The Anti-Establishment President

Part 1: Anti-Establishmentarianism

To support this thesis, let me start with a list of countervailing factors which have provided a check on Trump, but which have not really factored into the embarrassingly simplistic and contradictory media narratives:

- Trump and key officials are under ongoing investigation (including surveillance), predicated on Russian electoral influence, for any impropriety during the 2016 campaign and beyond (effectively an open remit)

- Media organizations, including CNN and the networks, have adopted an aggressive anti-Trump posture in an effort to influence Congressional Republicans and the general public

- The tech industry has launched an effort (in effect a conspiracy) to defund/delist right-wing activism on its platforms and to infringe political speech

- Republican Party Congressional leaders are unanimously opposed to Trump's agenda, as are of course Democratic leaders

- Federal judges have become unusually activist in stopping or retarding policies which have heretofore been accepted as an executive branch privilege

- The federal bureaucracy has openly interfered with Trump policy, not only by leaking sensitive diplomatic material but by explicitly counter-signaling the President's directives

- The intelligence and diplomatic "deep state" is unambiguously opposed to Trump initiatives and has acted in apparent collaboration with the party political establishments in opposing them

- Some of Trump's own hand-picked cabinet staff have been involved in plotting against him

In short, Trump is the most establishment-hated politician of all time. He is also hated by the most powerful establishment of all time, that of a superpower with resources and reach that are difficult even for us to fully grasp.

Why, one may ask, hasn't this globalist conspiracy already removed Trump from office under pretext? The answer is probably twofold: fear of chaos (including high likelihood of market collapse), and their assuredness that any anti-establishment policy can be easily subverted by lesser means. Of course we may be speaking prematurely here--special counsel Mueller's investigation is designed to hang over Trump's head and to offer, at a time of the establishment's choosing, grounds to remove Trump from office.

 

Part 2: The Chaos Candidate

Add to this that Trump himself, although peripherally involved in politics over his business career, is still a relative newcomer to Washington machine politics, and must rely on advisors produced by that machine. Campaigning successfully on the cheap was remarkable; becoming President was impressive; serving out his tenure will be a feat of endurance and cunning; accomplishing any of his major policy goals is edging into historic greatness territory. It's a tall order.

Trump's only advantage is the beginning of a delayed realignment. The chaos that this realignment produces is his major asset. Current bases of power are unstable or unaligned with normal goals, and Trump's opponents are therefore off balance. It includes disruptions in the media establishment and it's relationship to the public, which has blunted much (though not all) of the attempted damage to Trump.

The chaos, and Trump's embrace of it, also makes early evaluation of his presidency unusually difficult. We cannot absolutely know to what extent Trump is being thwarted by powerful opponents (Paul Ryan, for example, has the ability to suppress almost any piece of legislation Trump might need), or what effort he is making to outmaneuver them.

 

LOL.

Not difficult at all.... it's a shit show by a corrupt buffoon.

 

Part 3: The DACA Question

We can, to a degree, evaluate his direct, public actions--statements he has made about his policy agenda, people he has elevated in his administration (and the reverse), and actions he has taken unilaterally. Even here we are forced to read between the lines and creatively interpret the motives behind the explicit actions.

This allows many differing readings of the administration's progress and aims, however not all readings have equal merit. Some are naive about Washington politics, others are glibly cynical, others lack reasonable perspective. One of the greatest sources of inferior readings of Trump's actions has been the discussion about DACA legislation.

DACA was an assumption of legislative authority by Barack Obama to shield a large number of immigrants from deportation (which at any rate was being sluggishly carried out). It's primary purpose though was to reframe immigration debate with propaganda about a supposed worthy immigrant cohort (contradicting what we know about actual Mexican and Central American immigrants).

But DACA was also tacitly supported by the very Republican establishment that loudly protested it, a fact that was revealed as soon as Trump began talking about ending DACA. Suddenly, DACA had newfound champions among the Republican establishment--easily enough to pass legislation, and probably enough to survive a veto.

The Republican establishment didn't want a vote on DACA so they could continue to lie to their base about their support of unlimited immigration. But, under Trump's threats to end it, a vote was preferable to eliminating it. (Similarly, the same Republican establishment "failed" to end Obamacare, a program it had spent seven years complaining about with absurd rhetoric. It lost by one vote--that is, the necessary number of votes for it to lose by while protecting the greatest number of Republican representatives from fallout.)

The reality, then, is that Trump held an extremely weak hand with DACA. He could do nothing, therefore breaking a campaign promise and leaving DACA the law in all but name. He could end DACA immediately, creating a chaotic situation but also likely producing immediate DACA legislation (or judicial intervention) that he would have no leverage over. Or he could sunset DACA and make noises about favoring a negotiated legislative solution, which would buy him time and give him the greatest influence over a compromise. Trump chose option three.

We can argue about why he really chose that option, although nothing is provable. It's possible that Trump never really wanted to end DACA. In that case, the most political cover would be provided by ending it outright and letting Congress enact a legislative fix, which he would know there was ample support for. If Trump was bothered about getting bad press over the decision--something that would be starkly unusual for Trump--he might still choose the sunset option here. But there's a very weak case that Trump cares about political and media reactions. If so, he's kept that inclination extremely well hidden.

The strongest case to be made is that Trump is maneuvering for an optimal result that either terminates DACA completely or gets Trump large concessions for the wall and immigration restriction. The six month timeline, given Congress' dysfunctional behavior, will put a likely vote close to the 2018 congressional primaries, which will apply the maximum pressure on congressmen up for re-election.

Why did Trump say he wants some sort of DACA solution? In order to avoid an immediate vote enshrining DACA into law, I believe Trump has to position himself as open to compromise. Otherwise there is no reason for Congress to let him have any say at all in any legislation being considered. Although it would be easier to pass legislation without having to overcome a veto, I think a rigid opening posture would not be advantageous.

One of the tells here is that Trump reached out to Democrats right away. There was little reason to do this if he merely wanted to force Congress to legislate DACA and take the problem away from him. He could leave it up to Ryan and McConnell to hash everything out and accept responsibility--both are visibly eager to make an official version of DACA, and are characteristically willing to make a deal most damaging to middle class Americans.

I speculate--again, nothing can really be proven here--that Trump reached out to Democrats in order to nudge them into overstating what they could deliver on DACA to their own constituents--which they did in fact do immediately after talking to Trump. This created more of the chaos that favors Trump. (Trump predictably denied saying the things Democrats claimed he told them. I am now certain that he really did say them, but did so to manipulate Democrats, which roused public anger and applied massive heat to Republicans.)

 

^^
Dumb people (like Rex) are incapable of understanding sophisticated arguments or outside perspectives--they lack the necessary conceptual language. Their brains translate smart thoughts into stupid ones, a conversion process aided by being angry, counter-intuitively wrong, or socially cut off from people who could remind the dumb person of obvious counter-arguments.

 

Part 4: The All-Powerful 5,000,000-D Chessmaster

The caricature of Trump supporters is that they--"fools"--excuse everything Trump does by calling it some absurd variation of 5D chess. This was a meme used hyperbolically during the election, but which is now deployed by liberals and NeverTrumpers to sarcastically (and childishly) deny that any interpretation of events other than their own is valid.

In reality, politics is rarely two-dimensional--hence, Republicans who really supported DACA nevertheless loudly criticized it when there was no hope of doing anything about it. (Or Obamacare. Or our porous southern border. Or abortion. Or gay marriage.) There is, normally, a certain amount of kabuki. The legislative calendar is arranged by partisan needs. Many pieces of legislation are designed to fail, or to succeed and then to fail, or whatever convoluted outcome is required. Because they do this every day, legislators are usually smarter about this than the message board-reading spectators.

By now, using 5D snark to defuse counter-argument is the dumb person's tactic. It's only deployed by dumb, insecure people who don't have a lot to go on other than their depressive feelings and the toll that being antisocial has taken on them.

I can speak for myself - I do not believe in an all-powerful Trump. I also do not believe that an all-powerful Trump, or a victorious Trump presidency, is required to move forward. Very nice to have, but not a requirement. Even a failed Trump presidency is superior to the bumbling, meth addled, Bringing Democracy to the Middle East, creepy medical professionals chopping off 9 year old's dicks--establishment goon squad, which aside from being stupid, bitter, insular, self-serving, psychotic, unpopular, narcissistic, and amoral, is just plain unpleasant.

A failed Trump presidency has still accomplished the following:

- created a populist uprising that has shown fanatical devotion

- badly damaged the conservative media establishment

- separated a majority of the base from the Republican establishment

- reoriented right wing politics around immigration and trade instead of taxes and budget cuts

- ground neocon warmongering to a halt

- proved the enemy's vulnerability--it can bleed, and therefore it can die

- for the first time in a century, made America First a successful political slogan

If you can't appreciate that, you need to switch from blackpills to a full bottle of your mom's Ambien. It's courteous, however, to leave a note.

 

So many words signifying nothing.

 

Signed, Rex's daily Trump threads.

"This next time guys, this next one will get him!"

 

Never submit to analysis what can be adequately attributed to stupidity.