War in Ukraine: From Bad to Worse

Bob Travica

Russia's military intervention in Ukraine, which started on February 24, 2022, is horrible and wrong. It's as wrong as any other attack on a sovereign country, including those that NATO committed in the recent past. This verdict is based on the principle of resolving international problems peacefully, which I follow. But what's really happening in this war and what is the context surrounding it – this is much harder to figure out resolutely.

Spinning the War  

For two months, mainstream TV networks and print in Canada and the U.S. have mediated the war in Ukraine to their audiences. The media buzz has been overbearing, filling most of the media time as if nothing else in the world is happening but the war in Ukraine. If average Joe happens to pay any attention, he must be utterly confused with the oversized coverage because he has never heard of Ukraine before. He might make some sense of the word "Russia" that's daily on the lips of angry politicians. What about "Putin," a complimentary word in politicians' rants? For the Canadian average Joe, this word just increases confusion as it sounds like "poutine," a popular sauce.

I rate my own understanding of international affairs at least a notch above the average. But when I ask myself, what have I learned about the war in Ukraine, I feel like a student who's long agonized over study materials but still feels stuck in ignorance. Why did Russia attack? What are its military goals? What is the situation on the ground according to independent sources, not just the Ukrainian government's statements? What's happening at peace negotiations? What are the true figures on war casualties? What political system is really in Ukraine? Are there any significant divisions regarding international relations and other issues? Why retired Ukrainian politicians are televised to deliver fiery statements to Western media? What is the influence of NATO in Ukraine? Who is really Volodymyr Zelensky? What do Ukrainians in different parts of the country think about their government and Russia? What is the historical context surrounding Ukraine-Russia-NATO relationships?

To be sure, I and others are fed with some instant, persistently repeated answers, spinning a human interest story. Briefly, Russia's mad autocrat Putin ordered the Russian army to invade Ukraine for no reason. Nobody knew his military goals but, whatever they were, his army has been failing from the start. The situation on the ground is that Russia's military keeps pounding cities and villages with artillery, air bombardment, and missiles, killing thousands, producing millions of refugees, and committing all kinds of war crimes, including genocide. The Ukrainian military is heroically defending the country and inflicting huge losses on the enemy, under the brave leadership of Ukrainian President Zelensky, who is globally recognized for leading the fight for democracy and against autocracy. This is a part of the media story of the war in Ukraine.

The other part of the media story is interviews with persons introduced as "experts." Most of the time, however, the questions that TV anchors pose are so naïve or pretentious that they insult viewers' intelligence. The same applies to bringing armchair generals before the camera. One of these has asserted that the Russian army will fail in Ukraine as it failed in 1917 (World War I combined with the Bolshevik revolution) and in 1991 (the collapse of the USSR, actually with no war activities). Perhaps this general was absent from the history class about the crucial role of the Red Army in defeating the Nazi's war machine in World War II. Another armchair general predicted that Putin "was done" after two weeks of the war, and predicted a coup in Russia. Yet another retired high officer called for removing Russia from The UN Security Council. The other part of the interview coverage is abundant statements of Ukraine's officials. Their tone is easy to guess.

What is the problem with the media story? First, it is totally one-sided. Truth is the first victim in any war since warring sides use propaganda against each other. Because the media's reporting is based primarily on Ukraine's official sources with no independent confirmation, this reporting cannot be trusted. The interviewing also gives voice exclusively to the one-sided interpretation of the war (besides selling awkward ignorance and speculations as expert analysis). Second, the media story is crafted by editors who follow closely the government's moves in international policy and possibly absorb lobbying of PR agencies (someone has to pay for the endless TV time spent on the war agenda). Editors send young reporters to war zones, and these get easily "horrified" by almost anything they see on the ground. Mature reporters cover refugees located in safer places and they interview anti-Russian politicians. The outcome of all this coverage is as biased as expected. This media bias has deeper roots, indeed. When it comes to foreign policy, free media dutifully shoot themselves in the foot. Freedom boundaries are charted in political circles that are supposed to be competent in defining national interests. So, the media become a good soldier that merely toes the line.

In the end, after being heavily exposed to the relentless media story of the war in Ukraine, I have to admit that I really know close to nothing about this war.

Clinching Namesakes 

And there is even a worse part in the media's war agenda. For instance, the BBC organizes a series of town halls with high representatives of Ukraine and surrounding countries, with a thinly veiled purpose of hoarding support for the NATO involvement in Ukraine and enlarging NATO. Then, the media keep echoing the request of Ukraine's officials that NATO establishes a no-fly zone over the country. They ask, where is the red line? How many people have to die before the no-fly zone request is met?

Political leaders of NATO countries reject the no-fly zone request for the time being and assure that the imposed unprecedented sanctions against Russia and lethal military aid poured into Ukraine should suffice in stopping Russia's military. Media people get frustrated. Then, the politicians throw a bone, "if the Russian military deploys chemical weapons, this will change the situation." The media promptly catch the bone and add the chemical weapons prompt to their interviews. The media are crying out, What will finally move the cavalry into a showdown with the aggressor?!

Any narrative draws on prototypical characters. The media have created them as part of its war agenda. The President of Russia Vladimir Putin is the bad guy vilified in the media profusely. Besides being an evil autocrat, he is mentally unstable, neurotically scared of human contact, a pathological liar, and so secretive that nobody knows what's on his mind. Media give voice to commentators who impart that Vladimir Putin intends "to bring back the USSR and to remake a Russian Empire." The media dissect Putin from the Russian people, who are "manipulated" by the state propaganda and censured media. But there are also many people engaged in anti-war protests in Russia and Putin, we are pressured to acknowledge.

In contrast, the media glorifies Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky. He has been made a poster boy of Western values, such as democracy, self-determination, risk-taking, entrepreneurship... He's been lauded as an inspiration for the whole world which, allegedly, does show such admiration. The Zelensky character is angelized, devoid of any possibly unsuitable personal, political, or historical dimensions. The media chooses not to deal with his comedian background, lack of political experience, poor command of English, motivation for getting into politics, the path to power, foreign influence, unpreparedness for war, contradictory moves during the war… Zelensky must be the epitome of a good guy.

The good and the bad guy share the same name, in Ukrainian and Russian renderings. Their name means "the ruler of peace." How ironic! Vladimir is apparently bellicose, while Volodymyr fights a defensive war, aspiring to escalate it. Media endeavor to push the two namesakes into a breathtaking clinch.

Poking the Bear

Relations between Ukraine, Russia, and NATO stand in stark contrast to the simple black-and-white picture forced by politicians and media onto the public in the West. Ukraine gave up the Soviet-era nuclear weapons in 1994 based on the Budapest Agreement for the country's joining the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Cosigned by Russia, the U.S., and the U.K., this agreement guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty and existing borders. The cosigners agreed not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine but to provide assistance should it be attacked by nuclear weapons by a third party.

It appears that Russia later regretted underwriting the Budapest Agreement as it began violating it in 2014. The historical context matters for understanding possible reasons for this turn. Russia had just descended from the dismembered Soviet Union in which it played a key role. The Russian signatory of the Budapest Agreement, former President Yeltsin, was a vain political persona incapable of responding to contemporary challenges and resisting the pressures of victorious Western powers. Russia was hurting on multiple fronts and its nuclear arsenal was under loose control. When Vladimir Putin took over, Russia began consolidating internally.

In the early Putin era, the West greeted more order in Russia and investments fueled the new, burgeoning market economy. Former American President George W. Bush came close to publicly embracing Putin as a friend. But the consolidation of Russia also implied taking more care of its borders. For centuries, it has been a primary task of Russian leaders to secure the borders of the vast motherland. Grandeur in general is one of the salient traits in Russian culture. Russians believe that saving the grand motherland at any cost is a higher calling. Consider the careful nurturing of the "Great Patriotic War" tradition (fighting against Hitler's Germany in World War II 1941-1945) that is taught in schools, exhibited in the May 9 military parades, and reminded of via pictures of war generals painted on Moscow's subway cars and the facades of its famed Old Arbat street.

This tradition is an extension of the "Patriotic War" cult (fighting Napoleon's France in 1812), which in, turn, has its precursors in Russia's past. Invaders cracked their teeth on Russia. It's delusionary thinking that this patriotic culture can be changed under pressure and quickly. Contrary, history shows that, under pressure, Russia is capable of bleeding to the last drop of blood. Today Russia sees NATO's eastward expansion as a significant security threat, which feeds Russians' traditional patriotism.

The 19th-century German strategist Bismarck characterized Ukraine as a "soft belly of Russia" that is critical for conquering that country. This belly became a pain as Ukraine steadily inched toward NATO after the Budapest Agreement [1]. In 2008, Ukraine "was welcomed" to join NATO. Then, the Maidan coup happened in 2013-14, when the legitimate government was overturned with the significant help of the US whose deep involvement went down to choosing the successor president. Further on, a political ping-pong ensued between Russia and Ukraine.

In 2014, Russia took control over the Crimea peninsula, and the eastern areas of Lugansk, and Donetsk. A war in skirmishes ensued in these areas, and two attempts of negotiating their status and peace (Minsk agreements) have failed. NATO intensified training of Ukraine's military, delivering weaponry, amassing troops at Russia's border, and military exercises. Russia tested the air space of some NATO countries, and so on. (See how an American political scientist views these relations [2]). Finally, in 2019 Ukraine amended its Constitution with the goal of joining NATO and the EU.

This evolution of Ukraine-NATO-Russia relations after the Budapest Agreement indicates that Ukraine's role is to poke the Russian bear and test its security strategy.

Troubled Country

Ukraine is a country divided between a Ukrainian and a pro-Russian part. The historical roots of Russia are in today's Ukraine. The Orthodox Church has been the same until recently when the Ukrainian part split off. But there is also a Catholic Church in West Ukraine. Ukrainian and Russian are similar languages. However, in World War II, national extremists from Western Ukraine collaborated with German invaders and committed war crimes against Eastern Ukrainians, Russians, and Poles. The Ukrainian extremism survived even through the seven decades of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, it morphed into several political and paramilitary organizations and made a push toward the national Parliament. [3, 4]

The Azov Battalion, which has been cited in the context of defending the city of Mariupol, exhibits its Nazi leanings openly. It emerged during the 2014 Crimea crisis and then evolved into a regular regiment of Ukraine's army. (See the study by George Washington University's researcher [5]).  Such ultranationalist tendencies in Ukraine are denied in the Western media and politics, and "disproved" by the fact that President Zelensky is Jewish. Jewish or not, this rookie politician couldn't control who's got admitted into military and police schools, entered politics and business, or climbed the ranks in these domains. Of course, political extremism is Ukraine's internal affair, but it additionally indicates striking divisions in the country.

Ukraine is also a corrupt and criminalized country not much better than Russia. Since 2014, it has been in the upper third on the global index of corruption [6]. Corruption is the key topic in the satirical TV series Servant of the People, which features Zelensky before he's got into politics. The series made him a national celebrity. Then, Zelensky ran for the President's Office on an anti-corruption agenda and won in 2019. The corruption index didn't improve on his watch yet. Just like Russia, Ukraine also has billionaire oligarchs. Many display both business and politics in their biographies. Political posts provide opportunities for pocketing privately the foreign financial aid/investments and earnings from reselling stolen Russian oil and gas transported through Ukraine to West Europe.

Troubled as it is, Ukraine has a government (dissenting voices aside) that keeps the country on the collision path with Russia, a strategy with opaque goals and associations with national interests. Here lies yet another big trouble for Ukraine. 

Sabre Rattling

Western-leaning Ukrainians may see their NATO aspirations as a way of protecting the country's independence and territorial integrity. But the fact is that a country can be in the EU without getting into NATO (six countries in Europe so far). Why such an urge to get into this military alliance whose reason for existence and character are dubious?

After the collapse of East Europe's military block led by the Soviet Union, NATO was supposed to end since its adversary perished. West Europe was ready to establish its new, succeeding security forces. However, this instrument of America's hegemony survived because United Nations assigned NATO navy and air force missions in the Balkans, where the country of Yugoslavia disintegrated violently. NATO was further consolidated through aggressive operations in Bosnia and an air campaign against Serbia and Montenegro (the last remnant of Yugoslavia), which the alliance executed on its 50^th anniversary in 1999. NATO's attack was unprovoked and breached both the international law and its own original charter. NATO started growing just before this attack by incorporating a few countries in East Europe, and then it more than doubled in size by 2020. Outside Europe, NATO was involved in several offensive wars led by the US (Afghanistan, Libya, and partly Iraq). According to one American academic source, 387,072 civilians died in the US-led wars since 2001 [7].

NATO's increased operational presence in Europe, combined with the installation of new missile systems, resembles a disguised continuation of the Cold War against the old adversary, Russia. Current speeches of the American President sound just like that. A descendent from the Cold War era, President Biden simply can't shed off cold warrior feathers even in his advanced age. The die-hard cold warrior found his match in Russia's leader who also was shaped by the Cold War. Nevertheless, NATO poses a threat to Russia which has repeatedly voiced its displeasure with the alliance's enlargement and the prospect of having Ukraine as a large NATO country on its doorstep. Removing such a strategic goal from Ukraine's Constitution and politics could be part of the formula for peaceful coexistence of the two neighbors. The US, the UK, and Canada are not Russia's neighbors, yet these countries lead in tailoring Ukraine's relations with Russia. In effect, the conflict in Ukraine can be seen as a proxy war between Russia and NATO. Still, it is Ukraine that will have to share the border and trade with Russia forever. Bleeding to death on the battlefield is not a winning proposition. Instead of opting for a settlement outside the battlefield, and thus really saving Ukraine, its advisers and helpers are doing exactly the opposite.

NATO countries help Ukraine abundantly with weaponry, military intelligence, advice, and money. Ukraine's government takes it all, indebting future generations both economically and politically. It requests even more – direct military involvement of NATO against Russia. It's still opaque whether this is a genuine idea or is also externally inspired. This is where a serious problem lies with implications far beyond Ukraine's borders. As politicians' war mongering gets in tune with the media's spin on this war, the exposed spectators are being persuaded that a larger war is inevitable as a way of ending the currently limited war. Indeed, some Ukrainian officials appear to cheer that the Third World War has already started.

This lack of self-restraint, which all the war-mongering parties show, is as appalling as Russia's attack on Ukraine. If Russia felt threatened by NATO and intended to secure its border with Ukraine, it should have sought protection in a different way rather than by this conventional, massive military operation with highly destructive weaponry and urban warfare. Starting a war in the middle of Europe and possibly internationalizing it does create a highly risky path leading to a catastrophic nuclear war. That wouldn't be good for either side or for Europe as a whole. The responsibility of all the players in and around the Ukrainian war should be measured against the sanity of such an option.  

A B ... D Of Transgression

By Bob Travica

Prince Andrew, Boris Johnson, Novak Djokovic – three high-profile cases marking the start of 2022 with a common thread of breaching rules or norms. British Queen Elisabeth's son, Britain's Prime Minister, and the world's No. 1 tennis player. Each man is a member of an elite, and each is a transgressor.

Transgressor A. abandoned common social norms when he, as a married man and a royal, ventured to the wild side to have fun with a 17-year-old American woman. Transgressor B. partied with his staff or turned a blind eye on their partying in the midst of tough COVID-19 restrictions that his government imposed on citizens. Transgressor D. tossed away Australia's immigration regulation of double vaccination for COVID-19 while strategizing his visit to defend his 2021 grand slam winner title.

While sharing the common denominator of crossing the lines applicable to most people, there are more subtle similarities and differences between the three transgressors. Transgressors B. and D. are connected via the exceptional pandemic situation that imposed rules these transgressors collided with. However, D. and B. are also different inasmuch as is the contrast between an adamant anti-vaxxer ideology and abhorrent negligence of duty, or between a challenger of order and the order's hypocritical keeper. As for A., there is nothing exceptional about his context of collision as his transgression originated from mundane cravings.

Transgressors A. and B. are Britons, while D. came from Serbia in South-East Europe. Both Britain and Serbia tend to stand on their own. However, while the former distinguishes itself from the rest of Europe as one of its most powerful countries, the latter struggles to act sort-of-that way based on assumed rather than real resources.

Although Britain generates significant social reforms from time to time, it has for long maintained a stiff social stratification, part of which is the longest-lasting royal dynasty in modern history. As transgressor A. belongs to this dynasty, he was delivered by birth to the peak of Britain's social Olympus. In contrast, transgressor B. is a commoner descending from the academic segment of the middle class; he climbed to the peak of a political Olympus thus acquiring enormous power of the British PM post. In yet a starker contrast, transgressor D. came from an average family focused on sport and small business and worked his way up to the athlete's peak of Olympus.

All the three transgressors are eloquent people, speaking multiple languages, navigating easily through public discourse carved by mass and social media, social commentators, and followers. This may not be surprising for the two Britons that went through the education designed for the upper classes. The Prince became a military officer with distinction. The to-be PM became first a recognized journalist, writer, and a favorite guest in talk shows. Book-smart, resourceful persons making their expected marks.

However, the Serbian counterpart certainly raises eyebrows as a street-smart hero. With merely a modest education under the wings, his natural intelligence, determination, and self-initiative have carried him very far and very quick. He has become a global celebrity with the faces of athlete and entertainer, a businessman, a political influencer in the tennis world, and a multi-faceted icon in his native country (which he traded for a fancier place as soon as his mushrooming pocketbook allowed).

Olympus is the resort for gods, and gods don't obey rules but make them, and break them at will. Our transgressors created events that amount to social dramas with legal, political and cultural aspects. They mistook Olympian peaks for a natural habitat they are entitled to. And then, a sky fall came down on them. They are now discovering that there is a line drawn between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, which applies even to them.

Once doubt creeps into the Olympians' narratives and public imagery, ugliness rears its head. Private, juicy details of the Prince's visceral entertainment spill into tabloids and daily gossip. Downing Street partying turns into a series of 1001 night stories starting with "once upon a time when the PM was…" The tennis champ's arduous border crossing gets wild interpretations (say, he planned to enter Australia so that he contracts COVID-19 on a certain date, waits for a necessary time to get tested negative, and then seeks an exemption from the double-vaccination rule to get the visa). Once the poop hits the fan, the odor hangs on for incredibly long.

There are rules and norms that even Olympians have to abide by. Huh – screams the folk's voice – that can't happen for real! The rich, famous, and influential always find a way out of trouble. Their power is their parachute. In the end of the day, they can still do whatever they want!

There may be some truth in this. The power shield works. But it can break too. Rumors on the Prince's unfit social contacts have lingered over years before the current scandal cracked open. The PM's and the tennis champ's paths to a showdown are likely to be shorter. Such an ending may not happen inevitably with every transgressing Olympian. But when it does, it is irreparable. The first blows into their throne come from their professional circles. Military officers request from the Queen that Prince Andrew be removed from military ranks. Seniors in Boris Johnson's party request his resignation. ATP players (most of whom are double-vaccinated for COVID-19) might ostracize Novak Djokovic. These inner circle blows are the hardest, although not as visible as the blows from broader circles that typically follow the suit.

The common sin of our besieged Olympians is in violating common rules/norms. They clashed with the dictum that nobody is above the law. It is clearly articulated in the principle of égalité (equality) that guided the French revolution against the old regime in 1789. Equality of all citizens before the law became a cornerstone of liberal democracy, a shaky creation that has been lasting a mere blip in a long history of governance by brute force, bloodline, and usurpation of power levers. As égalité is constantly challenged – not only by people akin to our Olympians but also by masses of doubters –  this principle remains an ideal to achieve. For academically inclined political analysts, the keyword is a normative approach to politics rather than empirical or realpolitik. One more recent test of égalité was enacted by the former U.S. President Trump, who claimed that he could do anything he wanted with impunity just because he was the President, including shooting someone on 5th Avenue. Then he tried to overturn the presidential election results - and failed.

(See http://cogito-bob.blogspot.com/2020/09/ )

The tension between rules-based order and challengers continues. Before making your final verdict on any of the three transgression cases discussed here, try to answer to yourself: Which of these two sides do you want to be at? And why?

 The World Without Tremendous Trumpery

By Bob Travica

There is little doubt that Donald Trump will lose the upcoming Presidential election in the US. His mysterious "base" has shrunk down to some quarter of the voting population. When he won elections by the electoral vote in 2016, the pillar of his popular vote was white, less educated, older males. This part of the voting population has been shrinking relative to the educated colored and white voters. Latinos, who were anti-Trump in the previous election, are poised to make a significant difference in this election. Women of any background can be another voting force bringing Trump down. These points are based on various analyses and polls I looked at.

Who is still with Trump? Those white males as before, white evangelicals, arms lovers (hard to grasp in any country where arms in civilian hands are intended only for animal hunting), and various right-wing groups. The first three groups hold the banner of  MAGA (Make America Great Again) without questioning why their leader hasn't brought the greatness already in the past four years. Some of them bent the slogan into "Keep America Great" without questioning how the "greatness" squares with the huge human and economic toll of the COVID-19 pandemic that's been happening on Trump's watch. Actually, they don't believe in the pandemic numbers or even in the pandemic as such. If they acknowledge COVID deaths, they "put faith in dear God" and fatalistically proclaim that they are "ready to die if their time is up." So, they happily attend Trump's rallies without applying basic defenses against the new coronavirus and patriotically chant popular rock songs even when song lyrics send adverse messages. In a word, these voters represent a die-hard disconnect between fanaticism and ratio.  

The flocking of militant right-wingers around Trump is interesting because, again, it doesn’t make sense. These make a lot of noise and imperil public order and safety of just about anyone opposing them. Such groups make an inflammable social component that Trump manipulates in his endless political reality show that should help him to get re-elected. So, they "stand by" awaiting commands for the attack. Still, the hopeful storm troopers are a ragtag of militias, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and conspiracy peddlers like various "Anon"-networks (anonymous "knowers" of "secrets" at the Q-level of clearance, of CIA, FBI, etc.). All these groups are at the fringes of politics and actually residing in their dreamlands of self-exclusiveness, hatred, and adoration of raw physical force. But the object of their hatred differs. White supremacists keep not necessarily a grudge against the whites in the Democratic Party. In contrast, Neo-Nazis are more exclusive, embracing some white nations and disdaining others along with all the non-whites. 

Conspiracy peddlers prefer virtual storming to street fighting and embrace anyone who shares implausible "explanations" of politics by some opaque, dark forces. For example, the "Q-Anon" network rumors that the leadership of the Democratic Party has for long been involved in a system of global child slavery. In contrast, highly qualified for the role of stormtroopers, the militiamen, take the government for their object of hate. Trump's government is as bad as any other. Ultimately, isn't he a self-proclaimed "Law & Order President?" Hell, yea, and there is nothing attractive in the social regime that a government can impose on weapon-carrying free-stylers. These differing agendas make the fringe groups just temporary, side actors in Trump's political reality even though annoying ones.  

Time of Reckoning

Although Trump's loss is "tremendously" likely (to use his favorite word), the process of the power transition may hit hurdles. As he proved to be a scruples manipulator that's exclusively centered on holding to power, Trump will try all possible to challenge, slow down and derail the departure from the Oval Office of himself and his quasi-government that his family morphed into.

Instigating public unrest, street violence and chaos that calls for governmental emergency measures is a possible scenario. Trump might end up being removed from the office by force of law enforcement officers. Today, it's not just clinging to power that drives Trump. He is on the brink of desperation as he's trying to save his wealth and even physical freedom.

Trump probably committed a federal tax fraud, which had put even the corruption tsar Al Capone behind the bars. In addition, Trump certainly offended many people that he whimsically fired and humiliated during his rule. His numerous opponents are awaiting the opportunity to take revenge when Trump's executive privileges expire. This has already started with books of the former officials as well as some relevant observers. Parts of the Republican Party are rising in opposition, including some capable young Turks.

In the end, a fall in public disgrace will plausibly complement Trump's financial and legal losses. That's why he will try to dig his heels into the White House as deeply as possible.

Life Without Trumpery

What will our life be like without Donald Trump? Less chaotic. As I argued in my previous blog, Trump promised to drain the "Washington swamp" but he just replaced it with a spider web, where he is sitting at the center as a spider-king, shaking the net at whim, terrorizing and devouring incumbents. Lazy, corroded institutions of the American Republic have been repressed by autocratic, quasi-monarchist practices and institutions-in-making. The Senate's Republican Party segment became the President's parlor, where the distinguished political role of the US Senator gave way to a voting machine whipped by President's lieutenant McConnell (except for a few dissenting voices). The already mighty Department of Justice became an extended hand of the President under his second lieutenant Barr. The loyalism to parliamentary democracy melted down under the hard-handed boss who could never understand the differences between a political organization and his own company.

Trump has toyed with the Constitution and laws as he pleased. Lots of his moves have been plain bullying acts with no much deliberation. He tested the system daringly, bent it carelessly, and broke it at sensitive points. One breakup is in furthering the imbalance between the executive branch of government versus the legislative and judicial branches. Consequences can be long-term.

With Trump out of the White House, we can expect restoring some of the institutions and established practices even if that means refurbishing the "Washington swamp." The swamp is terrible, isn't it? Almost nothing can be done in this two-party Parliamentary system where parties lock each other into a chocking embrace over things big and small alike. Just look at the long food lines in the "richest and best country in the world." The jobless masses can't afford basic food. All the while, Democrats and Republicans are bickering over financial packages that could relieve some of the pandemic economic pain. Not good for sure! But if you think the parliamentary stalemate is the worst thing in the world, think again. Dictatorships are incomparably worse, no doubt about it!

Remember Latin American dictators that not long ago ruled by fear and terror, African counterparts that didn't shy in comparison and made millions perish in mass executions, the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" in China… And don't forget Europe, although hardcore dictatorships over there happened in the first part of the 20^th century with Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Stalin…

If you think that an American dictator can’t be as bad as these historical counterparts, just think of Trump ruling in a country with no opposition party or press, no freedom of the protest, no free thought… All this complemented by policing on steroids, with FBI and the CIA turned into tools of oppressing the dictator's opponents. Think hard before replacing even an ill parliamentary system by an autocracy (efficient one or not).

Dennis the Menace a.k.a. Mr. Bean

What else can we expect with Trump's departure? Less of entertainment! Indeed, Trump is like the cartoon character Dennis the Menace. Every day, I check my Internet feed or switch on the TV in an exciting expectation of finding what some new mischiefs have the American President committed. Not that this role is to be about entertainment, but Trump made it so. His trumperies are endless and tremendous! As silly as they can get, they overcome the wildest adventures of Trump's cartoon counterpart, although it's questionable whether the real menace could outsmart the cartoon character.

Maybe Trump is more comparable to Mr. Bean, a boy in an adult body. Everything this film character does is some sort of pissing against the wind. Things that boys would do to prove they have a personality. Same with Trump. Manage the pandemic? No! Rather, prove it isn't there really and watch how believers overlook what's obvious. I've got sick of COVID? No! It was just a hiccup curable with a cocktail of advanced drugs I can get but they, my folks, cannot, ha! Accept election results? Hell, no! Make them sweat over my grim faces. Endorse America's international deals and alliances? No way, adults have no clue what fun it is to step into a muddy paddle or trample over painstakingly cultivated flowers!

Free trade and open borders? Oh, c'mon, where is fun in all of that? Let's put some giant Lego blocks on our border and watch how astonished the onlookers' faces can get! Dig into racial problems of America? Whaaat? Think problem, and you start believing there is a problem; take it as a hoax, and you feel like a happy salesman spreading infectious goodwill! Commit to a Congressional hearing? Are ya kidding me? I can do whatever I want and I'll make funny, old wigs sing as I wish! Overall, folks have no idea how fun it is to sit in the Oval Office, where home pets can't find a corner to do what mother nature urges them to do!

Black Humor Standcom/Sitcom

I can understand that Trump's ambitions reach beyond Dennis the Menace and Mr. Bean. Hey, he's made a career in a reality show! He's a natural actor, isn’t he? As the President, he's worked hard to play a reality political show in the featuring role. A comedian role, alright, but an adult role nevertheless. Indeed, he's been both a standup comedian and a sitcom – a double fiat! Here are some of his standcom/sitcom references. Granted, they are more on the black humor side.

Trump catches COVID-19, a disease he publicly doesn't believe in, while taking unproven drugs all the time. He goes to a presidential debate and turns it into a drunk sailors' parlor, yelling at the opponent and pulling off fisherman stories of his own "achievements." Trump goes to an old church in D.C., his security forces cutting through scores of protesters, and then he pulls the leg of every watcher with a moment of unrealized expectations. Instead of praying or reading from an old Bible, he just holds it with a stern face put on. That black humor message is as clear as a black night. Good for a theatre of absurd. 

Note that Trump favors police jokes. For example, a police bully pushes an old man down, and Trump declares that the man acted out the fall. Then, Trump declares that a man choked to death by a policeman got happy while witnessing good stock market news from high above.

Trump keeps poking his opponent Biden for his old age and mental state. This joke is not obvious on the surface. To get it, you need to extend the thinking: "In contrast to Biden, I have four years less and much more body fat and tremendous, self-centered mind." In the past months, however, Trump outplayed even himself with COVID jokes. Here's his golden advice: If you want to clean yourself from the coronavirus, just sip some bleach or swallow an ultraviolet lamp! I've never heard any comedian cranking this joke before Trump.

Some people say that Trump is BAD - brute, arrogant, and dumb. Others counter that he is bold, astute, and dynamic. He may be some of these things and some more. But it's all irrelevant at this time of reckoning. The bottom line is, as well-known journalist Bob Woodward concluded, that Trump is the wrong man for the job.

 

Trumping the Constitution

Bob Travica

(Feb. 22, 2020, reviewed Sep. 29, 2020)

NOTE: This blog was written months ago. Before having a chance to review the draft, COVID-19 hit the world hard and my attention turned that way. Who could imagine that Mr. Trump would take a lead role in the COVID time as well, playing a bad boy, and so with no veil. But this is a story for the next blog in which I will discuss recent misdeeds of this 'tremendous golfer' and argue that he will lose the election. This one below is about his role in exposing the weaknesses of the U.S. Constitution and in furthering its undermining.

 *

The Big Chief danced vigorously around the fire, shaking wildly his headdress of heavily sprayed hair implants. When he finished his winning dance, he looked at the teleprompter and shouted: "Hey guys, you've done a really good job! Tremendous! Daddy trained you well. Come here to get your treat!" Creatures kneeling around started to inch toward the Big Chief with their mouth open. He grinned and threw a handful of small bones in the air.

Got it? If not, let's try another opening line. On February 5, 2020, the U.S. Senate relinquished its powers in order to inaugurate the first American king Donald Trump I. That's the day when the American Republic faced monarchy. This event ties into the topic of American political system I promised to address the last time I wrote about Trump (see).

CEO of USA Corp.

I previously suggested that President Trump would be impeached in the House of Representatives but acquitted in the Senate. And so it happened that the House controlled by Democrats (Dems) impeached the President for the offenses of abuse of power and of obstruction of Congress in December 2019. The Senate controlled by Republicans (I'll call them Reps) rejected both these articles. The decision was preceded by three weeks of grueling speeches in the Senate, where the impeachers wrestled with Trump's lawyers.

At the Senate trial, the impeachers struggled to prove that Trump abused power when he tried to exchange Congressionally approved military aid for Ukraine for the favor of digging political dirt on Democrat Joe Biden, a contender in the American presidential election this year. Prompted by an anonymous whistleblower who traced a call between Trump and the Ukrainian President, the House conducted an investigation. Trump refused cooperation and blocked executive officials from testifying and releasing documents; the impeachers qualified this as obstruction of the Congress. Battling back, Trump's defense struggled to minimize the importance of the incriminatory evidence, offer an alternative story on delaying the aid ("Trump was concerned with corruption in Ukraine"), and to discredit the impeachment on a procedural basis. But all that was rather a show trial with no witnesses or new documents brought in because Republican senators blocked these. It reminded me unpleasantly of the Nazi or Stalinist-era fabricated trials. In the final act, just one Republican senator dared to drift from the party line voting for removing Trump from office.  

The acquittal vote was the end of the Dems' long chase which included a two year-long "Russian Probe," the impeachment-driving Ukrainian case, some conspiracy theories, the U.S. intelligence community, most of the mainstream media, and millions of dollars and works hours.

----

The plan of the self-proclaimed challenger of the "Washington swamp" became clear: replace the Washington swamp with a Trump-spider web.

----

During this period, Donald Trump revealed his true colors. He stirred internal and foreign politics according to his populist ideology of "Make America Great Again" (MAGA), undoing the laws and international agreements of preceding Democratic administrations. He intensified fighting with American liberal mass media and the intelligence sector. His drunken sailors' grudging and aggressive Tweetomany persisted as well as the character of his public statements spinning relentlessly fact and fiction. The executive branch has remained unstable under Trump's leadership as he kept disturbing it by frequent firing and hiring. He just couldn't get rid of the role he had played in the reality show "The Apprentice", which made him broadly famous.

If the first half of Trump's tenure indicated that the real estate baron's transition to a top politician was uneasy, the following period proved that he could not learn, not even how to act presidentially. As in "The Apprentice" and in his business career, Trump has been capable of playing just a single role, that of a hard-handed boss. He's been running the country as the CEO+Chairman+President+owner of a business corporation. In a word, the plan of the self-proclaimed challenger of the "Washington swamp" became clear: replace the Washington swamp with a Trump-spider web.  

And then again, as oddly as it can be, Trump's clumsy moves have been blowing up the carefully maintained covers in America's realpolitik. The covers supposed to obscure that politics is akin to manipulation rather than "serving people," that politicians' lie routinely, that America is a plutocracy where politicians serve special and their own interest, and that America's foreign policy is driven by cold cash rather than hot morals. Most importantly, Trump's trampling (a.k.a. trumping) over untouchable institutions revealed that "something is rotten in the state of 'Denmark'." The soft spots are at the very heart of the American political system.

Dream of Separating and Balancing Powers

The American political system is officially based on a separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, combined with mutual checking and balancing of each other. The model was novel when introduced after the war for independence from the British colonial rule in the 18^th century, and its basic ideas still shine. Each part of the government is supposed to have its realm of authority, which includes protecting it from intrusions by their counterparts. Legislators make laws, executives manage within the bounds of the law, and judges apply the law to rule on socially appropriate behavior. A division of labor as in a business firm but without a boss on the top. This is different from other political systems at that time and still today. Monarchies of the past gave way to political systems in which the executive branch is partly bestowed with legislative power (the United Kingdom, Canada), or which have a Parliament wielding legislative power plus controlling the executive branch by the right of voting on confidence in the government.

----

Trump: I can do anything I want because I'm the President.

Sun King Louis XIV: Anything we do is legal because we wish so.

----

Authors of the American Constitution (the framers, founding fathers) decided to untangle the bundle of monarchic powers and allocate these to separate branches of government without any of these towering others. Whether this was realistic in a culture that highly valued individual ownership and governance, is a question for Constitutional and cultural studies. The fact is that the Trump period shows clearly an imbalance of powers in favor of the executive branch. For example, Trump has been using extensively executives orders to introduce new legislation that's been controversial for the most part. Also, he has increasingly ignored the Congress that worked within its domain of power, and pushed executive officers to do the same. Examples include Attorney General Barr, head of the Judiciary Department, who manipulated the release of the Mueller investigation of the foreign involvement in the 2016 elections ("Russian Probe"). Then, in testifying before the Senate, Barr coolly drove a legalese slalom through questions to respond or not as he pleased.

It's very interesting that all these daring President's moves are within the Constitution and its interpretations by the Supreme Court. Specifically, powers of the executive order and of executive privilege of non-disclosure draw on interpretations of the Constitution. However, in current mulling in Washington, the constitutional institution of the presidency has been kept out of criticism, at least publicly. Doesn't it stand to reason that a bossy style of this (or any) President should not be able to make executive power dominant if the Constitution guarantees a separation and balance of three powers? 

Isn't it peculiar that a distinguished professor of Constitutional law interpreted the Constitution at the Senate trial by assuring that "a President can do anything he wants but commit a federal crime" and still not be removable from office? While he supported his oratory with aid of lots old, dusty books, his words merely echoed Trump's recent public statement ("I can do anything I want because I'm the President"). All this buzz is spookily similar to maxims of the 17^th century French "Sun King" Louis XIV. He ruled long with absolute power, pontificating that what was good for him was also good for France, whereas anything he did was legal because he wished so.

----

If a President can do anything he wants but commit a federal crime, is there something wrong with the U.S. Constitution?

----

All things considered, it seems that the revered U.S. Constitution does not preclude, if not even supports, the domination of executive power. So, the Constitution needs to be put under lenses if we want to understand why the American political system now appears broken under Trump's feet.

Executive Bias

The American political system has some peculiarities. These start with the terminology. It refers to "administration" to what is usually called "government" elsewhere; the heads of the areas in the executive branch including commerce, finance, transport, agriculture, interior affairs (managing government land), foreign policy, and defense. The term "government" is used in the U.S. in reference to the legislative, judicial, and executive parts (branches) of the nation-state organization; this is called "state" in the rest of the world. The federal policing function, which in most countries is identified as a domain of interior affairs, is within the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the U.S.

DOJ is part of the executive branch and includes FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies as well as intelligence agencies (CIA is one of them). DOJ has some judicial prerogatives since it can initiate a review of court decisions. This is again different from the rest of the world, where the notion of justice is associated with courts of law, the judicial branch being clearly separated from the executive branch. Unless there is a police/military regime in place, it is unusual in most countries that the head of police or security gets involved directly in daily politics as the current head of DOJ, the U.S. Attorney General, does. And it's all legal unless the Supreme Court rules differently.

The U.S. President heads both his administration and the state. These two roles are separated elsewhere. In some countries, the President of State has a stronger power position vis a vis the Prime Minister (e.g., France). In other countries, the President is rather a figurehead representing the state internationally, while the Prime Minister holds larger executive power (typical of Europe). As no such a separation exists in the American political system, the U.S. President wields more power than any president or a prime minister in other countries. (Presidential systems exist in Latin America too.) 

----

American President wields more power than any president or a prime minister in other countries.  Presidential power increases when a President's party dominates Congress.

---- 

One of the presidential powers is hiring (and firing) the heads of organizations making the executive branch. The President appoints officials of an administration or nominates these (like the U.S. Attorney General), while the Senate approves the appointment. The President also nominates the Supreme Court Justices and Associate Justices, while the Senate approves them. This is equivalent to an owner's or CEO's powers in private business. This authority can be used for expanding executive power as the former Presidents and the current one prove. By putting loyalists in leading positions and threatening them by firing, Trump is able to direct the workings of the executive agencies.

Although the bookish definition implies that the executive branch makes no law, the U.S. President is entitled to issue executive orders that come automatically into effect with no approval of other branches of the state. That's the law as well. It is most visible in foreign policy, where presidents can start wars without the approval of Congress. President Obama initiated a whole war by drone against persons that his administration designated as terrorists. The war also targeted U.S. citizens abroad who were on the wrong side, and so without charges, due process, or trial. Both Obama and his predecessor G.W. Bush managed massive surveillance operations abroad, including spying on the U.S. allies in Europe. Bush's presidential resume also includes ratcheting up interrogations techniques that security agencies could carry (e.g., torturing prisoners by waterboarding).

As for President Trump, some of his foreign policy moves have caught by surprise adamant cold warriors and other traditionalists in the U.S. foreign policy, thus indicating again huge presidential powers. He also killed single-handedly international agreements the U.S. was part of (NAFTA, the international nuclear deal with Iran, and the international climate accord). Further, Trump antagonized Iran in several ways and went into a trade war with China. To be sure, presidents do not tailor the foreign policy in solitude with no influence of corporations, the military-industrial complex, and other powerful players. The point is that presidents can move the security, intelligence, and military arms of the state without the approval of Congress. And the Congress should make laws of such a magnitude, shouldn’t it?

In domestic politics, presidents also rule via several legislative instruments. Previous presidents expanded surveillance over the citizens, changing dramatically "the land of the free." Trump's executive actions include restrictions on immigration, expanding the Mexican border wall (he proclaimed it a national emergency), re-organizing the executive branch, meddling with taxes, health care, and a bunch of "America first"-orders.

 Presidential power is increased when a President's party dominates the Congress. This loss of power balance is inherent to any two-party system. In the U.S., it surfaced visibly when the Republican Party controlled both the House and Senate from the 2016 presidential election until the midterm Congress elections in 2018. Even controlling solely the Senate by the President's party is sufficient to screw the Constitution. This showed up in Trump's impeachment trial. The Senate's Republican majority leader rejected the possibility of a true trial even before it began, and the final acquittal vote was 98% partisan.

Framing the Framers

It appears that the American strong Presidential model collides with the idea of separation of powers. The Constitution provides no means of curbing executive power even when it takes apparently wrong turns. The mechanism of checks and balances is deficient. Since executive power towers others, mutual balancing of powers is hard to achieve. Small children do not balance the power of parents. Yes, they may run some checks but these are toothless due to power asymmetry.

Sure enough, taking on the Constitution equals blasphemy. Both the pro- and contra-Trump camp swear allegiance to the Constitution and the framers. But when the politicking and legalese travesty is put aside, a common-sense question remains: How is it possible that two diametrically opposite sides find anchoring in the same document? Is it perhaps too broad, imprecise, underdeveloped, inconsistent, obsolete, incapable of preventing interpretations that counter its own assumptions? Wouldn't it be wise to take a realistic look at the Constitution in its historical time and contrast it with the complexities and needs of the present time? While the debaters in Trump's impeachment strived to divine what the framers did and did not want, it may be wise to remember that those founders of the independent American state tried to solve problems of their time based on contemporary knowledge.

 ---

It appears that history exposes the inability of the Constitution to ensure removing any President from office.

----

The historical period of the framers was undoubtedly different from the present. So for example, when the framers started the Constitution with words "We the people," they didn't refer to the black part of the population because the framers themselves were slave owners. Or, the framers worried about governing over militias born uncontrollably in the War of Independence. Granted, there are still militias in the U.S., but these are self-styled groups that pile up weapons and exercise shooting, banking on the Constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Indeed, the changed historical conditions convolute past institutions.

The framers were foremost interested in preventing the ousted colonial power Great Britain to conspire with the U.S. government officials, including the President. Therefore, treason was defined as the top reason for impeachment, followed by bribery. However, the framers also opened two other boxes for impeachable offenses (borrowed from Britain, as was the whole idea of impeachment) – "high crimes and misdemeanor." Opened them and left empty for the future generations to fill in the content. All three American Presidents impeached by the House (A. Johnson in the 19^th century, B. Clinton in 1999, and D. Trump now), as well as R. Nixon who resigned before his probable impeachment, were charged on these bases. All three were acquitted by the Senate.

It appears that history exposes the inability of the Constitution to ensure removing any President from office. The Congress has such powers on paper but is rather toothless in comparison with Parliamentary systems that can knock down the government (administration) by a vote of no confidence. The empty boxes for impeachable offenses are left to the mercy of political maneuvering, lawyers' intellectual gymnastics, and random circumstances of a given historical period. Perhaps the framers never really meant that a President should be removed from office but rather should be kept in check by such a possibility? They raised the bar for the guilty vote as high as to two-thirds of the senators present. True, in the Johnson trial the vote came to just one below the bar, but the number of the voting senators was just 54 (in the other two trials, it was 100).

Nobody is Above the Law… But the President

The Dems battling Trump keep shouting that "nobody is above the law!" The law implied is the Constitution. The Reps don't deny this publicly but rather through behavior. The Constitutional law professor mentioned above (otherwise known for playing devil's advocate or perhaps apprentice) offered Reps a parachute. He added to the Dem's "nobody is above the law" an appendix: "but the President!"

From the ethical perspective, the combatants follow two incompatible ethics. "Nobody is above the law" implies a rules-based ethic that has been a staple of Western liberal democracy (civil liberties, equality before the law). In contrast, "Nobody is above the law but the President" implies a utilitarian ethic that presumes good for a majority of people as the core ethical norm. In a nakedly partisan manner, the President's men and women brush off universalism in favor of particularism. Are they missing the boat? Not quite.

A significant pool of Americans feels safe under the President's wing; the populist ideology MAGA stir the masses and institutions; The Republican party must ensure another presidential mandate and (tacitly) protect the backing corporate interests; and what is always crucial for the American voter - the economy hums assuredly. Sufficient reasons for being utilitarian. Ah yes, there is also a hefty dose od pragmatic ethic on the Reps' side: good is what works at the moment and assures the survival of the individual politicians involved.

Although the opposed ethics may be ultimately responsible for incompatible interpretations of the Constitution, the implication again is that this document allows for such incompatibilities. The President can be above the law if he is daring enough and his party and voters comply. Fascination with the dated constitutional basis represents a puzzling paradox in the American culture that heavily invested in the present historical time. Even though America has been making its own way in many respects, it can't escape core social regularities that played out in the world's history. Indeed, threatening omens of the past have been bursting as the rule of the first American king, Trump I, unfolds.

One of Trump's defenders in the impeachment trial invited Dems to drop the impeachment ball and join Reps under the economic mastermind of Donald Trump. He screamed: "One nation, one people!" Sounds familiar, although the complete historical blueprint reads: "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!"

 

Pandemic of Foolishness

By Bob Travica

How do you feel about the way your political and public health leaders are treating you in this COVID-19 pandemic? To be honest, I often feel like a kid being put through toilet training. Stay at home, don't wear a mask, wash your hands, self-isolate, keep a distance, put a mask on, drink bleach, take hydroxychloroquine, don't get tested if you aren't sick, don’t take hydroxychloroquine, get tested, get to work, work from home, the situation is under control, we're in the midst of the pandemic!…

As he's grown a beard and a few silver hairs, the Canadian Prime minister resembles a musketeer from Alexander Duma's stories and he commands via government-paid ads: "Go home and stay at home!" After healing the nation with chlorine bleach and other ingenious medicaments, the American President shouts: "Reopen business, reopen schools, come to my rallies, goddammit!" As he put all his intellect in explaining COVID as "little flu", the Brazilian President eventually caught that "little flu" and said he felt fine because he was taking hydroxychloroquine. This is after his thought-leader, the American President, stopped taking this malaria drug.

The British Prime Minister also thought of COVID as just another flu and then he spent days in the intensive care. Undeterred, he recently kicked kids back in school and allowed the soccer and rugby seasons to continue, of course, with players respecting physical distance. If all this is no sufficient insult to your intelligence, consider the Tanzanian President who "proved" that COVID tests are not to be trusted; he said that he smuggled fake samples in a testing lab, and "the lab came back with positive COVID test results for papaya, a quail, and a goat"!

The medical authorities were not shy of making blunders and blinding us along the way.  The World Health Organization (WHO) toyed with the virus name from the very start of the outbreak in China. Instead of calling it "SARS Coronavirus 2" which it is, the knowledge gatekeepers decided to omit the "SARS" part. Their reasoning: Folks can get scared, so let's keep them in blessed ignorance. With a stroke of the pen, the WHO leaders confused billions of people! It's like saying, that thing growing on your cheek is just a mole, while it's actually melanoma. But a medical lobby in Sweden took this blunder for truth. The chief epidemiologist told his folks they were specially built unlike the rest of humanity, so their body was going to beat the virus on its own. The folks cheered: Hey, we rock and we won't be locked down! It turned out the special folks were getting sick and dying just like the rest of us. Sweden tops the world on the death rate, sharing the ring with Belgium, the UK, Italy, and Spain. 

We were never told really, why it's necessary to wash hands so often. If we work from home and venture out only for essential shopping, why should we wash hands all the time? Does the virus creep under the door, fly in through open windows, parachute down the chimney? Maybe the "washing hands" order is a handy filler when not much else is being done? The authorities feel well as they kinda do something along leadership lines, and we feel well too for kinda doing something for self-protection.  

"Masks aren't necessary except in the vicinity of sick persons. Masks give a false sense of safety. Masks don't really protect yourself. Masks can do more harm than good when handled improperly… Masks are useful, necessary, everybody should wear them... The reason why we didn’t advice masks earlier is that we wanted to save the limited supply of these for health workers…"

For months, we've been subdued to this confusing saga. In fact, it's been so much of the masks-rambling that a bystander could conclude that this is the most important issue in the whole pandemic. Couldn't the health authorities just take a quick look at countries where this pandemic started and conclude in no time that wearing masks is mandatory over there? Hey, those guys got it after battling SARS years ago! Why such arrogance and mindlessness even on part of the WHO? We the folks ain't that stupid. Well, if we don’t figure it out from the TV coverage of what's going on in China and those parts, we're certainly familiar with cowboys in Western movies and their inevitable bandanas. A cowboy would put a bandana over his nose and mouth while corralling the cattle. That had to do something with breathing, didn't it? 

And who in the state of sanity would not want to protect health workers, the life-saviors? But face coverings didn't need to be taken away from them. Hey, we could make them! Whoa, what a novel concept for health experts! Instead of convincing us firsthand that we didn’t need masks, they should have taught us how to make them. Science finds that a decent home-made covering is comparable in effectiveness to the mass-sold surgical type of mask. Both filter our breath. If everybody filters their breath, everybody is protected.

"Get tested, as everybody can do it now!" No doubt that advisors up the power ladder can. But then a former White House official discovers that there's no test for his child and so we, the folks, get dumbfounded. And scared. It's not really little flu, our leaders turned rambling about things-pandemic into business as usual, and by "everybody can get tested" they primarily refer to themselves. They don't even bother to make it clear what the testing is for. For the infection? For antibodies? For the current antibodies or for the long-term ones? In official stats, they lump together all these different tests for different purposes. And we feel safer watching a growing number of tests.

When I'm given a break from toilet training, I feel like papaya from the alleged Tanzanian lab.

Takeaways from Trumpism

By Bob Travica

In all likelihood, the U.S. President Donald Trump will be impeached. Between the reality shows “Apprentice” (a.k.a. “You are fired”) and “Russian Connection”, I wrote about (http://cogito-bob.blogspot.com/2017/ ), the latter is going to prevail. The special counsel Muller has been drilling down diligently for months, turning the President’s allies into enemies and inching toward indicting Trump for obstruction of justice.

Part of news media have contributed immensely to the reality “Russian Connection” and spearheaded the impeachment cry. Enter the loss of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Still angry over the loss of presidential elections in 2016, there is no doubt that Democrats will make Trump’s impeachment a top priority once they take over the House.

In result, the lay-off addict that’s occupying the Oval Office has got cornered. In the ironic turn of events, he will be fired.

Resume of Trumpism

There can be little doubt that Trump is not cut to be President as we know it. A hard-handed business boss, he’s got no stomach for the usual political wheeling and dealing and a schmoozing double-talk. He can’t keep his cool and his tongue under control. Trump has assumed the country (and its international extensions) to be his private enterprise that he could run at will. He has ruled by presidential decrees and uttered “you’re fired” to a level insane even for a privately owned business. And yes, he’s made lots of noise, ahem trumpery, via tweeting and in other ways.

Overall, the Trumpian hard-handed governance put at a test the institutions of check-and-balance in the American political system. True, he didn’t bring his horse into the Congress yet, as an emperor in the ancient Rome did. But this is perhaps so just because Trump didn’t really frequent the place.

Joking aside, the end result of two years of Trumpism seem clear. In spite of all the Caesarism and combativeness, Trump’s remake of Reagan’s “Let’s make America great (again)” has yielded just some poultry results. Repatriation of American business and profits remains as elusive as it’s been throughout the globalization era. Consequently, the trend of impoverishing the American lower classes hasn’t been reversed.

The promised reforming of health care (Obama-care) failed. Actually, this is good news for the underprivileged masses who for the first time in history experienced benefits that are normal in developed countries. Also on the domestic political scene, Trumpism stirred up the immigration policies only to create chaos, triggering unpleasant imagery of great walls and iron curtains.

Overall, Trumpism failed to shake up the Washington establishment. Acting on the premise that the federal political institutions were broke and needed fixing, Trump just managed to scratch the system. 

Trump didn’t truly undermine the entrenched echelons of power resting on the extensive intelligence sector, the special interest-stringed news media, and umbilical links between the Congress and corporations. Trump actually irritated and antagonized the key players, and got them united against himself.  The consolidation of shadowy power centers may have long-term political consequences.

No notable results in international politics could be seen either, except that two Koreas are now allowed to talk to each other. The promises of easing tensions with Russia and in the Middle East have not materialized. Other foreign policy acts have been about undoing deals that the previous governments made (NAFTA, Iran nuclear deal).

American establishment has so far reacted to Trump’s administration not as much to what it’s been done but rather to how it’s done. A large part of the establishment rejected Trump’s thriving on absolutism and chaos. And that’s good. Preventing a regression of the American republic toward a monarchy is good not only for the U.S. but for the world as well.

Trump’s resume is apparently gloomy. Are there any other takeaways, any credits he’s earned? I think there are some lying on the flip page of Trump’s liabilities.

To Your Face

Trump is the first President to speak openly his mind. In the past, instances of honesty were rare, including Eisenhower's talk about the military-industrial complex impacting American politics, and W. Bush’s acknowledgment of advantages of autocracy. However, Trump made this practice regular via tweeting and public speech. Trump spits out with no hesitation what other politicians just bear in mind or say just behind the closed door. This could be happening out of mere arrogance. Regardless, his raw thoughts are there for the public to judge. Here are some examples.

Trump says that the U.S. will keep supporting Saudi Arabia regardless of the international standing of the country’s ruler because they buy American weapons. Contrast that with the typical U.S. policy of playing publicly a guardian of human rights while actually supporting even the most oppressive regimes if they act in accord with American interest. This could be the dictator, oil exporter, big buyer, an enemy of America’s enemy, a careless seller of national assets, owner of a geopolitically relevant territory, etc. American governments are not choosy as long as the partner plays their game.

Trump also stopped playing the double game of a peacemaker in the Middle East with regard to relations between Israelis and Palestinians. He openly moved to the Israeli side, moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem (which is supposed to be a shared city), and thus he broke the cycle of hypocrisy entrapping the past U.S. presidents.

Moreover, Trump advised blatantly the NATO allies to contribute more money to the military pact. NATO has been touted as an alliance that serves the interest of all members, each of whom desires it equally with no second thought. However, the U.S. has been heavily footing the NATO bill in money and military resources. Perhaps so because NATO has served primarily a strategy of American global hegemony. Trump’s reasoning is dire straight: put the money where your mouth is! If it fails to chase out more contributions, his approach may show that NATO is not so desperately desired by the allies.

In a word, the Trumpian to-your-face frankness unveiled the ugly face of realpolitik as the driver of American global role. Not a big news for an educated critical thinker. Still, let’s keep in mind that such a person is a rare entity in the country with politically undereducated citizens who are regularly brain-washed.

The mission of past Presidents was to make the folks believe that America has always stuck to the high moral ground, having humanity in mind as the ultimate goal, even when that meant destroying millions of people and entire countries overseas. Trump’s awkward honesty breaks the self-aggrandizing illusion.

Lying Conundrum

Another good consequence of the Trumpism is publicizing that high politics involves lying. This is where a war between the so-called liberal media, on one side, and conservative media and Trump, on the other, have played a key role. A fact-checking order was issued to liberal media as early as in the election run by the opposing presidential candidate. CNN, Washington Post, and The New York Times took on the job quite seriously. They tracked zig-zag trajectories of Trump’s statements and voiced lots of “Aha!”. In contrast, conservative media (Fox News and a number of the radio- and Internet-based outlets) endeavored to counter each point.

Checking and balancing powers is a basic mechanism of democracy. So, it is desirable to question politicians’ statements. However, the media have acted in a confusing way by taking extreme positions. Both on the left and the right spectrum of media, the balancing act of covering different views has given way to partisanship. The opposing media keep accusing each other of “fake news”, while each side is claiming the exclusive right on absolute truth. What's really happening behind this truth-loving quest?

While conservative media uncritically praise Trump, liberal media strive to prove that Trump’s lying is extraordinary as if there exists a typical American politician speaking facts (truth) only. News consumers are supposed to believe that a truth-telling politician is embodied in the interviewees that spray verbal bullets on Trump’s statements and moves. 

Let’s play the media’s game. Fact: Politics is always about lying because a politician deals with antagonistic groups. Let’s assume there are two groups with opposed interests. If a politician promises fulfillment of the group interest to both sides, he must be lying to one of them. But a politician must do exactly that or risk losing the support of the frustrated group.

Politicians lie all the time and take that as part and parcel of the job. Facts and the truth are not the essential part of representing political interest, deal-making, and compromising to shape the legislation. Rather, facts are mixed with semi-facts, lies, ideological and self-interest biases, unwarranted promises, hidden connotations, obscured agendas, and so on. Quite a dramatic contrast to a virginal purity of facts-based politics that the media on both sides serve to the public. However, the anti-Trump media play on American culture.

Tango of Hypocrisy

American Presidents live under a glass bell; the nation and the world watch them keenly. A president is supposed to embody values of the national culture. Take marital fidelity, for example, and recall the former President Bill Clinton who was impeached for an act that in some other countries would be considered merely a juicy story.

Not lying is also an American cultural value. In everyday life, most Americans behave accordingly. However, it is tacitly accepted that certain social areas are not bullet-proof (politics, law, business, management). While public relations (PR, propagandistic) spins are regular in politics, liberal media amplify them since the top officer inside the glass bell should not lie, ahem, openly. Thus, these media perpetuate a drama in which the protagonist they construct is violating the culture.

Former presidents managed to mask their spins and to tango in lock-step with media. Call this a tango of hypocrisy, if you wish. But that’s how culture works, a china store that very much defines any society. There then comes elephant Trump and tweet-sprays the store from the trenches of his office, bedroom, toilet… 

The critics deem Trump's behavior as uncultivated and arrogant while grinning at the donation of lots of anti-Trump ammunition that Trump gives away. However, the opponents judge this as a welcome refreshment within the ossified Washington establishment.

Spinner’s Truth

Journalism is on a slippery slope of truthfulness by the nature of its work. Journalists struggle to construct a journalistic truth, based on evidence they can capture in a speedy and messy journalistic workflow. Coming up with undisputable social facts is hard to do even in more contemplative environments of a historian or social scientist (both admit incompleteness of findings though). However, news media are at the bottom of the truth scale, just a notch above politicians.

Journalists act upon hastily collected evidence from preset, filtered and partially automated sources of informing. Journalists readily cite hunches, rumors and subjective impressions as if these are fully baked facts. Causal connections between co-occurring events are made on the fly, subjective conclusions declared the truth. And yes, career-minded journalists compete for that alluring best story.

Enter institutional factors. Media owners aim at increasing their advertising income and social capital (connections in the economic and political worlds). Agendas drive the source selection and analysis even in the basic coverage of an event’s W’s (who, what, where, when, and why). And any medium is subject to a certain ideology as it’s crystal clear in the current split among American media. This institutional context presses media professionals to fit the given way or hit the highway.

The end result is that the business of informing involves spin doctoring. The worst case of it is when an ambitious journalist purposely embraces a medium’s agenda for story-making (for example, the civil war in Bosnia and the war in Syria). Still, the journalistic establishment tends to accolade such fictionalized journalism with prestigious awards. Paradoxical? Not really. The business of media is reality construction rather than description.

The spinner’s preaching of fact/truth is hardly more credible than the political PR. But it’s certainly more deceiving. Taking a critical look at media is plausibly another useful takeaway from the period of Trumpism.

*

Just two American presidents were impeached by the House (Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton) and both were acquitted by the Senate. Richard Nixon was forced to resign due to a looming impeachment ensuing the Watergate scandal. It remains to be seen which way Donald Trump will go. As investigations on him escalate, the Russian Connection reality may become unnecessary for removing him from the office. Turning the American republic into an autocracy has failed. Still, the country's political system needs fixing. But that’s a topic for another blog.