Month: October 2016
Whose war is going well?
The popular image is that Russia is doing well in Syria, where it has been bombing for a year. Donald Trump says the American-allied forces in Iraq are struggling to retake Mosul. Precisely the opposite is true.
The Islamic State (ISIS) has now lost well over 60% of the territory that it once controlled in Iraq. Mosul is the last main population center it rules. Its diversionary attack on Kirkuk was just that: an effort to make the anti-ISIS coalition slow its advance by diverting forces. But it will have only a temporary impact. The tens of thousands of troops involved in or supporting the Mosul offensive seem remarkably determined and unified in their objective: to chase ISIS out. ISIS likely has no more than a few thousand fighters left inside the city.
If there is a serious problem in the anti-ISIS coalition attacking Mosul, it is more likely to come after success than before. At least some of the various coalition forces–Iraqi Army, Kurdish peshmerga, Shia “popular mobilization forces,” Yezidi, Christians and other militias–will race to the center of Mosul, each hoping that early arrival will help to strengthen its position in the inevitable pushing and shoving once ISIS is gone. That will be the big test: we’ll see whether the Iraqi government can succeed in putting together a coalition to govern the country’s second largest city. It won’t be easy.
The situation in Syria is much less favorable to the Russian/Iranian/Assad coalition. After months of effort, it has still not succeeded in taking eastern Aleppo, even after besieging it, denying it humanitarian assistance, and bombing it to near smithereens, including many civilian targets. In the meanwhile, Kurdish and allied Arab forces have taken Manbij on the Euphrates river from ISIS. Seeking to block further Kurdish expansion west, Turkey has helped Syrian rebels to take Jarablus, and move towards al-Bab, thus carving out what might become a de facto opposition “safe area” under Turkish protection.
The Assad coalition will eventually succeed in dislodging the opposition from Aleppo, but in doing so they are creating Sunni martyrs and radicalizing people who might otherwise have preferred a more moderate course. They are also guaranteeing that the Americans and Europeans will not be available to foot the bill for reconstructing Aleppo as well as other Syrian towns Assad, the Russians and Iranians have attacked. It is entirely possible for Assad’s coalition to win the battle for Aleppo but lose the war and the peace.
President Obama can be pleased with the progress of the war in Iraq, especially as he was instrumental in recruiting Haider al Abadi to replace Nouri al Maliki. It is impossible to see how the latter would have been able to construct the kind of coalition the former has managed to cobble together.
But Syria is likely to besmirch both Obama and Putin. Their failure to reach an accommodation that ends the war between coalitions that both claim to oppose the Islamic State and to begin a political transition is not just a personal tragedy for many Syrians but also a geopolitical disaster for the region.
The American-backed war is going okay. The Russian war is not. Iraq has a chance for a decent outcome. But no one is likely to be happy with the outcome in Syria.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, October 24 – 28
- Cultural Heritage: A Target in War, An Engine of Peace | Monday, October 24th | 8.45am – 5.30pm | US Institute of Peace | click HERE to register
Recent wars offer no greater example of cultural heritage turned to healing than the work in Afghanistan of the charity Turquoise Mountain, the subject of a stunning, 11-month exhibition by the Smithsonian Institution. “Turquoise Mountain: Artists Transforming Afghanistan,” at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, shows how historians, artisans, young students and communities are preserving and renewing traditions, crafts, economic livelihoods and a historic district of Kabul.
This symposium at the U.S. Institute of Peace will gather scholars, museum professionals and policymakers to explore what we have learned from recent wars about the role of cultural heritage. The daylong symposium aims to improve our understanding of how cultural heritage initiatives, such as Turquoise Mountain, can contribute to peace. How can this work empower marginalized women and communities? How can it strengthen the reconciliation, civic engagement and economic bases needed to build peace in the shadow of violent conflicts? Discussions will include the emerging role of new technologies and the ways in which Afghanistan’s lessons, with other case studies, apply elsewhere in the world. Funding for this symposium, and for the Smithsonian exhibition, has been provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development.
- Middle East and Regional Transition, Terrorism, and CVE: What The Next President Will Face | Monday, October 24th | 12pm – 1.30pm | Middle East Institute | click HERE to register
The Middle East Institute and the American Academy of Political and Social Science are pleased to host the special editors of the November volume of The ANNALS from the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
When the next American president takes office in January 2017, he or she will encounter a challenging landscape with regard to terrorism, countering violent extremism, regional turmoil, and failed states in the Middle East and surrounding region. Even if the United States and its allies disrupt ISIS and other terrorist organizations, the problems of violent Islamist extremism and the social and demographic conditions that enable it will persist.
The November volume of The ANNALS from the American Academy of Political and Social Science examines the state of these issues today and provides some paths and priorities for the next president and administration.
Please join Rand Beers (MEI Board Member), Richard A. Clarke (MEI Board Chairman), Emilian Papadopoulos (Good Harbor), and Paul Salem (MEI) for a discussion of these issues and what the next president can do about them. Mary Louise Kelly (NPR) will moderate the panel.
- Coping With the Refugee Crisis and Violent Conflict: Bold Ideas for the Next US President and UN Secretary General | Monday, October 24th | 4.30pm – 6pm | The Stimson Center | click HERE to register
Mandated to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and to seek a “life in larger freedom”, the United Nations has helped the world succeed in halving extreme global poverty, slowing the spread of nuclear weapons, and managing many long-standing conflicts. Yet, hardly anybody with an insight into global politics or economics would use the words “just” or “secure” to describe the world today. From Syria and Ukraine to Afghanistan, Iraq, and sub-Saharan Africa, rising violence has erased human rights, increased mass atrocities, and reversed the global decline in political violence seen since the end of the Cold War. These deadly conflicts have further fueled more than 60 million displaced persons, creating the largest refugee crisis since World War II. Despite noteworthy efforts to contain these conflicts and the attendant refugee outflow — including President Obama’s September 20 Leaders’ Summit on the Global Refugee Crisis at U.N. Headquarters, mounting evidence suggests that the United Nations and international community are losing the battle against several of the most pressing security and justice challenges of our time.
The panel discussion will bring together leading policy analysts and former senior international and U.S. officials for a moderated discussion on how the next U.S. President and U.N. Secretary-General, with the support of countries and global civil society, can better cope with the current refugee crisis and the underlying violent conditions that sustain it.
Featuring:
Vikram Singh (moderator), Vice-President for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress, and former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South and South-East Asia
Ibrahim Gambari, former Nigerian Foreign Minister, U.N. Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs, and Co-Chair of the Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance
Melanie Greenberg, President and CEO, Alliance for Peacebuilding
Cindy Huang, Co-convenor of Idealists4Hillary, Visiting Policy Fellow at the Center for Global Development, and former Deputy Vice President for Sector Operations at the Millennium Challenge Corporation
William Durch, Distinguished Fellow at Stimson and former Director of Research, Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance
Hardin Lang, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former senior U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations official for Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq, Kosovo, and Mali.
- Geopolitics, Security, and Energy in the Arctic | Tuesday, October 25th | 1pm | Atlantic Council | click HERE to register
While commercial, environmental, and local community development aspects of the Arctic have received increasing attention in Washington in recent times, the US also faces growing national security challenges in the Arctic region. This is a worrying development, as the United States risks not being able to appropriately respond and posture for a rapidly changing security situation in the Arctic.
The Arctic is an inherently challenging region to operate in, with vast distances, limited infrastructure, and harsh climate. As human activity in the region grows, these conditions give rise to a range of pressing security issues, from Russia’s growing militarization of the region and China’s interest in the Arctic, to disaster and accident response and search and rescue operations.
Please join the Atlantic Council as it convenes a leading group of officials and experts to address these challenges and take forward the debate on how the opening Arctic region impacts US national security.
Featuring:
The Honorable Amy Pope – Vice Chair, White House Arctic Executive Steering Committee;
Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Homeland Security Advisor; National Security Council Staff
Admiral Robert J. Papp, Jr., USCG (Ret.) – Special Representative for the Arctic, US Department of State;
General Joseph Ralston, USAF (Ret.) – Former Supreme Allied Commander Europe
NATO;
Dr. Janine Davidson – Under Secretary, US Navy
Rear Admiral Donald P. Loren, USN (Ret.) – Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, US Department of Defense
Admiral James M. Loy, USCG (Ret.) – Former Deputy Secretary, Department of Homeland
Sherri Goodman – Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense; Former CEO, Consortium for Ocean Leadership; Board Director, Atlantic Council
Rear Admiral David Titley, USN (Ret.) – Director, Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk, Pennsylvania State University
- War and Tweets: Terrorism in American in the Digital Age | Tuesday, October 25th | 3pm – 5pm | New America | click HERE to register
“Here in Orlando, we are reminded not only of our obligations as a country to be resolute against terrorists,” President Obama said in the wake of the Pulse nightclub shooting, “we’re also reminded…that what unites us is far stronger than the hate and the terror of those who target us.”
In the past year, terrorists have struck not only in Orlando, but in cities all over the world, from Beirut to Brussels, seeking to generate fear and anger. But what really determines public reaction? Is it, indeed, possible to be resolute in the face of terrorism?
Join us on October 25th at New America as we examine these questions and launch a new report as part of the “Building Civic Resilience to Terrorism” project, a partnership between New America and the charitable organization Democracy Fund Voice.
Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer will join the Hon. Sharon Burke, Director of the Resource Security program at New America, Juliette Kayyem, CNN National Security Analyst, and Dr. Peter Singer, Senior Fellow of the International Security Program at New America to discuss how political rhetoric, news media, and social media shape the public reaction to terrorism. The panel will also look at how to use strategic communications to build community resilience in the aftermath of an attack.
- The 25th Annual Arab-US Policymakers Conference | Wednesday, October 26th – Thursday, October 27th | 8am | National Council on US-Arab Relations | click HERE to register
Since 1991, the National Council’s annual Arab-U.S. Policymakers Conference has gathered internationally renowned specialists to analyze, discuss, and debate issues of over-arching importance to the American and Arab people’s needs, concerns, interests, and key foreign policy objectives. Over two-days, Arab and American leaders from government, the military, business, and academe share privileged information, insight, and recommendations that are vitally important to the definition of issues, the ordering of priorities, and the direction of policy formulation and implementation in American and Arab governments alike.
The 25th Arab-U.S. Policymakers Conference is scheduled for October 26-27, 2016, at the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center in Washington, DC. The conference will again provide attendees with two days of shared ideas, intense discussions and debate, and extensive networking.
- Tackling the Root Causes of Conflict in the Middle East and How to Tackle Them | Thursday, October 27th | 9am – 12 am| Atlantic Council | click HERE to register
The decades-long unravelling of the economic and social fabric of the Middle East has played an instrumental role in the rise of civil strife. From undiversified economies and ineffective political institutions to inadequate education and youth unemployment, there are many root causes of conflict in the region.
Please join the Atlantic Council and Sweden’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs on Thursday, October 27 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for a half-day conference that will explore the underlying causes of conflict in the Middle East and propose new ways to strengthen cooperation among the United States and its European allies in the region.
Annika Söder, Sweden’s State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, will deliver keynote remarks, followed by two panel discussions. A light breakfast will be served.
What happens in the Middle East will have major importance for the global system. An international peace settlement would help rebuild global cooperation and could be the first step toward a reinvigorated, rules-based order. Join our discussion to help shape and achieve this future scenario.
Featuring:
Paige Alexander – Assistant Administrator, Bureau for the Middle East, USAID
Michele Dunne – Director and Senior Associate, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Paul Hughes – Interim Operations Chief for Middle East and Africa, United States Institute of Peace
Mohamed Younis – Senior Analyst, Gallup World Poll
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
US strategy in the Middle East
The Center for American Progress held a discussion earlier today about the challenges, trends and setbacks of US strategy in the Middle East. The event began with US army commander for CENTCOM, General Joseph Votel, and broke out into a panel featuring Derek Chollet, a Counselor and Senior Advisor for Security and Defense Policy for The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Brian Katulis, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Linda Robinson, a Senior International Policy Analyst at the RAND Corporation, and Michael Singh, the Lane-Swig Senior Fellow and Managing Director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
General Votel listed three major areas of focus for the US strategy in the Middle East:
- Listen to what our partners in the region have to say.
- Reinforce and cultivate relationships with our regional allies.
- Maintain excellent communication with our partners.
With Iranian behavior becoming increasingly aggressive and destabilizing, we must reassure our allies that we will not abandon them. This, however, does not mean that we should cut off communication with Iran. In fact, communication with Iran should be maintained so we can better control our interactions with them.
In terms of fighting ISIS, particularly in light of the ongoing operation in Mosul, General Votel recommends that we maintain momentum and pressure on the group on all fronts. Elimination of ISIS is the ultimate goal for the US military right now. Fortunately, our military coalition campaigns have largely been successful. However, these campaigns need to go hand-in-hand with humanitarian and political solutions. They will be difficult to achieve, but they are absolutely necessary for lasting stability.
The panelists were invited to provide their insight on US strategy in the Middle East. They focused primarily on a report recently published by the CAP Middle East team. Katulis said the Middle East is still incredibly vital to the US, but our goals there cannot be accomplished alone. The new administration needs to increase trust with our traditional partners such as Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others. However, this should not be an unquestioning embrace of friendship, but rather it should be a friendship of increased communication and goal-sharing.
Robinson echoed this sentiment, but she also brought up that the US needs to bring its attention to non-state partners as well, such as the Syrian Kurds. She emphasized the importance of not relying too heavily on military solutions, but also integrating political and social solutions into the larger operational framework. Most importantly, the US needs to devise a reliable system of local policing for recently liberated areas. A lack of reliable policing is an “Achilles heel.” Perhaps the US and its allies need to formulate an international police force to provide interim policing services.
Chollet noted the US is perpetually in crisis management mode in the Middle East, which might not be in our best interests. The US and its partners do not necessarily share the same goals, so our cooperation with these actors needs to be examined closely. The next president should to step away from defining her/himself by what he/she accomplishes in the Middle East and concentrate on other issues.
Singh highlighted that the US strategy in the Middle East has often been solution-oriented when perhaps it should not be. Our goals should not be focused on solving conflicts or creating governments, but rather providing support when needed. The US shouldn’t “fix” the Middle East, rather it should simply ensure that things don’t get worse and that our allies have back up if they need it. The region, he argued, has a lot of potential if provided with the right support. If we work carefully and patiently with our regional friends, the Middle East could begin to thrive.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
He’s finished
There were a lot of things Trump said in this third presidential debate that I disagreed with and lots more that undermined his claim to have the temperament and judgment to be president. But the coup de grâce for his campaign was his refusal say he would accept the outcome of the election. Here is the suicidal candidate, making a mockery of American democracy the day after the debate:
It has long been apparent that Trump lacks liberal democratic values. Witness his claim that an American-born judge is biased because of his Mexican heritage. Witness his pledge to put Clinton in jail if he wins. Witness his willingness to accept the support of white supremacists and anti-Semites. Trump’s world is one in which white and male privilege is a good thing, taxes are for others to pay, and illegal immigrants are manual labor to be exploited and deported. He is a self-declared law and order candidate with no respect for equal rights.
None of his anti-liberal stances have much affected Trump’s attractiveness to something close to 40% of the electorate. He will get most of those votes, apparently no matter what. The Republican party, sadly, will be reduced not to its core principles of less intrusive government and more private initiative, but rather to arbitrary government power and no respect for individual rights. How they are going to get out of that trap I don’t know.
To win Trump would need more. That’s where he failed last night. And that’s where his refusal to make it clear he will accept the election outcome hurts him the most. He has no chance of extending his reach to independents without respect for the electoral process he is participating in. Failing that respect, he will also lose a lot of Republican voters who know that the election is organized at the state level, where Republican governors and legislatures have if anything been over-vigilant in their effort to prevent almost non-existent voting fraud.
On foreign policy questions, especially Syria, Trump was mostly incoherent last night. He continues to wish for a good relationship with Vladimir Putin, which is ironically an attitude Hillary Clinton initially took as Secretary of State, only to find that her “reset” was unsuccessful. Trump also continues to refuse to acknowledge that Russia is responsible for hacking American emails, something he has urged Moscow to do. Neither candidate had much to say about China, though Trump emphasized its unfair trade practices (against which Obama has been retaliating) and seemed to think the US could somehow approach its claimed growth rate of 7% (actually 6.7%, and no one seems to believe that figure).
Trump even promised 5-6% growth in the US, achieved by lowering taxes on the rich and vastly expanding government spending for infrastructure.
Lots of foreign policy issues went unmentioned: vast areas like Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, current crisis areas like Ukraine and Libya (though Trump mentioned the latter in connection with ISIS, which has been largely defeated there), North Korea, the pending trade pacts in Pacific and with Europe (TTP and TTIP to the cognescenti), Egypt and Israel…. I hardly need to mention that my readers’ favorite part of the world, the Balkans, did not make the cut.
ISIS was a big deal in this debate. Trump blames its existence on Clinton, which is clearly nonsense. Even if you think the American withdrawal from Iraq opened space for it and choose to ignore Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s contribution and the impact of the war in Syria, the agreement to withdraw and the timing were decided in the George W. Bush administration, not by President Obama or Hillary Clinton. Neither Trump nor Clinton offered much idea what they would do about ISIS other than what is already being done. Clinton said she would not put US troops on the ground to stabilize Mosul. Trump did not make that commitment but instead insisted that the attack on Mosul should have been a sneak attack.
He hasn’t got a clue. You can’t move tens of thousands of troops into place, carpet the civilian population with leaflets urging them to shelter in place or rise against ISIS, begin to soften up the defenses with air attacks and artillery, and prepare for the inevitable displacement of people by constructing shelters for them to live in without alerting the enemy that something is up. Trump’s knowledge of how war is fought seems grounded in playing Risk with his kids.
I’m not willing to see him play Risk with the United States. Nor it seems are most of the American people. It’s a shame the election isn’t today, but millions have already voted early and many more will do so in coming days. The only good thing that can come of Trump’s candidacy is a resounding defeat.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Rot at the top
Two Bulgarian researchers, Ruslan Stefanov and Martin Vladimirov, yesterday presented Shadow Power: Assessment of Corruption and Hidden Economy in Southeast Europe here at SAIS. Their powerpoints are here and here. Corruption is now in many ways the most important challenge in the Balkans today, as it hinders economic growth, exacerbates inter-ethnic relations, heightens political tensions, slows the pace of reforms needed to qualify for NATO and EU membership, reduces state legitimacy, and threatens instability. Corruption is second only to unemployment as a concern the public’s estimation. What the Southeast European Leadership for Development and Integrity (SELDI) has managed to do is to measure corruption pressure and practices (not just perceptions, as the Transparency International index does) as well as elucidate “state capture,” in particular in the energy sector.
The results are not edifying: corruption pressure (share of citizens reporting demands for bribes from public officials) has not improved overall since 2014 in the region and has worsened in Albania, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, while declining in Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Serbia (notably the countries in which the European Union has arguably been most active on corruption issues). More than half of the population in these Southeast European countries believes it will have to bribe someone to get things done. In all but Montenegro, more than half the population believes corruption cannot be substantially reduced. Irregular, “hidden,” employment is one of the consequences. Another is use of the non-liberalized energy sector to extract rents for state officials.
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia, and to a lesser extent Albania and Kosovo, stand out as countries in which corruption levels are worsening. Tolerance of corruption in those four countries is also highest, and they are among the countries in which 50% or more of the population believes corruption cannot be substantially reduced. The public thinks the most corrupt officials in the region are political party and coalition leaders, members of parliament, ministers, and local political leaders. In short, what we’ve got here is deep-seated, endemic corruption, with the rot worst at the top.
What is to be done?
The report recommends “effective prosecution of corrupt high level politicians and senior civil servants,” EU Commission engagement with civil society, and independent monitoring mechanisms. That is certainly logical, but I challenged whether this was adequate after the presentation at SAIS, noting that the successful prosecution of my wartime friend and former prime minister Ivo Sanader in Croatia seems to have had the opposite impact: the “Sanader effect” has made top politicians more cautious about reforms. Ruslan wisely underlined that the prosecutions could not be one-off but rather should be sustained, as they are in the US. I can’t fault the idea of stronger EU engagement with civil society, which Ruslan and Martin thought had been much weaker than in Romania and Bulgaria, where improvements are evident.
I am however still skeptical about anticorruption bodies. The kind of civil society monitoring SELDI has done is important, but most official anticorruption agencies are ineffectual, because corruption is not an aberration of the system but rather the system itself. The opposite of corruption in these countries is not anticorruption. It is good governance. I see more promise in improving transparency and accountability, in particular in political parties. Most of them in the countries of greatest concern are run as fiefdoms of the party bosses, with little possibility of changing the guard and lots of opportunity to reward loyalists with corrupt rents. Srdjan Blagovcanin and Boris Divjak have made this point for Bosnia and Herzegovina. It seems to me likely to be valid in other countries as well.
But that point should not detract from the courageous and perspicacious work Ruslan and Martin have done. They have greatly enhanced the tools available to measure corruption and corruption pressure and offered some important suggestion of what to do about it. That these accomplishments are coming from inside the Balkans, not outside, represents real progress. Bravi!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This election’s only fraud
Yup, it’s Donald Trump. He is currently busy fraudulently trying to convince everyone that election fraud is common. Here’s what knowledgeable people have to say about that:
He says the mainstream media refuses to give him his due, despite the heavy coverage that has given him billions in free publicity. He declares he’ll build a wall and the Mexicans will pay for it. Anyone with a brain in his head knows that isn’t going to happen. He claims to be philanthropic but gives relatively little money to charity. He promises to help the little guy, but his tax plan favors the ultrarich. His “university” defrauded its students. Let’s not even mention his promise to document wife Melania’s observance of the restrictions on her tourist visa or his pledge to release his taxes once the IRS is finished. No sign of that in her interview with CNN yesterday.
The only people who believe any of Trump’s claims at this point are his passionate supporters, disproportionately those who are white, male, and working class. They are unconcerned with his frauds, because he gives them something they figure is worth more. He has found ways to express their unhappiness with their loss of status. There is good reason for that complaint: their incomes haven’t risen in 40 years. But what makes Trump especially appealing to people with legitimate grievances is that he gives voice to the illegitimate ones: his racism and misogyny make it worth overlooking all the fraudulent claims.
What difference does all this make to international affairs?
The world is an echo chamber. We are hearing in Vladimir Putin, Nicholas Orban, Nicholas Sarkozy and other ethnic chauvinists sympathetic vibrations. Trump is not the originator of many of the ideas they share, but he gives them courage and conviction that they might otherwise have lacked. I was told yesterday that even opposition politicians in Montenegro are imitating Trump’s fraudulent claims that the elections there Sunday were rigged. What better way is there to explain a resounding loss?
The trouble is that it besmirches American democracy and weakens its appeal internationally. It is easy enough to point out that 24 American states have governors and both houses of the legislature in Republican hands. Since national elections in the US are organized at the state level, that pretty much rules out any rigging against Trump. Only 7 states are fully in Democratic control, including several where the election outcome is not in doubt. How, pray tell, would Hillary Clinton rig elections in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina?
Trumpites may respond that the real issue is the media, which favors Clinton. That is definitely true for the newspapers. Last time I heard, only one newspaper in the entire country had endorsed Trump. Even stalwart Republican papers are opting for Clinton. But radio and television, arguably much more important, are far more evenly divided, if not on balance favorable to Trump. Until recently, they bent over backwards to try to avoid calling him out for his many blatant lies. And his broadcast coverage has been far greater than Clinton’s.
What is Trump trying to achieve with his claims that the election is rigged? In addition to excusing what is looking likely to be a clamorous defeat, he is rallying his constituency for two things: to agitate at polling places November 8 against presumed non-citizens or repeat voters and to sustain the Trumpites’ interest in supporting him when he establishes his own supposedly “truth-telling” TV channel in the aftermath of the rigged election.
I doubt he’ll be successful at either enterprise. Trumpites who try to interfere with voting in the West Philadelphia district I canvassed in 10 days ago will find a community not only determined to vote for Clinton but one zealous in the defense of its rights. Even Oprah, who has really deep pockets, has had difficulty making ends meet with her own TV channel. Trump isn’t going to find it easy after this electoral loss to raise money. I’ll be amazed if anyone but his friends will still willing to give him a dime.
So be forewarned, penny-ante nationalists, racists, and misogynist: your American hero is a fraud who is going down to defeat in three weeks, whatever ugly rabbit he pulls from a hat during tomorrow’s final presidential debate. Clinton is now campaigning in solidly Republican states, having succeeded in tilting all the more competitive ones in her direction.
I admit it is sad and concerning that almost 40% of Americans will still cast a vote for Trump. But his defeat should still take some wind out of the sails of Putin and his ilk. It will also reassure America’s allies and give pause to those hoping for it to wreck its economy with protectionism and tax cuts for the rich. Liberal democratic values, on the ropes in recent years, are headed for a modest comeback.
RSS - Posts
