Why the GOP Needs to Win in November

As much as any other magazine, Foreign Affairs is one whereby the globalists and foreign policy elite within the U.S. speak to one another. Its March/April 2018 edition is devoted to bemoaning the foreign policies of Donald Trump. Needless to say, the authors for that issue are, to varying degree, anti-Trump and horrified at his election. This is neither surprising nor is it newsworthy given the nature of FA. However, some of their thinking, especially from Jake Sullivan and Eliot Cohen. 

At the nub, FA is fearful that President Trump is setting about to disrupt world order which they have carefully crafted since 1945. And for the record, the FA crowd does not use an incendiary term like the New World Order to describe its agenda. They preferred to call it liberal hegemony with the U.S. being the hegemon guided, of course, by their Masters of the Universe-type wisdom

The foundations of this liberal hegemony requires nearly unrestricted trade into American markets, the U.S. military as guarantor of world security, a matrix of alliances, multinational trade agreements, nation building, support for international institutions like the United Nations, unimpeded flow of goods, capital, and people across borders, and the ensuing dilution of U.S. national sovereignty.  A cynic would say much of this amounts to America continuing to inordinately shoulder the burdens of the world as was perhaps necessary in the aftermath of WWII. 

It's an understatement to say that Trump's election has ruffled feathers at FA. Still, these globalists find a degree of relief in the fact that the president has been hamstrung in getting many of his policies enacted. FA cites things such as the courts, the media, Congress, insubordinate subordinates, inability to control government agencies, and general inertia. The hope of the FA-types is that they will be able to either outlast Trump, convert him, or wear him down.

Let's look at Eliot Cohen first. His background includes the dubious distinction as being one of the first neoconservatives who publicly advocated for war against Iraq and Iran. Cohen got his wish in Iraq but not in Iran. As to Iraq, the man is unapologetic to this date. 

Cohen is also one of the Republicans who formally signed on to the #NeverTrump movement in 2016. 

Continuing in his #NeverTrump mode, Cohen wrote of his personal distaste for Donald Trump in the January 2017 issue of the Atlantic

"Many conservative foreign-policy and national-security experts saw the dangers last spring and summer, which is why we signed letters denouncing not Trump's policies but his temperament; not his programs but his character. we were right. And friends who urge us to tone it down, to make peace with him, to stop say as loudly as we could 'this is abnormal,' to accommodate him, to show loyalty to the Republican Party, to think that he and his advisers could be tamed, were wrong."

Such are Cohen's personal feelings. But Cohen goes overboard in the current Foreign Affairs with his article "Trump's Lucky Year." After recognizing that among the top three advisers in the Trump administration on foreign policy are generals -- John Kelly (White House chief of staff), James 'Mad Dog' Mattis (Secretary of Defense), and H.R. McMaster (national security adviser), Cohen writes:

" ...what will happen if and when the president decides on a course of actions that his advisers deem highly dangerous but nevertheless legal. With over a century of drilled obedience to the commander in chief under their collective belt, the generals might not be willing to subvert decisions with which they disagree..."

This is breathtaking. Cohen is worried Trump's advisers might not subvert legal actions of the president of the United States if, in their own mind, they think such actions are 'dangerous.' Obviously, Cohen is so morally challenged that he fails to realize the honest thing to do in such a circumstance would be to resign, not to 'subvert' the president. Is there a word that describes the action that Cohen is implicitly calling for?     

FA introduces Jake Sullivan as the youngest-ever director of policy planning at the U.S. State Department. The Obama Administration sent him to Oman for the first of many secret meetings that would lay the foundation for the Iran nuclear deal. Sullivan has also been a former adviser to both Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden and is now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Sullivan's article "The World After Trump" has one valuable piece of information:

" ... Trump must not be handed a second term. The difference between one and two terms is not 1X vs 2X but more like 1X vs 10X. For one thing, Obama needed two terms to get to the ideas he campaigned on in 2008, and if the same process is true for Trump, his second term could be cataclysmic."

Yes, a second Trump term would be 'cataclysmic' -- cataclysmic for the globalists but a godsend for the greater American public. Contributing to Sullivan's 10X factor is the belief that, with a second term, President Trump will have the time to gain his footing, weed out weak subordinates, get a handle on the administrative state, and generally start to overcome the inertia involved in turning the ship of state around. Also, with a second term, the Republican Party could well evolve into being more Trump friendly. Everyone loves a winner.

Sullivan also dreads a second Trump term because "Trump's reelection would confirm that Trumpism is in fact the new normal in the United States, not just an aberration." 

This last sentence is a warning, a harbinger of what's to come. Yes, the globalists fought against Donald Trump in 2016. But they never expected him to win. To the foreign policy establishment, Trump was a buffoon, a joke. Things will be different from here on out now that they know Trump can win. The knives will be out in 2020. Then, the swamp will marshal every critter, large and small, in its domain against Trump and his base of deplorable supporters. The attacks will be savage and multidimensional, making 2016 look like child's play.

In boxing, a one-two punch is most effective. That's a left jab immediately followed by a powerful right hook. The jab sets up the hook. That is what the anti-Trumpers are attempting. A prelude to 2020 presidential election is this year's midterms. The jab. This is critical to both sides. Should the Democrats take the House in November, Trump will face a headwind of distractions, among which could well be impeachment. This will cripple the Trump agenda and make his reelection extremely difficult -- the knockout.

On the other hand, if the GOP maintains control of the House in November, it will be the globalists who risk being worn down by Trump's reinvigorated MAGA agenda. The stakes are high. It would be a shame to lose to the foreign policy elite, the Democrats, and the rest of the anti-Trump coalition after coming so far in 2016. 

As much as any other magazine, Foreign Affairs is one whereby the globalists and foreign policy elite within the U.S. speak to one another. Its March/April 2018 edition is devoted to bemoaning the foreign policies of Donald Trump. Needless to say, the authors for that issue are, to varying degree, anti-Trump and horrified at his election. This is neither surprising nor is it newsworthy given the nature of FA. However, some of their thinking, especially from Jake Sullivan and Eliot Cohen. 

At the nub, FA is fearful that President Trump is setting about to disrupt world order which they have carefully crafted since 1945. And for the record, the FA crowd does not use an incendiary term like the New World Order to describe its agenda. They preferred to call it liberal hegemony with the U.S. being the hegemon guided, of course, by their Masters of the Universe-type wisdom

The foundations of this liberal hegemony requires nearly unrestricted trade into American markets, the U.S. military as guarantor of world security, a matrix of alliances, multinational trade agreements, nation building, support for international institutions like the United Nations, unimpeded flow of goods, capital, and people across borders, and the ensuing dilution of U.S. national sovereignty.  A cynic would say much of this amounts to America continuing to inordinately shoulder the burdens of the world as was perhaps necessary in the aftermath of WWII. 

It's an understatement to say that Trump's election has ruffled feathers at FA. Still, these globalists find a degree of relief in the fact that the president has been hamstrung in getting many of his policies enacted. FA cites things such as the courts, the media, Congress, insubordinate subordinates, inability to control government agencies, and general inertia. The hope of the FA-types is that they will be able to either outlast Trump, convert him, or wear him down.

Let's look at Eliot Cohen first. His background includes the dubious distinction as being one of the first neoconservatives who publicly advocated for war against Iraq and Iran. Cohen got his wish in Iraq but not in Iran. As to Iraq, the man is unapologetic to this date. 

Cohen is also one of the Republicans who formally signed on to the #NeverTrump movement in 2016. 

Continuing in his #NeverTrump mode, Cohen wrote of his personal distaste for Donald Trump in the January 2017 issue of the Atlantic

"Many conservative foreign-policy and national-security experts saw the dangers last spring and summer, which is why we signed letters denouncing not Trump's policies but his temperament; not his programs but his character. we were right. And friends who urge us to tone it down, to make peace with him, to stop say as loudly as we could 'this is abnormal,' to accommodate him, to show loyalty to the Republican Party, to think that he and his advisers could be tamed, were wrong."

Such are Cohen's personal feelings. But Cohen goes overboard in the current Foreign Affairs with his article "Trump's Lucky Year." After recognizing that among the top three advisers in the Trump administration on foreign policy are generals -- John Kelly (White House chief of staff), James 'Mad Dog' Mattis (Secretary of Defense), and H.R. McMaster (national security adviser), Cohen writes:

" ...what will happen if and when the president decides on a course of actions that his advisers deem highly dangerous but nevertheless legal. With over a century of drilled obedience to the commander in chief under their collective belt, the generals might not be willing to subvert decisions with which they disagree..."

This is breathtaking. Cohen is worried Trump's advisers might not subvert legal actions of the president of the United States if, in their own mind, they think such actions are 'dangerous.' Obviously, Cohen is so morally challenged that he fails to realize the honest thing to do in such a circumstance would be to resign, not to 'subvert' the president. Is there a word that describes the action that Cohen is implicitly calling for?     

FA introduces Jake Sullivan as the youngest-ever director of policy planning at the U.S. State Department. The Obama Administration sent him to Oman for the first of many secret meetings that would lay the foundation for the Iran nuclear deal. Sullivan has also been a former adviser to both Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden and is now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Sullivan's article "The World After Trump" has one valuable piece of information:

" ... Trump must not be handed a second term. The difference between one and two terms is not 1X vs 2X but more like 1X vs 10X. For one thing, Obama needed two terms to get to the ideas he campaigned on in 2008, and if the same process is true for Trump, his second term could be cataclysmic."

Yes, a second Trump term would be 'cataclysmic' -- cataclysmic for the globalists but a godsend for the greater American public. Contributing to Sullivan's 10X factor is the belief that, with a second term, President Trump will have the time to gain his footing, weed out weak subordinates, get a handle on the administrative state, and generally start to overcome the inertia involved in turning the ship of state around. Also, with a second term, the Republican Party could well evolve into being more Trump friendly. Everyone loves a winner.

Sullivan also dreads a second Trump term because "Trump's reelection would confirm that Trumpism is in fact the new normal in the United States, not just an aberration." 

This last sentence is a warning, a harbinger of what's to come. Yes, the globalists fought against Donald Trump in 2016. But they never expected him to win. To the foreign policy establishment, Trump was a buffoon, a joke. Things will be different from here on out now that they know Trump can win. The knives will be out in 2020. Then, the swamp will marshal every critter, large and small, in its domain against Trump and his base of deplorable supporters. The attacks will be savage and multidimensional, making 2016 look like child's play.

In boxing, a one-two punch is most effective. That's a left jab immediately followed by a powerful right hook. The jab sets up the hook. That is what the anti-Trumpers are attempting. A prelude to 2020 presidential election is this year's midterms. The jab. This is critical to both sides. Should the Democrats take the House in November, Trump will face a headwind of distractions, among which could well be impeachment. This will cripple the Trump agenda and make his reelection extremely difficult -- the knockout.

On the other hand, if the GOP maintains control of the House in November, it will be the globalists who risk being worn down by Trump's reinvigorated MAGA agenda. The stakes are high. It would be a shame to lose to the foreign policy elite, the Democrats, and the rest of the anti-Trump coalition after coming so far in 2016.