Trump's Trap

  

Trump’s Trap

Peter Schultz

 

This headline almost has it right.

"Trapped by His Own Image: Trump's Iran War and The Politics of Ego"  

 

                  Trump is trapped, but it isn’t only because of his ego. He is also trapped by the presidency or, more generally, the American political order. That order, despite repeated denials by many, is geared toward war. It isn’t “the politics of ego” that has Trump trapped; rather, it is the politics of war. And the politics of war is intrinsic to the American political order.

 

                  JFK, allegedly, couldn’t pull out of Vietnam before the 1964 presidential election because he would, he was convinced, lose that election. He also could not squash the Bay of Pigs invasion and although it proved to be a fiasco, his popularity rose as a result. Similarly, LBJ couldn’t pull out of Nam because he was convinced that he would lose the 1968 election had he done so. And, of course, Nixon continued the war for four years in order to secure his reelection in 1972, even telling the Chinese that he was prepared to lose that war provided there was a “decent interval” before the North Vietnamese won.

 

                  There is little need to list all the examples of presidents being “trapped” into wars, but some examples are: Truman in Korea; Carter in Afghanistan and Iraq; Reagan in Nicaragua; Bush Sr. in Kuwait; Clinton bombing Iraq on a daily basis; Bush Jr. in Afghanistan and Iraq, and so on and so on and so on. War is a continuing presidential phenomenon.

 

                  We do not have an “ego problem,” but a political problem; what one might call “a regime problem.” As some of those who opposed the Constitution when it was being debated argued, it has “an awful squinting,” it squints in the direction of monarchy and of war. Or as Ben Franklin is reputed to have said when asked what the new Constitution created: “A republic if you can keep it.” We haven’t, but then Franklin might have been being kind in his assessment. 250 years later, the proof is in the pudding or, as my mother use to say regarding human beings, “the fruit don’t fall to far from the tree.”

Trump: A Psychological and Political Phenomenon

  

Trump: A Psychological and Political Phenomenon

Peter Schultz

 

                  Is Trump a reflection or result of a psychological problem or of a political problem? Which is more clarifying: Treating Trump as a psychological or as a political phenomenon?

 

                  Obviously, both phenomena are operative because Trump has a psychological profile and a political profile. So, this isn’t an either/or question.

 

                  Psychologically, Trump is clearly narcissist. He has an inflated ego that allows him to believe he is always justified in his actions and, for that reason, believes he has been rewarded with status and wealth. Moreover, he believes that his enemies, when they defeat him, are only able to do so by means of unfair, covert actions. Their victories are never merited.

 

                  Politically, Trump is pretty much mainstream, despite his attempts to present himself as something else. His commitment to greatness has been a constant commitment of US elites since at least 1789, when the Constitution was first implemented. “Empire,” as in “an American empire,” was a constant theme in elite rhetoric and was reflected by such actions as Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana Territory from the French. It was also reflected by the continuation of slavery and in wars against indigenous peoples in America. Generally, and consistently, wars followed the implementation of the Constitution as US elites universally agreed that the US deserved to be and would be a great nation.

 

This greatness had different and intertwined roots: European/white supremacy, Christianity, evangelical religions, modern science, capitalism, and liberal progressivism. The depth of the commitment to greatness, achieved through war, was illustrated by America’s Civil War, fought to “preserve the Union” as the basis of America’s greatness. Once that was achieved, the South was allowed to re-create a form of slavery and an apartheid system that lasted for a century and more. Greatness, being the goal, it was to be achieved even at the expense of justice or human rights.

 

As Trump has embraced greatness, it may be said that his psychological profile, his narcissism has political roots. So, what is needed is a critique and rejection of greatness, insofar as this appeals even to most of Trump’s enemies. As Socrates recommended to Athens, i.e., to Periclean Athens, the US needs to turn inward, turning away from “foreign affairs” – as they are quaintly called – and away from citizenship, and turning toward making souls the best possible.

 

Empire as Virtue

  

Empire as Virtue

Peter Schultz

 

                  The following passage is from a book entitled The Rule of Empires, by Timothy H. Parsons.

 

                  “This reading of history ignores the essential characteristic of empire: the permanent rule and exploitation of a defeated people by a conquering power. By their very nature, empires can never be – and never were – humane, liberal, or tolerant. Would-be Caesars throughout history sought glory, land, and, most importantly, plunder. The true nature of empire was more obvious in pre-modern times when it was unnecessary to disguise such base motives. In recent centuries, however, imperial conquerors have tried to hide their naked self-interest by promising to rule for the good of their subjects. This was and always will be a cynical and hypocritical canard. Empire has never been more than naked self-interest masquerading as virtue.” [4]

 

                  A question: What if, in fact, empire is or reflects virtue? That is, so far from being “naked self-interest masquerading as virtue,” empire is virtue itself. Which is what makes it so appealing. Human beings, universally, want to be virtuous, perhaps more than anything else. And in their quest to be virtuous, they seek to dominate, to rule, and to seek glory by ameliorating the human condition politically.

 

                  Insofar as this is the case, the issue is or should be virtue, not empire. If, as Parsons so aptly argues and illustrates, empires have been, are, and will be intolerable to their subjects because violently oppressive, then virtue should be investigated. A politics of virtue, e.g., politics as soul craft as so many espouse might have consequences that will not be, that cannot be “humane, liberal, or tolerant.” Perhaps the crafting of souls, making our souls the best possible as Socrates recommended, should not and cannot be done politically. Good persons and good citizens are, for all practical purposes, distant, even conflicting phenomena, always.

Defeat

  

Defeat

Peter Schultz

 

                  The following are reflections spurred by a reading of D. Michael Shafer’s book, Deadly Paradigms: The Failure of US Counterinsurgency Policy.

 

                  As Shafer summarizes the realist explanation of US involvement in Vietnam, “Communist expansion threatened Vietnam; if Vietnam fell … other countries would … follow; this would damage America’s security and credibility as an ally. Thus, the United States had to stand in Vietnam.” [240-41]

 

                  Yes, the problem was Communist expansion, but it was not simply because it threatened Vietnam, but also and more importantly because it threatened the established elites who were governing the United States. It might even expose “the myth of invincibility,” as Dean Rusk put it, which was the basis of the claim to rule by those elites.

 

                  As one senior official put it: “We must avoid harmful appearances which will affect judgments by … other nations regarding the US … power, resolve and competence to deal with their problems…. It is essential – however badly [Southeast Asia] may go … - that the US … kept [ its] promises, been tough, taken risks, gotten bloodied, and hurt [and been hurt by] the enemy very badly.” [241] Getting bloodied, getting US troops killed, being hurt badly by the enemy demonstrated that US elites deserved to rule.

 

                  Take note: the primary goal was to “avoid harmful appearances,” not necessarily or primarily winning the war. And to avoid such appearances, it was necessary for the US to engage in a “War of Liberation … [which was] costly, dangerous, and doomed to failure.” [Dean Rusk, 241] To maintain and fortify their claim to rule, US elites had to show resolve, not quit, even or especially because the war was “costly, dangerous, and doomed to failure.”

 

So, ironically, what happened in Vietnam was not nearly as important as what happened in the United States; that is, what US elites were willing to do to maintain and fortify their claims to rule, even or especially to the point of undertaking futile policies. That counterinsurgency policies were not successful was not, in the final analysis, a sufficient reason to abandon them. In fact, as things went from bad to worse in Vietnam, the ruling elites would double down on such policies as a way of proving their bona fides.

Duplicitous Politics: The Heart of Darkness

  

Duplicitous Politics: Heart of Darkness

Peter Schultz

 

                  Duplicity is intrinsic to government and politics and one of the best illustrations of this was the Obama administration and its targeted assassinations program. The following is from Jeremy Scahill’s book, Dirty Wars.

 

                  “President Obama’s credentials as a popular, liberal Democrat and constitutional lawyer who pledged to end the excesses of the Bush war machine [was] of tremendous value in selling [his presidency].”

 

                  And now for the facts: “A year into his presidency, Obama and his … team were fully committed to the process of assassinations against terror suspects and other ‘militants.’ Unlike … Bush, who delegated decisions of assassinations, … Obama personally signed off on most strikes…. Tuesday afternoons [were] dubbed ‘Terror Tuesdays’ [when] targets would be ‘nominated’ for spots on the kill list…. This secret ‘nominations’ process was the invention of the Obama administration…. In essence the kill list became a form of ‘pre-crime’ justice in which individuals were considered fair game if they met certain life patterns of suspected terrorists…. Their potential to commit future acts could be a justification for killing them…. In Yemen, Obama authorized the JSOC to hit targets even if the mission planners did not know the identities of those they were bombing. Such strikes were labeled Terrorist Attack Disruption Strikes, or TADs.” [351-352, emphasis added]

 

                  Duplicity is absolutely essential in politics in order to disguise the violence, the injustice, the inhumanity that is intrinsic to politics and government. And it is worthwhile to underline just how pervasive this duplicity is, including as it does here Obama’s claim to be a liberal Democrat who as such was committed to distinguishing himself from his predecessors, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, et. al. So, even our most basic political categories like “liberal” and “Democrat” are duplicitous, serving to hide the collusion between what are conventionally known as our “two political parties.” That there are two political parties is a fantasy constructed to hide the true character of our politics.

 

                  Joesph Conrad wrote an excellent novel, The Heart of Darkness. But, in the final analysis, he did not get to the actual heart of civilization’s darkness, which is only visible when it becomes clear that the “Kurtz’s” of the world are no longer outliers, rogue actors but are, in fact, in charge of the asylum. We have, it seems, reached that point.

Obama's Duplicity

  

Obama’s Duplicity

Peter Schultz

 

                  “Obama campaigned on the idea that Bush had drained resources in Iraq that should have been used to fight al Qaeda. ‘They [Bush and McCain] took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11,…al Qaeda.’ The new president pledged to rearrange US priorities to Afghanistan….” [Dirty Wars, 237]

 

                  Clever. While apparently criticizing Bush and McCain, Obama is endorsing the war on terror. His is not even a criticism that cuts very deeply. They spent too much in Iraq, which doesn’t mean the war and occupation was a mistake. Obama allows people to think he is opposing Bush and McCain when, in fact, he is endorsing their war on terror and even, up to a point, their invasion and occupation of Iraq. His endorsement is hidden behind a very mild critique of Bush and McCain and their actions. So, Obama is actually colluding with Bush and McCain with regard to the war on terror, even with regard to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

 

                  Duplicity: the coin of the realm used to hide colluding political parties.

The Ambiguity of Moral Virtue

  

The Ambiguity of Moral Virtue

Peter Schultz

 

                  As noted in the book, Patriotic Betrayal, there was a time in the United States when “neutrality [was viewed] as ‘immoral and short-sighted.,’ by both liberal and conservative Cold Warriors.” [145]

 

                  Now, if we grant that neutrality is, actually, immoral or amoral, as thought by “both liberal and conservative Cold Warriors,” then these Cold Warriors were, in fact, moral human beings. But this means that these moral human beings accepted and embraced war, both cold and hot.

 

                  A question occurs to me: Isn’t this a good argument on behalf of immorality insofar as it is pacifistic, insofar as it points toward peace or peaceful coexistence, and not to war? Ironically, it would appear that immoral human beings are less warlike than moral human beings. Put differently, courageous human beings are more warlike than cowardly human beings. So, what’s so great about courage?

 

                  In other words, courage – and moral virtue generally – has ambiguous consequences, just as does cowardice and immorality generally. So, what’s needed? Intellectual virtue: that is, the capacity to discern when courage makes more sense than cowardice and when cowardice – e.g. “appeasement” – makes more sense than courage. The fact that neutrality was immoral was not necessarily an argument against it, at least not during the Cold War. And the fact that the Cold Warriors were moral need not lead to their endorsement or the endorsement of the Cold War itself. Ironically, at times, a little immorality goes a long way.