Has the World Gone Mad? Episode 1

The Pied Piper leading the children to their doom

Reading the paper this morning, one headline struck me as almost insane, causing me shock, dismay, and anger. Sometimes you don't know how to respond, how to name your feelings. The caption read

E.P.A. to Roll Back Regulations on Methane, a Potent Greenhouse Gas

This caption comes hard on the heels of articles about the extreme number of fires in the Amazon. The Brazilian president, Bolinsaro-- a demagogue--reacted with disdain to cries of outrage from around the world. He changed his tune, however, when the Europeans (led by France) threatened to cancel a trade deal with Brazil. These actions--to reduce efforts to quell methane emissions and to promote the destruction of the Amazon's vital rain forest--are suicidally stupid.  

These events, and the many more like them, may seem almost hum-drum given the steady drumbeat of dismaying news that we all experience. But stop and think about it: these decisions are insane--the public policy equivalent of playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter. Are we--are our leaders--crazy? The answer is--at least in part--yes. And we elected them. (Well, sort of; most often in a pseudo-democratic manner, oftentimes in the way of a weighted plebiscite sufficient to provide a patina of democratic legitimacy.  About whom am I thinking? Trump, Boris Johnson (UK), Victor Orban (Hungary), Recep Erdogan (Turkey), Putin (Russia), Duarte (Philippines), Chavez-Maduro (Venezuala). And this is just an off-the-top-of-my-head list. 

Now you should say, of course, we've always had demagogues and dictators. True. But of the autocrats listed above all obtained power in either established or aspiring democracies. In other words, nations with enough of a culture and set of institutions not to have fallen prey to--or continue to follow--the illusions of these demagogues. But men [sic] of this ilk have gained control--even in the U.S. Never have Americans experienced a president so incompetent, ignorant, and disdainful of American values. His lack of any sense of civic duty or shared visions has been obvious since he entered into the public limelight. He doesn't try to hide his narcissistic nihilism. How did he get elected?*

What's going on? 

The answer is no doubt complex and perhaps ultimately unknowable with any certainty. We must anticipate that any explanation tendered will prompt other accounts, or claims that what we think is a real threat is only a mirage.

The human herd is spooked. This is nothing new. History is replete with incidents of mass delusion and social breakdown. Go back and look at medieval history and various millenarian movements in that era. Consider the Terror of the French Revolution, the Taiping Rebellion, the First World War, the Second World War, the Holocaust, the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Alas, I could go on and on. Remember also that the Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany through a legitimate process--just as the scoundrels that I listed above have done. (They throw the window-dressing of democracy and the rule of law out the window at their earliest possible convenience, however.) 

So what explanation might we tender for our current time of malaise? Economic (and now ecological) uncertainty plays a part. Perhaps a sense of foreboding as population demands, the "brave new world" of automation, and the ever-present reality of nukes, cyber warfare, and terrorism take their toll on our collective psyche. Also, the growing inequality in the U.S., especially, with the decline in quality of life among less-educated whites, plays a crucial role. (This group was a solid block that supported Trump.)  

I intend to come back to this topic, and I invite comments and suggestions. I'll also try to identify various trains of thought about this topic. Just for starters, here are a couple of works that I've found insightful: 

Peter Turchin, Ages of Discord: A Structural-Demographic Analysis of American History. 

Pankaj Mishra, Age of Anger: A History of the Present. 

*However, most Americans did not vote for Trump. More voters voted for Clinton. 

190623: Two Lessons About Using History

First, as the Trump Administration tries to figure out how to go to war with Iran--or not, Bret Stephens suggests an easy answer. And he uses an historical precedent to justify his recommendation. But as Andrew Bacevich, a former American military officer, writes in The American Conservative, Stephens leaves out key details that undermine--if not contradict--his historical analogy. History is complicated. "Bret Stephens: Warmonger."

Second, Masha Gessen writing in the New Yorker fathoms the statement by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez about "concentration camps." Again, we see history as messy and our focus and perceptions as widely varying from reality. "The Unimaginable Reality of American Concentration Camps"

Reality makes us uneasy, as well it should, and our nation's history is not a tale of sweetness and light. 

Unconstitutional War

This article (link below)  makes an absolutely crucial argument: the strike against Syria was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The author, con law lawyer Garrett Epps, doesn't argue that the strike was immoral (maybe, maybe not; although I think not) or illegal under international law (almost certainly). No, without congressional authorization, even under the War Powers Act, the president cannot order an attack on a sovereign nation as he did here unless that nation has attacked us (it hasn't). Congress could authorize such an attack, but it routinely abrogates its constitutional duties. Most congressional representatives--Democrats and Republicans--don't want to take a stand. Any choice--because there is no "good" choice--will prove unpopular with some segment of voters. And for this, Paul Ryan and others will draw a fat pension.

Let's be clear about this. This isn't about Trump, it isn't about Republicans, it isn't even about Syria--it's about the U.S. Constitution and the blatant disregard of the Constitution.

This needs to stop.

The Unconstitutional Strike on Syria

The Constitution still requires congressional authorization for an attack on another country. The requirement is not a formality.

THEATLANTIC.COM

The Return of Marco Polo's World: War, Strategy, & American Interests in the Twenty-first Century by Robert D. Kaplan

Robert Kaplan and his most recent book

Robert D. Kaplan's latest book (2018) is a collection of essays that he's written for publications such as The Atlantic, The American Interest, The National Interest, and the Washington Post. These essays provide an excellent entry into his observations and thinking if you're not already acquainted with his work, and they offer a delightful refresher if you're already acquainted with him, as I am. Kaplan describes himself (no doubt accurately) as a "foreign correspondent." But he's a foreign correspondent steeped in a profound and continuing reading of history and in particular, the history of relations between nations (which includes everything from tribes to empires to nation-states, as well as anarchical situations). This acquaintance with history allows him to achieve exquisite focus on the particulars of the here-and-now around the world (especially Asia, Africa, and Europe). This broad knowledge enables him to pull back from the tight focus to see the big picture of how the world is (and has) worked in the myriad relations between actors on the world stage, from disaffected demographic groups (young Muslim males) to nation-states and empires. 

  The subjects in this collection of essays are diverse. Three of them are profiles of foreign affairs thinkers (and actors): Henry Kissinger (whom Kaplan calls "a close friend"); the late Samuel Huntington, a Harvard professor and veteran of a couple the Johnson and Carter administrations; and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, the chief proponent of "offensive realism" and a noted commentator about U.S. relations with China. Each of these three thinkers shares the designation of "realist" with Kaplan, although none of them prove to be beyond Kaplan's criticism on some points. All three subjects have been lightening-rods for harsh criticism, so Kaplan's generally sympathetic treatment of each of them provides a useful anecdote the heavy dose of invective that you can find about each of them elsewhere. 

Other essays address such topics as the literature of the Vietnam War and the warrior ethos, the consequences of the fall of North Korea (written in 2006), the wounds of war, and so on. But the most interesting to me were those that examined the relations between states in Asia, developments on the Eurasian continent, and how these developments affect the U.S.  As a part of this, Kaplan discusses the uses of empire and how (at least until the advent of the Trump administration), the U.S. and its support of international institutions, served as an empire to help ease relations in a world of nation-states. His discussion of the Obama administrations actions and attitudes in this regard is insightful and merits careful consideration. 

With President Trump, we have in office a man of woeful ignorance about history and foreign relations. And without leadership from the top, we may not garner a clear picture of how the U.S. will conduct its grand strategy at present. But reading Kaplan, who identifies the fissures and fault lines that will shake us in the future, we know that these threats lie in wait, and we can perhaps only hope for the best. 

An Open Letter to Senators Grassley & Ernst to Urge Appointment of a Special Prosecutor

10 May 2017

Hon. Charles Grassley, U.S. Senate, Iowa
Hon. Joni Ernst, U.S. Senate, Iowa

Dear Senators:

I want to join your Republican colleagues Senators McCain and Burr who are calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the issue of whether the Trump campaign and administration has had any illegal or compromising contacts with Russian interests. I know that the Senate has a committee investigating these matters chaired by Senator Burr, but with the firing of FBI Director Comey, I have no faith that any successor will have the credibility to fully and fairly pursue this vital investigation.

Senator Grassley, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and one of the longest-serving senators, I call on you, in particular, to speak out openly and directly on this issue. The White House should hear from you in no uncertain terms that the appointment of a special prosecutor is necessary to making sure that these matters are fairly and completely resolved. I trust that you share my deep concern for the integrity of our legal system. I've been an Iowa lawyer even longer than you've been a U.S. senator, and I shudder to see the compromise of our constitutional system and a weakening of the faith of the people in that system that the Comey firing creates. This wound to the justice and national security systems is a grave threat to our Republic. I urge you to act and become a leader of this cause.

Senator Ernst, there's no time like the present to stand up for the indispensable American value of the rule of law. Leadership goes to those who display it, not those who play it safe to please party or to pander to some voters.

Senators, we look to you to stand up for our values.

Thank you for your consideration.


Stephen N. Greenleaf

The Siberian Candidate?

A recent tweet by Gary Lachman, who writes about the history and philosophy of consciousness, has prompted some further reflection by me about the strange case of Trump's connection with Russia.

Let me start with where I'm coming from. Conspiracy theories abound in modern society (and their roots go deep into human history). I find that as soon as someone promotes a conspiracy theory, I immediately throw them into my mental looney bin (although once in a great while I have to dig one out). The list has always been long: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a supposed secret Jewish blueprint for world hegemony in the early 20th century; black helicopters landing blue-helmeted U.N. troops to take over the U.S.; the Trilateral Commission as a world-controlling cabal; the JFK assassination plots concocted by . . . take your pick. In short (and my list could go on and on), we humans would rather latch on to a dark fairy tale that reveals that someone is in control than admit that a lone actor or a complex confluence of conditions beyond our ken lead to outcomes that frighten and disturb us.

But even paranoids have enemies, right? There are conspiracies throughout history. The assassinations of Caesar and of Lincoln, to name just two of the better known proven conspiracies.  So when contemplating conspiracies, one finds that diamonds sometimes lie in the mud, revealed only after sifting through the mental muck that clouds our vision.

So what is the Trump-Putin connection? Is it merely a matter of autocrat envy? There are many displays this trait, such as Orban in Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey. This explanation is plausible. Or it could be a matter of shared ideology: the West (and Orthodox East) vs. Islam in a battle of the civilizations. Perhaps this belief set plays a role as well. Or it could be that Putin has some dirt on Trump that gives him sway over Trump. But how could Trump's reputation be further despoiled? Perhaps by showing he owes more than he's worth or some revelation that is the business equivalent of small hands.

At present, we just don't know. I agree that simply bashing Trump and his administration by way of association with Russia is a weak line of thought and attack. Being of a realist bent in the field of international relations, I don't go much for this. If Trump was trustworthy, working on specific deals and shared interests with the Putin regime could prove useful, so demonization of Russia as a whole is not a good avenue. On the other hand, Trump and his administration--except probably his Defense Secretary--seem naive and ill-informed about the Putin regime's intentions and the nefarious activities in which they certainly do engage (like disrupting U.S. and European elections). To put it bluntly, in the world of geopolitics, Putin comes across as a whole lot sharper than Trump.

So despite the great Hollywood potential that would make The Parallax View, JFK, or The Manchurian Candidate seem all too timid, I'm going to say that we have only what appears to be smoke. Maybe it's fog or maybe it's smoke. I don't see a fire, and we must prove that we have a fire in the house before we act. However, when we're not sure about what's happening, we'd damn well better call out the fire department just in case. And in this instance, the fire department needs to be a strong, truly independent investigatory commission. Congress has to take up its constitutional mantle and act.

In any event, the events of the Trump candidacy and administration will provide plenty of weird takes that will provide fodder for many a writer for decades to come (unless he messes us up even worse than I want to imagine).