The Until-it's-Not Presidency

I hardly know where to begin to even think about White House politics right now. Or maybe it is just that it's unclear to me whether I should even be thinking about policy rather than the personality of the person at the top of the chaotic heap in Washington. 

The only thing I get any hold on with him is that things are as they are until they are not. Trump is serious until he is joking. Trump likes someone until he does not. Trump enthusiastically supports a policy until he does not. Trump wants what his base wants until he does not. He says that everyone loves the most popular president in history until there are hell holes like New Jersey where they do not.

It's like watching that scene in the movie The Exorcist when the girl's head turns in a complete circle.

When I was in grad school, lo those many years ago, we studied new criticism, the fashion of that day, which actually had some interesting perspectives on creativity until literary nihilism (deconstruction--nothing means anything) chased it away. One of the new critical ideas I most appreciated was the concept of literary irony. Simply explained, it meant the capacity to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time and believe sincerely in both of them.

I would have to say that President Trump has apparently mastered it.

But, having said that, I am skeptic enough to say that there has to be a unifying principle somewhere that puts the apparent contractions in service of a larger concept. In fact, most of the White House staff tries to do just that: explain Trump's contradictions as part of a grand scheme based on the political philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli.  That is, President Trump is putting America first, they say, and that means everything makes sense.

Well ---

Having studied sixteenth-century Italy and having read Machiavelli's book, The Prince (which I strongly doubt that Trump has), I find this hypothesis doubtful.  While justifying the need to dissemble, Machiavelli says lying and betraying friends cannot be called a virtue. They should only be used if directly tied to the survival of the state, and then only with careful consideration.  For some reason, I do not find Trump demanding that people lie about his crowd sizes and berating allies for making him look bad has any hint of the nobility of purpose that Machiavelli had in mind.

If the prince is to worry about protecting his citizens and the survival of the city state as Machiavelli proposes, Trump, it seems, is quite happy to strip health care from thirty plus million of his citizens and to hang out to dry various people who work for him. Take care, Machiavelli says, not to make unnecessary enemies.

I can't wait to read Sean Spicer's book.

Increasingly, I and a large number of others, are having to accept sadly that any larger purpose on Trump's part is not tied to America but rather to the ego needs of a television personality who judges himself by his ratings. I'm rather surprised that the White House is not producing television shows that present an issue of the day and then invite the viewers to phone in their votes as to what the president should do.

In the future, I hope that our presidents are thoughtful enough to have read the great political thinkers, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Jefferson, Payne, Marx, and Mill among them. I also hope they have a shrewd understanding of human motivation and a principled stand on the future of the planet. Like Machiavelli I hate to see the waste of unnecessary wars, and, like General Patton, I hate to see us pay twice for the same piece of real estate.

So why does Machiavelli have such a bad rap? It's because he was a pragmatist and people wanted to believe they were more noble than that. But he is describing political reality as it existed in a sixteenth century Italy divided into warring city states that fought not only each other but also the Vatican. Mine fields were everywhere and alliances shifty.  In these circumstances, the prince had to be adroit, watchful, aware, decisive, informed, and very aware of political realities that could lead to invasions by mercenary troops paid for by the German emperor or the pope. I'm sorry, but I just don't see those adjectives applying to President Trump.

Trump: The National Enquirer President

For anyone who might not know The National Enquirer, it makes its living by promoting gossip about the rich and well-known, during which it puts the most unflattering possible spin on what it turns up. Most reputable newspapers don't pay for stories. The Enquirer does, and on occasion it is willing to fabricate:  one story breaking news, next week getting reactions, third week apologizing if needed. It is distinguished from its competitors, such publications as People Magazine and US, by screaming headlines and resorting to populist fantasy to keep the base happy. Lawsuits are few because US law determines that being a public figure makes media attacks and digging dirt fair game, although there may be squabbles over who is a public figure.

Yesterday in the supermarket I noticed the large headline that crooked Hillary Clinton was being accused of masterminding all the current trouble that Donald Trump is having with the Russia investigations. Did I say that the Enquirer loves conspiracy theories? Apparently so do the readers. On  a slow news week, one can expect stories about the so-called feuds between Camilla and Kate (always sells to the support Diana crowd), the imminent abdication of Queen Elizabeth in favor of William and Kate), the latest stage of the Pitt-Jolie divorce, Tom Cruise and the Scientologists, 9-11 conspiracy, and new revelations about whatever divorce/murder/sexual scandal has been popular in recent memory.

You get the picture. All the scandal unfit to print.

The Enquirer loves Donald Trump and he returns the favor. They have even, reportedly, targeted some of his political enemies at his request.  He considers them serious reporters, an opinion not generally shared in main stream media. When they were supposedly being considered for a Pulitzer Prize for digging the dirt on a US politician, one journalist remarked that it was like considering a porn flick for an Oscar. But if it's scandal and dirt you are after (and they are), you can get what you pay for.

In previous blogs, I've talked about the necessary preconditions for Trump to resign and I predicted that he would become more and more outrageous until his party had to turn against him. Then he would go out "defending his family." Well, it's started. First came the eldest son stating emphatically that the Trumps are close knit and defend one another. Then the youngest fell on his sword for his father.  Now Trump is saying he will pardon everyone. It's coming. Expect that we'll be hearing soon about a news network that Trump will set up "sometime" in the future to continue challenging the "fake news" of the main stream media. It's all about money, anyway, and he wants to keep the base.

For now, the National Enquirer and Trump are on the same page. A President Trump behaving like a goon is good for headlines and sales. But there may be limits once Trump has a radio station in competition with them. What Trump will learn then is that he is not larger than the office he holds. Out of office he will have to continue to be the outspoken, sensationalist news promoter he has always been to keep the base, but that's what the Enquirer does.  They will become interested in exposing him once it sells, and the Enquirer will be merciless as a competitor because they have had fifty years to get good at it. I don't envy Trump the learning curve. A Pulitizer is a Pulitzer after all.

A Presidential Resignation

Recent events in Washington DC, including but not limited to the revelation that Trump never had tapes of his conversation with Comey, have reminded me of how things played out in my president's office at a time when the board wanted to drain the university's so-called swamp by a change of leadership.

They had one huge problem in doing this, though. My boss was very successful and they did not want the responsibility of firing him directly. In other words, they wanted their hands to be clean. This meant that the president's decision to leave his position had to appear to be his own, and it also had to appear to be a victory.

The regents fired the first shot. Certain members of the president's staff, deemed to be personally loyal to him and therefore not likely to alert the press, were used as messengers. It started with suggestions that the staff hint that the president might be ready for a greater challenge. These messages rapidly became more pointed until the intent was clear: the staff were to convey the regent's pleasure and suggest that he president put a time line on it. In other words, if he hadn't started job hunting, the regents wanted to know when he planned on starting.

Once the fix was in. The process turned into a game of chess as both sides tried to strategize a face-saving strategy: the regents to appear above the fray, the president to be professionally intact. As one of the regents commented to me then, "Presidencies end when there are too many Indians circling the wagons shooting arrows in."

The thud of arrows must be echoing in Foggy Bottom.

We awoke this morning to a speculative piece in Politico that "multiple sources" had confirmed that President Trump is looking for a way to resign but is concerned that his presidency not look a failure.  This isn't the first time this rumor has surfaced, but earlier hints have come in more left-leaning outlets. This was different. At one time, Politico was considered a conservative leaning outlet, although of late is is seen more as a mixed bag of viewpoints. Still, it is considered a reliable source of gossip and insider information on the belt-way. The earlier hints could be dismissed as political or fake news, but this one, while it still had plausible deniability, was a little different. I felt the need to take it seriously.

Given this tightening of the noose, so to speak. I found myself trying to imagine what is probably going on in the White House as the staff (who, face it, probably planted the story) adjust to a new challenge: How to allow the president to leave office on a high note not least because of his popularity with his base. His approval ratings nationally might not be above 40% but his base is a considerably larger proportion of those voting republican.

Any competent staff has to take a deliberately long-term view of something like this:  the president must leave on a very high note to save the reputation of his presidency. A big win is desirable, but it has to be tied to something promised during the campaign. Health care and/or tax reform for example. The problem with those, of course, is that they require Congressional action. All he can really point to are executive actions such as backing out of the Paris accord.  For this reason, we can expect staffers to speak out on the record about how much these executive actions accomplished, while the president reinforces the message by tweeting about how much more he has accomplished than his predecessor.

The president will also feel an increasingly urgent need to pressure Congress to give him that one big win, regardless of what it is or what it does. By doing this, he will want his followers to feel a sense of loss but not betrayal. In this regard, we should expect his successor to start (if he has not already) hinting that the president's agenda will be in safe hands. Given this particular president, we should expect also that he will frame his departure as a fight for the right and good. He will want to present a noble picture of someone driven out by the uninformed and arrogant, and he will probably claim that his departure is to save "good people" from the constant harassment they have endured by supporting him.

In this, I wish him luck and hope he has the staff to pull it off. It will be interesting to watch.

But let me get back to my president. How did it work out for him? Quite well, actually, as I look back on it.

It was extremely helpful that he found another presidency very quickly that paid a good deal more salary. His staff made sure that his new university's  glowing announcements of his appointment were released to our local press. He helped himself by giving a gracious interview during which he stressed his many accomplishments but made sure the thank the regents for their support. Following this, letters of congratulation and best wishes poured in, and the regents gave him a handsome parting gift. The media came sniffing around, but the president's staff stood solidly by him. The graceful exit is possible to do, and it was done.

And the frosting on the cake:  the president explained his decision to leave as being about the need to be closer to his aging father and to see his grandchildren grow up, which everyone claimed to respect while not totally believing.

Of course, my president was a savvy, charming man who took advice from his staff. What President Trump decides to do will be a different matter. But my advice to him would be the same: bump it up a notch in class.

Trump at 100 Days: Who Else Will Blow Your Horn If You don't?

President Trump has spent the evening of the correspondents dinner going back to his comfort level--rallying crowds of angry people whose cheers serve as balm for all the things that didn't work out as he hoped.  The correspondents, in turn, spent the evening, rallying their own troops, laughing at what can be laughed at, and deflecting criticism of them as fake news.

Well, if one has to choose sides on this, anyone not emotionally involved in the matter will probably take the correspondent's side, if only because they are the only ones who can admit to having to correct themselves now and then. President Trump and his supporters, on the other hand, appear to be quite unable to recognize their own or his biases and lack of understanding.

As many others have already pointed out, we are in the midst of government by ratings. Daily polls of Trump's popularity are like applause meters. If he pays attention to them, and I rather assume that he does, it must be a daily struggle to explain away why his polls are so low. No wonder he needs to go back to the cheers of his base in order to convince himself that these figures don't matter. After all, he can hear the cheers while statistics are remote and abstract--things he does not much care for.

The most recent flap is over exactly what he has accomplished during the first hundred days of his administration.  He cites a laundry list of things he has done, which seem to be mostly signing orders and shouting at anyone (courts mostly) who opposes him. To give him the benefit of the doubt, these probably do appear large achievements to him because he (and his White House staff) had no idea of how to get things accomplished in a system of checks and balances.

I recognize his dilemma. We once had a vice president at the university who had risen too quickly through the ranks. He was not an unwise or unintelligent man but the scope of his responsibilities was beyond him. He never knew how to delegate or trust his staff, and he seemed to spend a lot of time covering up his inexperience or blaming others when the inevitable hit the fan. It was a shame in a way because it cost him any chance of becoming a president in the future, while a slower advancement might have served him much better. Unfortunately, Trump may well be rattling sabers at North Korea in order to cover up his own failings.

If asked what he has accomplished in the first hundred days, I would say that he has not changed Washington at all, and once he goes out of office, however that happens, Washington will go I immediately back to where it was before him. In other words, he did not drain the swamp.  He merely changed the alligators. This, it has to be said, is how he runs his businesses--changing alligators by firing them.

Only time will tell where he is going to take this country. My guess is that he will take it on a major learning curve of its own. The greatest lessons will be learned by his supporters who will find it almost impossible to admit that his purposes and interests only sound like their own. There is an historical subtext in the US about intellectuals and elites. Middle America has reason to distrust those whose policies have dammed financial reward at the very top. They would love to see this upper class given its comeuppance and the rewards more generally distributed. (Actually, most of us would) What they don't understand is that their president doesn't want to dismantle this upper class. He wants to be part of it. He has never been accepted by the old money, the landed gentry of the founding fathers. Amassing money does not gain entry, any more than riding in a gilded coach means that the president has become an aristocrat. He doesn't know this yet, and neither do they.

I've always said that he may turn out to be a rather tragic figure. It remains to be seen how far he will go to gain that elusive respect.

Families Behaving Badly: Caregiving Unvarnished

Don't get me wrong: there are (must be) families that pull together to take care of elderly relatives. But judging from the reaction when one woman told her support group that she was enjoying the time spent with her declining mother and was willingly giving her life to her, this is a rare. The reactions of the other members of her support group ranged from derisive and resentful to flat-out hostile. The group either didn't believe her or thought she was just showing off. That's how hard it is.

In an effort not to discourage those who have taken on the job of caring for others, most books on caregiving tend to emphasize the positives of caring for a declining relative: e.g. quality time with loved ones and the feeling of doing something worthwhile. What they put only in the tenderest terms are some of the problems. Make that a lot of problems and many of them profound.

Having provided terminal care three times, and still recovering from the last one, I'm not about to sugar coat it. In the most recent instance, I found the caregiving so stressful that I wondered if I was going to die before he did, particularly when I wound up in the hospital with a suspected heart attack (just violent stress-related indigestion thank God).

Unsurprisingly, given the demands, most people are very reluctant to take it on. Within families, when some duck out and leave it to others, the result is a toxic brew of accusations, guilt-flinging, and ultimatums that can resurrect old childhood grievances (you were always  the favorite), spawn suspicion (you only care about what's in the will), and predict unfavorable outcomes (just wait until it's your turn--karma's a bitch).

The usual suggestions that caregivers should take care of themselves and get time off are easy to say and, while comforting, very much harder to do. All I can do is offer my own suggestions to you as a sort of sympathy to tell you that you are not alone:

1.  You'll do better if you to arrange for a day-care or an overnight facility when needed rather than hoping that anyone will offer (people can chip in on cost). Certain members of the family will show up only when convenient, and patients will be appreciative of these yetis because their appearance seems special. You will probably be taken for granted and even abused (if the patient is kicking, spitting, and biting, guess who is going to get it). The others may feel slightly guilty at escaping, but not enough to do anything about it and even when there is agreement, say, on taking the relative for a day or two, it always seems subject to revision.

2. Understand that giving recognition to you implies you're doing something exceptional and that may not be in the best interests of those ducking out in it. Everyone is going to claim that their lives are too busy for them to become involved. When they  do show up, they will behave as if they should be awarded a medal. My friend L's sister-in-law ended spending her time with the father-in-law because when he came to her house, he insisted on using a copper washbasin as a urinal. Not nice, admittedly, but it left everything to fall on L. Yet, when he finally went into an assisted living facility, the sister-in-law showed up for the facility's caregiver appreciation days to have a free manicure. You'll need to speak out and make clear that some special recognition for the primary caregiver (flowers, gift certificate) is a good thing.

3. Non-caregiving relatives are going to be afraid that if they do one thing for you, it will be a slippery slope and you'll make a habit of it. You'll get better response if you give specific assignments and specific dates because they are finite. When D asked her brother to take their mother for a couple of days to allow her and her husband to get away, the brother suddenly had a business trip. When I asked for general relief from my partner's three children, no one responded. When my friend Kimi won a cruise and invited me to go for a week, I was smarter. I sent out specific dates and pointed out that this was one week out of three years with no break. Two of his three children showed up, although it was only my own son traveling for two hours each way for two weekends in a row who made it finally possible.

4. Be prepared to be tough when the time has come for professional care. Finances are often an issue when there is talk of placing the patient into a care facility. All of a sudden keeping the patient at home will suddenly become "essential."  You need to suspect the motivation for this sudden sentimentality. The non-caregivers know how much these facilities cost and may want to save their inheritances. They will cover their guilt (assuming they have any) by criticizing you for not respecting the patient's wish to stay home. Don't be surprised if the relative who has been least involved shows up and wants to take over decision-making.

5. Don't assume that being a workhorse is going to be appreciated. If you try to point this out, your motivations will be misconstrued and peddled as fact (she didn't like the will).  If you are not the first wife, your care-giving will be dismissed absolutely and any money left to you will in the minds of his children will be payment for whatever service you provided. If you doubt this, look at what happened to Robin Williams' wife who had to sue his children to keep things acquired in her marriage. You may very well not ever see the children again--but only you can decide if that's good or bad.

6. Finally, though, don't be afraid to reach out to others. It's sad when you have to watch someone you love slip away from you and go through personality changes. But the truth is that you have become somehow conflated in their minds with their loss of power and physical health. You are seeing them at their most vulnerable, and they have no one else to vent their frustrations on. I've been there. After I told my partner that I could not bring him home to die because I couldn't provide the intricate nursing care he was getting from Hospice, he turned away and never spoke to me again. Of all the things he had ever done, that was the cruelest.  It was only through the kindness of the Hospice counselors that I was able to get beyond that final picture of him, not least because I learned that I was not alone. Others had experienced this rejection as well.

My thoughts are with you all and good luck.

Trump Primer 2: Deconstructing Government Goes Along with Trying to Silence Science

Talk about timing. Last post, I talked about the Trump administration having no idea of how bureaucracies work. What I really meant was that they have no idea of how human beings work. I see that as a flaw. They may not, and if they don't, then they are flying in the face of thousands of years of human experience in governing. Their learning curve is going to be ugly because I can't think of any society where there hasn't been some form of political/judicial structure. Cheats and other criminals have ever been among us.

Among the largest early bureaucracies, of course, was the Church which took up political administration because secular powers were constantly at war. Somebody had to tell misbehaving humans that adultery and theft were not good ideas and, more important, have some pretense at enforcing the laws even if it was just the threat of ex-communication. Knighthood, for example, was cooked up to distract unemployed younger aristocratic sons from tearing up the countryside and disrupting the local economy.

Unfortunately, this early crusading Church civilized people at great cost because along with an enforced theology, it imposed a dangerous anti-scientific orthodoxy, not least because intellectuals tended to question the authenticity of the Church's founding documents. The Church was not about to dilute its power by permitting heretical science to proliferate. The result is still with us: a schizophrenic lip service paid to something called God's will, a taste for absolutes, and some of the most outrageous hypocrisy I have seen.

So, what does this history say about the current power brokers in Washington DC?
By trying to destroy government, I believe that the  true believers (TBs) fail to acknowledge its legitimate role in protecting us from one another. And by allowing ideology to trump science as it has, they remove the rational basis for decision making. I am waiting to hear a reprise chorus of  "pointy headed intellectuals in ivory towers, " but I for one would not fancy space travel in a craft constructed according to Elijah's descriptions.

Yet, here we are making major political decisions based on unsupported theoretical beliefs about human behavior. Will absolute freedom make us responsible and independent? Or will it just encourage the selfish and greedy?  Stay tuned.

Today the Congressional Budget Office told us that many millions of people will lose health insurance under the proposed conservative health care act. That's what most of us believe, but what do the TBs do? Instead of looking at the data scientifically, they try to discredit its findings. The 16th Century Church would have been proud of them and would probably have encouraged them to refer the staff of the budget office to the Holy Inquisition.

All this might be somewhat understandable if TBs really believed that science was the enemy. But they don't and here lies the hypocrisy.  They all have health insurance and expect to have their blood pressure treated with something other than leeches. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

So--here is my warning to TBS:

Take down the EPA and enjoy contaminated drinking water. Remember when water from the Great Lake system came out of the tap with a head of liquid soap foam? 

Take down the FDA and expect more e-coli outbreaks and chemical manipulation of food because someone will always try to make an extra buck.

Take down the DEA and watch out for something like thalidomide. US babies were saved from that because the DEA was slow to approve. Europe was not so lucky.

Take down the SEC and regulations and watch Wall Street go back to the profitable and destructive investments it wallowed in.

Remove the DOE and turn education over to for-profits and watch the ballooning of for-profit institutions that take public money and refuse to be held accountable.

Take down the National Park Service and watch the billboards come up as the parks are made to pay for themselves.

Take down insurance regulators and watch what happens when there is another national disaster. You want a settlement? You'll have to take them to court, if you can afford to. 

My take on all this:  If you want to live in the Wild West, then don't expect cancer treatments, laser surgery, emergency rooms, space exploration, smart phones, and computers. Make your own guns and ammunition and don't call 911 if you are shot: dig your own bullet out. I expect to find you living in tepees, raising your own food (not buying seeds), relying on horses for transportation, and driving cattle to markets in Chicago (railways are technology and science, Chums).

I could go on, but will end by suggesting that TBs stop accusing science of being something it is not. Science does not operate in absolutes. Absolutes are the province of religion. Science moves forward by disproving what is known and then finding new ways of addressing the problem. Aren't you always asking for the "latest" treatments for whatever ails you?

At the same time, they might learn what government does and why it does it. You can count me among the cynics, although I prefer to think of myself as someone who has read history and learned from it. Destroying government simply because you don't like all of it, means destroying life as we know it and turning us all out into a Hobbesian world where life is "nasty, brutish, and short."

Trump Primer One: Governments operate on both laws and agreements

If it comes right down to it, I have some compassion for our newest president. It's not only because he has no experience in how to work with a government bureaucracy but more that he has not surrounded himself by people willing to teach him (assuming of course that he would listen).  His current efforts are rather like someone wearing a captain's cap boarding an aircraft carrier and telling the crew to set sails.  It  leaves the people at the radar and computer controls of a massive war ship sort of at a loss.

I don't pretend to know everything there is to know about how government bureaucracy works, but I have an idea from working with the layers of bureaucracy and political intrigue endemic to the president's office of a large state university system. Admittedly, our budget was probably four or five zeros short of the national federal budget, but--trust me--when it came to politics and entrenched interests, we could compete internationally. One of the vice presidents even wrote a book about the experience. He called it "Who Runs the University?" That was up to debate.

My boss, the president, employed me as his trouble shooter and since my primary experience had been as a faculty member and then as an assistant dean on one of the smaller campuses, there was quite a learning curve.  It was during this time that I learned what was to be the most important lesson of all--and the one I would like to teach our president.

Basically, this lesson is that governments and bureaucracies function within the framework of the laws that establish them but operate daily on the basis of common understandings and a hand shake.

Most bureaucracies, and my university system was no exception, have two different types of administrators and support staff. In a university, this takes the form of a distinction made between  the offices of so-called academic (instruction and research) and so-called support (finances, management, personnel). The relations between the two are generally cordial, but not always, especially if a current president values one over the other.

When I first joined the president's staff and realized that I had responsibility for budget, I went down to the fiscal affairs office, found the person who would be reviewing the budget and my purchase orders, and said basically that I wanted her to keep me out of prison and out of the clutches of the state auditor.  Because I respected her,  our working relationship was smooth and she went out of her way to help me--legally--fulfill the president's mandates.

When another president came in later, he didn't like the ways things were done. He refused to listen to her and completely undervalued her expertise. The result was a series of highly embarrassing investigative articles in the local newspaper about fiscal misadventures that he tried to blame on her and the eventual search for his successor.

So administrators--particularly those with little knowledge of how things are done--are wise to cultivate the various cabinet offices and respect their expertise. The opening days of a new presidency are not the time for wholesale change in policies that affect the day to day operations of a complex organization. This doesn't mean that change isn't possible, just that it is wise to get the cooperation of those support offices before launching out into situations where outcomes are not understood let alone considered. It's also unwise to antagonize the people charged with covering your butt.

I must admit to chortling when our president said that nobody knew how complex changing the health law was going to be. Hopefully, he (and those who voted for him) is learning about the law of unintended consequences. Nobody can anticipate all the possible outcomes (desirable and un-) but not to know that changing any law is complex and needs lots of buy-in simply tells me that our president has not been listening to his support staff. It's also not very good policy to undercut this staff, particularly not when they are in the public relations office--but that's another issue.  The policies that keep these offices operating smoothly are based on working agreements made when things blew up in the past.

I can't help feeling that the people who expect the president to address all their grievances all at once have been very unfair to him. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he became something of a tragic figure as he tries to fulfill their demands. But I see no way to get around that unless he and his supporters finally learn that great ships of state operate as they do for a reason and when they change direction they need a lot of sea space to do it.

Trump and the Media: A Major Learning Curve

President Trump's displeasure with the mainstream media (MSM) seems based whether he finds the coverage flattering rather than what most people would call accurate. He does not like negative press--make that really doesn't like it. Most people don't, but those in powerful positions usually don't go around deploying an arsenal of ballistic missiles through a twitter account and accusing the media of purveying "fake news."

Now I will admit that there is such a thing as fake news. A walk through the supermarket reveals it readily. "Queen resigns in favor of William and Kate" screams a headline despite British constitutional law that would make this absolutely impossible. In this case, the writers depend on their readers' lingering fondness for Princess Diana and their wish to see team Charles and Camilla punished.

In the past, I used to cite the National Enquirer as an example of this, but there are worse. Anyone credulous enough to buy and read this stuff soon finds that the stories are never credited to anyone with a name and often have nothing to do with the headlines.  These papers have no accountability, no professional code of ethics, and no responsibility for anything beyond what they call "entertainment." Believe at your peril.

No one denies that there can be a point of view in any reporting. It might show up in the details of what is included in the story or even in the choice of what is reported at all. But generally a MSM reporter will try to be balanced and the editor will keep the opinions restricted to the editorial page or run under a byline. Most important, when challenged, the MSM will make corrections if warranted or will explain the decisions.

But the idea of fake news is not the main issue. Calling MSM fake because it is not flattering is a complete misunderstanding of the difference between propaganda and reporting.

Propaganda exists to present events in the best possible light for whoever pays for it. It is meant to promote particular programs and persuade people. It is often associated with repressive regimes who wish to silence the press. Any number of these exist in the world.

Reporting, on the other hand, is the job of the MSM and it is meant to be critical. The founding documents of this country call on a free press to analyze, criticize, expose, and ensure that leaders are honest. Its purpose is also to keep citizens informed. According to Thomas Jefferson, "the only security of all is in a free press." That is why we tolerate nonsense journalism that fabricates the lives of movie stars--the principle of a free press is too vital to lose.

President Trump's unhelpful feud with the MSM suggests that he does not understand this. No, they are not his "friends" because they are not meant to be. No one really expected that a CEO with no government experience was going to walk into a complex bureaucracy serving over 300 million people and not have a massive learning curve, particularly not when he has surrounded himself with others of similarly limited experience. The press is going to document all the stumbles because that is its job. The MSM is not the same as a flashy corporate brochure extolling the CEO.

President Trump has a long road ahead. Among the things he, and many of his supporters, must learn is that black and white simple answers offered from the comfort of arm chairs do not work as envisioned in the real world. Every idea and every program has supporters that will not go gentle into that good night. There will need to be negotiation and leadership sometimes exercised most effectively when it is not visible. This is subtlety and maturity.

And when and if this understanding does come about, you can absolutely sure that the MSM will have had a lot to do with it.

Trump's Big Mistake: Green Card Holders Have Rights

The world seldom responds well to unilateral, unthought-out actions, Gordian knot notwithstanding.  It should be no surprise, therefore, that the response to the White House ban on entry into the US from seven Near Eastern countries has raised a lot of challenge on several fronts.

Probably  the most obvious violation it represents is the sudden revocation of entry for green-card holders. For anyone not familiar with the green cards, these are a form of identification for permanent, lawful residents of the US.

Since I held a green card myself before I took citizenship, I can assure you that they are not dispensed out of coke machines where put in your money and out pops a card. I was married to an American citizen, mother of another, and born in England yet I was subjected to intrusive background checks and it was made to clear to me that I would not be granted a card unless I had no criminal background, would not be a public burden, and had no political subversion in my history. Phone calls were made to my references, court records were consulted, finances checked up on, and this was in the 1960s. It has only grown tighter since then.

In return for all this vetting, my green card came in the mail about six months after application. Along with the card came a series of rights and obligations. In return for obeying US laws, one of my rights was the full protection of all federal, state, and local laws. If anyone doubts this, go to the home page of the US Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The rights and responsibilities are spelled out right at the top of the page. Green card holders have the same rights and protection as citizens except they don't vote, run for office, work for the government, or receive government services unless authorized by congress.

Therefore, what the White House did was strip away the right to guaranteed due process, including entry and exit into the country, and protection of law for a whole class of green card holders. This has to have struck fear into the hearts of card holders of any nationality. It would have into mine. This has to be why the courts are restraining the executive order. On its face, the order is just plain illegal.

The other issue is the revocation of visas. There is no legal protection for those, as far as I can see. They were always subject to revocation at the will of the country. But even these are not dispensed out of coke machines. As subsequent investigation has shown, these tend to be issued to people with family in the US, legitimate educational and professional reasons to be here, and humanitarian actions such as protecting people who collaborated with the US. If the White House wants to revoke these, it can, but it will find itself dealing with the horrendous cases such as the baby that needs heart surgery. If the White House administration can live with this fallout, they are probably within their rights.

Bu then there is the matter of the particular nations included in the ban. There are many ways to look at the statistics, but since the administration is being xenophobic, I will be too. How many American lives have been lost in this country as the result of immigration from these seven countries? The answer is none. The largest loss of life in the US recently was  caused by citizens of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Why aren't they on the banned list if security is the motive?  Could it be yet another conflict of interest for the president since he does business with them?

I leave this to more legal heads but want to recall that the other horrendous loss of life to domestic terrorism was in Oklahoma, at the hands of Timothy McVeigh. I was in Oklahoma City around that time, so had the personal horror of actually seeing what white terrorists are capable of inflicting on their own country. Its not just external terrorism we have to fear.

Despite being a US citizen, I still get agitated coming through customs and immigration at the airport. Obviously, I have not shaken the unease of the immigrant knowing that I am in the hands of a bureaucracy much more powerful than I. I can only imagine what those people stuck in the airports must have felt.

Trump Against the World: Maybe this Mayhem is Needed?

When I was in college, I was required to read Crane Brinton's Anatomy of Revolution (1938) for Poli Sci 101. It was one of the college texts that I can honestly say I devoured. I find myself remembering it these days because I think it has much to say about us today. Others must find something in it as well because it is still in print.

Basically, Brinton analyzed four revolutions: the English (civil war), French, American, and Russian,
looking for common patterns and outcomes.

While it reminds me a little of Hari Seldon in the Isaac Asimov Foundation series (Seldon used mathematics and what he called psychohistory to predict the future), I still find Brinton's work interesting. My own conclusion,  based on his definitions and predictions, is that the US has been for some time about to undergo an inevitable revaluation of its founding principles, if not a second revolution.

Revolutions commence, he writes, when there is some form of financial and social discontent---deficits, taxation, economic inequality, personal resentments, lack of opportunity--that leads to armed resistance. Demands are made, the government attempts to suppress the movement, but ultimately the rebels win.

Once in power, the second stage begins. It becomes clear that the successful rebels are not unified although the movement was swept into power by feelings of hope that things can change and be better. Separate factions within the revolutionaries begin to compete, and those in leadership positions are besieged by conservatives on one side and extremists on the other. The extremists generally prevail and institute a reign of dictatorship and suppression of dissent if not of terror.

The third stage is a convalescence in a way while people recover from the shocks of the previous period. But this relative quiet is marked by the emergence of an unconstitutional tyrant and an attempt to return to some of the prerevolutionary values.

The US was very fortunate in not having the reign of terror as happened in France but I don't think that exempts us as much as shapes a unique American response to vast changes in our lives. Their industrial revolution has become our technological revolution, and perhaps those are the two revolutions with the most impact.

So, today we find ourselves potentially facing some of these same realities. It's fascinating to see how they might work out.

We certainly have the preconditions for revolution: economic disparity between the 1% and the rest of us; complaints about taxation (whether relatively real or not); lack of educational opportunity given the high costs; perceived lack of economic opportunity in the failure to plan for changing workforce requirements; and the tendency to scapegoat in assigning blame. These factors were ripe for exploitation, as indeed they have been in the current political process. It would seem that right now the revolutionaries have won.

But then comes the second stage. History suggests that there will be a falling out among the different groups. The evangelical Christians will not find their agenda fulfilled; populist support will fade if extravagant promises inevitably cannot be kept; the wealthy will use their financial resources to try to maintain the advantages of their wealth; and the people will generally become a-political just trying to survive. The leader will find himself besieged by competing demands and will yield moral ground to the extremists who are motivated by the zeal of their beliefs. There is a potential for conflict and perhaps even civil war. One hopes not.

Still with me?

The only thing hopeful about all this is that Brinton says it will be followed by a period of quiet and rebuilding. I think it will be something like party-goers carrying their shell-shocked selves back to their homes in the morning. It will be then that the US can look again at the founding principles and re-formulate the standards by which this country conducts itself. Perhaps they will not be exactly the same, but certainly I hope that they will emerge from national discussion of who we are and who we want to be, because these are the questions we will be invited to ask ourselves.