Are Spheres of Influence to be the New International Order?

 

If so, America's power to stand for freedom in the world – as it has since its founding – will not only be greatly diminished but may lead to the nation's demise.  

Various Trump administration adherents have suggested that US activities around the world have ill-served our national interests and are misplaced. Examples.  Publicly singled out have been the Agency for International Development and Ukraine as unimportant for America. There are very strong arguments to the contrary, but the White House seems unimpressed.

 Rather, the sentiment that seems persuasive is that America is not what it used to be in its capacity to sit alone on the top of the world. It has no alternative but to acknowledge its diminished power and influence on the world stage.

 Trump gives credence to this view by his scarcely concealed affection for Putin's Russia and sympathy for China's claim to Taiwan and sovereignty over the regrettably named China Sea.

 What this means, probably, is that the US should concede, at least, two spheres of influence on the globe which would recognize nations with huge land masses dominating those states nearby.  Thus, Russia would assert its control over Eastern Europe and southward while China gets Asia with presumably an exception for India which would unavoidably be isolated (without American naval presence in the China Sea).  America gets the North and South under its sway with the Monroe doctrine reinvigorated

 The result of such divisions will be fatal for the cause of freedom within the jurisdictions of the tyrannical regimes of Russia and China. The City of Light on the American Hill will not only be hard to see but its intensity will dim.

 The US will no longer come to the aid of the world's Ukraines and Taiwans. They will be in areas off-limits to outsiders and there will be no rescue of such entities by outside friends of liberty, namely us.

 What’s wrong with that? What concern of ours are the freedom and democratic rights of others?

 Simple. America was founded on the ideas of freedom and human rights. We still have these values and most of us are willing to fight for them. That commitment and follow through is part of what makes us exceptional.

 Are we willing to concede our at least partial abandonment of our historic identity? And do we realize that leaders of other spheres – given the perspective opposed to ours – may long to invade and conquer ours?

 Trump may be tempted by isolationist urges to think he can duplicate the 19th century's balance of power in Europe which is heralded as having prevented major wars for 100 years.  Powers today, of course, are global in potential reach.  Thus new spheres are contemplated.

 But America is not ready to be limited. That's not us, Trump and his legions notwithstanding.  Nonetheless, what if their hopes come to pass and the  U.S. has only a “sphere” in the world?  Will we have any allies? From where? Will they be precluded from coming to our aid if we are attacked because of the domination of Russia, or China or some other power? Will fortress America be strong enough to fend off the new alignment of interests arrayed against us?

 Is Trump that much of a fool to start America's descent into oblivion?

The Plight of Republican Sycophants

Donald Trump has an affinity for Russia with Putin in charge. His Fox  sycophants (the opinionated as opposed to the news announcers) take their lead from him as do fellow travelers such as former Fox personality Tucker Carlson ("Moscow has better supermarkets than we do " – the one he visited and gushed over is owned by a Danish company.)

 The affection for our past – and current – enemy is not shared by most rank-and-file Republicans. 80% view Moscow unfavorably. But few GOP legislators voice that sentiment.

 So what is going on?

 Donald Trump's friendly view of Russia is nothing new. From his pre-politician days when his "Miss Universe" enterprise held an event in Moscow decades ago to the early days of his first presidency when he sided with Putin's view on electoral fraud over that of American intelligence agencies, our president has been unwilling to speak ill of the Kremlin.

One can speculate that he simply admires the Russian tyrant's ability to get his own way. (Some observers think Trump's regard for the Chinese leader has the same foundation.)

 The conspiratorial-minded could speculate that Trump's conduct is part of a broader plan, sponsored by Putin, to undermine the West. Of late, Trump has indeed taken actions regarding Ukraine, Europe, Mexico and Canada which threaten Western unity as well as Ukraine's survival. There has even been talk of the president's ceding "spheres of influence" to Russia and China which endanger America's interests and friends around the world.

 On their face, such thoughts are preposterous. Donald Trump is incapable of strategic thought. With him, everything is personal. He thrives on flattery. If Putin, et al., tell him sweet nothings, he'll do their bidding or at least what he thinks will please them. That makes him a malleable fool, not a Manchurian candidate character.

 Members of Congress and administration officials fall into line with Trump's solicitude toward Russia as being in their personal interest (to disagree can be political suicide). They are cowards. Or maybe others are simply intellectually vapid.  They used to spout anti-Russian language because that is what Republicans were supposed to say. But Trump's attitude has changed that. Their fingers in the wind causes them to shift their views. And then there are people who were seen as principled, such as current Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who have changed  from being hawks to parrots reciting lines from Trump's script.

 For those GOP leaders who were actually sincere in their previously expressed hostility toward Russia, the question lingers. Why sacrifice your soul –and the nation's interests (and the world's too) – for the ephemeral fruits of ambition?

 One hopes their comeuppance will not be long delayed. Trump will jilt them– as he always does to those prostitutes whose flattery eventually bores him.  

 

Is There a Political Home for a Traditional Conservative?

 

In times past the Republican Party fit that bill with its pledged allegiance to limited government, lower taxes and a strong national defense. 

Today that's a questionable choice. 

It's not Donald Trump as the party leader which raises the most important concerns. After all, he will be gone in 2028 (ignore the Trumpian trial balloon for a third term – it's already been popped). Rather it is the obsequiousness displayed toward him by the bulk of GOP officeholders and much of the party's rank-and-file (80% or so). They are the Republican core now and will remain so after Trump's departure. Will they be able to reclaim their integrity then? 

Doubtful. 

Who can forget, for instance, the role played by GOP senators constitutionally required to provide "advice and consent" to the president's selections for high public office. A rubber stamp was used instead. Although the U.S. Constitution does not define the standard for approval, being complement for the position sought to include such attributes as intelligence, experience and knowledge, would seem implicit. Did the 40-year-old Fox News host satisfy them? Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a hawk on military matters equivocated -- his vote was needed for senatorial consent for the nominee for secretary of defense – but went along. 

Why? 

No one of any substance claimed Pete Hegseth was competent to be Secretary of Defense. That included Sen. Tillis. But he's up for reelection in two years, faces a vocal Trump supporter in his primary and wants to win. Trump would certainly oppose him if he had voted no. 

Plainly Tillis chose self-preservation over integrity and the national interest. 49 of his colleagues made the same decision. 

Sure, being a Senator is a prestigious position which a holder would like to keep. Being in the good graces of the president will help secure that objective. But concern for status and power is more important than doing what's right? Of course that query appears naïve. People can justify their selfish actions by engaging in all sorts of self-deception. And they do. 

Are GOP legislators and general party members so blinded by fear and/or adulation that they have abandoned their duties as citizens to serve and support America? 

As a Republican and conservative my entire life, I'm ashamed of the party now. But where am I to go? 

Note there is merit to the claim that the president should be able to choose those who will implement his policies. But the Constitution imposed a potential check on those to be selected. GOP senators have ignored that authority.

A Dispiriting Time

 

There is always the temptation to engage in the stall show when can fronting the difficulties and disappointments of present times. There certainly can be no doubt that there are plenty of those these days. Of the two major presidential contenders one is an egomaniac and the other is blatantly incompetent.

 Are these the worst choices ever? Maybe.  But the likes of Presidents Pierce and Buchanan, pre-Civil War, were hardly stellar candidates themselves. There have been others...

 Do we Americans deserve this? Yes, we do.  We have leaders in both parties who choose self-interest over the nation's.  And we chose them!

 It seems quaint actually that our nation's founders expected "virtue" in the political sense of public spiritedness, a commitment to the common good to be a bedrock of our democracy. In fact such was considered a necessary condition  for the survival of our constitutional government.  Of course, the Founders knew that not everyone in power would be appropriately virtuous – human nature being eternally what it is. But they believed  the balance of power inherent in the U.S. Constitution would thwart those seeking dictatorial powers.

 The truism that power corrupts is – and has been – on display since man left John Locke's "state of nature". That's not to say that every politician is corrupt but the temptations of power face all.

 [As an aside, I believe from my own political experience that most enter politics with the best of motives. But for many the temptation of holding power cannot long be resisted]

 Sen. Lindsey Graham a self proclaimed conservative recently confirmed how that works. "A  politician who is not focused on his own reelection is in the wrong business." To retain power, status, respect, Graham is saying, one must do what is necessary to keep them.

 That puts into focus why Joe Biden is still president despite his mental condition. After the June debate debacle there was a torrent of stories and leaks establishing that he was incompetent to serve as president and such had been widely known among White House personnel and Democrat legislators for months, if not years.

 Now the nation's interest was (claimed the left and media) that Joe Biden not be reelected. So he was forced to step aside {not step down-- but if this put the nation at risk, why was he not forced to step down?  His present incompetence to serve as president was not seriously disputed.}

 In reality, the primary consideration was a realization that election prospects for Democrats in general were put in jeopardy by Joe Biden's becoming their party's nominee. They therefore put their own political survival over the country's interest by refusing to sideline a sitting president who was unfit.

 It is fair indeed to conclude that but for the debate, Joe Biden's fitness to serve would be heralded despite those doing so knowing that wasn't true. After all, the disclosures of the truth might endanger the reelection of  Democratic legislators and damage the prospects for their party nationwide.

 In younger years, I would have claimed that my Republican Party would indeed have been virtuous and placed the nation first if the role had been reversed. Senator Graham would have to concede privately that that would've been naïve.

 

 

Debates

 

There has been a transformation in recent decades as to what the term "debate" means.  It used to be (as I know from my days on my school debate team) a contest as to whom could bring the best argument for or against a particular policy position. Did you hear anything of that sort last week? What you actually witnessed was a beauty pageant. The winner was the one who appeared more attractive in looks and manner and best filled the role the viewers desired.

 [As an historical note, those who heard the Nixon/Kennedy debate of 1960 on the radio thought Nixon won.  Not so for those viewing on TV.  JFK dressed well and both looked and sounded good. He looked like a winner. Richard Nixon with his glowering manner and heavy beard did not.]   

So, when one hears CNN broadcasters claim that Harris "crushed" Donald Trump, it's laughable. Yes, she won the beauty (appearance) contest but that's all. No one, outside of the VP's cadre and fawning media members, commended her intellectual acuity or verbal performance.

 TRUMP-- hope springs eternal among traditional Republicans!  There is still the expectation that the former executive will act more presidential. During his joint appearance with the VP, he was able to do so for 15 minutes.  But, his presentation faltered when the nature of his campaign rallies was assailed. In his usual manner, he took personal umbrage and never recovered.  When will people ever learn? Trump is essentially without self-discipline. He cannot control himself even when his conduct is self-destructive. He will not change. To continue to hope is simply foolish.

 QUESTION:  When Trump accused Kamala Harris of being a Marxist, was he calling her a follower of Groucho or Karl?

 MEDIA-- the questions crafted by ABC generally were even-handed. So initially it is fair to say the liberal network was trying to be straight this time for the audience. But the moderators soon undercut that effort, if it had in fact been genuine. There was no follow-up to the VPs consistent failure to answer questions about her past policy positions even when she misrepresented them. Trump did not receive the same toleration.

 The media, too, has a self-discipline problem when it comes to concealing leftist bias

 

Patriotism

 

Pollsters were probably startled when they reviewed the results of a national poll which asked: "are you extremely proud to be an American?".

59% of Republicans and 34% of Democrats said yes. Perhaps the disparity was to be expected since those on the left have been, for some time, less enthusiastic about their country with some even expressing anti-American sentiments.

But 41% of the GOP are not "extremely proud"? Now that to one, such as myself who considers American patriotism a part of his DNA, is a shocker.

Of course these are difficult times in our society. Our many common values and interests seemingly  are overshadowed by political divisions and hostility toward fellow countrymen with opposing views.

The decline in patriotism is not merely a noteworthy fact reflecting changing American beliefs. It has real-world consequences as the recent military recruitment shortfall attests. If you don't love your country, why volunteer to fight for it? Are voters less inclined to support America's foreign policy aims to protect our as well as the broader Free World's interests such as resisting Russian and Chinese aggression?

[Ironically so-called populist Republicans may very well be a large segment of the GOP who aren't extremely proud. Their leader paints a dark picture of America today and isolationism is favorably viewed. The irony is the claim of staunch pro-Americanism.]

What is happening? The antagonism by some Americans against their country has been festering for some time. Remember the support from many when, in 2016, Colin Kaepernick "took a knee" during the national anthem being sung at a 49ers football game? Is an educational system that highlights America's failures over its accomplishments to blame? Does a media which focuses on the shortcomings of America play a role?

How can the decline be reversed? Experience tells us that we are a people who rally around the flag when the country is threatened. 9/11 comes to mind. Should patriots welcome a national disaster? Of course not. But, history enlightens us, America will not escape future national calamities. Hatred and envy will continue to motivate our enemies from without.

Confronting our adversaries will indeed reverse patriotism's decline. Reigniting a love for America before-hand will cause us to be better prepared to win however. A strong national defense, including necessary levels of military recruitment, require broad backing (as in increased spending) from a patriotic nation. We need leaders who not only believe in the future of our nation but proudly proclaim that for all to hear. 

 

Explicative Deleted -- The Silly Efforts to Avoid Offending Readers

 

The media – both sides – self-righteously edit obscenities, racial slurs and crude language by deleting letters to avoid using the entire word or expression.

 Who's kidding whom?

 People know exactly the actual words used from both the context and the number of letters omitted which, not coincidentally, match the full spelling.

 50 years or so ago the term to explain a word deemed inappropriate was "explicative deleted". At least that expression did not, in effect, reveal the actual "bad" word or expression.

 A question: Why not simply omit the foul language? It rarely conveys anything of value other than the user's vocabulary deficiencies