The Russian conundrum

My memory let me down.  I was under the impression Mikhail Khodorkovsky had been a long time friend of Putin and fell out of favor.  In fact he was a successful businessman who offended Putin after a few years of giving advice.  Mikhail was a leading advocate for western business practices and philanthropy.

As he recounts the perfidy of Putin while extolling his own virtues one hesitates a little as to who is telling the truth.  But there can be little doubt about who has almost no credibility--Putin.  It is too bad that more people didn't heed the words of Khodorkovsky decades ago and perhaps there would have been no need for this book.  His perspective and opinions would serve western powers better than currently.

Khodorkovsky did not have wealthy parents, but he got a good education.   His academic interest was chemistry.  Some bankers liked him and helped him to get access to foreign currencies through bigger banks.  This allowed him to put together a group that took over a heavily indebted state company, Yukos that had not been able to pay its employees.  With better business practices modeled on western practices the company was straightened out.  With good timing it rose to be the largest tax payer in Russia and Mikhail to be the richest man in the country.

Along the way Khodorkovsky was strongly advocating western business practices and democratic systems.  He had many times been called to advise Putin, but too much criticism of the Russian way was too much and Khodorkovsky was eventually charged with spurious crimes and spent over 10 years in prison, mostly in a remote area. 

In 2013 he was released to England where at first he thought things were progressing in Russia, but soon felt otherwise.  Watching the BBC to improve his English he was struck that the rest of the world depicted Russia quite different than what he was familiar with.  It was also quite noticeable that in Russia all Western governments were criticized.

A pro Moscow government in Ukraine was ousted and Russia was determined to assert itself.  In 2014 Mikhail flew to Kiev and spoke at Maidan Square to support Ukrainians and later to Donbas.  He had set up an advocacy group, Open Russia promoting democracy running unopposed outside Russia but over the years repressed in the country.

Putin is deceptive, saying whatever his audience will accept.  Putin's rationalization in a quote:  " A strong state is not an anomaly to be got rid of.  Quite the contrary, it is the source of order."

Putin is motivated in large part by domestic politics. The economy is poorly managed and  Putin has found foreign aggression raises his popularity.  He manipulated elections and when he constitution restricted him to two terms he used Dmitry Mededev as a front man and then rewrote the constitution.

A key person in Putin's setup is Yevgeny Prigozhin who started as a food vendor in St. Petersburg and came to the attention of Putin.  Not put off by his gangster reputation and prison history,  He came with Putin to Moscow and was tasked with organizing a mercenary group that is officially denied.  They seem to appear at various hot spots such as Crimea, Syria, Libya, Georgia, and Central African Republic.  Prigozhin was put in charge of interfering in the American Election of 2016 which involved projects in 2014.  Many of the Russian efforts involved social media.  Robert Mueller correctly identified Prigozhin's role which ended in a sanction.  

They did not at first expect Trump to win, but wanted to tarnish America's image.  They  complained against immigration "failures" Black Lives Matter, Muslims.  A favorite strategy was to suggest voter fraud.  They did hack some Democrat emails to hurt Hillary Clinton..  

Khodorkovsky noted that the Mueller Report was very accurate regarding Russian efforts at the 2016 election.  Trump went so far as to fire the FBI director among other efforts to stop the report.

Russia uses poisons with a lab specializing in the nuances.  We know they have been used on dissidents as well as former agents, but it is possible we don't know all of the victims.  Alexei Navalny, a popular dissident was poisoned twice and saved only by alert doctors and others willing to bend protocols.

Like Michael Cohen, Mikhail believed that Putin did not necessarily have some kind of information on Trump who he thought just admired the stealth of the Russian leader.  But perhaps there was some sort of hold--check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/06/house-of-trump-house-of-putin.html

After Joe Biden took over the presidency Putin did not let up.  The January 6th insurrection demonstrated American hypocrisy.            

The Russians are credited with cyber attacks against American corporations with ransomware and also the Joe Biden administration.

Moldova was a small country bordering south of Ukraine.  During most of its existence it had a pro Moscow government.  A few years ago that government was replaced and when Russia invaded Ukraine Moldova supported Ukraine.  Russia had already started supporting an opposition party.  Putin also props up the autocratic Belorussian government and although not able to get them to attack Ukraine, have been using their territory for launching missiles.

Russia has long used China as an ally to frighten America, but Russia no longer has the leverage over China that it once had.  Noteworthy Putin visited China during the Winter Olympics to shore up support and actually started the invasion during the Winter Paralympics against protocol.  China has tried to stay out of it.

His advice is worth considering.  He notes that the sanctions used are often depicted as against the Russian people and feels sanctions need to be specifically against members of the administration.  Courage is needed to stand up to abusive government behavior.  With Open Russia, Mikhail supports opposition publications and tries to educate journalists.  He feels confident Putin will eventually be gone as he makes too many mistakes.  There may well be an heir, but likely a crisis will depose of them.  

Quote from the author:  "...a new society cannot be built with anger and revenge" and "...forgiveness is dearer than punishment."

How do you think we should deal with Putin?

An example of Russia fitting in with the rest of the world with my most recent post:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/11/compartment-number-6.html

Freezing Order

First learned about "Freezing Order" (2022) when author, Bill Browder was interviewed by Steve Paikin.  It does clarify some events noted in earlier blogs.  We all knew that Putin could not be trusted and that somehow he was linked to Donald Trump.  Much has already been public, but much has either been buried or dismissed.

Bill Browder is an investment manager/owner.  He saw an opportunity when the Soviet Union broke up.  He moved to Moscow and set up a fund, the Hermitage Capital Management.  At one time he was the largest foreign investor in Russia.  That ended in 2005. One problem was that he had to deal with corruption that undercut his investments so he developed ways of minimizing corruption, but soon found that authorities weren't on board. 

The Russian government forced Browder out of Russia.  Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer working with the Hermitage fund stayed and became an annoyance (obstacle) uncovering corruption.  He was imprisoned and tortured and died November 16, 2009.  

Browder took upon himself to fight back and organized to set up the Magnitsky Act as a memorial to the misdeed uncovered by the honest Sergei Magnitsky.  In effect the government could freeze funds that had been illegally obtained and laundered.  Obama signed the Magnitsky Act into law on December 14, 2012 and illegal assets started to be frozen.  Putin reacted by blocking adoption of Russian children by Americans.  He also put Browder and the dead Magnitsky on trial to prove they are the ones that stole money.  In other words they were accused of committing the crimes that they were investigating.

When the Panama Papers came out it was learned that Sergei Rodulgun, a cellist had come across billions of dollars.  It turns he was the closest friend of Putin and perhaps the only one he could trust with his money.  On his job Putin was limited not only by his salary, but any public means of making money.   He is in fact was one of the richest men in the world.  He went to great lengths to keep his source and total wealth secret.

Browder was harassed with the Russians even hiring top notch American lawyers as part of their arsenal.  They made an effort to uncover Browder's Russian contacts.  As you may recall those who crossed Putin tended to fall from high buildings or be poisoned or even be shot.  

One name that crossed Browder in court was Natalia Vaselnitskaya who claimed she worked for private business, but later seemed more likely she worked directly for the Russian government. 

The infamous dossier seems likely to have some truth to it, but has been dismissed.  Browder was told that Russian disinformation sources were able to put in some misinformation that allowed others to focus on the untruths as if they proved the whole thing was false.  

The Helsinki conference where Trump and Putin met, discussed behind closed doors and took part in a press conference revealed another link.  After Robert Mueller indicted 12 GRU agents for interfering in American election Putin was asked if they could be extradited and replied that sure they could be interviewed in Russia, if Bill Browder could be indicted.  Trump remained silent.  Later when told other names to be extradited Trump thought that was "an incredible offer."  What hold did Putin have over Trump--for a few clues check:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/06/house-of-trump-house-of-putin.html

The well known Trump Tower meeting had been orchestrated by Natalia Vaselnitskaya the Russians hinting they might have some damaging information on Hillary Clinton.  Clinton had not only criticized Putin, but was also a supporter of the Magnitsky Act.  Paul Manafort noted that Browder's name was a topic, but the underlying concern was the Magnitsky Act.  When revealed the Trump team claimed it was about adoptions.

Browder's legal problems were ongoing and harassment never ending,  At one point Browder was accused of murdering Magnitsky, although earlier they claimed the death had been from natural causes.  Browder was tried in abstentia and of course was guilty and altogether he was sentenced to a few decades of heavy labor.  However he eventually got 34 nations to adopt their own version of the Magnitsky Act.  The Act was not just against Russians, but has been used against the Saudi assassins of Jamal Kashoggi and organizers of Uigher concentration camps in China.

Chrystia Freeland (who speaks Russian) was one of the people behind the scenes among other activities advocating for Canada adopting its own Magnitsky Act.  More on her:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/01/plutocrats-by-chrystia-freeland.html

As I write this, Putin has signed legislation that annexes parts of Ukraine, ironically while the Ukrainian army has been steadily reclaiming much of this land.  His unprovoked attack on Ukraine and his disregard for the truth proves he is unworthy to be a leader of a great nation.  Or maybe it just proves if you have enough power you can do anything. 

An earlier blog about Putin and the truth:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/03/icarus.html

Andrew Bacevich: The Age of Illusions

 Andrew Bacevich is a contemporary of Donald Trump, although they have never met they lived in what the Chinese like to call "interesting times."  Bacevich feels we have all been too obsessed with Trump, so much so that we have failed to understand the forces that made him possible.  

The Cold War ended between 1989 and 1991.  It was supposed to be about Capitalism and Communism and when the Soviet Union collapsed it was hailed as a victory for the freedom loving Capitalists.  Bacevich disagrees asserting that underneath all the ideological rhetoric the real dynamic was for power.

For many it meant a loss of a defined enemy.  The Military became voluntary which attracted high school grads at the poorer end of society.  University graduates and the better off declined to join the armed forces.  The American president became the most powerful man in the world as he can trigger a nuclear war.  There is a vetting process for presidential candidates and to be successful one must undergo scrutiny by Wall Street, the National Rifle Association, the Israel lobby, Koch Brothers, Evangelical churches among others.

During the Vietnam War, many either fought or resisted (by protests and draft dodging), but another group avoided it.  That included Donald Trump with more than one deferment.  Andrew Bacevich served in Vietnam and stayed in the military for 23 years and eventually became professor of history and international relations at Boston University.

George W. H. Bush was the first post Cold War president and one of his accomplishments was a successful limited war.  

Bill Clinton was very astute and charismatic.  Amongst other things he broke up restrictions for banks that later led to problems.  Pushed globalization which meant expanding U.S. trade with many American jobs being taken over by lower wage countries.  Considered risk averse he did authorize military actions in Somalia and the Balkans.

George W. Bush surrounded himself with "experienced" politicians who helped drag him into the Iraq War.  At one time he answered the rhetorical question, "Why do they hate us?' with the answer "They hate our freedom." 

Barack Obama seemed he would be a peacemaker, but got involved in mid East conflicts and Libya.  Infuriated some by negotiating the Iranian Peace Agreement and the Paris  Climate Change agreement.  Obamacare got off to a rocky start with much resistance.  Gay marriage became legal nationwide in 2015 with large parts of the country stunned by this new freedom.  Of course anything done by a black man would be resented by segments of the population.

As we approach the 2016 election, Bacevich draws our attention to the state of the nation.  Poverty on the increase, retirement savings diminished for many, homelessness on the upswing, opioid deaths at new record, 24.7 million fatherless children, 40% divorce rate, highest incarceration rate in the world, 40 million regular visitors to porn sites, 33,000 killed by firearms.  In short a lot of despair.

A lot of candidates offered to run the gauntlet.  Hillary Clinton expected an easy nomination, but ran up against Bernie Sanders who put up a strong fight.  He believed that without economic democracy there could be no political democracy.  Hillary with a slick presentation was able to finally win the Democratic nomination, over the man labeled a socialist.

On the Republican side, tv. celebrity Donald Trump assessed the situation better than his opposition.  Despite his libertine reputation he was able to garner evangelical support as unlike his rival for their support, Ted Cruz because he was more credible to bring about an abortion ban.   Michael Cohen had another perspective on this angle (and others).  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2021/11/disloyal-michael-cohen-version.html   Although easily criticized Trump was loved by the media who gave him a free platform for his message. 

Donald Trump is criticized for dividing the country, but Bacevich claims it was already divided and Trump not only recognized it, but was able to exploit it.

The book was published in 2019 and Bacevich was well aware of many flawed policies of Trump as well as his behavior and he was uncertain about the 2020 election.  He felt "...American politics will almost surely remain a forum for hyperbolic promises."  He would like to see stewardship replace the notion of increasing consumption.  He also feels freedom should have obligations as well as rights.

American technology has boosted speed, efficiency and precision, but has tended to convenience and relief from boredom which has allowed corporations to gain greater control of our lives.  We are close to the limit of how much we can tame nature and some acknowledge climate change is only one risk, with others including pollution, littering of plastic, deforestation, etc.  America is losing its political and cultural domination of the world.

In conclusion Bacevich maintains real necessary change will not come from the top down.  In the past Americans have rallied around causes that forced government action, such as abolition and the Depression.  He suggests a worthy and necessary cause is climate change which could lead to "a conception of citizenship that seeks to harmonize individual freedom with the common good."  His last sentence, "For Americans to shirk that responsibility will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps--or someone worse-to come."

Not sure how he would react to the January 6th insurrection, except as proof there are more factors involved than worship of Trump and that some elites will go to great lengths for power.  One hopes that Americans will wake up and realize there are higher priorities than hating others and overcome an egocentric view that they are "exceptional."  It will be difficult for Americans to accept they are only part of huge world.

DISLOYAL: The Michael Cohen Version

 Do you believe him?  He tells a compelling story that seems to make sense.  BUT he is an admitted and convicted liar.  He also wants revenge.   He sounds very repentant, but also offers explanations.  He knew all along that Trump was a huge liar and racist, but he admired his audacity, charisma and ruthless ability to get things done.  His role was to interpret Trump's meaning with his indirect commands (to avoid incriminating himself) and do whatever necessary to fulfill a task.

Perhaps the bigger question is how did such a man as Trump win the American election, even he didn't think he would win?  Michael certainly played a critical role and was witness to many events that made it possible.

From what I read, his story fits well with other information.  It seems certain that the information is selective.  He does explain his motives in a believable manner.  As with many other authors with inside information there was an attempt to block publication, but Cohen is a lawyer.

Do not criticize Trump's hair or his wealth.  He wants you to believe that women are attracted to him and he takes advantage of that.

His appeal to evangelicals is mystifying.  It makes no sense they would support an adulterer and a man so transparently dishonest.  Of course abortion was a big concern as was the gay culture and if truth be told civil rights.  There is a hard core of believers who anticipate the Apocalypse and their ascension to heaven provided Israel is controlled by Jews.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/12/evangelists-and-trump.html

Michael Cohen suggests a more sinister factor.  Years before when Trump identified evangelicals as a critical factor and had a meeting with them it led to a friendship between Cohen and Jerry Falwell Jr. and his wife.  That friendship started innocently enough when Cohen learned their daughter was a Justin Bieber fan and he was able to procure VIP seats for a Bieber concert.  A few years later they felt they could trust Cohen with a more delicate task, extricating them from an extortion attempt based on some semi nude photos.  Cohen was able by intimidation to resolve this situation.

Michael claims to have done too many favors to recount in this book.  One example was to force schools Trump had attended to not release his records.  He recounts an ironic negotiation with Trump regarding the Stormy Davis extortion attempt.  Trump wanted to deny the relationship, but the election was only a short time away and Cohen responded with "Just because something isn't true doesn't mean it can't hurt you."  Fits well with Trump's philosophy who loved making false accusations.

Michael credits himself with encouraging a presidential campaign.  Manipulating polls, suppressing information, doing favors were some of his roles. After Trump purchased the Doral Golf course he got involved with a dispute with a paint contractor and Benjamin Moore.  Trump specified a low grade quality paint, but when it deteriorated demanded it be done over refusing to pay for it, getting Michael to negotiate.  

He was also very involved with suppressing information about another of Trump's sex scandals.  Not only to keep them out of public view, but also to help placate Melania.

Many factors helped Trump to win.  The James Comey announcements just ahead of the election.  Cohen credits the enormous amount of free press given to Trump.  Usually the result of outrageous tweets and other statements.  Trump was a master of using the press.  He used his connections to plant false stories about his primary rivals with perhaps the most effective one accusing Ted Cruz's father of being involved with the Kennedy assassination.  An incomplete summary of the enablers:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/07/trump-enablers.html

As I recall a cartoonist suggested that it wasn't Trump's character that attracted favorable attention, but that he hated the same people that they hated.  He was pretty blatant stoking racist sentiments of large segments of Americans (deplorables if you will).  Others liked his tax and deregulation ideas.  

Russia  did play a role, but Cohen thinks it was not a carefully thought out plan from Trump's perspective.  Putin hated Hillary Clinton for her criticisms of the Russian 2011 election.  Trump admired Putin for his autocratic ways that enabled him to be one of the very richest men in the world.  Paul Manafort, fresh from dirty deeds on behalf of Russia, in Ukraine, undoubtedly made connections more feasible and we know Donald Trump Jr. eagerly hoped the Russians could give dirt on Hillary, but claims they didn't.  

After all that, it seems another perspective on the Russian influence is worth reading:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/06/house-of-trump-house-of-putin.html

Interviewed by Chuck Todd, November 28th, 2021 Cohen characterized Trump as "Grifting off Americans."  He also felt that Trump would delay announcing a presidential candidacy for 2024 to the last minute and then decline because he fears humiliation, but in the meantime sees an opportunity for grifting.  He feels there is enough documentation to indict Trump right now. 

Trump is still a celebrity, but underneath he is a con man with little respect for Americans.  Many books and articles have chronicled his many mistakes and deceptions.  Like many others I have been discouraged by how his many victims actually worship him.  As a Canadian I see Trump as a blot on America and can only hope that enough Americans, especially those in authority do something so that America can move forward.

Just a reminder of some of the damage we will be a long time fixing:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/10/the-non-indictable-sins-of-trump.html

"HOUSE OF TRUMP HOUSE OF PUTIN

"Russia has never tried to leverage over me.  I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA-NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING" tweeted from Donald Trump on January 11, 2017.  Nonetheless Craig Unger presents a very strong case that Trump was influenced by the Russians.  There seem to have been links with Russian mobsters both directly and indirectly.

It seems quite reasonable to be suspicious of these many links.  Craig Unger does have a reasonable amount of credibility.  Who are we to believe?  I would suggest that anybody not suspicious of what we know of the links must either be ignorant or have vested interests.

Putin and Trump have something in common.  Both have had a lot of contact with mobsters and whether or not they would publicly admit it many of the contacts were beneficial.   At one end we learn of some of the facts surrounding Putin's rise.

Trump has had many decades of contact with the Russians.  By 1984 Russians were looking at Trump Tower and a number bought units.  It is said when no one else would loan him money they did.  But more likely he laundered millions of dollars stolen by Russian mobsters.

At the time of the Berlin Wall breaking down, Putin was an intelligence officer in East Berlin. He considered the collapse of the Soviet empire "the greatest geo-political catastrophe of the century."  What was very alarming was that 13 Eastern block nations joined NATO and later most joined the EU.  He felt Ukraine could not be allowed to abandon the Russian dominance.

Putin ended back in his home town, lately renamed St. Petersberg and worked his way into the mayor's office.  With careful maneuvering aided by mobster connections he gained power.

Russia was forced to privatize many state owned businesses many of which were picked up by criminal elements at discounted prices.  In turn this created pressure to put money into safe havens.

When Trump invested in casinos in Atlantic City he was involved with mobsters.  Many wonder how the casinos could end up bankrupt.  Trump went for extravagance, broke state laws and did favors for mobsters.  In the end he was desperate, but shortly after his finances recovered.  The author gives credit to his laundering of Russian money.  He sold Florida properties to Russians through shell companies.

He bought 3 beauty pageants and decided one of the pageants should go to Moscow.  One of the mob connections wanted to promote a singer and used this event as a platform.  Trump wanted to curry favor with Putin to help with his idea of a Moscow Trump Tower.

In 2004 Trump started with "The Apprentice" to boost his brand name.  By this time he was not so much building, as selling his brand.

Putin stepped up his power, surging all the way to the top maintaining contact with criminal elements.

Ukraine was a focus of Russian attention.  Paul Manafort who had a lot of Republican connections was hired to promote Russian interests in Kiev.  Because he didn't speak Russian or Ukrainian he was dependent on Konstantin Kilimnik, who had ties to Putin.  Manafort became in effect an intelligence officer working against American stated policy.  For a few elections they managed to elect a pro Russian president who would keep Ukraine out of NATO and the EU.  Hillary Clinton suspected skulduggery and actually supported Yulia Tymoshenko.  Eventually the Ukrainians rebelled and Manafort had to flee as well.  Later Hillary criticized a Russian election and earned Putin's enmity. 

Donald Trump had visited  Russia a number of times and had established himself as a person of interest decades ago.  There is only circumstantial evidence that the Russians had a hold on Trump, but the Russians had a long history of developing compromising material on people they thought might be useful.  After a 1987 visit to Moscow Trump took out full page ads in Boston, Washington and New York to criticize the American support for Japan.  A strange topic for a real estate developer to be concerned with, but in line with Russian policy.

Donald Trump had had presidential ambitions for decades, but as 2016 approached his confidence rose.  He had been instrumental in widening the birther claim.  The Republicans had targeted Hillary Clinton as the likely Democrat nominee.  The Benghazi campaign must have seemed unnecessarily vindictive and pointless, but Kevin McCarthy admitted that its purpose was to drive down the poll numbers for Hillary Clinton.

From my reading of the given narrative it was the Russians who sought Donald Trump.  First Putin disliked Hilary Clinton for her remarks on his integrity.  As part of his plan to regenerate Russia's glory Putin needed and sought American agents.  One suggestion the author makes is that the Trump Tower meeting considered a dud by Donald Jr., was really a pretext to see how much co-operation the Russians could expect.  Still it seemed Donald Trump was aware of the Russian efforts and encouraged them.

The reason he had years of problems trying to build a Moscow Trump Tower was that most of his other ventures were financed by laundered money from Russia which of course was not available for inside Russia.  

The author suggests the Russians interfered with a number of European elections and had an impact on the Brexit vote.  One motive for their involvement in Syria was that it created a refugee crisis which the Russians felt weakened Europe.  Putin wanted to break up both the EU and NATO and drew a line at Ukraine which he considered in the Russian sphere. 

Credibility is a concern, but the facts in this book have not really been challenged.  At the end of the book the author lists 59 people that connect Trump to Russia.  Most can be described as ethically questionable.  The book was dedicated to the memory of Russians who died in the pursuit of investigating Putin's kleptocracy singling out Paul Klebnikov, Alexander Litvinenko, Sergei Magnitsky and Anna Politkovskaya.

You can view a Youtube clip after the book:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mIRcGeELN4

We are still learning of Russian connections, but it must be admitted there were other factors in Trump's unexpected ascent to power. http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/07/trump-enablers.html

The World As It Is

What prompted this blog was a tv appearance of author Ben Rhodes with Fareed Zakaria.  It was just after the G7 conference when Trump accused Justin Trudeau of dishonesty and cut off an agreement for the conference.  Larry Kudlow sided with Trump saying Trudeau had stabbed Trump in the back.  Ben Rhodes pointed out that Obama had warned Trudeau he would have to stand up to Trump.  Pretty obvious  to most Canadians that Trump was way out of line.

Fareed had commented that the book reads like a novel and Ben admitted that he had a degree in fiction writing.  When my daughter decided to go to school in Halifax I thought I better find out about a part of Canada I had never been to.  I picked "Halifax: Warden of the North" by Thomas Raddall from the library and found it much more fascinating than anticipated.  Soon after I discovered the author had written many novels and I read (and bought) as many as I could find.  Later on I learned of a new book about neighboring Dartmouth and bought it, but a book seller admitted that historians are not usually as good as fictional writers even in narrating history.  Too often true.  But Ben Rhodes actually lived what he writes about and brings a personal understanding.

The title comes from the last sentence of the book,  "I was a man, no longer young, who--in the zigzag of history--still believed in the truth within the stories of people around the world, a truth that compels me to see the world as it is, and to believe in the world as it ought to be."  The world of politics is frustrating--so many reasons why the right things can't be done, except maybe once in a while in a small way.

Ben met and befriended Barrack Obama in 2007 and although only in his late 20's, developed a trust relation that led to writing speeches, consulting on important decisions and assuming some responsibilities on an international scale.

It wasn't that long ago so most readers will have a memory of many of the events, but get an insider's view. The demands of a close relationship with the most powerful man in the world can be rough on family even though his wife was also involved with government administration.  In the book you will get a feel for the grinding demands, but this blog will only highlight a few events.

When Nelson Mandela died the two men headed to South Africa with Ben writing and shaping Obama's speech.  It was a unique experience with the first black American president mourning one of the greatest (black) leaders of the world.  What was mainly conveyed back to American news sources was a selfie with Obama and the Danish prime minster.

Benghazi took up a disproportionate amount of energy in American politics.  Ben wrote a memo to Susan Rice as she was being prepped to speak in national tv regarding the deaths at Benghazi, including points given by the CIA.  Ben found his memo was taken out of context and distorted and he felt bewildered at how aggressive the Republican party attacked him.  There was no smoking gun, but the issue was blown up because the Republicans couldn't find anything better to stir up the voters.

The Iran negotiations stretched over many years and involved many national perspectives.  But it hit some people the wrong way.  Particularly Netanyahu who distrusted Iran and hoped to somehow convince the United States to attack it.  Again hypocrisy reared its head and Republicans attacked the deal without having anything better to offer.

Towards the end of  Obama's second term it was decided that it was time to improve relations with Cuba.  Ben was given the opportunity to negotiate with Raul Castro's son and later with Vatican diplomats.  This required travel to Canada, the Caribbean and the Vatican.  Again there was a lot of resistance, but in the end there was improvement that not only stood to boost relations between the two principles, but raised the American profile over all Latin America.  Some of my thoughts at the time-- http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/12/obama-and-cuba.html

Another project that Ben got involved in was with Laos.  During the Vietnamese War  Laos found itself on a route of American bombers who dropped more bombs than were done in WW II over Germany and Japan.  Literally millions were left and were not detonated, but others have been killing children.  Ben campaigned to bring more attention and budget to the problem.

Anthony Bourdain, the traveling gourmet was admired by Ben who appreciated the efforts to spread peace and goodwill by encouraging people to sit down and eat together.  He arranged for Obama to join Bourdain for a television show set in Hanoi.  I remember watching that episode which among other things demonstrated that Obama was not above the common man.

The Russians started to assert themselves during Obama's second term.  They had tried to disrupt Ukrainian efforts to align itself with western Europe.  Americans got involved and had some success in forcing a Russian leaning leader to flee.  Putin pushed back as he felt the Americans should not interfere with what he considered his territory.   He claimed and then invaded Crimea and threatened eastern Ukraine.  During this time a Malaysian Airline plane was shot down killing all passengers.  Ben was concerned that the Russians refused to acknowledge their involvement and blatantly lied about it.

Ben also gives his perspective on Russian involvement with the American election and told of Obama's attempts to deal with it.  The biggest obstacle was Mitch McConnell who threatened to call exposure of the Russian efforts as a partisan effort of the Democrats.  This is also the man who prevented Obama from having his Supreme Court judge choice even given a hearing.

Near the end of Obama's term he got into a discussion with Ben about one of my favorite books, "Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari which was highly praised.  Here is my take on what I thought was the best book I read in 2015:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/12/sapiens-brief-history-of-humankind.html

At this time it is upsetting to realize that the American voters have put in place a man who is dedicated to undoing Obama's legacy.  Many are regretting their decisions, but too many are complicit in what is happening.  Ben reports that Obama was very conscious of racist elements in opposition, but chose not to inflame the issues.  Donald Trump made public demands for Obama to prove he was born in America and has been focused on upending all the good things that were attributed to Obama.  As with Harry Truman it may be awhile before Americans wake up to how one of the greatest presidents was not appreciated during his term.

"Eight Years in Power" talks directly on how Obama's legacy has been distorted.  My take:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/12/we-were-eight-years-in-power.html

HILLARY CLINTON'S "WHAT HAPPENED"

At first her book was to be avoided.  It was too self-serving.  However as time marches on some commentators have praised her for her astute political observations.  I have blogged about her before and believe she has been a target of unfair vicious criticism.  Far from perfect, but one must realize it takes a strong personal drive to weather the many obstacles to the presidency.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/08/hilary-clinton-republican-target.html

The political process is structured, yet for most of us it is full of mystery.  She helps unravel some of it.  There was no one factor that did her in, but more a series of factors that chipped away at what was once a formidable lead.  She freely admits she has her share of flaws and in some cases itemizes her mistakes.

One thinks of America as one of the most free countries in the world, yet it falters in comparison  to many others regarding its treatment of women. Part seems to be the evangelical elements that feel strongly that a women's role is in the home.  Bill Clinton lost his first attempt to be Governor of Arkansas and some attributed it to Hillary maintaining her maiden name.  For his next and successful attempt she added Clinton to her name.  To many she seemed an uppity woman and was constantly criticized.

Press coverage seemed  to emphasize negatives, particularly the email "scandal" that really wasn't.  lt should have been a minor concern considering how many Republicans had a poor history in this area including George W Bush, Mitt Romney, even Mike Pence.  Donald Trump truly had some outstanding scandals.  Trump University and his Atlantic City fiasco really showed what he thought of the common working man.  What he thought of women was captured for all to hear and he still faces accusations of over a dozen women.

Bernie Sanders was my preferred candidate, but I can appreciate that he was not as practical as Hillary.  I preferred his plans on the Israeli Palestinian conflict where most American politicians are biased.  It seemed rigged against Bernie as if  Hillary was pre ordained.  Bernie who did draw large crowds still needed the public to get more familiar with him.  He did not get the coverage that other established candidates did.  Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were well known personalities. Although Bernie did what he could to boost Hillary after he lost to her it seems likely there was some resentment that caused some to look for a third candidate, not vote at all or even vote for the Republicans.

A lot of issues raised about the unfairness of the process which I agree with.  How can the Republicans screw people and make it seem like the Democrats did it?  George Lakoff has in my opinion a more robust way of dealing with the Republicans.  I can only imagine there must be some personal animus against him as his ideas are not controversial or difficult.  The only reference to him in the book is a sexist remark he once made.  Get more perspective at:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/07/george-lakoff-wants-to-reform.html

Conservatives realize their true agenda has little appeal to most voters.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/10/social-conservatism-is-pivotal.html  For many the election is about one issue--abortion, or it might be acceptance (or not) of homosexuals, or it might be gun rights.  The National Rifle Association ganged up on Hillary stating that she planned to replace Second Amendment rights which was false, but scary to many.

After the book was published in September of 2017 we learn something almost every day how the Russians meddled in the election.  Donald Trump has a long history of dealing with Russians and his one attempt to alter the Republican platform was to diminish sanctions against the Russians.  Maybe he really thought that was the way to peace and was just overly sensitive that he didn't win the election on his own merits, but that stretches credibility.  The Russians helped dig up dirt or at least what could be spun as dirt, amplified false information and targeted information where it would have the most impact.  When Obama wanted to alert the American public to Russian meddling, Mitch McConnell threatened to sabotage the effort.

Hillary studied early voting states vs one day only voting plus polls to prove what a devastating effect Comey's press conference had.  All the polls had her winning right up until his announcement that further investigation was about to be conducted.  Those who voted early voted for her while those who voted later steered towards Trump or third party candidates.  Trump's campaign was being investigated, but that was not publicized.  Although Trump is accusing the F.B.I. of favoring Democrats, the truth appears the opposite.

The Electoral College presents a challenge.  You don't have to get the most votes, but get the most electoral votes.  By itself this distorts all campaigns, but everyone has the same rules.  Hillary argues that she did put in an honest effort (based on poll results) in the three states, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that made the difference.  In each of the states a third party candidate drew enough votes to allow Donald Trump to win.

Voter suppression was another very significant factor.  Voting rights were loosened in 2013 with the John Roberts led Supreme Court.  14 states added restrictions including not only new identification requirements, but also cutting early voting days.  In the states with new voting restrictions turnout decreased by 1.7%,whereas in other states turnout actually increased by 1.3%.

Although issues were significant Hillary notes that the best predictor of a Trump voter was someone who resented Mexicans, blacks or Muslims.  She was thinking of that when she said her infamous statement about "deplorables." She admits that others who favored some Republican policies but did not see themselves as bigots were resentful.  Still she admits it hurts that people preferred to vote for Trump or seek a third party alternative.  After all he has a history of racism, misogyny, that was well known.  So if voters didn't sympathize with Trump's views they at least accepted them.

Hillary's book doesn't tell the whole story, but voters would be foolish not to recognize the many truths.  She doesn't spare herself.  I am glad I overcame my initial reluctance to read the book. America is stuck with a very bad decision and although not enough realize it, things will have to change if America is to be the country that used to be respected and admired by most of the world. She tried to have serious discussions on policies while Trump was more comfortable with hyperbole, insults, and even threats.

SOCIAL CONSERVATISM IS RESISTENT TO PROGRESS

One political commentator used the term "binary" election to describe the choice Americans face in electing a president.  Some voters don't even realize there are more than two choices on the ballot.  However binary is an appropriate word because it is a winner takes all (in a narrow, but significant sense) system and for a variety of reasons it is far too expensive to mount a viable third party.

So in essence there are two choices, which some people pare down to:  liberals and conservatives. That is over simplified, but generally the candidates form packages that are most easily described that way.

In truth most people have a streak of conservatism in them because they are most comfortable with the status quo.  However the conservatives with money want to protect and expand their control while others who hope to reach the top of wealth want to protect their path.  This means that the smart money wants rules that in effect give them an edge.  In reality most Americans (indeed most people) are content to stay in their comfort zone, but do notice that they are being taken advantage of.  Examining the program set out by the moneyed conservatives would be rejected by the majority of voters.  Their solution has been to partner with what are labeled "social conservatives."

Social conservatism is a loose term which can be a bit slippery to define and many of us share some views but not others.  Many of us evolve our thinking regarding what is acceptable and what is good. We all discriminate in one way or another, but we come to view some discrimination as unfair and even counter productive.  Some of us appreciate that the world is changing and some new things and ideas need to be considered.  Some issues which might upset the status quo can no longer be ignored.

Racial discrimination has always been and to some extent always will be.  It is normal to think the group you belong to has characteristics that are superior to other groups.  Americans boast about how prosperous their country is due to their work ethic and "freedom," but they overlook that an important initial factor was slave labor which could only occur when Europeans were able to class black Africans as inferior and undeserving.  That stigma that made slavery possible is to some extent still with us.  In many ways the views on blacks are self-fulfilling in that if one is constantly confronted with obstacles sooner or later one gives up.  I grew up in a white society and I remember when my father drove me and my sister to Buffalo he told us not to stare.  Blacks to-day are more common and do not elicit idle curiosity.  A powerful perspective is  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/12/the-half-has-never-been-told.html

Immigrants have always had a rough time.  At one time it was the Irish and the Italians, but to-day they and other Europeans are well assimilated.  In the United States, Mexicans have come to symbolize cheap labor and different customs.  From a globalized world immigrants come from all sorts of "weird" places and now a" troublesome" component is Muslim with seemingly a very different life style.  The hope for the world is that we assimilate together.  We are unconscious of the many gifts that have come from "others," but are gradually finding acceptance of new gifts such as tacos and fallafels.  These gifts and many others have enriched our lives.  My experience with refugees:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/11/the-syrian-refugee.html

Sexual behavior has always been a potentially volatile element.  Marriage was instituted as a way of controlling it and families are the base of society.  That some people didn't want to fit into the standard one man, one woman mold was something to be hidden, not only on pain of ridicule and ostracism, but sometimes as extreme as death.  I grew up snickering at the concept of homosexuals, but secretly feared them.  Then because of changing times I actually met and even socialized with some and was struck that they weren't all that different.  Now we hear or read that some people are born into a sex they feel very uncomfortable with and have the option to change.  New and very frightening to those brought up in a "normal" atmosphere.

Religious beliefs are the most defining for many people.  It not only is a set of core beliefs that help us deal with life, but bonds us to people with the same beliefs.  To me it is the height of arrogance to believe that we are 100% right and everyone else is wrong.  But should you find yourself in that trap (I do myself) it is neither fair nor practical to condemn everyone who subscribes to a different view.  Tolerance is a desirable religious trait as perhaps best personified in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Abortion is for many the core of social conservatism.  The thought of what an abortion actually is, is very repulsive to most of us.  Even if you have no religion it is hard to imagine anything more sacred or basic than life itself.  What is our life worth if someone can take away anyone else's?  I say that from the comfort of a male who will never have to directly face the problem of an unwanted pregnancy and of someone who went to Sunday School.  We all know that sex is a powerful drive and the result is sometimes an unwanted pregnancy.  If you don't have to face the consequences it is easy to pontificate about it.  Some women have killed themselves rather than deal with the consequences or more commonly suffered in other ways.

For those who feel abortion is the worst possible choice I am not too far from your view.  For that reason I favor sex education and contraception, but many social conservatives are against that as well.  Sex is seen as an evil thing that must be controlled and promiscuity cannot be forgiven.  On the other hand sex develops bonding between parents.  Sex is one of the key drivers of humans and can be a great joy and motivator for all civilization.  Other remedies include adoption and perhaps most important, acceptance.  For my views on sex education: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/05/sex-in-classroom.html

Many people cannot condone what they see as "murder" and I can respect that.  On the other hand we all need to realize that elected politicians deal with many other life and death issues.  Executions and the power to declare and manage war are pretty direct.  Health care is also a matter of life and death to all of us in one sense or another.  In fact a lot of regulations are aimed as curbing risk to life.  Euthanasia is also becoming an issue.  In all these cases voters have the power to impact other lives.  Hillary Clinton has said "Abortion should be legal, safe and rare."

Another aspect of social conservatism has come to be gun rights.  The desire to protect yourself and loved ones cannot be denied.  On the other hand a truly open gun policy would likely lead to anarchism and a lot of violence.  Most people accept that there needs to be some limitations just as we have come to accept limitations on the use of automobiles.  Some feel that any restriction on their gun rights is a limitation on their freedom. They are right in this, but to be functional we all have limitations on our freedom.  This is another life and death issue.  For my views on gun control:   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/01/the-american-gun-dilemma.html

The economic conservatives have learned that by offering assurances they understand social concerns they gain votes and power.  Admittedly there is a natural alliance among those who like the status quo.  On the other hand many people realize the conservative approach is a key factor in inequality.

When Lyndon Johnson signed a bill of rights he realized his party was going to suffer for decades.  It wasn't long before Richard Nixon started a Southern Strategy.  Ronald Reagan followed with a lot of "dog whistles" that signaled he understood southern sensitivities (as well as northern bigots).  Americans did elect a black president, but it must be recognized that a lot of citizens resent him and question his legitimacy.

Hillary Clinton was recently "caught" admitting that she is one person in private and another person in public.  This was presented as a shocking revelation, but in fact we are all guilty, more so if expecting to accomplish any goal.  The justification she gave was regarding a portrayal of Abraham Lincoln in the movie, "Lincoln" rings true.  Conservatives certainly have goals and have long ago realized the image they present to the public is not always how they think in private.

FACE TO FACE HILLARY VS THE DONALD

So many people are commenting on the big debate--first time face to face in front of millions.  Some of my observations are really second hand as with so many eyeballs and ears focused there are bound to be different perspective and interpretations.

The election has mostly been reported as a horse race.  How each candidate is doing with various voter niches.  The consequences are monumental, but the focus is on relatively inconsequential items.

During the primaries Hillary found herself modifying some of her positions such as on the TPP and post secondary education.  Trump really created attention by a steady stream of insults and few policy statements.  Hillary has had to endure petty mistatements while most of Trump's outrageous claims slid over his base support.  There are many people who have not fared well in the last few years looking for someone to blame.  Trump can name the disaster providers and present simple solutions.

Who won the debate?  Many would say Hillary Clinton, but others felt Trump did pretty good--after all he made a lot of points that some people agree with.  One of the problems was that many of his statements were fabrications and/or misleading.

There are too many examples of Trump's misstatements and missteps, but people do need reminding.

To make his points he made over 25 interruptions including against the moderator, Lester Holt plus talking over Hillary who acted flabbergasted at many of his claims.  Trump tends to talk in hyperbolic generalizations and not worry too much if he has already been disproved.  He also prefers changing the topic to answering the question at hand.  Lester did call Trump on some of his mis-statements, but generally let him run freely which was just as well.

Trump criticized Clinton for not being on the road the past week like he was.  She said she was getting prepared for the debate.  To me it signalled a better sense of priorities.   Later he bragged about his superior temperament (which drew laughter) while he commented he didn't feel he had to be prepared.  Stamina was really counter productive (again).   He said earlier he didn't think she looked "presidential," but really laid into the idea that she didn't have the necessary stamina.  She pointed out after he traveled as much as she had or endured 11 hours in a Congressional enquiry he could talk about "stamina."

At one point defending his non disclosure of his income taxes he ended up bragging about being smart to not pay income tax.  He also boasted he was a good business man anticipating a downside to business as a housing crisis approached.  His bankruptcies and stiffing contractual employees were signs of his smart business.

Racism became a topic to which Hillary made a few suggestions, but Trump completely misread the opportunity.  Instead of trying to reconcile with blacks his first point was we need "law and order."  Discussing the birther controversy he twisted it so it was good that he forced Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate.  Most blacks realize this was meant to discredit and humiliate the first black President.

Climate change poked into the debate a little.  He denied what he had said and misled about the solar panel efforts.  This is an area where the public is starting to get ahead of the right wing.  The right wing seems beholden to oil and coal interests.  This topic needs more time in future debates.

At one point he questioned NATO partners (plus Japan and South Korea) not paying their fair share.  Hillary was quick to reassure that she would honour American commitments.  Trump repeated an earlier suggestion we should have stolen oil from the Iraquis to prevent ISIS.  He criticized the Iranian deal and brought up money paid to Iran, neglecting to mention that it was returning money that had been frozen.  He seemed much readier to find a military solution than a diplomatic one.

At another time he ranted about regulations, but neglected to mention that a lack of enforced regulations was a major factor in the Great Recession of 2008 and of debilitating pollution.  This is another area that needs to be discussed.  Regulations can be abused and hamper business, but they can also facilitate smoother, fairer business.

Trump has supporters who actually believe what he says (and implies).  To many of them the biggest disappointments were the things he didn't say.  Off the stage he apparently implied he could have said some more pointed comments, but he was too decent to say them.  He really wasn't gallant at all--but perhaps was restrained by good advice not to be too provocative or too touchy.

The election looks better for Hillary, but unfortunately she might end up dealing with a very resistant Congress.  The right wing money behind the Republicans has already to a large extent been diverted to Senate and House of Representatives contests.  Most Congress members are distancing themselves as much as practical from Donald, but would continue to be obstructive to a progressive agenda
.

Hillary Clinton Republican target

Bernie Sanders would have been my choice, but now it boils down to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.  Of course voters can partly undo that vote by how they vote for senators, representatives and governors.  Or they can vote for a third party or not vote at all.

Hillary has always drawn critics and she has made her share of mistakes, but most of the fuss is really petty nitpicking that should be dismissed by rational people.  Conservatives have always to one degree or another resented strong women and she draws more attention than other woman.

Pretty well all of the scandals against the Clintons have been disproved, but they keep coming up.  Voters must think there is some fire with all that smoke.  Perhaps there is, but one should also consider who is generating the smoke and why.

The core Republican agenda is economic with some legitimate concerns about freedom, but mostly freedom to exploit other people.  Conservatives by definition like the status quo and resent outsiders trying to widen their comfort zone.  They are smart enough to realize that to get the masses to vote against their own economic interests they will have to enlist other grievances.  Hence we have a marriage between fiscal and social conservatives.

Donald Trump has accused Hillary of being an enabler for her husband's adultery and there is some truth to that although Trump is deflecting from his own philandering.  Outsiders can never really know what goes on inside a marriage.  She tolerated her husband's "cheating" and tries to present a facade of marital unity seemingly calculating where she gets the most power.  For his part Bill also realizes she is an asset for his goals.  This is a very delicate matter that no outsider can really judge.  Jenny Sanborn divorced her husband, the Governor of South Carolina after he had a well publicized affair and has faded from national prominence.

The Clintons have grown rich through politics (not by any means suggesting bribes) and perhaps that has coloured their thinking.  Again likely true to some degree, but they both seem very involved in public service that has indeed made a difference.

Benghazi is unbelievably ridiculous.  The Republicans tried to exploit that while it was actually happening.  They continue to bring it up.  It is disgusting.  The situation might have been handled differently, but the Republicans do not have clean hands on this issue by their stinginess on security budgets and their willingness to divulge names.  Running embassies in hostile foreign countries has always carried a risk which thankfully some people are willing to take.  The Republicans had far more embassy attacks with more deaths under George W Bush.  They should have allowed for the risks, but chose to lower budgets.  But like other accusations the whole issue puts a little doubt in people's minds.  On the other hand a few others are amazed that there have been no high level war crimes investigations concerning the Iraq  Invasion and not very much media or Republican attention.

The Emails.  The FBI director who made the most serious claims is a strong Republican, but even he was forced to admit she did nothing illegal.  The history of Republicans and emails has involved mass deletions that were for the most part very suspicious.  After consulting with others she chose convenience which is what most people would do.

Criticisms over the Clinton Foundation are troubling.  There has always been some arm twisting to get people to donate and no doubt some donors saw an opportunity to lobby their interests.  There are literally millions of people benefiting from Bill Clinton's program and it has passed scrutiny of watchdogs.  They shouldn't ignore perceptions, but should not be ruled by them either.

Nobody has endured as many "scandals" as Hilary Clinton.  They have pretty well been dealt with in a legal sense, but conservative critics keep reminding people about all the smoke.  A lot of it is to distract from their own positions which disadvantage poor people and their own scandals.  Donald Trump has a lot of dirt of his own.

Yes many of her decisions do seem like calculations--the TPP, the Iraq War stand out for me.   That is what politics is about.  Without power you can do nothing, but to get power you have difficult choices and sometimes voting against your beliefs is wise or at least political.  We are often forced to re-evaluate our choices.

The one lie that disturbed me was the one about the danger she claimed on a airplane landing in the Balkans.  Memories can get mixed up, but glorifying oneself is to be avoided.

Donald Trump main strategy is to criticize and to use hyperbole.  He claims he can do a better job, but is vague on details.  His qualifications are very questionable, and his demeanour is counter productive.

I think Hilary like her husband and Obama has an idea of what she thinks is right and what is important, but also realize she has to cater to vested interests to achieve the best balance.  In her campaign she declared she wanted to improve the Affordable Care Act incrementally while Bernie really wanted to upend the apple cart at some risk.

It may not be an ideal choice, but it is clear.  The smoke is meant to be misleading.
You can inch forward or take a giant step backwards.  In an earlier blog I commented that the world looked on the American election as a kind of IQ test.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/06/the-american-iq-test.html