Thursday, January 18, 2018

This is CNN . . . in 1945 - VDH

This is CNN . . . in 1945

By | January 15, 2018


What if something like CNN and modern communications were around in early 1945? What if the rules of presidential news coverage were then as they are now? And what if such a mythical CNN hated Franklin Delano Roosevelt as much as it despises Donald Trump, then as right-wing as it is now hard left? How would the daily news in a mythical 1945 treat a now-iconic FDR? What would the country have thought of its president?
In the manner that we’ve learned that Donald Trump supposedly eats double servings of fast food and gulps down a dozen diet sodas a day, we instead might hear similar CNN “exclusives” about presidential diet and health, either from “unknown” sources in the White House or “fake news” exaggerations of rumor and innuendo.
Wolf Blitzer might give us a news bulletin something like this: “CNN in an exclusive report has learned that President Roosevelt is a sick, maybe dying, man. But the true nature of his health has long been covered up, most notably in last year’s election and is even now more dishonesty hidden. CNN has learned that the conspiracy of silence among the president’s family, his staff, and his doctors is long-standing, scandalous—and, in this reporter’s view, dangerous.”
“Sources tell me that the president’s blood pressure routinely hits 240 over 140. He has lost 40 pounds. Some sources tell CNN that the president suffers from chronic sinus and urinary infections. He may be battling skin cancer. CNN is now learning that the president could never walk or even stand up on his own.”
“That image of a robust president was also inaccurate—the fiction of collusion that for years has hidden the true extent of the president’s paralysis from the American people. CNN has also learned that President Roosevelt has been absent from the White House for weeks at a time and has been too ill to work at his desk. Yet he continues to chain smoke and drink a series of stiff drinks each evening, a habit dating back to Prohibition before he was president.”
“As one source put it to CNN, ‘He is incorrigible. We try to get the president to eat healthier food and stop smoking and drinking. No dice. He is like a child, scarfing down eggs, honey biscuits, sugary gelatin, and cottage cheese, smiling while he mixes martinis for his buddies and puffing away on that infernal cigarette holder. Does he want to die eating that stuff?’”
“CNN has also contacted a number of medical experts at Walter Reed Military Hospital in Washington. One told us off the record, ‘He should never have run for reelection. I doubt he makes it ’til May. A sick man like that has no business running the war.’”
The President is a Cheater
If the 21st-century rules of etiquette prevailed in 1945, the CNN of that era would no doubt inform all 140 million Americans about the intimacies of FDR’s sex life.
Here might be Jim Acosta’s evening lowdown: “Our sources also report that president of the United States has long conducted a number of extramarital affairs. To this correspondent what I was told seems shocking, but here it is nonetheless. Now instead of the past ‘Missy’ and ‘Daisy’ in FDR’s bedroom, there is this ‘Lucy’ again.”
“For all practical purposes, the president and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt long ago have lived separate lives, despite their public posturing. We are told the current object of presidential affection is once again socialite and former personal secretary to Eleanor Roosevelt, Lucy Mercer Rutherford. She seems to be running the White House, if not the country. I’ve been told by a number of key administration insiders that the president’s own daughter Anna has moved into the White House and serves as the go-between for Lucy and the president—to the furor of her mother who feels betrayed by her own daughter.”
“CNN has also contacted one unnamed Republican senator who expressed outrage in confirming Washington’s best-kept secret. He said, ‘We all know what is going on. It’s a panty show up there. The president is incorrigible. He’s always been a serial womanizer. It is not enough that we hear that he is nearly incapacitated and was taken to the cleaners at Yalta, but now we learn he sure had enough time to conduct an affair in the White House!’
“Another unnamed aide put it more bluntly: ‘The guy could drop dead any minute and yet he uses the last bit of his energy to sneak around with that Mercer woman. What a con.’”
The President is a Sick Man
So what would CNN conclude about Roosevelt’s last year in office? Impending defeat of Nazi Germany? A collapsing imperial Japan? A roaring economy? Hardly.
Instead, the headlines would be juicy and slanted, designed to confirm the dismal presidential portraits above.
Anderson Cooper might inform us: “CNN has been told by a number of sources close to the president that he is scarcely able to sit upright and talk. Roosevelt has hardly even spoken to his own vice president, Harry Truman. We are now learning from a number of key aides that Democratic insiders forced Truman on the ticket in fears that Vice President Henry Wallace would likely be president this year. They supposed that Roosevelt either is going to be soon removed for health reasons or is already incapacitated.”
“CNN has informally surveyed a number of top historians and political analysts to discover whether FDR’s health and personal life have affected the current conduct of the war. A Yale psychiatrist put it bluntly: ‘He’s in denial. A total fantasy world. I’m not so worried that he is sick, but that he deludes himself into thinking he’s well. He needs an intervention.’”
“One Harvard expert told CNN: ‘Well, we lost everything at Yalta. Just turned it over to Stalin. So much for free elections in Eastern Europe. But how was a sick president going to know how that busybody Alger Hiss and that gang were working for the other side? And now FDR is mad at Uncle Joe and feels betrayed? Well, what did they expect? Uncle Joe told us off the record he ‘pitied’ our president. Sad that a half-dead FDR is throwing away a decade of a pretty damn good record.’”
Anderson Cooper might continue: “Another high-ranking general expressed disgust at the president’s hidden agendas. Although CNN was unable to confirm his charges, he insisted that there is a ‘big boom’ on the way. He would not elaborate but claimed that a new super bomb may soon be dropped—and that Vice President Harry Truman hasn’t a clue about it, despite $1 billion already spent off-budget and missing from the public record.
“The general also ridiculed Roosevelt’s direction of the war. ‘He might have been on top of things in 41 or 42 but not now. Did any heads roll for those disasters at the Bulge or the Hürtgen? Whose bright idea is it now to barge head on into Okinawa or park the fleet off that damned island with all those suicide bombers in the sky? There will be hell to pay when no one at the top is in charge. Okinawa will make Iwo look like a picnic.’”
The Lesson is One of Degree
Back to 2018. Note that Roosevelt was an effective wartime president. He probably should not have run in 1944, but the voters apparently had legitimate considerations of continuity of wartime command, as well as an appreciation for a booming economy and near-defeated enemies. If a CNN circa 1944 had reported on Roosevelt as it now does Trump, FDR might never have been elected to a fourth term.
My point is not whether the news of Roosevelt’s health, sex life, or ability to do the job should have been reported, or if it had been, would have been largely accurate.
Rather, the lesson is one of degree. What would have been broadcast to the nation by CNN would foremost have reflected the ratings-driven network’s biases and thus been warped to achieve the political agenda of discrediting the president whom CNN despised, and nullifying his leadership—rather than letting the voting public have unadulterated facts without editorializing to make informed decisions.
The same experiment could have been repeated with an entirely out-of-control libido of JFK in 1962, the titillation overshadowing his legislative and foreign policy records. Would we like to know that JFK deflowered virgins in the presidential bed or that he faced down Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis? For those of you whose answer is “both,” then we surely did not get the former story along with the latter.
Not a Medieval Morality Play
Reporting on any president should not be just 24/7 scandal-mongering or monotonous editorializing, but rather first informing whether his efforts hurt or improve the country. A president is not the sum total of his worst moments, any more than Barack Obama should have been nightly assessed mostly on his bouts of inanity and sloppy talk—ridiculing the Special Olympics, confusing the Falklands with Maldives, calling Mitt Romney a “bullshitter,” ridiculing the Tea Party with 
“teabagger” sexual smears, urging his supporters to “get in their faces,” not to “take a knife to a gunfight” and “punish our enemies,” or unleashing his aides to demean war-veteran and Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu as a “chickenshit” and “coward” speaking “aspergery,” a tasteless reference to Asperger Syndrome.
There is no doubt that FDR always had health problems, led a far more unhealthy life than did the nonsmoking, nondrinking Trump, and liked to enjoy what his massive inherited wealth provided, as much as does the billionaire Donald Trump.
But the worst of FDR was not the whole FDR. A right-wing 1945 version of CNN, mutatis mutandis, would have driven a president out of office and reduced a distinguished record to a gossip sheet of a duplicitous and reckless adulterer. Presidential reporting is not a medieval morality play in which an irate CNN chooses sinners to be damned to hell and the virtuous to be deified.
The reason an ill, secretive, and adulterous FDR of poor habits and failing judgment has a stellar presidential record today is, at least in part, because the media of 1945 never covered him or his impressive achievements in the way that an obsessed CNN of 2018 covers Trump.
Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Mexican Greatness: California Elected Leaders Head South

Mexican Greatness: California Elected Leaders Head South

By | January 17, 2018

California on January 1 officially became a sanctuary state, refusing to hand over those who violated U.S. immigration laws to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Economist and actor Ben Stein sees a rebellion and expects a civil war . . . in the courts. Meanwhile, the “Calexit” movement wants a sovereign nation or “an independent country.” But that’s not exactly what state leaders have in mind.
Last week, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, a Los Angeles Democrat, headed a delegation of fellow partisans on a four-day trip to Mexico. “There is no sensible place for barriers between California and Mexico,” Rendon proclaimed. “This trip will send a message that California resists isolation and is willing to step up and work with Mexico if the federal administration abdicates that responsibility.”
This revealing statement was not a departure from the vision of speaker Rendon, who earned a Ph.D. in political science at University of California, Riverside and conducted post-graduate work at Boston University. On November 9, 2016, one day after Donald Trump’s election, Rendon and State Senate Pro Tem, Kevin de Leon (who also happens to have authored the sanctuary state legislation) released a joint statement claiming “we woke up feeling like strangers in a foreign land.” After several hundred words of anti-Trump boilerplate, the pair said, “California was not a part of this nation when its history began, but we are clearly now the keeper of its future.”
Rendon doubtless knows that Maine, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Louisiana and more than two dozen other states were “not part of this nation when its history began.” Rendon’s focus on California reflects the belief, common among ruling class Golden State Democrats, that California is essentially part of Mexico.
That is why, as Rendon and De Leon said, “we are proud to be Californians,” and did not say they were proud to be Americans. That is why Rendon proclaims “there is no sensible place for barriers between California and Mexico.”
In this view, Mexicans who cross the border by any means whatever are only visiting the northern part of their own country, and not illegally trespassing on foreign sovereign soil. They are therefore entitled to education, medical care, drivers’ licenses, welfare, and in-state college tuition. As the case of Kate Steinle’s killer, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, confirmed, repeatedly deported Mexican career criminals are also entitled to protection from federal law enforcement.
A recent State Department investigation confirms that false-documented illegals also vote in federal, state and local electionsserving as the imported electorate of California’s ruling-class Democrats. So no mystery why California Secretary of State Alex Padilla refuses to reveal voter information and cooperate with a federal probe of voter fraud.
Rendon claims the federal government is abdicating its responsibilities, but the reverse is true. It was reactionary ruling-class Democrats who proclaimed California a sanctuary state that defies immigration law and made false-documented illegals a protected class.
As longtime Sacramento observer Dan Walters notes, incoming state legislators take “an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution.” So do legal immigrants such as Dr. Bennet Omalu, the concussion expert who grew up in civil war-torn Nigeria. So did the thousands of Armenians who fled persecution and genocide at the hands of the Turks. So did Janet Nguyen, a refugee from Stalinist Vietnam.
These immigrants and countless others understand that California is part of the United States which, of course, is a huge part of its attraction. Rendon appears to believe he represents all Californians, who might wonder about his unilateral proclamation of Mexico as a replacement for the federal government of the United States.
Rendon was born in 1968, year of the Olympic Games in Mexico City. In the run-up to the games, students held demonstrations demanding more democracy in Mexico. On October 2, 1968, Mexican troops gunned down hundreds of students in Tlatelolco Square, and Mexico’s Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) regime has been covering it up ever since.
In 2014, students at a Mexican teacher college commandeered buses to attend demonstrations commemorating the Tlatelolco massacre. Mexican police attacked the students, killing six and dragging off more than 40 others. The PRI government claimed they had been taken by a drug gang and incinerated in a garbage dump. That’s what happens when rule by one political party replaces the rule of law. Critics of the government tend to disappear.
Anthony Rendon feels “like a stranger in a foreign land” since the election of Donald Trump but he’s right at home with Mexico’s corrupt PRI regime. Californians who aren’t, particularly legal immigrants, have no reason to take Rendon seriously on anything.

About the Author: 

Lloyd Billingsley
Lloyd Billingsley, a non-Asian Atlantic Islander and Person of No Color, is the author of Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation, and Bill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield.

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Fed’s misconduct in Cliven Bundy case stems from Ruby Ridge.

JAMES BOVARD IN THE HILL:

 Fed’s misconduct in Cliven Bundy case stems from Ruby Ridge.

“Many of the heavily-armed activists who flocked to the scene feared that the FBI snipers had a license to kill the Bundys. Their reaction cannot be understood without considering a landmark 1990s case that continues to shape millions of Americans’ attitude towards Washington: the federal killings and coverups at Ruby Ridge. . . . FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back after he stepped out of his cabin, wounding him. Horiuchi then shot and killed Vicki Weaver standing in the cabin door holding their 10-month old baby.”
I

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

2018 Predictions

The Watcher’s Council has some New Year’s predictions for 2018

2018 is rife with possibility, so the Watcher’s Council took a crack at New Year’s predictions. In this post, I offer both pessimistic and optimistic views.
New Year's predictions old year and new yearAs the old year dies away, and the New Year comes in with a bang, at WOW! Magazine, the Watcher’s Council’s site, a few of us had some predictions to offer for 2018. They are informed, thoughtful, and amusing. Here’s my contribution:
***
I have two sets of predictions, depending on whether I’m in an optimistic mood or not. I’ll start with the pessimistic predictions, so that I can end on a cheerful note with the optimistic ones:
Pessimistic possibilities in 2018 and beyond:
Mueller manages to pull together a package showing that Trump (who Wolff claims in Fire and Fury didn’t even want to win the presidency) nevertheless colluded with Russia and then engaged in obstruction of justice to hide this fact. Despite the complete absence of evidence to support either charge, the media, which remains peculiarly powerful despite open its bias and insanity, manages to convince the bulk of the American people that Trump is not fit to be president, forcing a Nixonian resignation.
The moment Pence steps into Trump’s shoes, the Progressive Wolff pack begins a sustained attack against him, alleging that his hostility to gays shows that he is mentally ill and must be pushed out of office.
With the unending chaos surrounding the Oval Office, the American people attempt to clean house by handing both the House and the Senate to the hard-Left, Progressive wing of the Democrat party. If the timing on this works out well, Pence’s being pushed out of office coincides with Nancy Pelosi having retaken her position as Speaker of the House. She is now President Pelosi.
At this point, two things can happen. First, flush with power, Pelosi clings to her new position like a tick embedded in a pig’s ear. Alternatively, having ascended to the White House, she appoints Michelle Obama as her Vice President and promptly resigns. Michelle Obama is now president of the United States and, for the first time, is really, really proud of her country. [I wrote this before the Golden Globes. since the Golden Globes, it’s clear that Oprah will give Michelle a run for her money in this dystopian fantasy.
Either way, whether President Michelle or President Nancy occupies the White House, the fundamental changes Barack Obama dreamed off now take off on afterburners. Medicine is fully socialized; our border is opened wide; taxes on the wealthy and corporations soar to 90% in all brackets; conservative Supreme Court justices sporting unexplained black eyes and damaged knee caps are “encouraged” to resign, only to be replaced by judges from the Ninth Circuit; Sharia law is declared compatible with the Constitution and quickly becomes the unofficial law of the land; women start wearing burqas as a voluntary rape preventative; in order to definitively wipe out “white provilege,” abortion is mandatory for all genetically Caucasian children; all surviving children of color are encouraged to abandon any gender roles and to end voluntary reproduction to save the planet (although Muslims are given a pass on this diktat lest the new government be viewed as Islamophobic; and, eventually, the remaining citizens of the United States gently slide under complete United Nations control. Americans are told that the best is yet to come.
Optimistic possibilities in 2018 and beyond:
The Inspector General’s report completely vindicates Trump, proving that, not only did he do nothing wrong, but that the Obama administration engaged in illegal spying and other election meddling against him. While it’s questionable whether any charges can be leveled against Obama himself (he was careful to keep his fingerprints off things), those who served in Obama’s State Department (starting with Hillary), the DOJ (starting with Holder and Lynch), the FBI (starting with Comey), and all other agencies involved in trying to throw the election or in enriching themselves in Pay for Play schemes are trying to convince themselves that orange really is the new black, and that a white house is still a White House even if the sign over the door says “Federal Penitentiary” rather than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Freed from the burden of onerous taxes and regulations, the economy soars. The greatest benefits flow to blacks and Hispanics, who start to get an inkling of the fact that the Democrat Party has been using them as election fodder since Roosevelt’s presidency.
The combination of the great economy and the realization among blacks and Hispanics that freedom is their friend means that there is a giant Republican wave in the mid-term elections, sweeping everything before it at the federal, state, and local levels. Everyone acknowledges that Trump will get a second term. The assumption is that, after him, the Presidency and Vice Presidency will be occupied for at least four more elections by some combination of Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Tom Cotton, and Ted Cruz, or their intellectual heirs.
The American military, which is now under the control of military strategists and tacticians, rather than a community organizer, makes it plain to all jihadists that they will all be sent to those 72 virgins with such speed and in such numbers that there’ll be long lines in Paradise, with many jihadists waiting millennia for a chance at their erotic reward. The jihad against the West collapses.
Fracking will mean that the Muslim Middle East suffers an economic crack-up. The American Marshall plan will promise relief only if Sunni and Shia nations embrace Enlightened Western manners and mores — and the men start holding real jobs.
The Iranian people overthrow the Mullahs. The nation either devolve into utter chaos, taking it out of the world equation for several years, or, which is devoutly to be hoped, it returns to the pro-Western values and policies that characterized Iran before the 1979 Revolution.
America gets a southern border wall and chain immigration ends completely. The price, unfortunately, is DACA, but we are a sensible people and recognize that we live in an imperfect world. On the good side, California loses all federal funding and its top officials, starting with Jerry Brown, end up in federal prison for violating immigration laws. Indeed, in every sanctuary town and city in America, those government officials who imposed and enforced sanctuary policies spend time in Club Feds.
America’s strong support for Israel, combined with the economic collapse of Arab Muslim states and Iran’s temporary sidelining, sees Israel finally free from economic, terrorist, and military threats. She continues to be a world leader in science and technology.
The idea of anthropogenic climate change is kicked to the curb where it belongs. America continues to focus on clean air and water, as well as environmental preservation, because we recognize that we are stewards for the earth and want to leave something lovely for our children and grandchildren. Nevertheless, without the Marxist, redistributionist insanity of climate change, our efforts do not destroy the economy, do not leave people to die in the cold or heat, and do not turn food crops into dirty fuel. Instead, we have room for sane and affordable environmental management.
We return to a scientific mindset that holds that, barring occasional genetic mistakes, there are only two sexes: male and female. We feel compassion for those people who suffer from body dysmorphia, and avoid discriminating against them as much as possible. However, we do not engage in their craziness by pretending that mere belief affects ones sex identity.
Universities are required to guarantee student loans. In the event they are called upon to repay a deadbeat ex-student’s loan, they can offer as defenses the fact that the student has deliberately avoided employment; has been legitimately ill (physically or mentally); or has died. Otherwise, Harvard’s endowment is on the line. The evidence piles up that the loans on which universities most frequently make good are for Womyn’s, Queer, and African studies. Who knew?
Universities are denied any federal funding if the ratio of administration to faculty exceeds a 1:1 ratio.
Bakers are not required to bake cakes for anybody.
The U.S. withdraws all funding from the U.N., which collapses completely. The building at Turtle Bay is turned into a New York-based campus for Hillsdale College. The campus is a donation, without strings attached, and Hillsdale continues to refuse all government monies.
Europe does what Europe does. Thanks to President Trump, we have breathing space in fortress America. We do not squander our blood and gold trying to rescue Europe from its suicidal fecklessness.
America is great again. It’s not perfect because nothing is. But it is a bastion of individual liberty and free market wealth. It is a light among nations and people queue up (legally) for the opportunity to enter. Immigrants, incidentally, are required to comply with American law, rather than demanding that the law comply with them. If they like their doctrines, manners, mores, and customs so much that they are unwilling to change, they can stay in their home countries.
***
You really should read what the others wrote. My predictions, especially the pessimistic ones, are tongue-in-cheek. My fellow Council members took the whole matter more seriously.

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Taking America Down

Taking America Down

By | January 8, 2018
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About a century ago, the Progressives got busy in America just as the Communists got busy in Russia. For a moment, the Progressives were in the lead. By 1917, the year of the Russian Revolution, President Woodrow Wilson had already put in place the fundamental changes that had to be made if the Progressives were going to succeed in eventually replacing the American Republic with the Progressive State. (For more on the Progressive transformation, you may find this of interest.)
Conditions in Russia enabled the Communists to seize power in a revolution and set to work creating the Marxist utopia all at once. America at that time was not ripe for any kind of revolution. In fact, America had already had its revolution, and the American Revolution and the American Founders were still revered by most people. Consequently, the Progressives were forced to advance their cause incrementally, progressively. But it was clear where they were headed. In March 1919, Progressive journalist and Wilson advisor Lincoln Steffens visited the Soviets and reported: “I have seen the future, and it works.” In a little over a year, the Russian Communists had already created the future, according to Steffens and his fellow Progressives.
By an astonishing coincidence, the Progressives were poised to arrive at their longed-for future precisely 99 years after the Russian Revolution. Vladimir Lenin led his revolutionaries to power on November 7, 1917. On November 7, 2016 the Progressives believed they were on the verge of their final victory in America.
And a final victory it very likely would have been. Even four years of the Clintons back in the White House would have been enough time to secure one-party rule by the political party of the Progressives for as far as the eye could see. The remaining Americans who want to continue living as Americans would have been overwhelmed in an unceasing flood of people from the Third World.
As for the Constitution and the rule of law, forget about it. In the first place, the Clintons have been operating a criminal enterprise that is more brazen by orders of magnitude even than Vladimir Putin’s looting of Russia. The Clintons’ evident kleptomania keeps them obsessively stealing when, as Obama has said of others, they already have enough.
And please ponder this thought: Supreme Court Justice Barack Hussein Obama.
The Progressives were certain they had final victory in their grasp, but Trump’s election spoiled everything. It simply can’t have happened; it defies “the arc of history” Obama enjoyed referring to so often. November 7 can’t have gone the way it did—and yet it did go the way it did. That is the reason for the madness on the Left.
The strange parallels don’t cease with the date of November 7. When the giant Soviet red star imploded in 1991, what was left behind was a shrunken political black hole, a kleptocracy. The collapse revealed that the Soviet system all along was what dictatorships always are: rule for the benefit of the rulers who enrich themselves by taking from the ruled. So much for “the future”; that kind of rule is the oldest racket in the world. Relying perhaps too much on the arc of history, the Progressives got a bit ahead of themselves when they chose a kleptocrat to establish the Progressive dynasty and finally put an end to the Republic of the American Founders. American voters whose common sense preserved them from being blinded by Progressivism were offered a too-revealing glimpse of the future the Progressives planned for America—and they recoiled.
Blinded by Progressivism, Lincoln Steffens saw what he wanted to see when he visited Russia, although there was already plenty of evidence of the horrors the future had in store for the people living there under Communism. Communism may be on the “ash heap of history,” but Progressivism lives. In the last election, Americans blinded by Progressivism voted for an obviously corrupt kleptocrat, while believing they were about to establish a Progressive utopia in America.

Is Trump Really Crazy?

Is Trump Really Crazy?

By | January 8, 2018
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Michael Wolff’s sensational exposé of the supposed chaos of the Trump White House is no doubt largely a mix of fantasy, exaggeration, and some accidental truth. The postmodernist author even admits that his own methodologies defy verification, and so leave it up to the reader to distinguish his facts from fiction.
Wolff’s theme is that Trump is hopelessly petty, childlike, and uninformed. The few adults in the room around him—primarily, we are asked to believe, Wolff’s chief source, Steve Bannon—must cajole, pamper, and flatter him to get anything done, when they are not backstabbing one another.
Fair enough—Trump certainly may be naïve and uninitiated. No one doubts that he is thin-skinned and far too often goes down Twitter cul de sacs. But Trump’s naiveté is not quite what Wolff thinks.
Rather, no sane president should ever have let a writer with Wolff’s dubious and often discredited background into the White House. That such a rogue was even allowed through the door raises the question of administration sobriety.
Wolff at the DoorNot since the late Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone charmed his way into General Stanley McCrystal’s inner circle—only to trash his benefactors—has an executive team apparently proved so naïve with reporters. Certainly, in letting Wolff talk “off the record” to high officials, the Trump Administration showed poor judgment. That Wolff claims he easily got such haphazard access, if half true, could be a testament to Trump’s ego or the ego of those around him, such as Bannon. Did they really believe that they could charm and flip almost anyone—even among a media whose stories and reports are 90 percent negative to Trump?
Of course, any president lax enough to let a Wolff through the door inevitably would be embarrassed by the results, given that all administrations can be petty, even gross.
Lyndon Johnson had a repulsive habit of referring openly to his sexual organ as “Jumbo”—and occasionally displaying it to startled staffers—a felony in our present culture. Worse still, he often gave dictation while defecating on the toilet.
John Kennedy crudely seduced dozens of his own female staffers. One, Mimi Alford, who came to work a 19-year-old virgin, wrote an entire memoir of her mechanical trysts inside the White House with JFK, including his inaugural seduction, which, by any contemporary definition, would now qualify as sexual assault. She lamented that he once had pawned her off to fellate one of his aides. A perverted rapist as our beloved commander-in-chief? No need to imagine a Wolff version of the Clinton White House.
I could an imagine a Wolff in FDR’s White House circa early 1945 having a field day: jazzing up the clandestine nocturnal trysts between the wheelchair-bound president and his mistress Lucy Mercer. His daughter Anna would be exposed as the go-between, the upstart young proto-Ivanka who had moved into the White House and became virtually a ceremonial First Lady.
All the while the Roosevelt team would struggle to lie to the press about the president’s sky-high blood pressure, chain-smoking, martini drinking, and growing feebleness. In place of Steve Bannon’s shoot-from-the-hip notions of geopolitics, a Harry Hopkins or freelancing and estranged Eleanor Roosevelt could offer mini-interviews on the administration’s successful politicking with good old Uncle Joe at Yalta. The difference is that FDR had the press in his pocket and even was too crafty to trust any of his “friends” with unfettered access.
Petty and Petulant vs. Sober and Judicious?For all his gossip and intrigue, Wolff offers little insight into why such a supposedly disruptive and dysfunctional campaign team won the presidency. The victory, according to Wolff, was to the surprise of Trump and his advisors themselves! The logic of Wolff’s argument is that a pathetic Trump team that did not really wish to beat Clinton, Inc. If true, that paradox would say what exactly about Hillary’s fate? That wasting a mere year to win something you do not want is preferable to spending 17 years scheming in vain for your life’s ambition?
Wolff’s ogre purportedly sloppily eats Big Macs in bed, golfs more than Obama did, has no hair at all on the top of his head, and at 71 is supposedly functionally illiterate. OK, perhaps someone the last half-century read out loud to Trump the thousands of contracts he signed. But what we wish to know from Wolff is how did his trollish Trump figure out that half the country—the half with the more important Electoral College voice—was concerned about signature issues that either were unknown to or scorned by his far more experienced and better-funded rivals?
Why did not a well-read Marco Rubio or later Yale Law graduate Hillary Clinton focus on unfair trade and declining manufacturing, illegal immigration, unnecessary and optional overseas interventions, and the excesses of the deep administrative “swamp” state?
Who discovered these issues or knew how to develop them? Was it really the feisty Corey Lewandowski? The genius Paul Manafort? How, then, could Wolff’s idiot grasp that these concerns were the keys to flipping purple swing-states that had previously been written off as reliably Democratically patronized clinger/irredeemable/deplorable territory by far better informed and more tech-savvy campaign operatives?
Once Trump was in power, how does Wolff explain the near phenomenal economic turnaround in the latter part of 2017? Does he not see that the stupider you make Trump in his successful first year, by inference the even stupider you make the supposedly smarter actors in their many failed years?
Although psychological in part, the upswing is not accidental. So far economic robustness seems predicated on massive deregulation, the expectation and then the reality of comprehensive tax reform and reduction, wooing home capital and industry, expanded energy production, loud business boosterism, recalibrating foreign investment and trade, and declining illegal immigration. Did Trump do that between scarfing down cups of Häagen-Dazs? Did his team act on their own while Trump was too busy scraping the crumbs out of the bottoms of his barrels of KFC?
Why did not the supposedly far more sober and judicious Obama comprehend how to achieve 3 percent GDP growth. Could not Larry Summers or Timothy Geithner have ushered in record consumer and business confidence? Why did not black employment reach 2018 levels in 2013?
Is not a man like Obama who eats arugula instead of daily swigging a dozen diet sodas far more studious and intellectually curious on all matters economic? Are we dunces really to believe merely building a high-rise in Manhattan takes more savvy than editing in near absentia the Harvard Law Review?
Abroad, why did not the supposedly worldly Hillary Clinton as secretary of state tweet her support for the Iranian revolutionaries in the streets in 2009—in the manner that a supposedly buffoonish and semi-literate and combed-over Donald Trump instinctively did in 2018? Presidencies in purported shambles, after all, are supposed to leave the country in greater shambles.
Buffoon or Revolutionary?Absent, then, in Wolff’s supposed Confederacy of Trump White House Dunces is any explanation how such supposed clueless amateurs reset economic and foreign policy in such a way as to achieve startling improvements in less than a year at home and abroad.
And that is the quandary is it not? The dunce Trump in his first year was supposed to prove an irrelevant dumbo, not a skilled conservative revolutionary who threatens to nullify 2009-2017?
The lurid revelations of Trump White House chaos make no sense, given the Trump electoral success and first-year record of governance—unless the stories are either fake news or perhaps a quarter true.
If the latter, then the answer might be while the Trump West Wing could at times resemble the pages of Suetonius’s Twelve Caesars, the Trump team—his cabinet officers and economic and national security advisors—were not only not much involved in such Bannon intrigue, they were most likely completely free from it.
Or cabinet heads won unsurpassed latitude from a supposedly novice and naïve West Wing—and benefitted through its directives to act boldly and without worry about past centrist protocol or having their initiatives being overridden by a control-freak president.
But that possibility, in turn, raises a further question: how can a vain man who is in constant need of reassurance from everyone from Rupert Murdoch to Joe Scarborough know enough to appoint the likes of a James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, or Nikki Haley? Would it not be more likely that Michael Wolff’s Howard Hughes-like Trump would have appointed his sister to the Supreme Court, or avoided the likes of the bulldoggish ramrod John Kelly as his chief of staff?
Furthermore, given that Wolff argues that the Trump inner circle seems to be little different from the Trump of “The Apprentice” reality TV fame, why, then, would half the country vote for someone who has orange skin and combed over yellow hair, and is supposedly paranoid to the degree of eating junk food out of fear of being poisoned?
What does that ribaldry say about the voters lack of confidence in the more normal Harvard or Yale Law alternative nursery of properly schooled presidents? Is Trump’s crudity tolerable given the 2016 alternative of breaking federal law by setting up a home-cooked email server, and lying about it, but doing so with the fawning admiration of bicoastal elite culture?
If, in reductionist terms, half of the country accepted the crude antithesis of refined New York-Washington establishment expertise, why exactly was that?
Could it be that for all the sophistication, education, and training of a Hillary Clinton or Susan Rice, they could be even cruder in their own way—whether lying about deaths in Benghazi or scapegoating and jailing a video maker on a trumped up charge of parole violations? Was it that voters did not trust the establishment’s collective judgment on the Iran or Bowe Bergdahl deals, or Hillary Clinton’s “We came, we saw, he died” sick giggle of an idea of a brutally murdered Gadhafi and bombing Libya to smithereens—and then leaving?
In short, an isolated Trump campaign and initial administration were, by the definition of its very character and intent, going to be very weird and strange—and orphaned from the halls of supposed expertise and sober establishmentarian protocol. Was that not the point of Trump’s blind Samson with his arms around the pillars of the Temple of Dagon campaign? 
What few people—Wolff least of all—understood is that amid the supposed chaotic palace intrigue, Trump on his own chose to receive some good advice from Mike Pence, congressional Republican leaders in the House and Senate, conservative activist organizations, the legal team in the White House, and others. Thus he made good political and legal appointments and liberated them with wide parameters and trajectories.
Wolff’s disclosures, if a few are even marginally true, are messy and the stuff of caricature—but not as funny and depressing as the fact that someone of Trump’s background and temperament saw more clearly than his supposed betters where the country should be headed and who might lead it in such a direction.
If that be chaos, then Trump made the most of it—and at least for now the result is preferable to the mannered mediocrity of the past. Such an admission says lots more about those who think they should be in power than it does those who voted for their antitheses.
Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.