The Short Straw Gambit – flatter him! And more post mortems

I'm about to offer a very important possible/practical strategy for the opposition. A tactic of which I've seen no sign, so far.

Before that, though, may I make a point about the chaotic and crazed ructions that have ensued from the Keystone Kops shutdown of refugees and normal travelers from several Muslim countries? While millions march against the injustice of this awful and sweeping ban -- and some criticize its incompetent execution, with even the Homeland Security Department taken by surprise -- I must point out something else.  That it shows a dullard inability to distinguish between actions of calm policy and those made in an emergency.

Elsewhere I show how the first Iraq War - expelling Saddam's forces from Kuwait and rescuing the Saudis - might have been an intervention of urgency. But the second one could never be justified that way. I show how - even if Saddam had WMDs, there was no imminent excuse to call up (and ruin) the US Army reserves in an intervention of policy.

This distinction relates to the Muslim ban quite directly. The rushed, ill-considered and ill-planned nature of this executive order might have been justified if radical islamic terror cells were slaughtering Americans by the tens of thousands. But given the complete lack of any sign of imminent threat - plus the fact that ZERO refugees from any of the countries included in the travel ban have ever killed anyone in organized terror attacks on US soil... the sheer rush to implement a clumsy ban reflects poorly on the skill set of those who made it. The betrayal of US friends in Iraq and Iran - by failing to craft calm exceptions - is just more evidence for stunning unprofessionalism.

This distinction - between actions based on emergency vs policy is one that may escape average voters.  But we have professionals who should grasp the difference and strive to make it clear. (It is only part of the stunningly clear difference between Democratic or Republican styles of waging war.)

Woe unto us, if those pros are being ignored by keystone amateurs.

== What tools do the opposition need? ==

The Democratic Party is soliciting ideas on the future of the party on their website.  And sure, go ahead, offer your input. But seriously, they ignored the advice of George Lakoff. So what are the chances they’ll listen now? My initial suggestion? Fire the dunces who ignored George Lakoff. (More on him, in a coming posting.) 

This time, I want to focus on what may be the most critical lack in our arsenal.

Clever manipulators.

== All the varied autopsies ==

Probably the most-telling difference in reactions to the election that I have seen, between red and blue media and politicians and even voters, has been the countless liberal and moderate hand-wringing evaluations, as to why so many less-educated whites, especially males, seem so filled with rage.

One could hope for similar introspection on the other side, over the fact that their presidential and Congressional victories over-ruled large majorities of fellow citizens, including nearly every member of the fact-using professions, in all but one of the last eight elections. Elsewhere, I describe ways that Trump and Ryan might have reached out to the American majority, with peace offerings. (Inaugural day platitudes don’t count.)

Indeed, that might have happened, if clever Democrats had reached out to stroke Donald’s easily provoked ego. A notion that need explanation.

Look we are in a fight for civilization. And in a battle against immaturity, we cannot afford the kind of self-indulgences that so many marching liberals display. For starters, we need to know the word that best describes our president is not ‘immature,’ or ‘egotistical,’ or ‘right-wing,’ or ‘oligarchic,’ or ‘solipsistic.’ As pertinent as those may be, they pale in comparison to ‘reactive.’ 

Peter Wehner, a longtime conservative stalwart and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, served in the previous three Republican administrations. His dissections of the President’s personality are especially caustic. “Donald Trump is a transgressive personality. He thrives on creating disorder, in violating rules, in provoking outrage. He is a shock jock. This might be a tolerable (if culturally coarsening) trait in a reality television star; it is a dangerous one in a commander in chief. He is unlikely to be contained by norms and customs, or even by laws and the Constitution. For Mr. Trump, nothing is sacred. The truth is malleable, instrumental, subjective. It is all about him. It is always about him.”

== The core truth about Donald Trump ==

History shows that if you make yourself seem to be his enemy, he will attack. If you seem pleasant toward him – even just for an instant – he will make nice. And the switch can be almost instantaneous. Hence, after his one transition meeting with President Obama, Trump kvelled about what a “nice man” and a “leader” Obama was.  All of this has been transparent for a long time. And I can see in the eyes of Paul Ryan and his pals on Fox their delight that Democrats cannot act on this, seizing the opportunity it presents.

The blatantly obvious strategy for Democratic politicians and leaders would be to hold a meeting and draw straws… whereupon the short straw folks would have to make nice-nice with Donald Trump.   

Sure, limit this to public figures who have perfectly safe seats, and strong stomachs! Adults who are capable of immense self-control and savvy word-use. But from then on, those volunteers will reach out to “P45,” with compliments and gestures of friendliness.

Not knuckling in on policy matters! “I disagree with that policy” is just fine.  Trump does not internalize policy as a reason to hate; but he boils toward those who dislike him.

Moreover, it can be plain to all, what these folks are doing. With a nod or wink, or with some pundit calling them the ‘short straw sacrifices.’ Hell, it will be plain to Bannon, Conway and company what’s going on. They will rail about it to Trump… and that won’t make any difference!  We now know that if you are nice to him, it doesn’t matter what’s beneath. He will react. He will answer expressions of dislike with nuclear hate. And if you compliment him over anything, he will gush appreciation.

“I disagree with almost everything he says… but boy is our president good-looking for a man his age. Perhaps one of the most-handsome presidents in history.”

Or even better?  "I'll vote against the bad things that racists and the Kochs and Saudis are forcing on President Trump; but he's a very savvy fellow and I'll bet he's just giving them plenty of rope, biding his time, and he will come around."

As transparent as this might seem, if it is delivered with manifestations of sincerity – not sarcasm – you will likely get lunch at the White House, and thereupon have a chance to slip in slivers of wisdom about policy.

Will liberals attack the flatterers? Sure. But word can spread, along with the openly known code-word -- "Short Straw." They will survive, and some of us will know they are heroes.

Given this obvious fact about P45, there is only one explanation for the democrats’ complete inability to exploit it.  Stupidity.

*Late Note: At least our previous President seems to be smart enough to know how to handle Donald Trump. Here's an ABC news video of President Trump gushing over the (traditional) letter that President Obama left him on his last day in office. The Lesson? You can give in to the seductive-addictive poisons of indignation... or you can focus on how to win for your side... or you can dial in, with fierce practicality on what might accomplish the most good, overall..

== What might have happened ==

Nothing could possibly have proved my case more than Trump’s transition to the White House, appointing by far the most right wing and confederate cabinet in U.S. history. This does not actually benefit him, in any practical way. This excessive and extreme reaching out to pick the most unpalatable folks possible can only be explained by the reactive syndrome I discussed above. There is only one motivation at work here – to gall those who dislike him.

Elsewhere, in “Honoring the Losing Majority” -- I spoke to what a decent person would do, if you were the one taking office so disliked by a large minority – in this case majority – of the American people.

As a businessman, he might have accepted the notion of consulting over mainstream cabinet appointments, or my idea of letting democrats control his meeting agenda, once a month. But that proved emotionally impossible. Again. Flatter him and he can be your friend, in an instant. Confront him, and he’ll do the opposite of what you want, to spite you. So far, it’s entirely the latter.

Yes, someone as smart as Al Franken may learn the trick of using reverse psychology. But it won’t come easy to American liberals or moderates. I’d wager they’ll never get it.

To be clear, I am not saying don’t fight! Indeed, I fizz with ideas how Americans should switch from sumo – which the confeds want – over to judo. Indeed, in What Went Wrong with the Democratic Party, Sean McElwee attributes the Democrats’ debacle to one big failure - a continuing delusional tendency to reach out to opponents, in expectation they’ll be willing to negotiate. That this isn’t – pure and simple – war.

Alas, though, political war calls for a wide variety of tactics. Moreover, if you cannot see the difference – and compatibility – of having a few assigned flatterers while answering the confeds policies as they deserve well… then you aren’t thinking it through.

== Lagniappes ... ==

There are always codas. A shotgun splattering our sensibilities. For example:

Within a week of the DT administration and days after Steve Bannon takes over national security, some of our top assets in Moscow get ratted out.

Finally...This will make you laugh and cry at the same time!  The Netherlands appeals to Trump to make them "second"!