The New Regime's Zero for Two

I've been more than a little grouchy this week.  I think it has to do with the regime that is currently infesting the U.S. Government (on account of which I have been avoiding reading the news, lest I read something that might make my grouchiness worse).  But today I read something that put a long-absent smile on my face.  What I read also confirmed certain hunches that I've been harboring concerning the short-term future of the relationship of the United States to the rest of the world.

The first thing I read is that Trump seems for now to have lost his bid to ban refugees from seven Muslim countries from entering the United States.  It's more than a little amusing to see him belch forth his frustration over that loss.  (May he choke on it.)  In covering this story, several journalists have also shed light on the incoherent character of Trump's administration to date.  (I mean incoherent as in, a bunch of psychotic people who forgot to take their meds.)  I think it's safe to say that what normal people would correctly regard as a teaching moment will be utterly lost on Trump and the regime he represents.

Which leads me to the second thing I read, namely, that on at least two key foreign policy issues, Trump has been forced back into compliance with treaties and diplomatic approaches adopted by earlier U.S. presidents - namely, the treaty between the United States and Iran negotiated under President Barack Obama, and the "one-China policy" negotiated between the United States and China under President Richard Nixon.  This happened after Trump's bombastic promises to bully China and Iran by American military force.  I think what has happened is that Mr. Trump has been forced to realize the following:

1. America is in no position to carry through on its threats to bully China or Iran - militarily or otherwise.
2. Should Trump actually try to follow through on his threats, he will find that Iran and China can inflict catastrophic losses on any American forces that attack them.  Even Iran is in fact unconquerable.
3. Threats against China may well cause that nation to administer a righteous thrashing to the U.S., a thrashing that need not require the firing of even a single physical weapon.  For China is one of the world's three biggest creditor nations, and the United States is China's biggest debtor.  Although Japan holds more U.S. debt than China, a trade war (or any other kind of war) with China could still yield disastrous consequences for the U.S.  Can anyone say "currency crash"?

I think the future of American domestic and foreign policy therefore lies in another direction.  Trump has been set up as a convenient point person to lead his regime in that direction, as well as being set up as a convenient scapegoat to be blamed when that direction turns out to lead to disaster.  So it is important to recognize that the current deranged direction of the United States is not the fault of Trump alone, but rather, in the words of Professor Dennis Etler (cited in the link in the third paragraph of this post), "It should be clear to one and all that Trump is not a free agent. He is, in reality, a front man for a faction within the US deep state and ruling elite that wants to impose an extreme right-wing agenda domestically and a balance of power regime geopolitically. This is seen by his handlers as the only way to maintain US imperialist rule both at home and abroad..."  (One note on the quote from Etler: In addition to the so-called American "deep state," we must not ignore the role played by the global far right and especially by Russian President Vladimir Putin in helping to install Trump in power.)

Therefore, having threatened both China and Iran, and having been told unequivocally by both of these nations to quit that mess, he and the regime he represents will search for easier prey to terrorize.  This is why I think that despite his recent legal loss regarding his travel ban, he will most definitely try again to impose such a ban.  It is also why I think he is serious about renegotiating NAFTA - because he thinks that by doing so, he can terrorize Mexico.  However, what he has succeeded in doing is to motivate Mexico and China to forge deeper trade ties, while threatening revenues of American farmers.  (By the way, his abortive travel ban cost U.S. airlines $185 million while it lasted.)

In other words, the actions of the current regime in charge of the U.S. are causing nations far and near to begin in earnest the process of "going No Contact" with the U.S.  You see, No Contact can be done even when it is employed against a national government.  And it imposes costs.  Those who supported Trump as some sort of "anti-globalist" were disingenuous in not discussing those costs, as they were also dishonest in their reasons for hating globalism.  What they would have liked is the sort of situation which British Prime Minister Theresa May is trying to negotiate in the aftermath of the Brexit - namely, a situation in which a nation that has exhausted its own resource base, and therefore its ability to earn things by manufacturing, is able by gunboat diplomacy or by providing "financial services" to continue receiving something for nothing from other nations while excluding the citizens of other nations from entering its borders.  What such people will find is that they cannot create such a situation - either in Britain or in the United States.

As for those of us who live in the U.S. and who are potential or actual targets of oppression due to skin color, language, religion or national origin, we too can go No Contact with an oppressive regime.  In fact, going No Contact is the necessary first step in a campaign of nonviolent resistance whose purpose is to impose the kinds of costs that bring down a dictatorship.  In future posts I will have more to say on this process, as well as the factors which led to economic globalism as it now exists.

What Happened During the November Recounts - An Interview with Rick Lass of the Green Party USA

This week I am pleased to be able to present an audio recording of an interview I conducted with Rick Lass, who was the ballot access coordinator for the Presidential campaign of Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein, and was an instrumental member of the team which assisted Ms. Stein in attempting to obtain ballot recounts in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin after the U.S. Presidential election this last November.  For the last several weeks I have been curious as to the experiences and obstacles encountered by the Green Party recount team, and I am grateful for the opportunity to have that curiosity answered in some measure.  I hope you who read will also find the interview to be helpful and informative.

To listen to the interview, click here.

In the interview, I ask the following questions:

1. What led the campaign of Jill Stein to push for recounts?  (The original question was, "What led the Green Party to push for recounts?"  Rick corrected me and informed me that it was actually the Jill Stein campaign that pushed for the recounts.)
2. You did recounts in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.  Were there any other states where you considered doing a recount?  If not, why not?
3. Are there states that refuse or that are - "unenthusiastic" - about a robust audit process?
4. What was your experience of the recount process?
5. What efforts did you encounter to hinder or thwart or derail the recounts?  If you did encounter such efforts, please tell us what they were.
6. Can the official results of the recounts be considered valid?  Why or why not?
7. What functional or structural barriers do you now see to free and fair elections and to the democratic process at this time?
8. Do you still believe that the political process in the United States is viable enough for people to pursue the management of their affairs by political means (i.e., by voting, by belonging to political parties, and by participating in the American political process as it now is)?
9. Regarding activism, are you familiar with scholars and practitioners of nonviolent civil resistance, such as Gene Sharp, Jack DuVall, Professor Erica Chenoweth, and others?

The Role of Women In The Nonviolent Struggle

I feel the need to revisit some comments I made in my last post, and some points I have made several times in my posts on nonviolent resistance to the Trump presidency.  It bears repeating that civil resistance campaigns against an oppressive regime have a much higher chance of success than violent campaigns.  One main reason for this is that an oppressive state has a monopoly on the use of violence, and is much better prepared to use violence than any resisters who are not part of the state apparatus.  Waging a violent resistance campaign is fighting the state on its own terms, which means that the state usually wins.

But nonviolent struggle fights the state on a battlefield where it is weak - and oddly enough, the more oppressive the state, the weaker it is on the battlefield of nonviolent resistance.  There are four reasons for this which have been identified by Chenoweth and Stephan in their book, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict.  These reasons are:

• Much lower physical barriers.  Participation in nonviolent resistance does not require people to be elite wanna-be "Crossfitters".  Therefore, it is open to women of all ages, children, elderly men, and young men who are smart enough to avoid violence.
• Much lower informational barriers.  Those in violent struggles must keep most of their activities secret, whereas those in nonviolent struggles can be much more open - thus much more easily attracting others to join in the struggle.
• Much, much lower moral barriers.  A person who commits himself to participate in a violent struggle is basically making a commitment to kill people and break things.  Most people, myself included, think that such activities are immoral, and we are thus not likely to participate.  But the tactics of nonviolent struggle are not immoral; therefore, they don't require people to violate their consciences to participate.
• Much lower commitment barriers.  Once a person has involved himself in a violent campaign, he can never entirely return to his old way of life.  He may need to spend the rest of his days on the run, in hiding, living a life that is physically very difficult.  But those who participate in nonviolent campaigns can do so while leading lives that feel relatively normal.

Those whose struggle is entirely nonviolent are also more likely to separate the leaders of an oppressive regime from the pillars of support which it needs to survive.  Violent campaigns almost never achieve this separation.

In view of the above points, I want to comment on the protest marches which took place on Friday and Saturday.  The protests that took place on Friday were focused on opposing the inauguration of Donald Trump.  That is an admirable goal, and I entirely agree with the protesters.  However, the protesters are guilty of failing to plan and prepare adequately for their activities on Friday.  This allowed people who call themselves "anarchists" to infiltrate the protests and cause violence and property damage.   The actions of these "anarchists" almost certainly helped the Trump presidency by giving it a legitimate excuse for repressing future protests.  Their actions also caused revulsion and disgust even among populations who fear a Trump presidency, such as Christians who belong to immigrant churches.  It is quite possible that these "anarchists" were paid by the supporters of Donald Trump to cause trouble in order to de-legitimize the protests.  Allowing these people to infiltrate a peaceful protest was a bad tactical mistake.

The women's marches that took place yesterday, were, by contrast, entirely nonviolent.  They also attracted hundreds of thousands of participants.  The key to their success was the extensive preparation and teaching of nonviolent discipline which preceded the marches.  (See this and this also.)  To me, this shows that the women who organized and participated in these marches were wiser, more skillful, more strategically savvy and more level-headed than the marchers on Friday.  Certainly they were sharper and more on the ball than a bunch of hot-headed young male "anarchists."  Perhaps we should learn something from them.  And maybe they should be relied on to teach the rest of us the right way to do protest.

I am sure that more protests against Trump are planned.  I would just say two things.  First, any participants who resort to violence during any of the protests should be regarded as agents provocateurs, troublemakers hired by the supporters of Donald Trump in order to give him and the police an excuse for violent repression of protest.  Such people should be avoided like the plague.  Secondly, should it become impossible to conduct a mass protest without fear of infiltration by paid troublemakers, the nonviolent struggle should switch to tactics of dispersion, such as the strike, the boycott, and the stay-away.

One big target for a potential stay-away or boycott is the Super Bowl which will take place in two weeks.  What if, instead of watching - either in person, on TV in your home, or at a sports bar - you spent that time doing something more useful with your life?  Don't feed the beast that bites you.