Viswanathan K's Thoughts

Donald Trump is fickle on so many things (Ukraine started the war; no, no, Russia started it). But he does seem to be consistent on doing what he thinks is best for America. His policies may or may not achieve his intent, I am only referring to the underlying theme.   Why should America pay for others is a consistent theme of Trump’s, even from his last stint. Each time he harps on that, it is Europe that is maximally impacted. After all, the EU had happily outsourced its military security to the US. Now if the US either doesn’t want to be the protector and/or demands the EU pay more for security, it is Europe that is impacted either way.   Unsurprisingly, the old guard in NATO, both American and European, hates this. You can make out they are all old because they will refer to World War II, the Normandy landing, and the Cold War. It still doesn’t strike them that all those wars, cold or hot, ended decades back… They are living in the past.   Trump’s stance o...

True to form, the day Trump took over, he announced a slew of executive orders.   One executive order reclassifies thousands of government employees as political hires. This will make it easier to fire those employees. And make that entire category of employees have their employment tied to who the President of the day happens to be. Trump had done this during his first term, Biden rescinded it, now Trump reinstates it.   Take the decision to withdraw the US from the 2015 climate change agreement. Wait, didn’t Trump already do that in his first term? Yes, he did and then Biden un-did it, and Trump is now re-doing it, dismissing Biden’s policies on clean energy as “the new green scam”.   Related to that, Trump has declared a “national energy emergency”. What does that really mean? It will allow the government to fast-track energy fossil-fuel projects.   On similar lines, he revoked Biden’s (non-binding) order to have half of US vehicles go electric by...

So the American pre-polls were totally wrong. The race didn’t turn out to be “too close to call”. Instead, as Andrew Sullivan wrote: “It’s not just a Trump victory. It’s a Trump triumph.” How does he come to that conclusion? “There is, yes, a mandate. When one party wins the presidency, Senate, and probably the House, that’s usually the case.” Mandate for what? This one is easy to answer because Trump had easy to understand policy goals, unlike his opponent who seemed to have none. “Americans have voted for much tighter control of immigration, fewer wars, more protectionism, lower taxes, and an emphatic repudiation of identity politics.”   Wait, surely that last point (“an emphatic repudiation of identity politics”) can’t be true? Wasn’t Trump “whiteness personified”, as one political commentator said? Well, that’s not what the data says. Sullivan pulls up some of the relevant stats: (1) Trump won more non-white votes than any Republican since Nixon; (2) He gained m...

As the US Presidential election date comes closer, the gap between Kamala Harris and Trump has reduced and they are almost neck to neck now. After the huge enthusiasm when she became the candidate (in money pouring in and in the pre-polls conducted back then), how could this have happened?   Andrew Sullivan feels the root cause is that nobody knows what she stands for: “This is the first presidential candidate who doesn’t seem to want you to know what she’ll actually do, or what she really thinks about anything much.” Normally such a candidate would have never cleared the shortlist (what the Americans call their primaries). But of course, the party never had primaries: “She is there because of a corrupt Democratic clique that hid Biden’s rapid decline until it was too late to have a real primary, then panicked at the thought of a chaotic convention, and simply anointed this hack — because no white male or female would run against a black woman and risk their political fut...

What is the appeal of a guy like Trump? The American Left’s “answer” to that question – white supremist, racism, gynophobia, xenophobia - never felt satisfying to me. While some fraction of his supporters definitely fall in those categories, surely not half of the country. How could half the country have turned into those things within months of Trump running for power the first time?   Andrew Sullivan’s post provided another answer, one which feels more likely. The one-line summary of it: “Trump has grasped some core truths of our time.” He expands on that.   First , immigrants in America. A part of that problem is the (relative) ease with which the Democrats want to grant even illegal immigrants eventual citizenship. But more than that, it is the change in who qualifies for asylum. In the Cold War era, asylum seekers were mostly to those escaping communism. This set was relatively small and thus manageable (most escapees went to Western Europe, not America); and...

With Trump getting indicted on charges of inciting a rebellion that led to a violent mob ransacking the US Capitol when he lost the last election, Andrew Sullivan presents a grim picture of what might follow.   Trump doesn’t lie the way normal politicians do, he says. “It is not lying in the usual sense — which depends on a shared reality that the liar knowingly distorts. ” Rather: “Trump’s lies are different. They are direct refutations of reality.. They are attacks on the very possibility of a reasoned discourse, the kind of bald-faced lies that authoritarians issue as a way to test loyalty and force their subjects into submission. ” Even worse: “Because his whims oscillate, so do the non-facts he invents to satisfy them.”   What do you think has been Trump and the American right’s response to the formal charges? Well, the timing is suspicious, they argue. Why file the charges only now? Is it because Trump is campaigning to be President again? How come Bid...

Does Trump have a vision, a doctrine towards which he works? (Forget the “how”, the question is about the “what”). Or does he do whatever catches his attention next, gets fixated on it, until the next thing comes along? (North Korea yesterday, trade war with China today, who knows what tomorrow). I found this article, The Trump Doctrine , by Bruno Maçães intriguing: 1)       Trump’s inauguration speech was odd, he writes, because: “ It left out the core of what an elected politician in the United States would include: an appeal to the universal principles of freedom, democracy and equality guiding America in its action(s).” 2)      But it may have been an indicator that Trump wants to copy whatever works elsewhere, including China’s policy of achieving economic growth by any and all means necessary. 3)      He may also think of Europe as a “has-been”, a continent which in the last 3 decades, has “produced a ...

The rise of mass media during the 1930’s coincided with that of fascism and Nazism. Was the media therefore an instrument for totalitarianism? Hence, post-World War II, we ended with decentralized mass media. In theory, more channels meant differing opinions, thus people form informed decisions. Then came Silicon Valley; and scaled it up massively: from a handful of media outlets we went to everyone-can-broadcast, aka social media. Not surprising then that many blame social media (and Silicon Valley) for the rise of Trump. But the book, Trump and the Media, says the truth may be more complicated. After all, Trump’s vote base doesn’t even spend that much time online! Instead, writes Nicholas Carr in his book review : “The novelty and frequent abrasiveness of (Trump’s) tweets… mesmerized the chattering class throughout the primaries and the general election campaign, fueling a frenzy of retweets, replies, and hashtags. Social media’s biggest echo chamber turned out to be the tr...

Forget Donald Trump’s policy controversies, though some of them violate even American law! Instead, look at the frequency with which he lies. Why then doesn’t he become the boy who cried wolf, someone (most) people stop believing altogether? Maria Konnikova has this to say : “It doesn’t matter how implausible the statements are; throw out enough of them, and people will inevitably absorb some .” Then there are the “lies” he keeps repeating, which as Goebbels knew, eventually become the truth. But wait, it gets even worse: “Repetition of any kind— even to refute the statement in question—only serves to solidify it.” Then there’s human psychology at play in emotive and polarizing topics: “If false information comports with preexisting beliefs—something that is often true in partisan arguments—attempts to refute it can actually   backfire, planting it   even more firmly   in a person’s mind.” Scott Adams, author of Dilbert, wonders though if there is a metho...

The media just doesn’t get it. Take CNN, for example. Seeing that channel you’d think that half the US refuses to accept Trump’s win and that everyone is on the streets! Or this editorial in Deccan Herald : “That 42% of women voted for Trump indicates how deeply women have internalised patriarchal values and how widespread this problem is. ” That line is a representative of how the media has to simplify, even over-simplify things. But it is increasingly evident that the media has now started believing its own over-simplifications! They actually believe that one attribute decides who you vote for (or against): so if Trump is misogynist, no woman would vote for him. He’s anti-Muslim, so no Muslim would vote for him. He’s anti-immigration, so no immigrant would vote for him. He talks crazy, so no sane person would vote for him. This line of “reasoning” then leads to a “logical belief”: surely, there can’t be enough “primitive, stupid, racist, xenophobic, and irrational” people i...

The media is increasing unable to predict the outcome of an election: they didn’t see the BJP sweep of 2014, Brexit or now Donald Trump. But worse than that is the media’s unwillingness to take “r esponsibility for one's own unjustified arrogance and undeniable mistakes”, writes Damon Linker . Citing the Trump election, he points out how the media seems to confuse what they would like to happen with what they believe was going to happen: “Trump's campaign and personal behavior are so offensive to so many things that the members of these establishments take for granted, believe in, and valorize, that the thought that Trump could prevail electorally was close to unthinkable for most.” Substituting a desire for a prediction is an amateurish mistake. “None of the smart guys came close to grasping the truth — which is that they don't really know what the electorate thinks, and they don't know who is likely to vote.” Time after time we are seeing this phenom...

As Donald Trump finally seems to be imploding, Matt Taibbi wrote : “There are not many places left for this thing to go that don't involve kids or cannibalism.” Trump’s party still doesn’t seem to know how to handle the situation: “The strategy seemed to be to pretend none of it had happened, and to hide behind piles of the same worn clichés.” Assuming Trump is toast, the next question is whether he was a one-off case of such a candidate reaching this far? Tiabbi is not so sure. After all, he says: “All 16 of the non-Trump entrants were dunces, religious zealots, wimps or tyrants, all equally out of touch with voters.” John Scalzi is even more alarmed. Here’s why : “Donald Trump is not a black swan… He is the end result of conscious and deliberate choices by the GOP, going back decades, to demonize its opponents, to polarize and obstruct, to pursue policies that enfeeble the political weal and to yoke the bigot and the ignorant to their wagon.” In American lingo...

There are lots of Western articles on the Net moaning that democracy has stopped working; some going as far as to say that elections are bad for democracy ! The “evidence”? Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump. This sounds like a stupid and dangerous argument. In fact, it sounds like what everyone who doesn’t like the outcome of any election would say, doesn’t it? Instead, I feel that Santosh Desai nails the underlying theme that is playing out: simplification. -          Brexit was a complicated question with a simple answer: “Yes or No. In or Out.” -          Trump calls out everything as black or white. Good or bad. And so says Desai: “When what you feel is what is right, the world becomes so much easier to deal with. Brexit and Trump both connect with an emotional truth that precedes logic.” But why is this so appealing even in sophisticated Western democracries? “The dominant int...

Now that it’s down to Hillary v Trump, will it be a landslide win for Clinton as many predict? Or will Trump surprise everyone the way he did in the primaries? Despite starting off with those questions, this blog doesn’t try to answer them! Instead, I’ll quote from this article by David Roberts on some very practical aspects that will kick in and change the current narrative: “There are entire classes of professionals whose jobs are premised on the model of two roughly equal sides, clashing endlessly. The Dance of Two Parties sustains the consultants and activists.” So who exactly are these professionals? “Media, consultants, power brokers, think tanks, foundations, officeholders, the whole thick network of institutions and individuals involved in national politics.” Then there’s the perception problem for the media: repeatedly stating that Trump is unfit for office “will become a partisan observation, something Democrats say”! Also, there’s the possibility that Hill...

Donald Trump. Mocked, loved or reviled; but he is not ignored. Based on his statements, one of the very many jokes going around is his “world view”: Ok, now that you’ve had your laugh, let’s get a bit more serious. We like to think of ourselves as balanced, open to arguments and willing to change our mind. But how many of us go as far as what Charlie Munger told: “I never allow myself to have an opinion on anything that I don’t know the other side’s argument better than they do.” Do you “know the other side’s argument better than they do” on a topic like Trump? And no, answers like “What’s to know? His supporters are lunatics or racists” don’t count. When he is winning state after state, do you really believe that 35-50% of the US suddenly became that way in the last 6 months? Really? So if you can’t come up reasons why he may be so popular, let’s go over Scott Adams’ attempt to “know the other side’s argument better than they do”: 1)     ...

Finally. A few Western public figures are saying what many feel privately but dared not say publicly. Ex-Aussie PM Tony Abbott declared: “(The West) can't remain in denial about the massive problem within Islam…Cultures are not all equal. We should be ready to proclaim the clear superiority of our culture to one that justifies killing people in the name of God.” Now compare that with what Donald Trump said and it sounds almost tame! All he said was that the US stop allowing Muslim non - citizens into the US until lawmakers find a solution to this terrorism problem. Oh, in case you forgot, the US Congress already voted to disallow Syrian refugees from entering America! Scott Adams writes a series of blogs on Trump’s persuasive skills. While Adams doesn’t always agree with Trump, he is quite impressed with the techniques employed. For example, he says that sooner or later another ISIS attack will happen. At that point, Adams says : “You probably don’t know of any other...

I have these ongoing debates with my dad on Narendra Modi. And that got me thinking of the parallels with Donald Trump. No matter what they did or said, they are extremely popular during election campaigns. And even win. But how can that be? How can such things happen in countries with a free press, with freedom of speech? How can it happen in a growing country and a rich country? Howard Kurtz points out how aggravating Trump is to his detractors: “They struggle to understand why he pays no penalty when they blow the whistle. What they don’t quite grasp is that their attacks only make him stronger. This is not to let him off the hook for mistakes, just to recognize that Trump has completely rewritten the rule book, infuriating those who thought they enforced the rules.” Those lines would apply equally to how many feel about Modi. But why doesn’t all this “blowing the whistle” work? Matt Taibbi talks of an increasingly common approach these days: “(A common approach is...