Engaging imaginatively with a dangerous opponent

Public Enemy #1 as Supreme Leader? (Part #3)

Clearly there is virtually no detectable appreciation by progressives of the positive qualities of the 45th President of the USA. They are faced with the paradox that a man without positive qualities has successfully achieved the highest office in the land -- something that those they favour have clearly been unable to do, and have little hope of achieving, whatever the hope-mongering to that end.

There is every prospect that Trump's policies will engender great harm and pain for some, if not many. It could of course be assumed that the policies advocated by progressives, if implemented as they would wish, would engender harm and pain for others. This might then be considered acceptable, or negligible, since such policies are inherently worthy in contrast to those promoted by Trump. Presumably collateral damage is a characteristic of the implementation of any strategy.

Other than complaining about the current course of events, and the prospects for the years to come, is there any way of reframing the situation such as to elicit the maximum amount of collective learning? Are there windows of opportunity which merit recognition and exploration?

The enemy is us? One point of departure is the critical articulation of John Pilger (This Week the Issue is not Trump, it is Ourselves, 17 January 2017; The Issue is Not Trump, It is Us, CounterPunch, 17 January 2017; The issue is not Trump: it is us. RT, 17 January 2017). He cites appreciatively William I. Robinson:

President Barack Obama... may have done more than anyone to assure [Donald] Trump's victory. While Trump's election has triggered a rapid expansion of fascist currents in US civil society, a fascist outcome for the political system is far from inevitable.... But that fight back requires clarity as to how we got to such a dangerous precipice. The seeds of 21st century fascism were planted, fertilized and watered by the Obama administration and the politically bankrupt liberal elite.

Pilger concludes:

The obsession with Trump is a cover for many of those calling themselves "left/liberal", as if to claim political decency. They are not "left", neither are they especially "liberal". Much of America's aggression towards the rest of humanity has come from so-called liberal Democratic administrations -- such as Obama's. America's political spectrum extends from the mythical centre to the lunar right... While they "heal" and "move forward", will the Writers Resist campaigners and other anti-Trumpists reflect upon this? More to the point: when will a genuine movement of opposition arise? Angry, eloquent, all-for-one-and-one-for all. Until real politics return to people's lives, the enemy is not Trump, it is ourselves.

What indeed is a "genuine movement of opposition"? If the enemy is indeed ourselves how should this be understood? This insight is of course consistent with that famously attributed to Pogo: We have met the enemy and he is us. What indeed does the emergence of Trump onto the world scene say about us? How can we begin to engage with what that might imply?

Again, the problem is not "Trump" nor his supporters. The issue is escalating, as indicated at the time of writing, by an unprecedented meeting in Germany of Europe's rightwing populist parties (After the US, far right says 2017 will be the year Europe wakes up, The Observer, 21 January 2017).

What are we missing? Framing any further exploration could include a recognition -- natural in many competitive arenas -- in which it is useful for the loser to question the assumptions which obscured the inadequacies and blindspots which enabled the other to win. A posture of complaint based on the claim that the other did not really win -- having cheated in some way -- is of limited value to improving one's game. More valuable is recognition of any failure to "keep one's eye on the ball".

As Commander-in-Chief, although Trump may be held by his opponents to lack any positive qualities, strategically it can be readily argued that he has valuable insights into the principles famously highlighted by The Art of Warefare:

All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

Unwittingly, it is possible that Trump made skillful use of his absurdities and irritants as distractants, perhaps best compared with use of decoy flares as counter-measures by aircraft seeking to reduce vulnerability to missile strikes. Commentators have assiduously followed the heat of the flares -- in a fruitless effort to bring him down. They "fell" for the decoys -- literally. Is there any evidence that his opponents have comparable strategic skills or recognize the need to acquire them?

Clearly the demonstrated skills of Trump in political strategy are now of relevance to any future response by the USA to whatever is framed as an external threat -- namely radical Islam, Russia, or China. Can it be said that progressives have been able to articulate new thinking in response to radical Islam? If not, why not? Can it be said that they have been able to reframe their own disagreements in a fruitful manner? Where is the progressive equivalent to Trump's own articulation (Trump: the Art of the Deal, 1987)?

Eradicating the enemy? In his inaugural speech, Trump repeated his campaign rhetoric with regard to the eradication of radical Islam and has appointed James Mattis ("Mad Dog") as the person with primary responsibility in carrying out that undertaking. Whether "eradication" is appropriate, given the history of efforts to that end, is another matter, as separately argued (Eradication as the Strategic Final Solution of the 21st Century? 2014; Transforming the Unsustainable Cost of General Education: strategic insights from Afghanistan, 2009)

There is however a curious correspondence between the strategic response of progressives to Trump -- seeking his "disappearance" -- and the thinking of those committed to the disappearance of radical Islam (through the Global War on Terrorism). To what degree is the current framing of Trump by progressives a strange mirror of current thinking in response to any threat? Can this be explored as a failure of the classic mirror self-recognition test?

In terms of psychohistory, is the continguing emergence of threats and their exemplars a consequence of a failure to recognize how habitual thinking is part of the problem, inhibiting recognition of the nature of the viable solution required? This would be consistent with the adage of H. L. Mencken: For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

Recognizing a higher order of insight? With respect to the challenge of exemplified by Trump, is there any trace of a higher order of strategic insight on the part of progressive thinkers -- or, again, is the primary posture one of complaint and protest?

Progressives have long cultivated the antithesis of complaint in the form of appreciative awards for initiatives heroically undertaken by individuals and groups -- notably with respect to what was previously deemed to be impossible. The Right Livelihood Award is a prime example. Appreciation for revolutionaries may be similarly expressed -- as in the case of Nelson Mandela -- but only after a period of severe deprecation, condemnation as terrorists, and incarceration, if not eradication.

Is reactive resistance to be similarly appreciated, or might more be expected of progressive thinkers in the present circumstances?