Ferocious, Weak, and Crazy

In 2013 George Friedman, of the global intelligence firm Stratfor.com, wrote an interesting analysis of the national strategy of North Korea titled "Ferocious, Weak, and Crazy." Mr Friedman described the strategy this way:

"... the North Koreans positioned themselves as ferocious by appearing to have, or to be on the verge of having, devastating power. Second, they positioned themselves as being weak such that no matter how ferocious they are, there would be no point in pushing them because they are going to collapse anyway. And third, they positioned themselves as crazy, meaning pushing them would be dangerous since they were liable to engage in the greatest risks imaginable at the slightest provocation."

Three years later, I wrote a post which drew on that article and used ferocious, weak, and crazy to describe the behavior of Der Furor, then a candidate for president. Today, nine years and two presidential terms later, the adjectives apply more than ever.

Der Furor likes to appear ferocious, threatening real or perceived enemies with "fire and fury like the world has never seen." He is certainly one of the most bellicose men ever to hold the presidency, having offered to send the US military into Mexico to attack drug cartels, seize Greenland for national security purposes, and make Canada the 51st state ... and even to deploy the military for law enforcement within the United States. He works overtime to project an image of overwhelming strength and manly virtue, aided by his admirers who churn out laughable images of him as an impressively muscled, heroic, and heavily armed figure. He's besotted with the idea of having a massive military parade in the streets of Washington on his birthday (ostensibly in honor of the birthday of the US Army, which conveniently falls on the same date). And he enjoys striking heroic poses in the style of past strongmen like Benito Mussolini and (dare I say) Adolf Hitler ...

But for all his belligerence and posturing, Der Furor is a weak man. He has staffed his administration with slavishly obedient toadies he knows will not oppose him. When met with actual pushback, whether from state governors or foreign leaders, he is quick to back down, although in such a way as to have someone else to take the responsibility - he recently suggested that the 145% tariffs he imposed on imports from China might be reduced to a mere 80%, although he said that the decision would be "up to [Treasury Secretary] Scott B[essent]."* He will never admit to making an error, for fear of appearing weak. He is a weak man's imitation of a strong man.

And Der Furor is, indeed, crazy ... whether crazy like a fox (as his followers fervently believe) or crazy as a bedbug is for medical professionals to determine. But in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board he claimed he would not have to use military force to prevent a blockade of Taiwan, because President Xi “respects me and he knows I’m [expletive] crazy.” Der Furor appears to subscribe to the “madman theory” of foreign policy, that a leader's suicidal threats may seem credible if the opponent believes the leader is irrational**. In any case, his wildly unstatesmanlike behavior, which includes the silly dance moves at his rallies, the making of national policy and announcement of major personnel changes by social media post, and the resort to childish insults and threats when his desires are thwarted, hardly inspires confidence in the mental stability of the leader of a formerly great nation.

Ferocious, weak, and crazy ... it used to be North Korea. Now it's our own president.

In precise legal language, we're screwed.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Translation: if it doesn't work out, I'll blame it on Bessent. As we now know, (reported in the news since I drafted this post earlier in the week) Der Furor has, indeed, backed down from his tariff war with China and is describing it as a victory, although there seems to be no identifiable advantage gained by the US.

** The term is often used in reference to President Richard Nixon, who wanted North Vietnamese leaders to believe he might be crazy enough to resort to nuclear weapons.

Eric Hoffer and Donald Trump

As you know, if you've been with me for any length of time, I am a great fan of Eric Hoffer, the writer and thinker known as "The Longshoreman Philosopher." And my favorite of Hoffer's works is his marvelous short book The True Believer - a brief but insightful look at the nature of mass movements and fanaticism, and what stirs people to action.

I've thought more and more about Hoffer's ideas on mass movements as I watch the spectacle of Donald Trump's America and wonder why such an unqualified con artist has been able to attract so much support among people you'd think would know better, especially after a year of shining examples of his negative and dispiriting leadership. I think that some of Hoffer's thoughts in The True Believer may help to explain why so many people continue to support Trump. For instance, Hoffer writes:

"It is the true believer's ability to 'shut his eyes and stop his ears' to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence ... it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises, and the unpleasant realities of the world around him."

Hoffer goes on to theorize that the doctrine which defines a mass movement (and Trumpism is nothing if not a mass movement) must not be understood, but simply believed in. It must be vague and unverifiable, to allow for maximum intellectual flexibility in the face of contrary information. Ask yourself: what does Donald Trump really stand for, other than being the polar opposite of everything Obama? What does he believe in, other than his own absolute superiority over all other humans? He can't be understood like most traditional political figures ... his followers simply and fervently believe in his pronouncements, no matter how bizarre and how often proven false.

A mass movement, in Hoffer's view, also uses what he calls "unifying agents" to bind its adherents together. Hoffer lists seven of these unifying agents, of which two are clearly present in those who follow Trump.

The first is hatred, which unifies the true believers against a despised other. For Nazi Germany, it was hatred of Jews. For Donald Trump and his followers, it's hatred of immigrants. In the minds of Trump's true believers, immigrants steal jobs from Americans, rape and murder innocent Americans with impunity, and soak up resources that could be used for the legitimate needs of American citizens. While illegal immigration is certainly a problem, focusing on immigrants as a class - not just illegals - demonstrates the unifying effect of hatred.

The second unifying agent is suspicion. As Hoffer writes,

"The awareness of their individual blemishes and shortcomings inclines the frustrated to detect ill will and meanness in their fellow men. Self-contempt, however vague, sharpens our eyes for the imperfections of others."

Casting suspicion on enemies, real or imagined, strengthens the belief of true believers. You can't trust the mainstream media, because everything is fake news. The government doesn't serve the needs of real Americans because of the machinations of the deep state. The FBI and the Justice Department are corrupt. We need to drain the swamp to restore American greatness ... although whatever swamp existed before has demonstrably grown far larger under the Trump administration.

I encourage you to find a copy of The True Believer and read it carefully. It's a short read, but it's packed with powerful concepts and observations that will help you understand the forces that brought Donald Trump to office and keep him there.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

The Importance of Ritual

Last week there was a news item (and a blog post by Angel) about the demotion and forced retirement of a Tennessee Air National Guard colonel and the punishment of several senior enlisted people who participated in a reenlistment ceremony in which the reenlistee - a senior noncommissioned officer - took her oath of enlistment using a dinosaur hand puppet. As many people noted, this was gross disrespect of a serious military tradition which acknowledges the life-and-death consequences of military service. As an Air Force officer, I conducted many reenlistment, promotion, and retirement ceremonies over the years, including administering the commissioning oath to my own son, and I was greatly offended by these actions of people who should have known better.

But this tawdry incident brings me to an interesting related topic: the role of rituals in our lives. For this, I call your attention to this 2013 article by Donna Henes, in which she notes that

"Ceremonial observance adds lucid layers — depth, dimension, drama and distinction — to our lives, making the ordinary seem special, and the special, extraordinary."

There's a reason we have rituals for important events in our lives, such as marriages, funerals, military commissioning and enlistments, and school graduations - they provide a solemnity and an opportunity for reflection that underscores the seriousness of significant events. Religions rely on various rituals, of course, as a way of connecting with the power of the unknown and the Almighty, but there are many important secular rituals as well - such as presidential inaugurations, graduations, military parades, the awarding of a driver's license, selection for promotion at work, and so on. The rituals surrounding such events are intended to emphasize their importance.

Of course, there are rituals and there are rituals. Sir Stephen, the amoral libertine who abused the title character in Story of O, noted that "I have a fondness for habits and ritual" ... ritual, of course, of a more carnal nature than those with which most of us are familiar. And ritual plays a central part in the Sherlock Holmes mystery "The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual."

And, of course, in today's America, if you're ritual have a much better chance of being elected to office.

Sorry about that.

Have a good day, and observe all necessary rituals. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Gaslighting

I recently learned an interesting new (well, new to me, anyway) word - gaslighting.

The word derives from a 1944 noir film called Gaslight, in which a husband tries to drive his young wife insane by manipulating her perception of reality. The title comes from one of his ploys, which involves raising or dimming the gas lights in their home while telling his wife that there's no change in the level of the light, causing her to question her senses.

Gaslighting has thus become a term used to describe attempts by unscrupulous individuals to sow confusion by making people question their objective reality - to doubt known facts or question their beliefs on the basis of information which is false or willfully distorted. It uses such tactics as fake news, selective quotes taken out of context, denial of evidence contrary to one's beliefs, and the credulous belief without proof in anything that agrees with one's preconceived notions.

Freida Ghitis summed it up in this thoughtful article: Donald Trump is "Gaslighting" All of Us.

Don't let yourself be gaslit for the next four years. Watch. Read. Think.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

The Trump Thesaurus

This post is an expanded version of a shorter item I posted to Facebook yesterday. Sorry if you're having to read it twice ...

Yesterday, January 11^th, President-Elect Donald Trump held his first formal press conference since July 27^th of last year*. It lasted about an hour, a large part of which was taken up by an introduction in which incoming press secretary Sean Spicer yelled at the assembled press corps, a fawning introduction by Vice-President-Elect Mike Pence, a prepared statement by Mr Trump, and a lengthy presentation by Mr Trump's legal counsel Sheri Dillon concerning his plans for addressing conflict of interest issues. The actual amount of time spent evading answering questions was, thus, fairly limited, and that was probably not a bad thing, given that there was very little specific information provided to a press corps that Mr Trump clearly despises unless it reports on him with fawning adoration.

Here's my linguistic take on the news conference:

(1) Mr Trump tends to use adjectives describing expected results rather than nouns defining what those results will be.

(2) Things Mr Trump does or likes are "amazing," "brilliant," "fantastic," "tremendous," "huge," "phenomenal," and "total."

(3) Things Mr Trump does not like are "a disgrace," "dishonest," "sad," "pathetic," "failing," and "unfair."

(4) The adjective "unfair" is most often used to describe news coverage with which the president-elect is not pleased.

(4) The adverb "very" is liberally (pardon the expression) used to intensify the adjectives that take the place of nouns in Mr Trump's remarks.

He's easy to cover from a linguistic standpoint ... a particularly large vocabulary is not required.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* The Washington Post last October 6^th documented 71 times that Mr Trump or his surrogates had criticized Senator Clinton for not holding a press conference - as of that date, she had not held one for more than 270 days. When Mr Trump finally held his press berating conference on January 11^th, it had been 168 days since his last press conference on July 27^th, 2016. Just sayin'.

Selling Fragrances in Monotones

Many years ago, not long after Marconi got the kinks worked out of the technology, I produced my own radio program - The Audio Attic - on Radio Fairfax, the public access station in Fairfax County, Virginia.

In learning the basics of radio production, I had to master things like air time management and the ins and outs of advertising ... the hard sell, the soft sell, and the use of one's voice to create an atmosphere for the listener conducive getting him or her to want to run out and buy whatever you were selling.

I've been off the air for a long time, but I thought about my experiences in advertising the other day when I realized something about a subject I'd never much considered before - fragrance commercials.

There are a lot of commercials on television now for a lot of different fragrances, and they all have one thing in common ... see if it registers with you. Consider this one, for J'Adore ...

and this one, for "Boss: the Scent" ...

and this one, for l'Eau #5 from Chanel ...

Here's what I noticed: none of them has much dialog, but all of the dialog is delivered in a monotone.

Now, I spent a lot of time learning all sorts of verbal delivery techniques to avoid a monotone ... and these overpriced perfumes seem to be deliberately using it in their pitches. What's up with that? Is a monotone supposed to be sexy? I know that advertisers use various accents to create specific moods - French for sexy, English* for sophistication, German for high technology** - but what is conveyed by an offhand monotone?

What, if anything, is the effect that such an ad with such a delivery has on you? I'm curious, so please leave a comment.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* It's been said that an upper class Englishman reading the Manhattan phone book will always sound better than an American reading the Gettysburg Address.

** Or for threats.

What Constitutes A Polite Society?

You've almost certainly heard this famous quote from the story "Beyond This Horizon" by science fiction author Ray Bradbury ...

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

There's been some discussion over exactly what Bradbury meant to say with this line in the context of the story, but there's no doubt at all that it is taken at face value by present-day gun rights advocates, particularly those who support the right to carry firearms, openly or concealed, at all times and in all places. In a 2000 essay titled "Armed Citizens are Responsible Citizens," William Levinson wrote,

     "The common perception is that armed societies were polite because an act of rudeness might evolve into a duel, as portrayed in Dumas' The Three Musketeers. The real reason, though, is the mindset and psychology that come with responsible weapon ownership [emphasis in the original]. The knight's sword was a symbol of his duty to protect weaker members of society and behave chivalrously, e.g. with respect and courtesy to women, elderly people, and so on. The sword was the soul of the Japanese samurai, a constant reminder of the samurai's duty and code of behavior. The sword was a symbol of taking responsibility, not only for one's self, but usually for others. 
     "The modern American who buys a firearm for self-protection is saying, "I recognize that life involves danger, and by owning a weapon I accept my responsibility to protect myself and those who are entitled to my protection-- my wife/husband, children, parents, and perhaps friends and neighbors."

The events of the last few weeks lead me to question Mr Levinson's concept of "the mindset and psychology that come with responsible gun ownership" because responsibility is something that nowadays plays second fiddle to freedom. I would argue that it is not responsible to openly carry a weapon into a volatile situation where violence might break out at any time ... the responsible thing to do would be to avoid such a situation if at all possible, or at least to not take actions that might make it worse. Comparing an open-carry advocate to a chivalrous knight or a samurai seems a bit of a stretch.

Obviously, advocates of gun ownership and ostentatious open carry would disagree.

But the issue is, to me, not one of whether or not packing heat everywhere is a good idea ... although I don't think it is. The issue is what makes a society polite.

I grew up in a time in which people in general were much more polite and respectful toward one another than they are today. My parents and the parents of most of my friends placed a great deal of emphasis on personal probity and good manners, and raised us to do the same. Nowadays, it seems that civility and good manners are considered marks of weakness. You don't build "street cred" by being polite ... you build it by getting in everyone's face. One need only look at the behavior of Donald Trump to see how low our standards of personal decorum have dropped.

In his 1998 book Civility: Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy, Stephen L. Carter wrote that

"Civility requires that we express ourselves in ways that demonstrate our respect for others."

 Good luck finding that civility in the current overheated presidential campaign, where respectful and polite discourse vanished long ago. We are preparing to choose a president based on our relative evaluation of the brutal ad hominem attacks that have taken the place of detailed discussion of important issues of policy.

In a polite society, people strongly disagree with each other, but treat each other with dignity and respect. We can dislike the ideas but be civil toward the person expressing them. No more.

I have been accused of hypocrisy on this topic because, while advocating civility and politeness, I present my Ass Clown awards in this blog. While my intent is not mean-spirited, the presentation of such an award isn't especially civil, and perhaps I should work toward morphing those awards into something more satirically pointed and less vulgar. I guess I'll work on that.

But to get back to my original point, from which I think I've wandered ... let me just wrap this up by suggesting that if we need to pack heat to enforce politeness, we're screwed. We just need to treat each other better. We need people to show that they're of a better ... caliber.

Have a good day. See you tomorrow for our second July iteration of Great Moments in Editing and Signage. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

The North Korea of American Politics

In 2013 George Friedman, of the global intelligence firm Stratfor.com, wrote an interesting analysis of the national strategy of North Korea that he titled "Ferocious, Weak, and Crazy." Mr Friedman described the strategy this way:

"... the North Koreans positioned themselves as ferocious by appearing to have, or to be on the verge of having, devastating power. Second, they positioned themselves as being weak such that no matter how ferocious they are, there would be no point in pushing them because they are going to collapse anyway. And third, they positioned themselves as crazy, meaning pushing them would be dangerous since they were liable to engage in the greatest risks imaginable at the slightest provocation."

I would suggest that nearly the same strategy - intentionally or not - applies to the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump. Here's my thinking ...

Depending on how you look at it, Mr Trump either already has or is on the verge of having devastating power. One could argue that he already has devastating economic power*, being able to use his wealth to bulldoze opposition to his development projects and to fund (at least initially) his own presidential campaign. And he's clearly on the verge of having devastating military power, since as president, he'd be the commander-in-chief of the most powerful and professional military force on the planet (although he probably doesn't agree). Both are scary thoughts, so we'll check the ferocious box.

The second element of the North Korean strategy applies as well. Mr Trump is in many ways like a typical grade-school bully, blustering, threatening, and insulting those he wants to pick on, and with a notoriously thin skin for any perceived insult to - or even criticism of - himself. Some psychologists suggest that bullies compensate for weakness and insecurity with outsized aggression and apply the model to Mr Trump, although others argue that he's not a classic bully because the people he picks on are powerful in their own right. He's spring-loaded to the "attack" position whenever challenged, and refuses to give an inch even when confronted with proof that he's in error. I think we can check the weak box, too.

If we use Mr Friedman's definition of crazy in this context ("liable to engage in the greatest risks imaginable at the slightest provocation"), I think we can check that box, too. Consider three of the actions Mr Trump has stated he will take if elected: build a wall along the US border with Mexico, and force the Mexican government to pay for it; round up and deport 11 million illegal immigrants now inside the US**; and ban entry to the US for Muslims. While none of these actions equates to the bombastic North Korean rattling of its nuclear saber at every provocation, they represent a reckless willingness to alienate one of our largest trading partners and two of the largest ethnic and demographic groups on the planet. Not to mention that banning any religious group from entry is almost certainly unconstitutional***. Although it doesn't quite line up with the Friedman definition of crazy, Mr Trump also is on record as stating that it's important in foreign affairs to be unpredictable, to keep other world leaders guessing what he'll do next ... and if any government on the planet is predictably unpredictable it's North Korea. Overall, I think we can safely check the crazy box as well.

Ferocious, weak, and crazy ... I think Donald Trump is arguably the North Korea of American politics, and those who fail to recognize it would be in for a very big shock should he ever be elected.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* There is, of course, some debate over exactly how wealthy Mr Trump is - something that might be clarified should he ever choose to release his tax returns for public scrutiny. Let's just say that even on his economically worst day, he's a hell of a lot richer than I'll ever be and probably doesn't worry about how to pay for his health care.

** This is not to minimize the problem of illegal immigration, which I believe that, as a sovereign nation, we must address. But the answer is not to build a ridiculous and impractical wall, but to reform our immigration laws and policies. If you haven't read my proposal for how to do that, you can check it out here.

*** Everybody worships the Second Amendment, but it's worth remembering that the first clause of the First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion and enjoins the government from "establishing" any particular religion. If you want to see what living in a theocratic paradise is like, you may want to check out garden spots like Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Pakistan.