Samson didn’t have orange hair. When he pulled down the temple (Judges 16: 28-30), he was, in his own way, a nihilist, believing he had little to lose and a minimal and unpleasant future.
His current disciple is not muscle-bound, although he aspires to be a strong-man (albeit of a different tenor). I don’t want to push the Biblical analogy too far; but I can see an echo in the current administration and its supporters. While there have been many analyses of their beliefs and rationales, when we look at their approach to governing, “short-termism” seems to be a plausible common characteristic. Indeed, after my recent historical look at over-the-horizon planning, a friend of mine noted that long-term thinking is pretty rare in our nation’s capital these days.
By “short-termism,” I mean not only a focus on immediate attention in the media and from other countries, companies, and political groups, but the absence of a sense of how the proposed actions—including wholesale firings of senior government employees, mass layoffs of government employees in general, termination of domestic and international financial assistance programs—appear to be inconsistent with previously-established legal principles and accepted conventions of how the country operates. I guess revolutionaries (even those on the right who might be expected to have more resonance with history) have little truck with the concept of precedent.
More importantly, this short-termism is at odds with how most Presidents have conducted themselves (albeit imperfectly). After all, one of the principal differences between “America First”-ers and traditional policies (of either party) is that the former seek only immediate benefits, while the latter take a longer view of the national interest. The premise of international humanitarianism (beyond its moral component) is that a good reputation will redound to the benefit of the US. The premise of predictability and reliability in international diplomacy is that a reputation for trustworthiness will make future dealings more successful. Similarly, domestically, a reliable presence and completing the funding of promised programs and infrastructure is an important basis of citizens’ confidence in their own government.
As a result, the implications of present behavior will extend well beyond their immediate effect on government operations and the beneficiaries of government programs. Presidential actions and attitudes have become unpredictable and destabilizing, increasing risk across the board. Even (temporary?) reversals or court injunctions can’t prevent a fundamental loss of trust that will take years or decades to rebuild, on top of the extensive direct harm to the individuals and families affected.
Many think all of this is bad. But, those currently driving the bus do not. There are several aspects of their likely motivations and rationales that are worth considering.
1) “We will save the country and launch it on a new direction.” This is a revolutionary outlook, one which implies that the Dems will fall by the wayside; the Constitution is expendable, and that MAGA solutions will not produce longer-term problems.” In this view precedents don’t matter until the revolutionaries are well-settled into incumbency and by then, the US will be so feared internationally that we can continue on without undue cost.
2) “We don’t care what happens in the long term.” This attitude seems to prevail in the GOP leadership in Congress. I don’t think we’ve seen a senior Republican legislator (much less Executive Branch leadership) address the implications of the extensive array of newly-established precedents (among a host of other issues to which they seem intentionally asleep). Assuming (!) a salvageable political environment emerges in four years, GOP leaders will have little basis to say (if that matters) that the new Dem President is going overboard in reversing much of what is being done now. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine, if the Dems sweep to control, that they will comply with any Congressional “courtesies” and customs in their eagerness to “build back better.”
All of this assumes that the electorate is actually appalled by the practical implications of the current torrent of moves. Let’s be clear, no one (of whatever persuasion) will vote based on the wipe-out of USAID and few care about the trashing of norms and procedures. It remains to be seen what portion of the deluge is a political stunt (the domestic equivalent of “shack-and-awe”), and what portion will actually lead to problems that rile ordinary folks up (particularly those who might then vote or swing from the GOP). Offing thousands of “bureaucrats” won’t matter outside of the D.C. area where they are a significant portion of the electorate. When “hold times” get longer, when benefit applications aren’t processed, and programs that affect lots of ordinary folks grind to a halt, then perhaps—perhaps—the electoral outlook will change. In the meantime, closing down National Parks or deporting immigrants to Guantanamo is likely to piss-off the crunchies on the left far more than nature lovers and MAGA-lovers on the right.
Meanwhile, this dramatic activity enables our latter-day Samson to proclaim that he’s “taking action,” “owning the ‘libs’,” and “draining the swamp.” For those whose support for HWSNBN has been a “feelings” statement (rather than one focused on real solutions), this is quite satisfying.
However, from another “short-term” perspective, there’s no reason to think that the current deluge will have any effect on the nominal short-term concerns of the electorate: housing prices and other “inflation,” jobs, and a sense of security in the world. Indeed, tariffs and market uncertainty are likely to harm the economy in due course. If elections are about “are you better off now than four years ago?,” then there’s little on tap to help Vance, Don Jr., or whoever gets nominated brag.
Putin, Netanyahu, and Xi are another story. Marco Rubio may be a craven fool, but he’s not an idiot. I’d love to hear him talk about how the world is going to look four years hence. Say what you will about the Bush-Cheney “doctrine,” but at least it was coherent. “America First” always sounds good and, after all, who could argue with it. The problem with it as a basis for foreign policy is that it never articulates over what time frame we should put the interests of America “first.” Appeasement and retaliatory trade policy are viscerally satisfying, but the hangovers in the real world (in the morning after or the decade after) are always more painful and expensive than taking the short-term hit that its advocates usually say they are trying to avoid.
Samson didn’t care about the morning after. His orange-haired successor doesn’t seem to either (noisy trolling about a third term notwithstanding)
His current disciple is not muscle-bound, although he aspires to be a strong-man (albeit of a different tenor). I don’t want to push the Biblical analogy too far; but I can see an echo in the current administration and its supporters. While there have been many analyses of their beliefs and rationales, when we look at their approach to governing, “short-termism” seems to be a plausible common characteristic. Indeed, after my recent historical look at over-the-horizon planning, a friend of mine noted that long-term thinking is pretty rare in our nation’s capital these days.
By “short-termism,” I mean not only a focus on immediate attention in the media and from other countries, companies, and political groups, but the absence of a sense of how the proposed actions—including wholesale firings of senior government employees, mass layoffs of government employees in general, termination of domestic and international financial assistance programs—appear to be inconsistent with previously-established legal principles and accepted conventions of how the country operates. I guess revolutionaries (even those on the right who might be expected to have more resonance with history) have little truck with the concept of precedent.
More importantly, this short-termism is at odds with how most Presidents have conducted themselves (albeit imperfectly). After all, one of the principal differences between “America First”-ers and traditional policies (of either party) is that the former seek only immediate benefits, while the latter take a longer view of the national interest. The premise of international humanitarianism (beyond its moral component) is that a good reputation will redound to the benefit of the US. The premise of predictability and reliability in international diplomacy is that a reputation for trustworthiness will make future dealings more successful. Similarly, domestically, a reliable presence and completing the funding of promised programs and infrastructure is an important basis of citizens’ confidence in their own government.
As a result, the implications of present behavior will extend well beyond their immediate effect on government operations and the beneficiaries of government programs. Presidential actions and attitudes have become unpredictable and destabilizing, increasing risk across the board. Even (temporary?) reversals or court injunctions can’t prevent a fundamental loss of trust that will take years or decades to rebuild, on top of the extensive direct harm to the individuals and families affected.
Many think all of this is bad. But, those currently driving the bus do not. There are several aspects of their likely motivations and rationales that are worth considering.
1) “We will save the country and launch it on a new direction.” This is a revolutionary outlook, one which implies that the Dems will fall by the wayside; the Constitution is expendable, and that MAGA solutions will not produce longer-term problems.” In this view precedents don’t matter until the revolutionaries are well-settled into incumbency and by then, the US will be so feared internationally that we can continue on without undue cost.
2) “We don’t care what happens in the long term.” This attitude seems to prevail in the GOP leadership in Congress. I don’t think we’ve seen a senior Republican legislator (much less Executive Branch leadership) address the implications of the extensive array of newly-established precedents (among a host of other issues to which they seem intentionally asleep). Assuming (!) a salvageable political environment emerges in four years, GOP leaders will have little basis to say (if that matters) that the new Dem President is going overboard in reversing much of what is being done now. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine, if the Dems sweep to control, that they will comply with any Congressional “courtesies” and customs in their eagerness to “build back better.”
All of this assumes that the electorate is actually appalled by the practical implications of the current torrent of moves. Let’s be clear, no one (of whatever persuasion) will vote based on the wipe-out of USAID and few care about the trashing of norms and procedures. It remains to be seen what portion of the deluge is a political stunt (the domestic equivalent of “shack-and-awe”), and what portion will actually lead to problems that rile ordinary folks up (particularly those who might then vote or swing from the GOP). Offing thousands of “bureaucrats” won’t matter outside of the D.C. area where they are a significant portion of the electorate. When “hold times” get longer, when benefit applications aren’t processed, and programs that affect lots of ordinary folks grind to a halt, then perhaps—perhaps—the electoral outlook will change. In the meantime, closing down National Parks or deporting immigrants to Guantanamo is likely to piss-off the crunchies on the left far more than nature lovers and MAGA-lovers on the right.
Meanwhile, this dramatic activity enables our latter-day Samson to proclaim that he’s “taking action,” “owning the ‘libs’,” and “draining the swamp.” For those whose support for HWSNBN has been a “feelings” statement (rather than one focused on real solutions), this is quite satisfying.
However, from another “short-term” perspective, there’s no reason to think that the current deluge will have any effect on the nominal short-term concerns of the electorate: housing prices and other “inflation,” jobs, and a sense of security in the world. Indeed, tariffs and market uncertainty are likely to harm the economy in due course. If elections are about “are you better off now than four years ago?,” then there’s little on tap to help Vance, Don Jr., or whoever gets nominated brag.
Putin, Netanyahu, and Xi are another story. Marco Rubio may be a craven fool, but he’s not an idiot. I’d love to hear him talk about how the world is going to look four years hence. Say what you will about the Bush-Cheney “doctrine,” but at least it was coherent. “America First” always sounds good and, after all, who could argue with it. The problem with it as a basis for foreign policy is that it never articulates over what time frame we should put the interests of America “first.” Appeasement and retaliatory trade policy are viscerally satisfying, but the hangovers in the real world (in the morning after or the decade after) are always more painful and expensive than taking the short-term hit that its advocates usually say they are trying to avoid.
Samson didn’t care about the morning after. His orange-haired successor doesn’t seem to either (noisy trolling about a third term notwithstanding)
RSS Feed