An Abject Failure to Govern

In the seven years since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (which, by the way, was passed seven years ago this week), the Republican Party made it its life mission to repeal a piece of legislation that while flawed in some aspects succeeded over time in remedying many of the problems which beset the delivery of health care in this country. So intent was the GOP on repealing the law which they derogatorily referred to as Obamacare that they voted no less than 52 times to do so and in the process failed miserably to conduct the people's business. Though the effort began well before the passage of the ACA, the Republican Party and its patrons -- the Koch Brothers and similarly ideological entities -- spent tens of millions of dollars to rig the electoral process by pushing through voter suppression legislation at the local level and gerrymandering voting districts throughout the country to ensure that Republican candidates would either prevail in the first instance or run for re-election virtually certain of winning, all to increase their numbers in the House of Representatives and all with an eye on implementing an agenda which held out the repeal of the Affordable Care Act as its top priority. Consequently though not exclusively because of that effort, Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate during the mid-term elections in 2010 and have held fast to their majority every since.

Fast forward to 2017. In control of both Houses of Congress due, in large part, to dark money pouring into the electoral process and now in control of a White House by means which have raised considerable suspicion of a "fix" and hints of criminal conduct, the Republican Party was poised to realize their highest priority. Yet even with so much muscle poised to be flexed, even that amount of leverage was not enough for a party that has shown a willingness to bend and break the rules to gain the upper hand. So, in a final act to game the system and ensure passage of its response to the ACA, the Republican Party resorted to parliamentary gamesmanship to ensure that whatever was put forth in the name of repealing the ACA required only a simple majority to pass rather than requiring a veto-proof majority which is typically the case with legislation, doing so by attaching whatever they produced to a budget reconciliation bill that required but a simple majority to pass.

And with all that...with seven years of opportunity to offer a law that, at least in their view, corrected the flaws in the ACA, with an unrelenting campaign to rig the electoral process to ensure the election of Republican candidates and suppress non-Republican votes, with studied ignorance of the unethical and almost certainly criminal conduct which put Donald Trump in the White House and with one last piece of gamesmanship intended to guarantee a victory...with all that the Republican Party failed miserably to achieve the one goal that have had FOR SEVEN YEARS. Trump Et al were quick to blame the GOP's abject failure on the Democrats...a not surprising but absolutely ludicrous claim given that the GOP controls the entire government and simply needed one vote over the minimum to secure a majority but could not muster enough votes from its own party to carry the day.

Certainly the American people are the winners this evening though frankly for millions of people the impact of the GOP failure today is more about surviving and being able to have access to medical care than about winning. Nevertheless, it is the American people who are the beneficiaries of an abject Republican failure to govern. This reprieve may very well be short-lived and people must remain vigilant and not succumb to the sense that they and we have moved past a terrible policy that may very well have wrecked havoc on tens of millions of lives. The forces which the GOP brought to bear, however, ill-fated for the moment, are certain to regroup and press forward with another effort at a so-called, "repeal and replace". Resistance was and must remain the watchword in response.

Trump and Putin: Smoke and Fire?

We may never know the where, when or how of the Russian investment in Donald Trump began but it is certain by now that that investment was made with an eye toward furthering Vladimir Putin’s designs on reasserting Russia’s place among the major powers. Whether a by-product of greed or nationalism (or a combination of the two), Putin has sought to reverse Russia’s fall from superpower status to an almost after-thought. Part of the strategy sees Russia regaining control over Eastern Europe. Other aspects of the strategy see Russia reinserting itself into the Middle Eastern quagmire by becoming a supposed “broker for peace”. In both instances, the main impediment, whether directly or otherwise has been and remains the United States. Dissent at home has been quashed due in large part to Putin’s government taking control of the media by both taking control of the over-the-air news media and silencing his critics in the media. By doing so Putin’s news media relentlessly aired criticisms of the then-Obama administration, much of the content either untrue or skewed to serve Putin’s world view, to justify the need for Russia to protect itself against “US aggression”. That Putin’s approval ratings are above 90% speaks to the success of a strategy intended to clear the way domestically for Russia to assert itself aggressively beyond its borders. Manifestations of this strategy can be seen in Russia’s push into Crimea and its efforts to destabilize the Ukraine. The broader goal of the latter effort was to force upon NATO a “fish-or-cut-bait” decision with regard to Ukraine’s flirtation with NATO. Were Ukraine to become a member state of NATO, it would be compelled to honor its defense commitment to its membership and counter any effort by Russia to force its will upon Ukraine by military means. Think of the Putin’s strategy as a shot across NATO’s bow to make it decide now whether its worth it for NATO step in in the Ukraine or let it fall. So far it would appear that that shot at NATO has had its intended effect. That is not to say that there has been no response. The Obama administration, in conjunction with former and present members of the EU imposed harsh economic sanctions on Russia which have only exacerbated the precarious state of Russia’s economy. While the sanctions themselves have worked, they have also served to fuel Putin’s quest to destroy the NATO alliance with the expectation that by breaking the alliance the sanctions will end.

The situation with Ukraine and NATO is, however, more complicated as it is likely that Putin views the annexation of the Ukraine as a test of NATO’s willingness to make good on its commitment to its members which now count among that membership many of the nations which previously were part of the Soviet Union and which are certainly objects of Putin’s desire. So, too, are the prior satellite nations of the Soviet Union…. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia.

NATO, in many ways, is a symbol of unity between the United States and Europe and its health depends, to a large degree, upon its financing principally by the US and the nations which make up (or made up before the UK’s exit) the European Union though that financial burden is borne by a greater degree by the United States in large part because it has always been this country’s doctrinal foreign policy that it is worth our disproportionate investment to make it easier for more nations to become members and, in doing so, become surrogates for the United States in its exercise of its foreign policy. That is, until now.

Putin has made clear through his actions that he views NATO and the United States’ commitment to NATO as one of if not the greatest impediment to the advancement of his “Make Russia Great Again” policy. While testing NATO’s commitment to Eastern Europe by military means could certainly serve to test that commitment, there are obviously far too many risks to Russia which still teeters on the brink of economic collapse. The better and less risky strategy for Russia is to undermine the foundation of NATO from within…that is destroy its financial support and, by doing so, cause the alliance to collapse.

Which brings us to Donald Trump.

While I suspect that certain intelligence services in the United States, Europe and Asia may know how and when Trump and Putin began their dance, those facts are as yet obviously not generally known or available. Recent reporting has made clear that the dance began well before Trump announced his run for President and it may very well be that that announcement came only after a number of pieces were finally put into place. Once those pieces were in place and the announcement of his candidacy made, Trump made clear from the outset his belief that the United States would best be served by reducing its commitment to NATO if not pulling out altogether. He also made clear that he favored curtailing sanctions on Russia and has (to this day) defended Putin and portrayed himself as the one person who could work with the Russian President. Now, if we’ve learned anything about Trump it is that he is clearly not a policy wonk and has little patience or interest in any policy discussion let alone foreign policy so the statements about NATO undoubtedly originated elsewhere. He held fast to those views throughout the election cycle and continues to do so despite some comments by his surrogates to the contrary. One clear indication of Trump carrying forward Russia’s message was his seemingly bizarre insistence on removing any condemnation of Russia’s interference with the Ukraine from the Republican platform in advance of its convention.

What is also clear is Russia’s embrace of Trump and his campaign. Russia’s government controlled media carried stories on a daily basis telling the Russian people about Russia’s friend, Donald Trump and the threat posed were Hillary Clinton to become President. What was obviously not shared with the Russian people was the efforts being made behind the scenes to ensure that friend, Trump became president.

Though there were clear indications throughout the campaign of Trump’s affinity for the Russian government and Putin in particular, the media, in typical fashion, paid little attention, drawn more so to the supposed scandals engulfing the Clinton campaign. It is only of late…since the election…that the mainstream media has finally awakened, albeit not entirely, to the relationship between Trump, the Trump Organization and the Russian government. While it tends to be viewed as Trump bringing a team on board to help with his campaign, it is probably more accurate to say that members of the Trump team were included to ensure that the Russian connection was protected. Moreover, while the Russian government was busy hacking the DNC, as reported in Slate Magazine in October 2016, a direct link between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a banking organization that is run by oligarchs friendly to Vladimir Putin was identified by a cybersecurity firm, CrowdStrike, which detected the odd nature of the link as part of its routine testing of cybersecurity hypotheses. The servers involved with the link have since been shut down once the story was published. The FBI and intelligence services, however, have reported been taking a close look at that link.

The members of the Trump team with ties to the Russian government are presumably well known. Among them, Paul Manafort who served as Trump’s campaign manager until it was discovered that Mr. Manafort was having ongoing discussions with both Russian and Ukrainian officials before and during the campaign.

There is also Roger Stone, a chief strategist for the Trump campaign who, we now learn, was exchanging email with a Russian hacker working for Russian intelligence, Guccifer 2.0 during the latter months of the campaign when the supposed scandal involving Hillary Clinton’s email again surfaced as a by-product of Russia’s hacking of the DNC and Paul Podesta.

There is, of course, the bizarre story of Michael Flynn who was so highly placed in the Trump firmament that he was an invited speaker at the GOP convention and led the “Lock her up” chant. This is the same Michael Flynn who was paid a sizable fee to attend a trade dinner with Putin in 2015 and was seen on video leading a standing ovation for the Russian leader. This is also the same Michael Flynn who was having undisclosed discussions with the Russian government at the time that Obama had announced sanctions against Russia as a result of its hacking of the DNC and (successful) attempts to influence the Presidential election, the same Michael Flynn who paid $28,000 to ex-FBI agent Brian McCauley in October 2016 just days before McCauley apparently leaked a claim that the FBI had been told of efforts by the Clinton State Department to influence the FBI’s investigation…a claim which turned out to not be true. The same Michael Flynn who circulated wild stories in the latter months of the campaign about Clinton being involved with sex trafficking and the same Michael Flynn who was all the time working as a foreign agent for Turkey (and Russia?). T

The rogues gallery also includes Erik Prince, the notorious former head of Blackwater who, among his various actions in support of the Trump campaign, spearheaded the spreading of false information about the emails found on Anthony Weiner’s computer and kept alive the (false) claim that the emails were newly discovered and highly damaging to Clinton…which of course they were not. The operation is generally credited with forcing James Comey’s hand in announcing the discovery of the emails just weeks before the election. Erik Prince, it should be mentioned, is the brother of Betsy DeVos. See a connection between Prince’s actions and DeVos’ appointment to lead Education?

Finally, among the strangest pieces is Felix Sater, a Russian Jew who, together with a Trump attorney, was recently reported by the Washington Post to be among the members of the Trump team who maintained back-channel communication with Russia (and probably Russian intelligence services) during the campaign with the supposed intent of negotiating a peace deal between Russia and the Ukraine. Sater was a senior advisor to Trump and the Trump Organization some ten years ago while Trump was attempting to make investments in Moscow. In his former life, Sater, then an investment counselor with White Rock Partners, was indicted in connection with a “pump and dump” scheme that netted him tens of millions of dollars. Though convicted, Sater’s sentencing was stayed (in fact he was never sentenced and incurred only a small fine) because he had begun work as an agent for US Intelligence services and was actually engaged as an agent for US intelligence while he was apparently also working for Trump and the Trump Organization in seeking a foothold in Russia.

Anyone who thinks that these multiple and varied connections between the Trump Organization and Administration and Russia is of no consequence are deluding themselves. Moreover, it is inconceivable that Donald Trump himself was unaware of these varied connections nor is it inconceivable that he did not play a role in coordinating the efforts to engage the Russians in undermining the electoral process. After all this is a man who claims to have never lost and most assuredly will do anything and everything to win. The fact that those efforts run contrary to the interests of the West and, in particular, the United States is not a consideration when winning is everything.

How this all plays out remains to be seen. We are only two months into the Trump administration and many of the recent revelations (including Flynn’s resignation) have shone a light bright enough to cause the cockroaches to run for cover…at least until enough time passes that the light dims. In the meantime,

-->

With so much attention placed on the impact on the US election itself few if any questions are being asked, “Why would the Russians push so hard to put Trump in the White House”. The answers, to a large extent, are clear and pose an imminent danger to our vital interests at home and abroad. Putin’s strategy, having succeeded in destabilizing and delegitimizing the US electoral process is now turning his attention to Europe with signs that nationalist parties in both France and Germany have a legitimate chance of replacing more established globalist governments that have traditionally honored commitments to NATO and free trade. If Putin succeeds in destabilizing those elections as he has in the United States, it is a near certainty that NATO will collapse and if the alliance fails, the way will be clear for Russia to advance its designs on Eastern Europe. The consequences of such a failure would undoubtedly reshape the world as we know it.

Election Observation

I cannot help but consider the possibility of something more than a gross over-estimate of Clinton support occurring here. Consider that the candidate's election was deemed inevitable by virtually every pre-election model, consider that the intranet-election polling by VoteCastr and others all continued to show the candidate leading in many of the battleground states by up to 8 pts (consistent with the pre-election polling and models) and consider that the candidate actually went on to win the popular vote by a considerable number it is rather suspicious that the numbers flipped as they during the last hours of voting in many of these states to give Trump a narrow lead that he then carried to the end. I do not pretend to be in a position to opine how and why these changes occurred but also cannot ignore a pattern that seems so glaring as to suggest something more than a mere coincidence is at play.

Understanding the Difference

The deeper we get into this politic season the more real the possibility that Donald Trump may emerge with the nomination of the Republican Party for the Presidency of the United States. Despite all of the pronouncements of the talking heads populating cable news and social media, the momentum that Mr. Trump is generating may bring to him enough primary delegates to require the Republican Party to name him their standard bearer for 2016. What is horrifying about what we are witnessing is not necessarily what is coming from Mr. Trump’s mouth on a daily basis. As base and despicable as it is he is not the first candidate for national office to espouse the type of nativist, anti-immigrant, bigoted, racist and phobic views we are beset by on a daily basis. What is new and particularly alarming is the amount of support that he is receiving in so many areas of the country that is propelling his candidacy forward. That so many of us are embracing Mr. Trump’s hatred of everything the nation has historically stood for raises anew the same question Abraham Lincoln raised in his address to that small gathering in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on the one year anniversary of that critical battle.

“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure”. 

Though we are not engaged in a civil war of the type that tore the country apart in 1861 we are nevertheless in the throes of a battle for the heart of the nation and without question its future.

There are certainly many reasons for why we find ourselves where we are today. The litany and complexity of issues that have conspired over the past several decades to bring us to this point are too many to count or to analyze for the purpose of this essay. Nevertheless what is clear is that there are a lot of people who are afraid and tormented by fear of what the future holds. They have become so fearful and so desperate for a way out that they will follow anyone whose words give voice to the fears that rattle around in their heads. The louder the words are spoken the more believable they become and the more the gathering crowd screams its agreement as though witnessing an innocent being hung from a tree in the center of town.

 

So much of what we are witnessing can be explained by a few lines in “The American President”. Acknowledging that the populace was so thirsty for leadership that they would “crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand” to which the President, played by Michael Douglas, responds so eloquently: 

“We've had Presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand, because they're thirsty. They drink it because they don't know the difference.”) https://youtu.be/HKTqS4bXug

People are quite simply drinking the sand. So desperate are they for something that provides a lifeline that they are willingly drinking the sand never understanding that they will not find anything life sustaining in the act. The Republican base has been told and has come to believe that their lives have been ruined by a supposedly ineffectual government so much so that they are desperate for anything and anyone who offers them even a glimmer of hope for the future even if that future is completely antithetical to everything that the country stands for…intolerant of non-Christian religion, intolerant of non-white America, intolerant of personal freedom unless that freedom is secured by openly carrying high powered automatic weapons. That much of what they have been told is either not true or highly distorted has no place in the echo chamber in which they exist. Neither truth nor facts are either sought or accepted if they do not fit the narrative that has so dominated their lives for so long. The consequence of all this is that they willingly drink the sand never realizing that its consumption provides anything but nourishment for their souls and the soul of the nation.

I can only hope that whoever stands before the nation in November 2016 in search of the nation's vote is prepared to demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that there is a difference. That is a responsibility that we all share. Our future may depend upon it.

Paris

Still trying to come to grips with that events in Paris over the past twenty four hours. What does seem clear, inevitable and, I think, unavoidable is the response to the attacks that is likely to come...a broader military response by members of the European Union in concert with the United States which will certainly involve a stepped up air campaign and possibly the deployment of military units on the ground. Unfortunately it is precisely that response that ISIS has been trying to provoke and, with the latest attack, has likely succeeded in provoking. At its core ISIS has always viewed its campaign as intending to once and for all confront the west and its secular way of life and rid the world of any person, government or state that does not adhere to its extreme fundamentalist views. The realization of this "end of days" vision can only come to be if the west and any nation state that opposes ISIS' fundamentalist vision (including Arab states opposed to ISIS) is drawn into a broad conflict. It appears that we may very well be at that point as it no longer seems possible to confront ISIS on a limited basis. They have shown its willingness and now its capacity to carry the fight beyond the Middle East with horrific consequences. The world, already a very dangerous place, is about to get much more so. I fear that ISIS is building toward something even bigger and more deadly in the United States; that as horrific as the events in Beirut and Paris have been they are but practice runs for a much larger attack. Regrettably I see no alternative but to confront ISIS now and end this before it gets worse.