Finishing Dennis Ross' "Doomed To Succeed." The Unbridled Party!

U.S and Islamic Extremism. (See 1 below.) === The final four presidents and their attitude and relationship with Israel  -  review of  Dennis Ross' " Doomed to Succeed." (See 2 and 2a below.) ==== If you helped create it you may have some ownership. (See 3 below.) and   Can we survive? Should we ignore the meaning of the new political  phenomenon? (See 3a below.) === Just as I thought. Shutting down the government is doable and probably  worth a try because we would learn how we could do without so much that is counterproductive. (See 4 below.) === It is becoming increasingly evident that when a party is not in power and becomes leaderless anything can happen.  When Romney lost, perhaps it was impossible for him to make claim to the reigns of the Republican Party. Consequently, The Party split internally between what is called The Establishment, and those who call themselves, True Conservatives.  The current crop of candidates, by their actions, simply caused the split to widen as they pursued the winnowing process of going from 17 to six with only three currently having credible prospects. By the time they finish verbally raping each other, the prize they seek not only will have been tarnished but also they will have given the opposition an increased storehouse of ammunition. Gingrich did the same thing against Romney and it approved an effective weapon and no doubt will again. If Republicans are intent on killing themselves so be it.  They deserve what they have allowed themselves to reap.  Lamentably, if imposing Bernie or Hillarious on America is the outcome,  we all lose. Once again, the enemy is us! === Dick ======================================================== 1)  U.S. losing ground against Islamic extremism, says former  CENTCOM commander by joel c. rosenberg

Despite the insistence of President Obama and his senior advisors that the Islamic State and the violent jihadist movement worldwide is losing ground, the former head of U.S. Central Commander says the exact opposite is true.

"The U.S. has lost ground in the fight against Islamic extremism, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said in a recent interview," according to an article inThe Hill, a Washington based newspaper that covers Congressional affairs.

The following are excerpts from this important story:

·         "Unfortunately, we have lost ground over time," said retired Gen. John P. Abizaid, former commander of U.S. Central Command in an interview published in this month's West Point's Combating Terrorism Center's magazine.

·         "The scope of the ideological movement, the geographic dispersion of Islamic extremism, the number of terror attacks, the number of people swearing allegiance, and the ground they hold have all increased," said Abizaid.

·         "Groups like the Islamic State have now taken on state-like forms and features that are unlike anything we’ve seen in the past. So on balance we are in a worse position strategically with regard to the growth of international terrorism, Islamic terrorism in particular, than we were after September 2001," he said.

·         The dire assessment highlights the difficulty the Obama administration faces as it tries to accelerate the campaign against ISIS in its remaining 10 months in office....

·         The administration says the primary focus will remain on Iraq and Syria, but that it will also strike ISIS in other places, such as Afghanistan and Libya, if an opportunity arises.

·         However, with only 10 months remaining in the administration, there is little time for doing significantly more, and the administration has sidestepped questions into whether there will be a more robust effort to go after ISIS in Libya.

·         "I'm not going to look ahead into the future. We're going to continue to respond to the ISIL threat as it develops. We are carrying out a significant campaign against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, and we are prepared — as we have demonstrated in the last 24 hours — to strike ISIL in other parts of the world, as they pose a threat," Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said Friday, using another acronym for ISIS.

·         Abizaid also said the U.S. was making a mistake by not acknowledging that modern-day borders of the Middle East are falling apart.

·         The U.S. is aiming for political solutions in Iraq and Syria that would keep the countries together, instead of broken up along sectarian lines.

·         "I do not think you solve the problem by trying to reinforce the status quo that existed before September 11, 2001," he said.

·         "I think the international community and the leaders in the region have got to decide how best to reshape the Middle East and redraw the boundaries to establish stability and a more peaceful structure," he said.

·         "Nations that are trying to put the status quo back on the map are only going to prolong the conflict and stoke greater violence," he added. "I do not believe we are capable of putting this all back together again. That strategy is bound to fail."

·         One thing the U.S. can do, he recommended, is to put more effort into organizing and leading the international community to do more to take on ISIS.

·         "I’m talking about a raiding strategy where we destroy capability over time in a joint force, which is an integrated international air, ground, and naval effort," he said.

·         "Without American leadership, we’re not going to move in a direction that’s going to produce effective results," he said.

·         "That doesn’t mean we only employ American assets, but it does mean there has to be American commitment to lead the effort and guarantee our partners that there will be some long lasting measures that take place," he said.

================================================================

2) George Walker Bush  was the opposite of Reagan when it came to America's relationship with Israel.  He was from Texas, and an oilman, was surrounded by those with a similar mind set and he saw Israel as simply another state and Israel impeded our need to reach out to Arab States and thus we needed to maintain a position of greater balance.

I was somewhat connected to his administration and can attest, first hand, Bush did not like or trust Prime Minister Shamir of Israel, because Bush believed your word was your bond.  He was of the opinion Shamir had lied to him and used American funds in an unintended manner and I suspect Bush was right  in his beliefs.

Notwithstanding this, Bush also kept his word when it came to military and security co-operation between our nations.  He also  supported Jewish immigration to Israel and forced the U.N to repeal its resolution equating Zionism with racism.

By the end of his term , once again, the fears of our close relationship with Israel impacting those with Arab States proved overblown.

Clinton was of a different emotional mind set.  He felt very supportive of Israel and developed a very strong personal attachment to Rabin. Rabin's death deeply touched Clinton.

Also, Clinton came to office totally committed to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Issue and devoted far too much time and effort to this losing battle.

Furthermore, Clinton saw the pressures on the various Israeli leaders he dealt with through the eyes of a consummate politician and there was little dissonance among Clinton and his advisers, whereas, in virtually every previous administration there was duality of attitudes. Consequently, Clinton never felt comfortable putting pressure on Israel when the inclination involved politics.  Clinton was one of Israel's greatest friends.

Clinton came to have and utter distrust of Arafat and told  those in the Bush 43 Administration, in unmistakable terms, how he felt and why.

Bush  43, was totally conflicted and ill prepared when he became president in regard to The Middle East. In the early years of his administration he tilted towards his concern the Saudis must be deferred to for fear of our energy dependence. and the advice he received from his appointees to The State Department and  NSC. He even called upon is father to intercede in one instance.

G.W also came into the office determined to be "Anything but Clinton."

Then 9/11 came along and everything changed in terms of his focus and his attitude about Israel.

Bush replaced Powell who was decidedly concerned about the effect of our relationship with Israel, how it impacted ours with Arab States and the War In Iraq.  Sec. Rice and Gates came to believe diplomacy was the route and basically embraced Powell's approach though Gates , after leaving office, admitted his fears never came to fruition and even were over blown.

Because Bush 43, had deep connections with Evangelicals and was a Born Again Christian, he tended to emphasize with Israel and the various unwarranted terror attacks orchestrated by Arafat helped temper GW"s attitude..

Sec. Rice's experience with segregation caused her to have a greater sense of empathy with the Palestinian's plight .

I believe equating the problem Black Citizens endured, because of segregation, led her in the wrong direction.  Blacks never attacked whites. Arafat was engaged in unbridled attacks against Israel and instigated a number of Intifadas which Israel was totally in its right to defend against.  Consequently, Arafat brought about conditions that harmed his own people because he believed he was relevant only when he was inciting.

After 9/11,Bush believed Israel faced the same common terrorist threat America and though Israel was accused of using excessive force in the eyes of those who were constantly seeking a reason to be critical, from its very beginning Israel has faced serious and difficult challenges which America is now experiencing in its wars against ISIS etc., , ie. civilian casualties because terrorists use civilians as shields, purposely place them in hospitals etc. and bombs can and do go astray, etc.

(Obama has been protected by the media and print folks when our planes kill innocents because they do not have the same level of access provided them by PLO and Hamas terrorists engaged against Israel.)

Finally, Obama came into office determined to be "Anything but Bush."

Obama also was ideologically determined  to restore America's standing and leadership and he was determined to accomplish several goals:

a) Prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

b)Transform our relationship with the Muslim world,

(With respect to the latter, Obama felt compelled to undo the "damage" Bush had done and that meant a series of initiatives which, in my opinion, ultimately signified weakness and resulted in the  "Middle East Mess." we currently find ourselves in and exemplified by the decline in our relationship vis a vis Israel, Saudi Arabia and a host of other Arab Nations who question whether we are prepared to assist in their defense and security which has always been their primary concern.)

Once again, Obama tended to reject advice of those whom he thought were too pro Israel and thus,  he relied less on Tom Donilon, who was trusted by Israel and had very high level relationships and more and more on Susan Rice, Dennis McDonough and others whoshared her 'Israeli distrust" mind set.

Donilon understood the best way to keep Israelis from going their own way was to work closely with them, build their trust and confidence in our reliability etc. 

That said, Obama expanded contacts with Israel and our military and intelligence agencies, provided funding for a variety of necessary and successful weaponry some of which was jointly developed.

Dennis Ross also portrays the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu in a somewhat less antagonistic light, but matters changed in Obama's second term.

By March, 2014, Kerry had become Sec. of State and had crafted a plan which was submitted to Netanyahu and Abbas.  Kerry's plan had been massaged to incorporate Susan Rice's ideas which always leaned towards and were sympathetic to Palestinian "needs."  Kerry's plan even comprised  five proposals regarding Jerusalem.  Abbas never responded and matters deteriorated after that culminating with Netanyahu accepting an invitation to address Congress and Obama reacting in a highly negative and public manner. Relations sank to a low akin to the lowest points in previous administration when the U.S and Israel were at loggerheads.

To his credit, Ross maintains, Obama consistently had problems when it came to Israel and matters of peace but he never used his pique to diminish support of Israel security so it could maintain its military edge.

Obama came into office, as did many of his predecessors, believing we needed to distance ourselves from Israel but , over time, he softened.  He came to understand distancing ourselves from Israel was not the answer but he did believe Netanyahu was in a stronger position than Abbas and therefore, needed to make more concessions. Obama also believes delay does not work in Israel's direction because eventually the Palestinian population will swamp Israel's and this will create conditions which will further distance Israel from its founding principles and diminish international support even further.

Obama simply cannot shake his belief Palestinians are victims and Israel must be on the giving end accordingly.

Ross summarizes by continuing to point out our mistaken belief our relationship with Israel makes more difficult the relationship we wish to maintain with Arab States, yet, it continues to shape our policy. In truth, Arab priorities revolve around survival, security and domestic stability . These facts take precedent over their concern for the Palestinians. Yes, their leaders do not like to be seen as publicly disregarding the demands of Palestinians. Yes, Palestinians matter and Arab leaders often use the plight of Palestinians as leverage to obtain concessions when negotiating with America but it is not the key determinant driving their relationship.  Arab priorities not ours drive their relationship with America.

Israeli leaders, on the other hand, constantly ask what happens when pressing Israel to make more concessions is interpreted by Palestinians that they can dig their heels in and thus, ask for more concessions. Ross suggests history has shown we have received few concessions from Palestinians as a consequence of all the pressure we have applied to Israel.

There has always been a basic distrust of Israel within the State Department which has colored their advice and thus our relationship with Israel. Moreover, Israeli leaders are concerned about letting us know just how far they are willing to go in making concessions because they fear America does not understand the security dangers they face with those who remain committed to their annihilation and what happens if they make concessions and, as has proven to be the case more times than not, Palestinians do not respond in kind. When negotiations resume the Palestinians renew their demand for more concessions..
 
On the other hand, Israel has not always taken into consideration the impact of their actions on America's needs. This is why close co-operation and frequent meetings, at the highest level, is important so distinctions between important versus existential issues be understood.

Ross also argues Israel needs to be more forthcoming with major European nations and not assume an  "it is hopeless" attitude.

Today,  Obama's attitude towards Iran is what  drives Saudi concerns, not our relationship with Israel or our supply of arms to them.  The Saudis are concerned about the shifting  balance of power in the region as it relates to their security. The Saudis do not understand why Obama is not more concerned about The Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS , or why we withheld  weapon assistance to Egypt's military driving them into the Soviet's arms or why our outreach to Iran. They do not expect us to provide for their internal security but they question our dependability to provide a defensive shield.

Ross argues America's interests ultimately drive our relationship with Israel but because Israel is the sole Democracy in the region and we share common values they have come to be seen as  a strategic partner and all presidents understand this and act accordingly.

As America become a nation of increasing numbers of minorities that do not have links to or appreciation of our Israeli relationship the support of Israel can diminish.

Ross suggests several steps Israel and its supporters should take to head off any potential split as follows:

a) Begin outreach to minority communities to educate them about Israel and Middle East realities.

b) Counter any impression Israel is a partisan issue.

c)Israel must elevate its democratic virtues and reject restrictive legislation.

d) Israel must begin a voluntary  initiative towards Palestinians , even if rejected, because it can undercut the growing de-legitimization effort currently being waged against Israel.  Israel could do this by announcing no more settlements on land unlikely to be retained by Israel, should a two state resolution come to pass.

There is no doubt an agreement between Palestinians and Israelis would be a positive but, at the current time, is un-achievable and not likely to alter the more serious issues pertaining to ISSIS, Iran, Syria, Yemen etc.

Israel has a better handle on its identity than the various Arab nations who continue to question their own and still face unresolved issues with respect to Tribe, clan,sect, Islamist versus secular identity etc.

As for America's relationship with Israel, Ross argues it has come a long way, is far beyond where it began and notwithstanding existing fissures it is doomed to succeed.

(My thinking: I admit to being pro-Israel because;

a) I am Jewish.

b) Because my father helped arm Israel in contemplation of their becoming a nation.

c)  Because Israel and its citizens have proven, against all odds, they are survivors, have prospered and brought great benefits to the world at large and have every right to exist.

d) Finally , Israel is a Democracy in a region lacking in such and morality dictates Israel survive and prosper as it has proven it can.

Has Israel made mistakes?  Yes.  Has Israel been dealt with unfairly by the world community and most particularly by the millions of armed Arabs who surround them. Yes.

Time and again, virtually every president from Truman to Obama has concluded America's relationship with Israel was an impediment to our desire to have relationships with Arab nations in the area. This attitude has proven totally misguided.

Palestinians have blamed their self-imposed refugee status on Israel and this, too, has proven false. Why? Because every time Israel entered negotiations the PLO leadership either rejected what was offered or engaged in more terror believing Israel would cave knowing the West would press Israel to make further concessions. 

There is no doubt certain  Israeli settlements in West Jerusalem have been an irritant but the land on which Israel builds came as a result of Arabs losing their constant wars of aggression.

Furthermore, every president has learned, though perhaps have been unwilling to acknowledge, when they and Israel negotiate with The Palestinians, they always want more than that to which they just agreed and/or were never serious and have rejected every opportunity to have a lasting peace. How can Israelis rely upon a commitment from those who are unwilling to agree they have a right to exist? Would America do so?  Would any nation do so?

Today, Israel is surrounded by thousands of rockets, financed, in large part, by Iran and yet, Obama walked away from his initial goal of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons because he lacked the negotiating courage and skills to hang tough. Consequently, his perfidious "Deal" has elevated the threat Israel faces to a prospective existential level and is a serious threat to our own nation's security.

Obama drew a red line in Syria, then walked away. This elevated the belief, not only among Arab nations dependent upon us for their security, but convinced our adversaries, we were both untrustworthy and weak.  And what of the multitudes who have been dislodged and killed because of Obama's misguided and feckless policies because they were based on his contempt for G.W and his own arrogance and ideological stubbornness?

The kindest conclusion I can embrace is Obama is out of his league and, in truth, came into office with a pre-conceived ideology based on a distorted antipathy towards America's history and our dealing with Arabs and Muslims. Consequently, Obama's policies have been misguided. Add to this his confused and narcissistic personality and you have a recipe for disaster with which future presidents will have to deal.

And do not forget the vacuum Obama's failed leadership has created leading to a sense of desperation and anger which has attracted the likes of a Bernie, a Trump and an Hillarious to believe they can lead us because they have answers.

When all else fails lower your standards and boy have we! ) 

2a)

Leading Democrats are taking aim at the Obama administration for its opposition to newly passed legislation that aims to bolster the U.S.-Israel economic relationship and combat boycotts of Israel, according to a statement issued this week.

The Obama administration announced that it opposes portions of a bipartisan trade bill that would strengthen economic ties between the U.S. and Israel and force trade partners to sever ties with backers of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, an anti-Israel movement that seeks to economically isolate the Jewish state

President Barack Obama issued a rare statement opposing the bill’s pro-Israel language this week, claiming that it sought to legitimize Israeli settlements. Obama stated that he would not enforce the pro-Israel provisions as a result of his personal disagreement with the policies.

The statement prompted top Democrats to break with the president.

The fracture between these Democrats and the administration comes amid White House support for efforts to label Jewish-made goods produced in disputed areas of Israel. These efforts have been described as anti-Semitic by Israel’s government.

“While the Obama Administration has reiterated its opposition to boycotts, divestment campaigns, and sanctions targeting the State of Israel, it has mischaracterized the TPA and Customs bill provisions as making a U.S. policy statement about Israeli settlements,” Sens. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), Ben Cardin (D., Md.), Michael Bennet (D., Colo.), and Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) said in a joint statement released Thursday.

The senators accused the Obama administration of lying about the pro-Israel bill and pushing a false narrative in efforts to oppose it.

“This simply is not the case,” they said. “These provisions are not about Israeli settlements.”

“Rather, consistent with U.S. policy, they are about discouraging politically-motivated commercial actions aimed at delegitimizing Israel and pressuring Israel into unilateral concessions outside the bounds of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations,” the senators said. “We urge the Administration to implement these provisions as enacted and intended.”

Republicans who cosponsored the bill along with Democratic allies also took aim at the administration.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), who authored the pro-Israel language along with Rep. Juan Vargas (D., Calif.), criticized the a

“We did not provide a statutory menu from which President Obama can pick and choose provisions to enforce,” the lawmaker added. “The president has signed this bill into law—it is now his responsibility to fully and faithfully execute it in its entirety.”

Roskam expressed dismay that “fighting efforts to delegitimize Israel interferes with his diplomacy, but rest assured that I intend to use my authority as chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee.”

dministration for not upholding the will of Congress and the American people.

“This law—including the anti-BDS provisions I was proud to author—passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate,” Roskam said in a statement. “Incredibly, President Obama has already announced his intention to prioritize his misguided notions of legacy over the law of the land.”

==============================================================
3)

Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected

Why political professionals are struggling to make sense of the world they created.

By Peggy Noonan

We’re in a funny moment. Those who do politics for a living, some of them quite brilliant, are struggling to comprehend the central fact of the Republican primary race, while regular people have already absorbed what has happened and is happening. Journalists and politicos have been sharing schemes for how Marco parlays a victory out of winning nowhere, or Ted roars back, or Kasich has to finish second in Ohio. But in my experience any nonpolitical person on the street, when asked who will win, not only knows but gets a look as if you’re teasing him. Trump, they say.

I had such a conversation again Tuesday with a friend who repairs shoes in a shop on Lexington Avenue. Jimmy asked me, conversationally, what was going to happen. I deflected and asked who he thinks is going to win. “Troomp!” He’s a very nice man, an elderly, old-school Italian-American, but I saw impatience flick across his face: Aren’t you supposed to know these things?

In America now only normal people are capable of seeing the obvious.

But actually that’s been true for a while, and is how we got in the position we’re in.

Last October I wrote of the five stages of Trump, based on the Kübler-Ross stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Most of the professionals I know are stuck somewhere between four and five.

But I keep thinking of how Donald Trump got to be the very likely Republican nominee. There are many answers and reasons, but my thoughts keep revolving around the idea of protection. It is a theme that has been something of a preoccupation in this space over the years, but I think I am seeing it now grow into an overall political dynamic throughout the West.

There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.

I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.

They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.

Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions.

One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and Western Europe is immigration. It is the issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens.

It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump.

Britain will probably leave the European Union over it. In truth immigration is one front in that battle, but it is the most salient because of the European refugee crisis and the failure of the protected class to address it realistically and in a way that offers safety to the unprotected.

If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration—its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine—more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally.

It was good for the protected. But the unprotected watched and saw. They realized the protected were not looking out for them, and they inferred that they were not looking out for the country, either.

The unprotected came to think they owed the establishment—another word for the protected—nothing, no particular loyalty, no old allegiance.

Mr. Trump came from that.

Similarly in Europe, citizens on the ground in member nations came to see the EU apparatus as a racket—an elite that operated in splendid isolation, looking after its own while looking down on the people.

In Germany the incident that tipped public opinion against Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal refugee policy happened on New Year’s Eve in the public square of Cologne. Packs of men said to be recent migrants groped and molested groups of young women. It was called a clash of cultures, and it was that, but it was also wholly predictable if any policy maker had cared to think about it. And it was not the protected who were the victims—not a daughter of EU officials or members of the Bundestag. It was middle- and working-class girls—the unprotected, who didn’t even immediately protest what had happened to them. They must have understood that in the general scheme of things they’re nobodies.

What marks this political moment, in Europe and the U.S., is the rise of the unprotected. It is the rise of people who don’t have all that much against those who’ve been given many blessings and seem to believe they have them not because they’re fortunate but because they’re better.

You see the dynamic in many spheres. In Hollywood, as we still call it, where they make our rough culture, they are careful to protect their own children from its ill effects. In places with failing schools, they choose not to help them through the school liberation movement—charter schools, choice, etc.—because they fear to go up against the most reactionary professional group in America, the teachers unions. They let the public schools flounder. But their children go to the best private schools.

This is a terrible feature of our age—that we are governed by protected people who don’t seem to care that much about their unprotected fellow citizens.

And a country really can’t continue this way.

In wise governments the top is attentive to the realities of the lives of normal people, and careful about their anxieties. That’s more or less how America used to be. There didn’t seem to be so much distance between the top and the bottom.

Now is seems the attitude of the top half is: You’re on your own. Get with the program, little racist.

Social philosophers are always saying the underclass must re-moralize. Maybe it is the over class that must re-moralize.

I don’t know if the protected see how serious this moment is, or their role in it.

3a)

The Governing Cancer of Our Time

                         By David Brooks

We live in a big, diverse society. There are essentially two ways to maintain order and get things done in such a society — politics or some form of dictatorship. Either through compromise or brute force. Our founding fathers chose politics.

Politics is an activity in which you recognize the simultaneous existence of different groups, interests and opinions. You try to find some way to balance or reconcile or compromise those interests, or at least a majority of them. You follow a set of rules, enshrined in a constitution or in custom, to help you reach these compromises in a way everybody considers legitimate.

The downside of politics is that people never really get everything they want. It’s messy, limited and no issue is ever really settled. Politics is a muddled activity in which people have to recognize restraints and settle for less than they want. Disappointment is normal.

But that’s sort of the beauty of politics, too. It involves an endless conversation in which we learn about other people and see things from their vantage point and try to balance their needs against our own. Plus, it’s better than the alternative: rule by some authoritarian tyrant who tries to govern by clobbering everyone in his way.

As Bernard Crick wrote in his book, “In Defence of Politics,” “Politics is a way of ruling divided societies without undue violence.”

Over the past generation we have seen the rise of a group of people who are against politics. These groups — best exemplified by the Tea Party but not exclusive to the right — want to elect people who have no political experience. They want “outsiders.” They delegitimize compromise and deal-making. They’re willing to trample the customs and rules that give legitimacy to legislative decision-making if it helps them gain power.

Ultimately, they don’t recognize other people. They suffer from a form of political narcissism, in which they don’t accept the legitimacy of other interests and opinions. They don’t recognize restraints. They want total victories for themselves and their doctrine.

This antipolitics tendency has had a wretched effect on our democracy. It has led to a series of overlapping downward spirals:

The antipolitics people elect legislators who have no political skills or experience. That incompetence leads to dysfunctional government, which leads to more disgust with government, which leads to a demand for even more outsiders.

The antipolitics people don’t accept that politics is a limited activity. They make soaring promises and raise ridiculous expectations. When those expectations are not met, voters grow cynical and, disgusted, turn even further in the direction of antipolitics.

The antipolitics people refuse compromise and so block the legislative process. The absence of accomplishment destroys public trust. The decline in trust makes deal-making harder.

We’re now at a point where the Senate says it won’t even hold hearings on a presidential Supreme Court nominee, in clear defiance of custom and the Constitution. We’re now at a point in which politicians live in fear if they try to compromise and legislate. We’re now at a point in which normal political conversation has broken down. People feel unheard, which makes them shout even louder, which further destroys conversation.

And in walks Donald Trump. People say that Trump is an unconventional candidate and that he represents a break from politics as usual. That’s not true. Trump is the culmination of the trends we have been seeing for the last 30 years: the desire for outsiders; the bashing style of rhetoric that makes conversation impossible; the decline of coherent political parties; the declining importance of policy; the tendency to fight cultural battles and identity wars through political means.

Trump represents the path the founders rejected. There is a hint of violence undergirding his campaign. There is always a whiff, and sometimes more than a whiff, of “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

I printed out a Times list of the insults Trump has hurled on Twitter. The list took up 33 pages. Trump’s style is bashing and pummeling. Everyone who opposes or disagrees with him is an idiot, a moron or a loser. The implied promise of his campaign is that he will come to Washington and bully his way through.

Trump’s supporters aren’t looking for a political process to address their needs. They are looking for a superhero. As the political scientist Matthew MacWilliams found, the one trait that best predicts whether you’re a Trump supporter is how high you score on tests that measure authoritarianism.

This isn’t just an American phenomenon. Politics is in retreat and authoritarianism is on the rise worldwide. The answer to Trump is politics. It’s acknowledging other people exist. It’s taking pleasure in that difference and hammering out workable arrangements. As Harold Laski put it, “We shall make the basis of our state consent to disagreement. Therein shall we ensure its deepest harmony.”

==============================================================4)Subpoenaed Records Contradict Treasury on Debt Ceiling 

Federal Reserve Officials Described Obama Administration Efforts to Conceal Plans as “Crazy” 

WASHINGTON -- Documents subpoenaed by the House Financial Services Committee reveal the Obama Administration is not only capable of prioritizing payments in case the nation’s borrowing authority is not raised, it has run “tabletop exercises” to prepare for such a contingency – contradicting earlier public statements from Treasury officials. Made public for the first time, records turned over to the Committee in response to the subpoena show the Federal Reserve Bank of New York previously made plans to prioritize Social Security, veterans’ benefits, and principal and interest payments on the debt over other government obligations. The Administration, however, directed the New York Fed to withhold this information from the Committee because “Treasury wants to maximize pressure on Congress by limiting communications about contingency planning,” according to a previously undisclosed internal email of the New York Fed. “Crazy, Counter-Productive” Efforts by the Obama Administration to keep its contingency planning a secret were met with objections from officials at the Federal Reserve and the New York Fed, who described the approach in an email as “crazy, counter-productive, and add[ing] risk to an already risky situation.” The Committee began its investigation of the Obama Administration’s contingency planning in late 2013. The Treasury Department and New York Fed failed to comply with requests for information and stonewalled the investigation, forcing the Committee to issue a subpoena in May 2015. The Committee will discuss the nation’s unsustainable federal spending and the debt limit, in addition to the findings of the report, at an Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing on Feb. 2. “In light of what the internal New York Fed documents indicate, it is now obvious why Treasury fought so hard to prevent their production to the Committee: Treasury knew that the documents would expose the disingenuousness of its public statements and the political gamesmanship at the heart” of the Administration’s “no-negotiation” strategy on the debt ceiling, the Committee report states. Documents Reveal Administration’s “Cynical Attempt to Create a Crisis” “These internal documents show the Obama Administration took the nation’s creditworthiness and economy hostage in a cynical attempt to create a crisis so the President could get what he wanted during negotiations over the debt ceiling,” said Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). “The Administration owes it to the American people to be honest and transparent about its debt ceiling contingency plans.” Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Sean Duffy (R-WI) added: "This report shows President Obama manufactured a crisis to put politics ahead of economic stability. Shame on him. Rather than being honest, the Administration deliberately misled Congress and the American people about their ability to honor our commitments to our nation’s veterans and seniors." Specifically, documents uncovered by the Committee reveal that: Treasury is capable of prioritizing principal and interest payments on the debt and the New York Fed has been running “tabletop” debt ceiling exercises regarding these sorts of contingencies since at least March 2011. Treasury has sought to withhold from Congress and the American people information about the Administration’s contingency plans, for the purpose of pressuring Congress to acquiesce to the Administration’s position that any increase in the debt ceiling not be accompanied by spending constraints. Contrary to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew’s testimony to Congress that the Administration has never made any decision to prioritize debt payments, internal New York Fed documents reveal that Treasury was in fact planning to prioritize payments during the debt limit impasses of 2013. Internal New York Fed records reveal that both New York Fed and Federal Reserve Board employees objected to Treasury’s efforts to conceal the Administration’s contingency plans because concealing this vital information added unnecessary risk to an already volatile situation. Treasury appears to have actively obstructed the Committee’s investigation of this matter by directing the New York Fed to withhold information from the Committee for approximately two years ======================================================================