I get that the Trump win is due in a large part to the average American being fed up with the status quo, or 'the establishment', whatever that is. A vote for Trump was as much a protest vote against this status quo as it was a vote for Trump. In many cases disgruntled democrats expressed similar sentiments by just staying home. So American has spoken. The protest has registered. But when we count the cost, will it all be worth it?
This is not just an academic discussion. The cost is likely to be in real lives, and the payment starts today. Just like clockwork, now that the election is over and Trump solidly in place, Russian bombs have started to fall again on Aleppo. I realize that most don't care much about Syria anymore. Its a civil war that has gone on for years so there is plenty of news fatigue on that front. But the reality is this is a good example of why a Trump presidency has made the world more dangerous, not safer.
What's the connection? Trump's approach is America 1st, protectionist, with minimal involvement in international organizations and treaties. As such, things like humanitarian crises and human rights are no longer a priority. This comes as great news to authoritarian rulers such as Putin, who now see this as giving them a free hand to use whatever military force they see fit. So the sad truth is that we don't even have to wait for Trump to assume office. Given that there is now nothing standing in the way, I suspect we will see something like 10 or 20 thousand civilians die between now and Christmas in Aleppo alone. Not our concern? Well, perhaps not at the moment, but wait and see another wave of refugees heading to our shores and suddenly concern comes closer to home.
This is just one issue where the Trump approach is likely to have a counter intuitive effect. I'll sum it up here and provide some references to back this up.
Policy: Non-interference, appeasement towards Putin / Russia.
Result: increased Russian adventurism and aggression around the world, generating waves of refugees, economic instability and massive loss of life.
Policy: Banning Muslims
Result: Major recruitment tool for ISIS. By painting all Muslims with the same brush, whether moderate or extremist, this will make it much easier for ISIS to recruit more to their cause. In fact, they were thrilled to learn of a Trump win.
Policy: Protectionism - tariffs to block foreign competition
Result: Trade wars, loss of exports, loss of jobs, inflation as imported goods are now more expensive.
Policy: Threats to not pay foreign debts
Result: Drop in value of US$, further domestic inflation.
Policy: Spend more on infrastructure, reduce taxes.
Result: Drop in value of US bonds, increase in interest rates, inflation.
Policy: Climate change is a 'hoax'. Pull out of climate change agreements such as the Paris Agreement
Result: Unraveling of Paris Agreement, reduced action, increased emissions and ultimately more extreme weather, habitat loss, coastal destruction etc. Also, added barriers to any future environmental or other multilateral agreements.
Policy: Non-committal approach to NATO and other key alliances -make allies pay.
Result: Potential enemies question US resolve amid weakening and shifting alliances, and are tempted to push the envelope and see how far they can go.
Welcome to the new world disorder under Trump. I'll be the first to admit that Obama made foreign policy mistakes. However, just as Brexit signaled the decline of British influence in the world - soon to shrink to little more than England, so to does this new isolationism signal the retreat of America from the world stage. Dismantling the existing order, while an interesting experiment, will leave a large void. I only worry about who or what will end up taking its place.
"Trump and the World: What Could Actually Go Wrong"
"Syria conflict: Assad hopes for 'anti-terror ally' in Trump"
"Militant Islamist groups believe Trump's rhetoric will help recruitment"
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
What does the US Election Say About Us?
As we sit back and wait for it to all be over, I can't help but put down a few thoughts about what has for almost everyone been an ugly, mean-spirited and divisive election that has cast a pall far beyond the borders of the US. One of the things that has bothered me the most about this election is the position of the so called moral majority or Christian evangelical community. Their position as always is to support the republican party simply because they claim to defend conservative moral values. What I find baffling is that when the republicans picked Trump as their candidate - a man who himself demonstrates no moral values whatsoever - most evangelicals seemed to turn a blind eye and continue to support him.
The conclusion I have come to is that many US evangelicals are so concerned about defending their specific agenda, they are willing to compromise everything else that being a Christian should be about. When Jesus walked this earth, he cared about the sick, widowed, poor, marginalized groups and those seen as the worst sinners of the day. That Jesus would be appalled at the image that the term Christian or evangelical evokes for many in America today. The golden rule - love God and love your neighbor - seems completely lost on them. What seems to have happened is that defending a couple of token values has become an idol to the point where all other core values like tolerance, caring, peacefulness, respect have been thrown out.
I realize that there is something core that seems to resonate between Trump and his supporters. Trump is seen as a powerful figure able to face down the status quo and steam roll over all his opponents. The idea is, who cares if he is a thug, so long as he's on your side. The problem is that this is a devils bargain. By supporting a thug to get their way, there's no guarantee that any supporter might not become a target of that same thug when the thug's mood changes. Its like school yard politics - some side with the bully because it seems safer, but in the end the bully is a bully, cares only for himself, and you're in trouble if you're near so long as he remains unchallenged. When you sell out your soul and values to get one thing you want - you may get the thing you're obsessed with but lose everything else that really matters.
Ultimately this approach seems to me about as unchristian as can be. I call it selfishness. If I am able to sell out everything to get one thing I want without thinking about the consequences for others, then I'm being selfish. Trump worships himself. His supporters are willing to overlook this because at their core they don't care about their neighbor. They care about defending their property, their families, their selected core values, and if everyone else is excluded - thrown out over the wall - so be it. So at its core its not just the politicians that are mean spirited in this campaign, its the very core philosophy and values that are driving the Trump campaign that are built on meanness. Its by design.
Admittedly, we all have a selfish streak from time to time and want to defend what's ours. What I have trouble stomaching is this whole idea that somehow to support a thug like Trump is the Christian thing to do. A valueless, selfish, hateful, abusive and disrespectful person like Trump is so far from anything Christian, that supporting him from a Christian perspective is simply incoherent. If you want to support Trump because you want a wall, or you feel he defends your interests somehow, so be it. But don't call it a Christian position, or even worse, demand others support him because it's the Christian thing to do.
I think this whole situation evidences that the Church in North America is in crisis. Christians have lost a sense of relevance because many of us have lost our connection to the core values our faith was built on, that of service and caring, not judging and imposing. There will need to be some serious soul searching to clean up the rubble of this election and avoid it walling up the Church further from wider social society.
As to the whole 'crooked Hillary' campaign, I don't buy that. In general, I'm no constant proponent of any one party or candidate. My biggest problem is with people who vote as a knee jerk reaction, and that applies to either side. Of course Clinton is not without her faults. She's made plenty of mistakes and should be held to account the same as anyone else. Still, these pale in significance when compared with the core of what Trump is all about. Clinton's mistakes are the kind we might make every day out of neglect or lack of attention when overloaded with too many responsibilities. Trump's worst acts are not mistakes at all, but simply flow out of who he is, his complete obsession with self worship, and disdain for anyone or anything that opposes him - including institutions of law and democracy. Who else would use $20,000 from his own charitable foundation to buy a 6 foot painting of himself and place it at one of his Trump hotels? This has happened more than once. You can't make this stuff up.
Yes, most elections are a choice between the lesser of 2 evils, and these choices are rarely easy. Its just that this time around the math seems a lot simpler than it usually is. On a more humorous note, I like the idea of last week's presidential election in Bulgaria where you can just vote for 'nobody' if you want. This might have saved a lot of people a lot of consternation in this election. I'm just not sure what happens if 'nobody' wins.
The conclusion I have come to is that many US evangelicals are so concerned about defending their specific agenda, they are willing to compromise everything else that being a Christian should be about. When Jesus walked this earth, he cared about the sick, widowed, poor, marginalized groups and those seen as the worst sinners of the day. That Jesus would be appalled at the image that the term Christian or evangelical evokes for many in America today. The golden rule - love God and love your neighbor - seems completely lost on them. What seems to have happened is that defending a couple of token values has become an idol to the point where all other core values like tolerance, caring, peacefulness, respect have been thrown out.
I realize that there is something core that seems to resonate between Trump and his supporters. Trump is seen as a powerful figure able to face down the status quo and steam roll over all his opponents. The idea is, who cares if he is a thug, so long as he's on your side. The problem is that this is a devils bargain. By supporting a thug to get their way, there's no guarantee that any supporter might not become a target of that same thug when the thug's mood changes. Its like school yard politics - some side with the bully because it seems safer, but in the end the bully is a bully, cares only for himself, and you're in trouble if you're near so long as he remains unchallenged. When you sell out your soul and values to get one thing you want - you may get the thing you're obsessed with but lose everything else that really matters.
Ultimately this approach seems to me about as unchristian as can be. I call it selfishness. If I am able to sell out everything to get one thing I want without thinking about the consequences for others, then I'm being selfish. Trump worships himself. His supporters are willing to overlook this because at their core they don't care about their neighbor. They care about defending their property, their families, their selected core values, and if everyone else is excluded - thrown out over the wall - so be it. So at its core its not just the politicians that are mean spirited in this campaign, its the very core philosophy and values that are driving the Trump campaign that are built on meanness. Its by design.
Admittedly, we all have a selfish streak from time to time and want to defend what's ours. What I have trouble stomaching is this whole idea that somehow to support a thug like Trump is the Christian thing to do. A valueless, selfish, hateful, abusive and disrespectful person like Trump is so far from anything Christian, that supporting him from a Christian perspective is simply incoherent. If you want to support Trump because you want a wall, or you feel he defends your interests somehow, so be it. But don't call it a Christian position, or even worse, demand others support him because it's the Christian thing to do.
I think this whole situation evidences that the Church in North America is in crisis. Christians have lost a sense of relevance because many of us have lost our connection to the core values our faith was built on, that of service and caring, not judging and imposing. There will need to be some serious soul searching to clean up the rubble of this election and avoid it walling up the Church further from wider social society.
As to the whole 'crooked Hillary' campaign, I don't buy that. In general, I'm no constant proponent of any one party or candidate. My biggest problem is with people who vote as a knee jerk reaction, and that applies to either side. Of course Clinton is not without her faults. She's made plenty of mistakes and should be held to account the same as anyone else. Still, these pale in significance when compared with the core of what Trump is all about. Clinton's mistakes are the kind we might make every day out of neglect or lack of attention when overloaded with too many responsibilities. Trump's worst acts are not mistakes at all, but simply flow out of who he is, his complete obsession with self worship, and disdain for anyone or anything that opposes him - including institutions of law and democracy. Who else would use $20,000 from his own charitable foundation to buy a 6 foot painting of himself and place it at one of his Trump hotels? This has happened more than once. You can't make this stuff up.
Yes, most elections are a choice between the lesser of 2 evils, and these choices are rarely easy. Its just that this time around the math seems a lot simpler than it usually is. On a more humorous note, I like the idea of last week's presidential election in Bulgaria where you can just vote for 'nobody' if you want. This might have saved a lot of people a lot of consternation in this election. I'm just not sure what happens if 'nobody' wins.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Lessons learned in Libya
re my posting on: Lessons learned in Libya, CBC, Oct 21, 2011
While the end of the Libyan conflict is an older story now, I thought on Remembrance Day it would be fitting to reflect on the tough question on when we should or shouldn't get involved in armed conflicts for just causes, and what some of the tensions and trade-offs are. Also, as more and more people in Syria die every day, just for the crime of wanting to be free, it reminds me to value all the more the freedom we have, and appreciate the sacrifices made in the past by those that fought to preserve it.
While it has been and will continue to be messy, letting people determine the direction of their country is always preferable to despotic, repressive rule. There will always be a trade off between concerns for freedom and regional security, but when we listen to the voices of isolationism from the likes of China and Russia and just look the other way when thousands die, then we are making a devils bargain that will one day come back to haunt us.
Yes it is tough to decide if and when to intervene, and there will never be a formula for it. But as is suggested in the CBC article, if we limit our interventions only to those times when the people from across ethnic, religious and tribal lines together consistently ask for help, or when there is an immanent genocide such as Rwanda, then I think there is a much better likelihood of making a positive difference. The fundamental principle is that we have to listen carefully before we act, but then be prepared to act decisively, albeit with continued local and regional cooperation / coordination.
Just think how this would have all ended had NATO not intervened. Tens of thousands more would have died in Benghazi and across the country, many more thousands of refugees would have fled to Europe and Canada, and the Arab spring would have a suffered a potentially fatal blow. Of course, the political realities limit the countries where intervention is even a possibility. Syria is a tough question given the size of the country and its army. But just because we can't or shouldn't intervene in every case doesn't mean we should never do so.
And while this is the Libyan people's victory, we should remember and thank our people in uniform that did their part to support Libyan's sacrifices.
While the end of the Libyan conflict is an older story now, I thought on Remembrance Day it would be fitting to reflect on the tough question on when we should or shouldn't get involved in armed conflicts for just causes, and what some of the tensions and trade-offs are. Also, as more and more people in Syria die every day, just for the crime of wanting to be free, it reminds me to value all the more the freedom we have, and appreciate the sacrifices made in the past by those that fought to preserve it.
While it has been and will continue to be messy, letting people determine the direction of their country is always preferable to despotic, repressive rule. There will always be a trade off between concerns for freedom and regional security, but when we listen to the voices of isolationism from the likes of China and Russia and just look the other way when thousands die, then we are making a devils bargain that will one day come back to haunt us.
Yes it is tough to decide if and when to intervene, and there will never be a formula for it. But as is suggested in the CBC article, if we limit our interventions only to those times when the people from across ethnic, religious and tribal lines together consistently ask for help, or when there is an immanent genocide such as Rwanda, then I think there is a much better likelihood of making a positive difference. The fundamental principle is that we have to listen carefully before we act, but then be prepared to act decisively, albeit with continued local and regional cooperation / coordination.
Just think how this would have all ended had NATO not intervened. Tens of thousands more would have died in Benghazi and across the country, many more thousands of refugees would have fled to Europe and Canada, and the Arab spring would have a suffered a potentially fatal blow. Of course, the political realities limit the countries where intervention is even a possibility. Syria is a tough question given the size of the country and its army. But just because we can't or shouldn't intervene in every case doesn't mean we should never do so.
And while this is the Libyan people's victory, we should remember and thank our people in uniform that did their part to support Libyan's sacrifices.
A great day for Libya ... apparently a sad day for Canadians.
This is from my posting on: Libya Gadhafi Capture, CBC, Oct 20,2011
A great day for Libya
... apparently a sad day for Canadians.
What's wrong with CBC readers? I scanned 150+ comments, and > 90% of them are negative. Even someone who simply said "good day for Libya" got scored only 259 for and 271 against. I don't get it. We live in a democracy, but you want to deny the Libyan people a chance at democracy (not a guarantee), just because you vilify NATO and Harper and everything they do? Get your head out of that emotional/ strait jacket.
While I know how much fun we have criticizing how Americans can be out of touch, the more I read comments on cbc the more I worry about how many Canadians seem out of touch with the world - both with what's going on and what other peoples and cultures actually think.
I do agree that it is a good idea to get your news from multiple sources. I find Al Jazeera does as good a job as BBC, sometimes better. Its always good to check a regional news source on any major story. But I would avoid sites or bloggers that have just one agenda to push - either left or right, status quo or conspiracist.
Finally, why do we have to be such pessimists? There's enough bad news in the world, why can't we just congratulate the Libyan people and leave it at that? This is their victory more than anyone else's, so it shouldn't be about politics and points. And if you think that Gadhafi wasn't much worse than Harper or some other such nonsense, you need to get out of the west and go visit Zimbabwe or Syria or somewhere else where the thugs that run the government can throw you away without a moments pretense about justice. I've been in former Yugoslavia during the wars there, so I know something about criminal regimes. I don't think you will find refugees from those kind of places mourning Gadhafi's demise.
A great day for Libya
... apparently a sad day for Canadians.
What's wrong with CBC readers? I scanned 150+ comments, and > 90% of them are negative. Even someone who simply said "good day for Libya" got scored only 259 for and 271 against. I don't get it. We live in a democracy, but you want to deny the Libyan people a chance at democracy (not a guarantee), just because you vilify NATO and Harper and everything they do? Get your head out of that emotional/ strait jacket.
While I know how much fun we have criticizing how Americans can be out of touch, the more I read comments on cbc the more I worry about how many Canadians seem out of touch with the world - both with what's going on and what other peoples and cultures actually think.
I do agree that it is a good idea to get your news from multiple sources. I find Al Jazeera does as good a job as BBC, sometimes better. Its always good to check a regional news source on any major story. But I would avoid sites or bloggers that have just one agenda to push - either left or right, status quo or conspiracist.
Finally, why do we have to be such pessimists? There's enough bad news in the world, why can't we just congratulate the Libyan people and leave it at that? This is their victory more than anyone else's, so it shouldn't be about politics and points. And if you think that Gadhafi wasn't much worse than Harper or some other such nonsense, you need to get out of the west and go visit Zimbabwe or Syria or somewhere else where the thugs that run the government can throw you away without a moments pretense about justice. I've been in former Yugoslavia during the wars there, so I know something about criminal regimes. I don't think you will find refugees from those kind of places mourning Gadhafi's demise.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Hi world ... is there anybody still out there?
Well, after about 10 years of procrastinating, I have finally opened my first blog.
I suppose its a fitting time to do so, since I am not the only one procrastinating:
The end of the world came and went today and seems to have ignored my continued existence.
Oh well, always wanted to wander the road less travelled anyway - and the world has ended so many times already...
I suppose its a fitting time to do so, since I am not the only one procrastinating:
The end of the world came and went today and seems to have ignored my continued existence.
Oh well, always wanted to wander the road less travelled anyway - and the world has ended so many times already...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)