GELFAND’S WORLD - We’re at a moment when all sorts of political questions are coming to a head. And if that old phrase “coming to a head” makes you think of the eruption of a postulant boil, well, that may be an appropriate metaphor for some of what we are experiencing. That certainly includes the violations of once-honored traditions by the party currently in power.
But to consider some of it properly, we have to consider what those once-honored traditions were, and whether they were themselves merited.
This takes us back to 1963 and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. At the time, there was a lot of speculation about whether some foreign country was behind the killing, and the foremost suspect was Cuba. And this was not unreasonable at the time for the simple reason that the United States had been trying to assassinate Fidel Castro. Castro and his Cuban supporters certainly believed this, and stories had been circulating on this side of the Caribbean about various ingenious methods that had failed.
In the aftermath of Kennedy’s death, word was circulated – at least the American people were led to believe this – that the U.S. would not attempt to assassinate foreign leaders. It would be a quid pro quo, designed, if nothing else, to protect our own elected leaders and it had the additional potential benefit of bringing just a wee bit of civilized conduct to the international space. I would suspect that there was also a moratorium on kidnapping or otherwise bothering foreign heads of state. Of course the arrest, trial, and imprisonment of Manuel Noriega was an exception but for the most part, diplomacy was maintained to a certain level.
There certainly was an exception for those who committed acts of terrorism against us, either at home or abroad, with Bin Laden being the obvious example. But a military attack designed to kill the leadership of a sovereign nation was – at least in common understanding – off the board.
So the bombing attack on the leader of Iran, resulting in his death, is a change in the understood rules. It was certainly an act of war and, whether it was justified or not, was a direct violation of a 60-year-old tradition. It had been a lot of years since the CIA schemed to kill Castro, and suddenly we were not only in the business again, we succeeded.
The practice of not taking aim on foreign leaders may have been merely a tradition – you might think of it as an understanding – but it surely was understood. At least this was the case on our side. (It was commonly understood that Putin was trying to kill the president of Ukraine, but he clearly goes by a different set of rules.) So what does this change in policy mean for the western world and specifically for the United States?
If nothing else, it gives foreign despots an excuse to take aim at American leaders, both at home and overseas. It’s not something that anyone on our side would agree with, but the logic is right there. In fact, Donald Trump recently bragged openly to reporters that he was targeted, and that they should consider that fact when traveling with him.
There is one other issue with enabling the assassination of national leaders.
It can lead to far bigger and worse sorts of things.
Modern historians will point to the assassination back in 1914 that led to the outbreak of the First World War. What was undoubtedly the worst misfortune to befall humanity up to that point obviously had deeper causes, but the murder of a national leader had effects. We are seeing effects of that Iranian attack even now, what with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the loss of oil and fertilizer shipments, and the cost in human lives and income.
This is all by way of preface to the rest of the argument which itself leads to a continuing question which the mainstream press tends to avoid. Let’s consider.
What we have right now is a government based on the following:
Threats made against the civilian population
Unpredictable and sudden attacks on the economy by the president’s tariff impositions and tariff threats
Threats to invade or otherwise control Greenland, Canada, Cuba, Venezuela, Gaza, and some American cities
Continuing denial about the reality of climate change due to global warming
What we have over one and a half Trump terms as president includes serious damage to U.S. interests, damage to our economy, loss of influence with our one-time allies, and damage to our standard of living. Prices are up, and the promised development of domestic jobs through tariff imposition is failing.
The question about all this damage is simple: Why?
In other words, is Donald Trump intentionally turning the U.S. into a second rate power, both economically and diplomatically? Alternatively, is he just that inept?
I think it’s a serious question. Lots of Trump critics are publishing scare stories about how he is losing mental capabilities. They point to physical failings, his speech patterns, and his increasing number and level of rage attacks.
In the latter case, we have his demands that Kristen Welker’s right to freedom of speech be curtailed by a federal agency. That this latest Trump tantrum is both dangerous and Constitutionally bonkers is clear, and has been noticed by at least one FCC commissioner and by the press.
Lots of critics on the center-left point out that Trump seems to be motivated more than anything by the psychological need for revenge. One might ask what prompted his fury towards Canada, but the argument fits the data for the most part. But why all this talk about grabbing Greenland as an American territory? You have to make a real mental effort to bring yourself to believing that there is anything rational about that. It’s all in keeping with an eighteenth or nineteenth century version of imperialism.
The other potential explanation is that the Russians have something on Trump and he is doing their bidding. The argument on this is even simpler: Trump has been doing his best to undermine NATO, which was created to defend western Europe and American interests against the Soviet Union. Putin wants to bring back a system where Russia has the power and importance it did under the Soviet Union, and getting rid of NATO would serve that purpose. And of course everything else that Trump has done in terms of tariffs and picking verbal fights with western leaders is consistent with that same idea of downgrading U.S. influence through wrecking the American economy.
Which is it? It could be either. The problem is what to do over the next two years? Suppose Trump were to order American troops to invade Greenland or were to make attempts to fortify the border with Canada? These ideas seem insane, but this administration has made clear that they are on the table.
Some of the solution is up to American voters. If one or both houses of congress get taken over by the Democratic Party, it’s going to be a lot harder for Trump to get away with his shenanigans. But he still has a lot of power simply as the chief administrator, and he is showing this daily.
There is one other aspect of Trumpian rule that becomes increasingly evident. Everything is a distraction. Political analysts have been pointing this out but the rest of us are entitled to ask what, in particular, are we supposed to be distracted from? Commenters love to point to the Epstein files, but service to the Russian dictator is a more serious problem in terms of the national interest.
In any case, all this renaming of the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario and other such provocations serve merely to insult peoples and leaders who we previously got along with. But any serious thought reveals that they are in fact distractions.
An aside: When Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico and now attempts to rename Lake Ontario, the rest of the world – including our own corporations – should have ignored him. But this is not the case, as Google has shown through (to borrow a phrase) its disgraceful capitulation. And worse yet, our own government agencies are cooperating with policies that are clearly not in our national interest. Among the worst of these policies is the denial of climate change. The recent firing of a West Point professor for his refusal to join in the official campaign of lies is just one example.
How to deal with Trump’s delusions and tantrums is going to be the important question for the rest of government during the last two years of Trump’s presidential term. There needs to be some bulwark against the invasion of an ally, and this depends critically on a few Republicans in the Senate growing a little spine. It needs to be made clear to Trump and his handlers that this would cross the line and lead to not only impeachment but removal from office. It’s a stretch, and it would require 16 or 17 Republicans to commit quietly to this promise. If the economy gets bad enough, they might go along.
Addendum: This and That
The local news got all riled up about an empty house and lot that had been taken over by squatters and then suffered a fire. The failure of local government to solve the problem (for years, apparently) was pointed out on Channel 5 news, and suddenly the mayor and her opponent were in gear. Of course the fact that nothing much got done until television got active was recognized. Even conservative talk radio had a fun time with the story, pointing out that when you have a problem, the first thing you should do is go to local television rather than appealing to elected representatives. I don’t get to agree with right wing talk radio very often, but I had to join in their laughter on this one.
Of course the issue is a little deeper than the discussion we’ve had either from Bass, Raman, television, or local radio. The real question is how to deal with an abandoned property that is becoming a nuisance. We don’t seem to have a working solution. So here’s a question for the mayoral candidates: The next time a situation like we just had (with an abandoned house, squatters, and danger to the public) manifests itself, what policies and procedures should be in effect that will protect the public?
One might imagine the use of eminent domain as the ultimate remedy. The threat of a government takeover might be sufficiently motivating to property owners, and the actual use of eminent domain followed by sale of the property to a responsible developer would be a solution. Let’s ask the candidates the next time they take questions.
And one other thought. Is it too late to ask Rick Caruso to manage the Los Angeles side of the 2028 Olympics? He has successfully developed properties and protected them from wildfire, and he seems to understand finances. It would be useful to have an understanding between the city, the Olympics, and the federal government in terms of protecting our local finances.
(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])
