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Russia will do anything to Canada in the next 4 or 5 years while Trump could be around to not react. Russia has its plate full now with Ukraine. And even if Putin tried something, Trump would certainly go back on his rhetoric as he has so often before - as every politician has so often before. Obviously Trump isn't going to allow one of America's biggest trading partners, with the longest undefended land border in the world, to fall into enemy hands.
You have to stop taking Trump literally, and start taking him seriously. Trump will defend Canada and other NATO allies if push comes to shove; but he won't be giving us any of the sweetheart deals prior presidents gave us, either. He will make us suffer for our foolishness before he commits to helping. As I explained in response to your previous essay, fair is fair. It's long past time for NATO to pull its weight without depending on the good ole USA to do all of the heavy lifting.
Advising you to buy home insurance is not the same thing as threatening to fire-bomb you if you don't pay protection money. The first is what Trump does; the second is "gangsterism." Learn the difference.
Here's a fun tidbit for you, Grant: "In recent months, Donald Trump has been trying out a new routine. At rallies and town halls across the country, he compares himself to Al Capone. 'He was seriously tough, right?' Mr. Trump told a rally in Iowa in October, in an early rendition of the act. But 'he was only indicted one time; I’ve been indicted four times.' (Capone was, in fact, indicted at least six times.) The implication is not just that Mr. Trump is being unfairly persecuted but also that he is four times as tough as Capone. 'If you looked at him in the wrong way,” Mr. Trump explained, “he blew your brains out.'" https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/25/opinion/trump-al-capone.html?pgtype=Article&action=click&module=RelatedLinks
Dan, if you are trying to goad me into defending *everything* Trump says or does, it isn't going to work. I loathe the man, and I fear he has been getting worse since the 2020 election. (So has Biden, in case you haven't noticed.) Trump's worst instincts are understandable, though: he has been far more sinned against than sinning since he entered politics. The D.C. swamp knows that he is their mortal enemy, and they (on both sides of the aisle) have been out to get him for 9 years with every nefarious tool they have. The machinery of the state has been fully weaponized against their political enemy. Half of Americans see that as a greater threat to democracy than Trump is - and they are probably right. It's an awful scene from every side. I'm a libertarian, so I instinctively expect the worst from politics and politicians.
At least half of Americans think that the country is going in the wrong direction, on nearly every current issue. As Scott Adams says, Trump is at least "directionally right." He was never going to build a wall right across the Mexican border, and make Mexico pay for it; but taking serious measures to curb illegal migration was the right direction to take and Americans who are fed up with the flood of illegals coming into the country could forgive Trump's hyperbole. Same with almost every issue Trump hypes. Trump captures the mood of the people, the direction of the people.
I set out to defend Trump's 4-year record on foreign policy, especially against the Obama-Biden catastrophe. That's what your essays were ostensibly about, after all. Just because I loathe the man's personality doesn't mean I can't be objective about his record. That seems to be asking too much of the punditocracy, though. The respectable thinking is that since "orange man bad," then everything he says and does must be bad. It's like climate change in that respect: everything must be worse as a result of climate change; nothing is better. And everything that is getting worse must connected to climate change somehow. It's idiot thinking. You have probably published a book where that type of fallacy is discussed.
(I'm glad the author you link to characterized the Trump rhetoric about Capone as a "routine." Most of Trump's campaign is a comedy routine. But he isn't a Dave Chappelle or a Bill Mahar. He's not good at doing comedy, and it falls flat for anyone who isn't a true fan. The routine just gives fodder to Trump's critics, who foolishly take him literally.)
In 2016, when I expressed shock about something Trump said, people insisted "it's just talk." Or "he's just blowing off steam" (a man who has so little control over himself should never be given power.) But this isn't 2016. The man incited a violent insurrection. To continue to give him this pass, which is given no other politician, is folly.
And the end of your note? That isn't my analogy. "Learn the difference"? Learn to read.
Ah, yes, the insurrectionist. Another hysterical over-reaction. Communists have actually set off bombs and killed congressmen and that wasn't deemed an insurrection. The perpetrator was even pardoned by Clinton! But an unarmed crowd storming through open gates and open doors after Trump implored people to protest peacefully is. Again, I'm not defending the folks who did property damage to the Capitol, but you lack all perspective on this sad event in American democracy.
Also: "property damage." Where I come from, mobbing police officers isn't "property damage." Maybe try reading the Congressional investigation. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-final-report-from-the-jan-6-committee
Didn't you see the video of the Capitol police ushering the Q-Anon shaman and others through the halls, trying to open doors for him? Hours of such video, also showing police welcome the mob in, pulling barricades away, etc. Some of it staged with videographers from various angles simultaneously... A lot of bad shit went down, but a lot of it was extremely suspicious, too.
The congressional investigation was a travesty. It didn't tell even half the story.
Yeah, all his mob did was smash through police lines and storm the legislature. While the man who egged them on watched and did nothing despite being implored to act by many, including the vice president he exposed to death threats for the awful offence of having done his constitutional duty. How "hysterical" to call that an insurrection. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-final-report-from-the-jan-6-committee
No, the FBI would *never* think of egging on a Trump crowd, right? Never do anything like make up a plot to kidnap the Governor of Michigan... Fifty-one intelligence experts would never collude to convince the American public that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, to try to swing the election, right? Don't settle for half of the infor... The problem with censorship is XXXXXXX.
Trump did not egg them on. He told them to protest peacefully. In fact, in the days before Jan 6th, Trump urged the authorities to call in the national guard - which they strikingly refused to do, even though that was common on such occasions. Capitol security was the responsibility of Pelosi and Schumer, the majority leaders. They were the ones guilty of dereliction of duty. It is as though they *wanted* an "insurrection" for political reasons.
Also, it came out at the trials that there were at least 200 undercover feds in the crowd that day, "egging them on." Suspicious, isn't it?
The “gangsterism” comment comes out of the earlier essay, where it is explained in full.
The "gangsterism" comment was no better supported in the earlier essay than in this one. As I pointed out last week, you took a couple of things Trump said out of context, misinterpreted them hysterically, and used that as a basis for accusing him of thinking America has no interest in maintaining a free-trading world order. None of that was remotely accurate. You weren't even talking about "gangsterism" in that earlier essay; and you certainly did not give examples of actions from Trump's 4-year record on the international geopolitical stage to support it. It's all a house of cards.
Yeah, a former president of the United States calling in Russia to invade Canada if we don’t “pay up” is nothing unusual, right? No big deal. How hysterical of me.
Yes, it is hysterical of you. First, because Trump did not "call in Russia to invade Canada;" and second because it is an absurd prospect in any event. You worry about stupid shit while having nothing to say about Trudeau welcoming actual foreign interference into the Parliament... Trudeau is perfectly content with Chinese police stations located on Canadian soil for years on end - how's that for "gangsterism"? Your TDS messes with your priorities. Get a grip, man!
Most of my followers aren't Canadian. My books sell around the world. I almost never write about Canadian politics. So, yeah, I haven't written about the latest Canadian news. How awful. And friend, may I remind you this is my little old blog. If you think I'm such a dreadful writer... stop reading.
I humbly suggest that you would do your world-wide readers a much bigger service by throwing light on the very real gangsterism happening in Canada right now than the speculative and mostly imaginary "gangsterism" that Trump might inflict. If it can happen to nice, affluent, compassionate Canada, it can happen anywhere where bleeding hearts run away with bloody heads. Canada, small as we are, is an object-lesson to the world.
The current version of Americanism is unsustainable for multiple reasons from economic depletion to oppression of native populations globally. No one in the career political and bureaucratic class established in DC appears to have had a new idea since the 1960s. Anyone but the current leadership and legacy political parties offers a better way forward.
There's heaps of legitimate criticism that can be made. But your last sentence isn't called for: There are plenty of people and ideologies that would be far, far worse than the status quo. Proof? I offer all of human history.
Study the rise of the Third Reich and one can see the striking similarities between their tactics and the ever-increasing police state guided by unelected bureaucrats and "career" politicians who have not faced a legitimate election in decades. The USA has never been perfect, but it has never gone this far off-track before. National political parties must go. The federal bureaucracy must be significantly reduced in scope. Corporate media propaganda must be broken up and the voice of communities returned to communities. The dispensation of untested vaccines, the withholding of potential lifesaving treatments, and the forced isolation of ill-individuals - together constitutes a mass science experiment on humanity in direct violation of The Nuremburg Code - despite however the propagandists might wish to construe it otherwise.
The last good Republican president, by my estimation, was Lincoln. But time after time we've misunderestimated them at our peril. As for article 5 and the euros, the Germans went into Afghanista with specific "caveats" which meant they held the very safe north of Afghanistan and I believe never lost a soldier.
62 Germans died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan