You would assume that a rational person, notably, a commander in chief would have some reservations about firing the FBI director, especially if it allowed for any potential conversations of impeachment. However, Trump’s admiration of self-destruction is the only thread of consistency available in this White House. Growing increasingly disparaged, most individuals are having a hard time understanding what Trump does, and why he does it. If I were to propose that as a fun thought exercise, it would render intelligent individuals discouraged and without hope. Trump acts in a way that avoids forethought at all costs. Trump decides how he feels about any particular subject on that very day, perhaps the very moment when he is finally confronted on a subject. For instance, Trump recently attempted to pull together a string of words when asked about the future of USS Ford-Class Carriers in Time magazine. It is objectively incoherent.
Trump, while lacking the resources of a sensible individual, is not without some talent. Most impressive perhaps, is the stunning verbal high wire act he preformed in his recent on-air interview with Lester Holt. Trump revealed, despite what Rod Rosenstein and the Deputy General’s office had recommended, that he had been thinking about firing Comey since inauguration day. He went on to state that he had been also been simultaneously thinking about the Russia investigation while making this decision. Personally, the revelation that Trump is capable of holding two simultaneous thoughts in his head was more shocking than the news itself. His remark was not exactly the admission of an impeachable offense as many thought, as he immediately added that the Comey firing could lead to a longer investigation, which he wanted “to be absolutely done properly.” He was as close to admitting an impeachable offense on TV as he could, but he shimmied away just in the knick of time. This provided viewers another glimpse into an unbalanced internal dialogue that renders Trump useless against the temptation of reason.
I fear that this act will continue, well beyond 2018, which has been a small glimmer of hope for most democrats as the majority of the seats in congress will be up for grabs. Trump is here for good and will remain in his seat until 2020 unless a 25th amendment solution is drawn up. This would require Republican leaders like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnel, and most importantly Mike Pence to claim Trump unfit for office. I don’t know about you, but I won’t be holding my breath.
With both parties beyond repair, seemingly pulling further and further away into their respective corners, what will the 2020 election look like? Completely open to those who have not spent their life in politics and extremists alike. Biden is looking at making a run in 2020, wouldn’t seem like a likely option, given the recent statements from Thomas Perez of the DNC. Progressive’s have taken over the left’s platform, while nationalists have take over the right. 2020 election, I predict will look like France’s most recent election, multiple party election that has the chance to send the two most popular, and likely extreme candidates to the general election. Let’s hope that’s not the case.
As always, the Onion has captured the intricacies of the freedom of speech debate with the following headline “Berkeley Campus On Lockdown After Loose Pages From ‘Wall Street Journal’ Found On Park Bench.” Most recently, Ann Coulter, a conservative writer and social commenter, decided to pull her speaking engagement from Berkley. Many conservative commentators are asking for the school’s administrations to stand up to the “bullies” on the left, some seeking some even more draconian outlooks, calling on their right to bear arms, if the government is un-able to protect the first amendment. (national review)
What is most harmful in this heated debate is the conflation of conservative ideologies with more far-right fringe ideologies. Ben Shapiro and Richard Spenser have faced similar backlash at their respective speaking engagements, but to lump the two together is intellectually dishonest. The type of fire-branded conservatism that has allowed figures like Coulter and Milo Yianopoulos to rise and build such a strong following is the result of the conservative movement finding themselves in unfamiliar territory. Are conservatives the new punk?
Illegal immigration, a much disputed topic of both the left and the right. A topic so toxic, that the middle ground between the two is disintegrating a pace faster than Trumps “Wall.” I won’t repeat Trump’s words on illegal immigration, because I believe by know we have a general gist of what he is in favor of. What is most fascinating to me, is that his rhetoric has been unmatched by the number of non-criminal deportations in the United States. Totaling around 5,500 interior deportations at this point, seems relatively small compared to the media blowout. This is also a staggeringly small amount compared to 29,000 border deportations in 2014 under the Obama administration. While some Republicans and progressives alike recognized Obama as the “Deporter in Chief”, this seems to be one of the many Obama era statistics that is glossed over. While I in no way support how Trump has characterized illegal immigrants, I still find myself wondering are actions more or less important than rhetoric? In an extreme example if Trump speaks negatively about illegal immigrants and then enacts no policies to actually reduce the amount of illegal immigrants, does this by result create a system of hostility, regardless of the actions being taken? On the flip side, if you have someone like Obama who speaks very positively about illegal immigrants, but enacts policies that are increasingly harsh against them, who would be more you more willing to entrust power to?
Article that made me talk about this.
To say that American conservatives have grown to find philosophical discomfort in the phrase “nationalism”, is to me an apparent conflation with European nationalism that has been seemingly on the rise. Nationalism and Patriotism are nearly similar terms, but in practice are totally different ideologies. I would find nationalism to be a more perverse form of Patriotism, while certain “patriotic” ideals could be conflated to some type of nationalist outlook. In an American sense, Nationalism can be boiled down to the phrase “America First” which is usually met with some eye rolls. A patriot loves his country, and will die for his country, but this does not mean he is unable to find value in “globalist” ideologies. A patriot would find that a tax on imports for certain companies does greater damage both at home and abroad. A nationalist on the other hand projects policies that are seemingly utilitarian, what is best for the most Americans, is best for me. Patriots aren’t blinded by their own machismo, instead they are grounded in the ideologies that have made the country prosper, regardless if those policies were “America First”.
Article I am referring: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446962/nationalism-trump-national-review-debates
It would appear that with the second round of the French Election upon us the tired old argument of nationalism vs globalism will rear its ugly head once again. Marine Le Pen, leader of Front National, a populist party which often blends both socialist and far right ideologies into one has made it to the second round of the French Election, squared off against Emanuel Macron. Macron a technocratic elite, who launched from one of France’s leading civil servant schools must apparently “hold the line” to more “extreme, racist, and xeno-phobic” policies of Le Pen. Current PM Francis Hollande, as well as leader of “The Republicans” Francios Fillon has thrown their support to Macron, seemingly pleading with the French people to make the right decision.
The major issue from which people seem to be making a distinction is immigration. Le Pen noted as an staunch anti-immigration politician has called for closed borders and a “Frexit” in attempt to regain French Sovereignty and order among its borders. Macron is in favor of increasing border security and control, but has not dipped his feet into anti-immigration rhetoric. While “stricter control” seems to be a half-baked rhetoric to control France’s borders, his support almost 25% ahead of Le Pen. Stricter control of borders is an absolute necessity moving forward for all countries, however numerous politicians around the world including Macron will not, and should not fall victim to spouting inflammatory rhetoric, a strategy that has seemingly paid off for him.