Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Donald Trump Page 2 of 5

Syria and the Cult of the Tough Decision

By

On April 8, 2017

Comments

(POST BY MANDOS!!!)

The chances were always high that regardless of who was elected, Trump or Clinton, there would be some kind of American attack in Syria.  However, the chances were always higher with Trump than Clinton. Yes, you read that right: It was always a lot more likely that Trump would attack Syria than Clinton would. The reason for this is that Clinton took a more hawkish position on Syria before the election. Trump took a right-populist position of focusing on domestic politics and telegraphed a Russia-friendlier course. This more or less convinced me that he was going to attack Syria at some point. Likely, Clinton would have too — but with Trump it was basically inevitable.

Running a complex industrial and military power requires a highly technical bureaucracy. That bureaucracy therefore has an ultimate veto on what is possible to accomplish that is necessarily beyond democracy. That bureaucracy has made it clear that it won’t implement policies by people it doesn’t consider to be “serious.”  The hallmark of seriousness is the ability to make the Tough Decision.

(DID I MENTION THAT THIS WAS A POST BY MANDOS? BEFORE YOU COMMENT…)

The complaint by the technocratic class against what it denigrates as “populism” is — among other things — that populism is ultimately the rejection of the Tough Decision. Left-wing populism holds that there are a lot of win-win situations where the benefits to (most) stakeholders far outweigh the costs of participation. Right-wing populism does not believe in win-win propositions, but rather that in a win-lose situation it is effortless to identify who should be on the losing side of the equation and to practically shove the loss onto them. Either way, left- and right-wing populism deny the centrality of the Tough Decision in leadership.

Clinton ran as the anti-populist candidate, presenting herself as the one who would preserve an already-great America through her ability to make Tough Decisions that distributed costs in a way that her supporters wouldn’t always like. Trump ran as a right-wing populist, explicitly riding on the feeling that there were designated “winners” who weren’t winning and designated “losers” who weren’t losing, and proposing solutions whereby this state of affairs could be effortlessly corrected. Insofar as he has attempted to make good on this aspect of this program in a public way, the system has acted against him, because all of the other entities, and that includes the House “Freedom” Caucus, believes in the Tough Decision.

Foreign policy is always the domain in which the right-wing populist can most easily exercise the Tough Decision and win back some loyalty from the managerial class. That is because, in the short run, breaking a promise on a foreign policy or military point is often the one that is lowest-cost to his principal support base. By attacking Syria, Trump proves that he can make a Tough Decision and that he can be “brought to reason” by the policy elite. Clinton would not have had to do this so soon, at least, and would thus have had the confidence of the policy elite that she would “push the button” but would merely be holding off until a strategically more optimal moment. The policy elite seems to have been afraid that Trump would never push the button. That concern has been proven unjust.

The cult of the Tough Decision is killing the world. It is not merely a fetish of a generation of technocrats but deeply engrained into the psychological structure of our society. It stems from a couple of inoffensive common-sense pillars:

  1. There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
  2. You Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat It Too

Both of these are narrowly true. Every “free” lunch requires at least some effort to go and obtain it. (1) is merely a recognition that all things have an up-front energy cost. (2) is merely a recognition that once you’ve made a choice, the world changes such that the very same choice is not available a second time in its exact original form. In present-day psychology, we exaggerate these to mean that not merely is there an up-front cost to everything, but it is highly likely that most up-front costs outweigh the benefits — and that there are no win-win situations, because the up-front cost of most choices must result in a major stakeholder losing out.

This exaggeration of common-sense wisdom has come in its most exaggerated form of the fetishization of abstract intellectual exercises from economics and game theory. These exercises are concentrated in the political and managerial elite, but they are constantly reflected in popular discourse and media culture. It is propagated by often very well-intentioned people who would like to make the world better.

Its results are particularly damaging to left-wing populism, because left-wing populism is founded on the existence of low-cost, self-replenishing free lunches — repeated win-win situations. (As opposed to, as I said, right-wing populism, which rejects either the low-cost or the self-replenishing part.) The existence of these free lunches probably sounds like an absurdity even to readers here. Admittedly, they seem to be vanishing quickly, but they are not all gone. Single-payer universal health care in a developed country is one of these free lunches, where the principal payers of the monopsony cost (medical services providers of various sorts, including large organizations) can afford the cost without true suffering.

In a twist of fate, Trump was one of the popular purveyors of the Cult of the Tough Decision in his reality show career. Reality TV, of the “voting off the island” genre, is all about making someone cry in public as a designated loser, and then self-back-patting that it was a responsible or necessary or realistic choice. It is a genre that is emblematic of our era. So it should surprise no one that Trump returns to the ontology of public action that worked out so well for him.

Fools Russians Where Angels Fear to Tread

By

On February 18, 2017

Comments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD5phTXGN_0

(NB: post by Mandos.)

Recent events suggest that, whatever they may have originally thought, the Trump administration is in the process of being pulled back into the overall historical attractor of US policy regarding Russia. The Russian establishment had made no secret of its preference for Trump and its belief that Trump was a person with which they could deal on a more even footing, a politician in a mold they understood, etc.

I’m not here to argue whether or not Trump (or Flynn) is some kind of Russian plant, an issue that seems to be occupying many others.  I gather that conclusive evidence on this matter has yet to be produced and that it so far lies in the realm of (negative) wishful thinking.  However, Russian policy-makers are already voicing disappointment that Russia-favorable entities in the Trump administration are increasingly weakened. The US state, particularly its intelligence community, are deeply set up for conflict with Russia, for better or for worse, and it turns out that the White House is only part of a large infrastructure, and any fantasies of an election resulting in a vast purge and house-cleaning were just that: fantasies. The intelligence community still believes to its core in the necessity of containing Russia.

However, one thing that is different now is the position of Western social liberals. Unfortunately, Russia had decided to back in spirit, if not always materially, movements that are identified with various strains of nationalist conservatism that are hostile to the goals and beliefs of social liberals. This is not only in the USA, but especially so in Europe, with the on-going rise of the Le Pens, the Wilders, and other groups in the world. Once upon a time, social liberal groups were principally parochial movements which were relatively indifferent on foreign policy questions regarding Russia, and to a very large extent also overlapped with anti-war movements — and so were once at odds with the intelligence community.

However, the apparent desire of Russia to return to a world of ordinary nation-state politics, and therefore its willing appearance (at minimum) of siding with conservative nationalist movements, have led to many social liberals now viewing Russia as mortal threat to their projects, and therefore, having a plausible motive to try to subvert political movements like that of Trumpism to their aims.  In this situation, social liberals (or “identity politics” movements, or whatever you want to call them) will quite rationally stake out a position that the devil you know (American intelligence forces) are better than the devil you don’t (Vladimir Putin). This is not helped by the appearance of things like Russia loosening its laws on domestic violence.

While social liberals have not lately been winning elections on their platforms (most notably, in the USA due to the Electoral College structure), it would be a mistake to assume that these groups have no power whatsoever. In fact, they have broad and deep bases of popular support (merely electorally inefficient), and those bases are being pushed into the arms of forces hostile to Russian interests. The combination of Cold War-style intelligence community conservatism with popular social liberalism is one that is likely to lead to an even more hostile neo-Cold War posture on the part of the Western establishment in the medium-term, unless in the short term Trumpism can generate the political competence required to coerce the establishment in the other direction.

For its part, Russia has been attempting to play, in the “further abroad”, a soft power role given that its other options are not effective. It is attempting to play the part of a rival global hegemon without actually being a hegemon. It does not currently have the cultural or technological reach to do so.  While it operates a technologically advanced, developed economy, it is still highly dependent on natural resource development and export. That means that the risks accruing from a strategy of using cultural divisions in the currently hegemonic Western social order are high: should social liberals gain the upper hand due to the inability of nationalist populism to operate the levers of state effectively, they will be confirmed in a resolve for further containment and suppression of a Russia that took sides against them.

In Which Mandos Is Unsympathetic Towards Australia’s PM

By

On February 3, 2017

Comments

AustralianFlag

(This is a quick hit from MANDOS. Just so you know.)

Australia’s PM just had a little pity party about Donald Trump allegedly yelling at him about the refugee deal. Well, Trump’s tweet on the matter is, taken literally, true, except the part about them being illegal immigrants.

The truth is that Australia bought a country in order to use it as a torture camp for people who have mostly been declared real refugees. These are people who are fully the responsibility of Australia, and Australia is only using extra-territoriality as a fig leaf to use them in its political drama. That Trump is very likely to be unsympathetic to the refugees doesn’t mean that the Australian PM didn’t deserve it.

For the sake of the victims of Australia’s policy, I hope the deal eventually survives, and they can get to the US, although some of them will be very damaged by their treatment and may not get the psychological support that Australia morally owes them, along with enormous compensation. They don’t deserve to be used as a prop in the invasion paranoia drama of developed polities. Let me put it like this: If “preserving your civilization” requires the erection of a torture camp, your civilization deserves to have died yesterday. And no, holding refugees prisoner on an island from which they can’t escape to a normal life in a destination country of their own choosing is neither safety nor honouring of the refugee obligation.

Trump and the Taming of the Oligarchs

By

On December 21, 2016

Comments

Some years ago, I read an article about a Russian oligarch who had wanted to close a factory in a Russian town in which the factory provided the only real jobs.

The people complained to Putin, and some time later Putin appeared on stage in the town with the oligarch. With an eye on the oligarch, Putin explained that the jobs would be kept in the town.

Putin’s speech was described as being cold and contemptuous towards the oligarch.

When Trump convinced Carrier to keep some, not all, jobs, in America, he did so largely through bribes.

What will be interesting, however, is to see how much he makes people bow.

Putin broke some oligarchs and allied with others, but the important thing to understand about Putin’s relationship with Russian oligarchs is that Putin is the senior partner. He is in charge. They can do well, even very well, but if they challenge him, he will force them to bow–or break them.

(For the record, I have less than zero sympathy for the oligarchs; I know how they made their money.)

We all, I presume, remember the picture of Romney meeting Trump, begging for the Secretary of State job (which he didn’t get). I suspect Trump really did want to give the job to Romney, simply so he could force Romney to bow on a regular basis, but Trump’s loyalists hated Romney too much.

Meanwhile, the tech oligarchs have all also met with Trump. He was gracious, but they came to him, despite their clear opposition of him.

One of the issues in the US is that its oligarchs think they don’t have to serve the public good. Apple and other companies have billions stored overseas, they dodge taxes, and they move jobs overseas at the drop of a hat.

They also think they don’t have to bow to the President.

Now Trump cares somewhat about Issue (by which I mean jobs, not tax dodging), but he’s going to care a lot about Issue (bowing to the President). And Bannon cares a lot about both, because Bannon despises America’s oligarchs and wants to see them humbled.

Trump, well, Trump likes power. He wants to be loved by the mob, oh yes, but he values loyalty greatly, and, if crossed, he likes breaking people.

So I expect to see a number of oligarchs and other powerful people made examples of, forced to bow–indeed, forced to kneel.

If Trump wants to get his way, this is necessary. He needs these people to do some things they don’t want to do (make less money by bringing jobs back to the US), and they’ll need to be scared of him.

They need to be personally scared. They need to believe they personally aren’t immune from his power.

Trump will enjoy this. Bannon, if I read him correctly, will enjoy it even more.

Under Trump, oligarchs will do well, even very well. But not if they don’t bow. He wants some crumbs for ordinary Americans, and he needs the oligarchs to give them.

So one of the ways I will know if Trump is going to be successful (i.e., get his people enough goodies to get his second term, and the accompanying adulation) will be by watching the “kneeling to bribes” ratio, and seeing what Trump does to those companies who refuse to cooperate.

Be very clear on this, folks. This is something about which most people are complete idiots.

There is nowhere to go.

The rich cannot actually move their companies overseas. Where are they going to go? Europe will regulate them even harder (see all the problems Google is having). They don’t want to live in China or Russia, and China and Russia are the only countries strong enough to tell America to bugger off. Plus, of course, Putin and the Chinese Communist party won’t just make them kneel, they’ll make them get down on their bellies and grovel like worms.

No one else can stand up to America. Oh, Europe could, if it had its act together, but it doesn’t; and it wants regulation that repel oligarchs. Tax havens are a joke; they exist because the great powers want them to exist, and the second the Treasury cracks down on them, they will go away.

So if Trump wants to put the screws on, he can–especially if he’s smart about it. You make an example of a few people, you reward the others for cooperating, and soon they’re all bowing and scraping.

That’s how it works.

Let’s see if Trump knows how to play the game.

(And, for the record, no, this isn’t good. But the financial crisis proved we already have rule of men, and that this rule is to be used solely to enrich the few and immiserate the many. Rule of law will continue to disappear. I have no sympathy for most of the US’s oligarchs, because, while not as outright nasty as Russia’s oligarchs (on average–some of them are just as bad), they are almost all truly bad people who have strangled the US, and the world, to get where they are.)

The games are on, Caesarism continues its rise. It’s what Americans voted for and elites worked hard to create the conditions for it. Crying over it is like crying over physics.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Trump’s Not-So-Crazed Speech in Ohio

By

On December 4, 2016

Comments


I took the time to read the transcript of Trump’s speech, the entire transcript. It has three parts to it. First, he talks about what he’s going to do in very general terms (“Ra ra, we can fix America”). Then, he takes a victory lap and exorciates the press, and then he talks more about what he’s going to do.

According to this:

  • Cut taxes so that companies stay in the US.
  • Reduce regulations so corporations can produce in the US.
  • Renegotiate or leave NAFTA.
  • Consider leaving other trade deals seems implicit.
  • Repeal Obamacare.
  • Do something so people have healthcare.
  • Stop immigration from certain (a.k.a., Muslim countries) and stop taking refugees.
  • Massive infrastructure projects, including in the inner cities and rural America.
  • For those infrastructure programs, buy American and hire American.
  • Specifically bring manufacturing back to the rust belt.
  • He’s hired some billionaires, etc…that’s because he wants nasty winners on his team.
  • Executive branch employees can’t lobby for five years after working, can never lobby for foreign governments.
  • Affordable child support for all.
  • Increased pay and opportunities for women.
  • Partner with any nation to kill ISIS.
  • But other than that, no more wars.
  • More money for cops.
  • Great Wall
  • Work with other nations for win-win deals.
  • Repeal environmental restrictions on petroleum industries.

This is populist, little America-ism. Isolationism, bilateral trade deals, mind-our-own-business, combined with standard Republican tax cut and regulation policy.

Let me be clear, I think parts of this program are idiocy: American companies often pay no tax already, and taxes aren’t the primary issue in production. That doesn’t mean companies don’t use tricks to avoid paying American taxes, but there are ways to make them pay them. While there are certainly regulations which can be done away with, in general, regulations aren’t the issue either.

Climate change is real, so gutting enviro protections is insane, and coal jobs aren’t coming back–no matter what. Immigrants aren’t a significant problem, etc. Crime isn’t up, it’s down.

(He also inflated the trade deficit by about 300 billion, but it’s still too large.)

That said, this ain’t crazy stuff overall. What it is is a change from the current consensus on some important issues, especially American foreign and trade policy. The tax cuts are just more of the same.

I have doubts that Trump will be able to deliver on all of this, and he’s going to need to find some big pots of money to even try, especially given his ideas about tax cuts. His cabinet, while made up of rich people, does not engender confidence that he means what he says about corruption.

All that said, it’s NOT a crazy speech.

Now, if you read it below, you’ll also notice a very long and extended attack on the Press. It’s quite clear that Trump, personally, despises the press. But that doesn’t mean this isn’t also good strategy, much of the press, while they’ll cover him to inches, is going to work to de-legitimize him, so he needs to de-legitimize them.

I’m also tired of cherry picking. Trump wants to do some things that I truly despise. But, for example, killing the TPP was a really good thing. If he actually does follow through on his foreign policy promise of not attacking any more countries, that’d be a really good thing. Not everything Trump wants to do is bad, just as not everything he wants to do is good.

It should also be noted that Trump goes out of his way in this speech, as he has done in many others, to declare his love for African-Americans and Hispanics, and to say he intends to help them. Will he? Well, not with police violence, but, otherwise, we’ll see.

Trump, very clearly, wants to be loved and adored. That is his primary goal here. Trump would love nothing more than, in seven years, to be able to go to a rally with primarily Blacks or Hispanics and be cheered. So, while I don’t think he’ll deliver for them, I do think he wants to.

I’ve put the transcript below. I’ve taken out most of the (Applause) and (Booing) lines.  Original transcript is from C-span.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Transcript

For too long, Washington has tried to put us in boxes. They separate us by race, by age, by income, by geography, by place of birth. We spend too much time focusing on what divides us. Now is the time to embrace the one thing that truly unites us. You know what that is? America, America. It’s America.

You hear a lot of talk about how we’re becoming a globalized world, but the relationships people value in this country are local — family, city, state,…

There is no global anthem, no global currency, no certificate of global citizenship. We pledge allegiance to one flag, and that flag is the American…

From now on, it’s going to be America first, OK? America first.

We’re gonna put ourselves first. We seek peace and harmony with the nations of the world, but that means recognizing the right of every country including our own to look after its citizens. We would put other countries first. We had people running our country that truly didn’t know what the hell they we’re doing. OK?

Read More

Maybe It Is Time to Stop Underestimating Trump?

By

On November 30, 2016

Comments

I keep seeing people talking about how stupid Trump is.

It is certainly true that Trump is not book-smart. He probably wouldn’t score well on an IQ test.

But by now, it should be clear, except to functional idiots, that Trump is very good at getting what he wants.

This is a man who shits into a gold toilet. Who has slept with a succession of models. Yeah, he’s a sleazy predator, but he gets what he wants.

He won the primary and the election. He won the election spending half as much money as Clinton did. Yes, she won the popular vote total; that’s irrelevant. He won where he needed to win to get the Presidency.

He played the media like a maestro, getting a ton of coverage, got the subjects he wanted covered, when he wanted them covered.

People laugh at him saying he would have won the popular vote too, except for fraud, but that idea is now out there and those who want to believe it have seen it repeated in the press. Even those outlets who said it wasn’t true repeated it, and Trump’s followers don’t trust the press.

Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, ran his paid advertising and also decided where the campaigns efforts should go. He fine-targeted ads, and he went for places Trump could win with the least money and effort.

Trump says he hires “the best.” I dunno, but his daughter married someone scarily competent, and Trump had the sense to trust him, take his advice, and get out of the way and let him do his job.

Trump just convinced Carrier to keep some manufacturing jobs in the US (by bribing them with tax cuts, it seems). That sort of high profile personal intervention will be remembered, and has already said to his followers: “I’m delivering for you.”

Trump is clearly a very flawed individual, with really questionable morals and ethics, but he isn’t incompetent by any useful definition of the word. He may well wind up betraying his followers, certainly many of his cabinet picks are of deeply dubious individuals who favor policies which will hurt the working and middle classes.

But that doesn’t make him incompetent, that makes him a politician and a sleazy, but very good, salesman.

Trump’s opposition will continue getting their asses handed to them if they keep assuming that he’s a boob, or that he can’t take good advice. He’s a very savvy operator, and the people he trusts most, Bannon and Kushner, are extraordinarily competent men who have proved their loyalty.

What Trump doesn’t have is very firm policy opinions, and wonkish centrists and lefties think that makes him stupid, and that that type of stupid is the same thing as incompetent.

Trump stands a decent chance of juicing the economy even as he chops away at is remaining underpinnings through his tax cuts. If he does so, he will be re-elected.

I’d be careful betting against him.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Why Many People Love Trump

By

On November 20, 2016

Comments

Okay, you should read this entire article. I’m going to excerpt one piece but it’s all there: the trade, jobs, the rhetorical style, the anti-war message, and so on. Most of you have never heard this, and I haven’t been able to get through to a lot of people.

So read.

Or consider the particularly emotional exchange Trump had with a father from upstate New York. “I lost my son two years ago to a heroin overdose,” says the father from off camera.

“Well, you know they have a tremendous problem in New Hampshire with the heroin,” says Trump. “Unbelievable. It’s always the first question I get, and they have a problem all over. And it comes through the border. We’re going to build a wall. ”

Then, instead of moralizing anger, playing against type, come compassion and respect: “In all fairness to your son, it’s a tough thing. Some very, very strong people have not been able to get off it. So we have to work with people to get off it.”

At this point it becomes clear that the bereaved father has started to cry. Trump shifts to tough-guy reassuring. “You just relax, OK? Yeah, it’s a tough deal. Come on. It’s a tough deal.” And, in a veiled reference to Trump’s own brother’s death from alcoholism, “I know what you went through.” Then, to the audience while pointing at the father: “He’s a great father, I can see it. And your son is proud of you. Your son is proud of you. It’s tough stuff, it’s tough stuff, and it could be stopped.”

Trump did not campaign the way you thought he did. Or, not entirely. You only got half the picture, which is why so many people can only screech: “Racism!”

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

If Trump Wasn’t Right that DC Elites are Fuckups, Trump Wouldn’t Be President-elect

By

On November 18, 2016

Comments

There are three themes emerging since Trump won the election:

(1) His embrace of people with rather unpleasant views. That’s being covered plenty by others, so let’s concentrate on the other two.

(2) Loyalty and a disorganized transition. Some folks are beginning to understand how much loyalty matters to Trump. Many of his early appointments and advisors are easy to understand in those terms. Kushner, his son-in-law, was always there for him. Bannon was there during the nastiest of it (i.e., the tape fiasco). He didn’t back down, he didn’t cavil. He doubled down on supporting Trump. Sessions was loyal all the way through. Flynn was loyal all the way through, even when other retired generals suggested he shut it.

Ex-Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney once said, “You dances with them that brought you.” Trump is dancing with people who were loyal through the worst of it.

This is not unreasonable. He’s going to be under constant attack, and he needs people he can trust. I may not like the politics of some of these people, but they did prove they could be trusted to handle the absolute worst and not abandon Trump.

(3) All sorts of wailing about the notion that Trump and Putin talked before Trump talked to State and Defense, or how he met with Japanese PM Abe without going through State.

So?

This sort of stuff shows clearly that the usual suspects don’t get it. Trump ran as an actual outsider, despite his wealth. He said, “These people are fuckups. All the people who run the country are incompetent.”

So, people wailing that the Pentagon thinks Trump cozying up to Russia is wrong are missing the point. Trump ran on the premise that we should be friends with Russia. He proposed that people who think we should be enemies with Russia are wrong.

I agree with him, as it happens, but that’s irrelevant. He ran against the prevailing foreign policy consensus on Russia and he won.

Trump doesn’t think that State or Defense or whoever have been giving the right advice or doing the right thing. He thinks they have group-think, and this group-think’s conclusions are incorrect, and he ran against them.

Trump is doing what he said he would do. He has a mandate for being buddies with Putin. You may not like it (I do), but who gives a damn. He ran on it.

He ran on cutting DC elites out of decision-making, because they’ve run the country into the ground (yes, yes they have).

I make no claims that all of this mess isn’t partially incompetence. The team clearly did not have a good transition plan read (or much of one at all).

But hey, he fired the person who didn’t have a transition plan ready. That was Christie’s job, Christie did not do it. People are focusing on this as Kushner ousting Christie (because Christie prosecuted his father) and that’s part of it, but Kushner wouldn’t have been able to stop Trump giving him the job in the first place: He could only get rid of Christie after Christie completely screwed up the job.

There are a lot of issues about which I don’t agree with Trump, but whether you like it or not (and no, the popular vote count doesn’t change this) he’s actually running his transition in line with his campaign promises, in line with his mandate.

As for Kushner, we better hope he keeps winning his intra-Trump battles, because he’s one of the only powerful figures in the administration who doesn’t want to, say, deport Muslims.

Until people wrap their heads around why so many people (in the right places) voted for Trump, they aren’t going to be able to predict his moves or fight him properly.

Trump had a critique of how the country is run. His critique was essentially correct (I don’t agree with many of his solutions). He won on that critique, and so far he is doing what someone in his position should do: He is acting in accordance with what he said he’d do on the campaign trail.

What people are whining about, so far, are actual signs of integrity on Trump’s part. Integrity for a cause many disagree with, but integrity, nonetheless.

Like all candidates, even the best and most honest, Trump won’t fulfill all his promises. But he is acting in line with his meta-narrative: “DC is broken; those people don’t know how to run the country.”

Whether he can run the country is another matter, but it’s clear that DC elites can’t, because they’ve fucked it up for four decades, which culminated in a Trump presidency.

If Trump wasn’t right that DC elites are fuckups, Trump wouldn’t be President-elect.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 2 of 5

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén