Reasons for optimism

I didn't know who he is, so I looked him up.

Meet Frank Gaffney, the anti-Muslim gadfly reportedly advising Donald Trump’s transition team
.

Much more at the source at WP. You are right, reasons for optimism.

MSM reporting Trump reaching out to Nikki Haley as possible Sec of State. Also reaching out to others who opposed him up until now.

Still looking for that optimism.

The recent election campaign and its results were unusual and extraordinary in the extent to which the media and professional political pundits of both the left and the right were shown to be far off the mark in their projections and to have missed fundamental new and emerging trends in the desires of the voting public as evidenced in the outcomes, both in the primary contests withing the two parties and in the final election.

Certainly Donald Trump's victories in both the Republican primary and the election confounded nearly all of the prognosticators from start to finish. What explains this? On Trump's part was this a result of excellent strategy and a brilliant grasp of issues and popular concerns undetected by all his opponents, or blind luck and circumstance ? Or both?

As a related question will the personality and behavior charactistics exhibited Trump during the long campaign, and so criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike render him unfit in practice for the office he has won as has been widely reported? Will it continue or will another aspect of the Trump persona emerge?

I don't claim to know the answer to any of these questions, but I do believe the next weeks will likely give us all some insights to the answers, though uncertainties will surely remain for longer.

It is at least interesting that many of the behaviors that elicited so much denigration and criticism were also precisely the behaviors that enabled him to capture so much media attention to his underfunded underorganized campaign; cut through the crowd of better established contendors in the primary and undercut Hillary's presumed far superior campaign and vastly greater media support.

Many critics appear convinced that the answers are already known by them; that Trump is unfit and will surely fail.

Despite all this I believe that the astounding and totally unpredicted Trump sweep of all the establishment Republican contenders in the primary and his equally unpredicted victory over the better funded and better organized Clinton Campaign, both done in the face of widespread media opposition and even open hostility compels us to consider other possibilities.

Was all this a result of a brilliant (or perhaps lucky) insight (or guess) about unseen (by all others) public concerns - or merely blind luck? Or both?

As a related question what, on a personal level. enabled Trump to persevere - as an under-funded, under-organized outsider candidate, and in the face of such relentless opposition, and often vitriolic criticism and mockery and unending predictions of his iminent defeat?

I believe his actions in the next two months as he assembles his team and initiates his new relations with leaders in the Congress may give us some insights. To what extent is he wise and astute in choosing his team? To what extent is he magnanimous and focused on the future as opposed to merely looking back and settling old scores in doing all this?

Lincoln famously put some of his most severe critics and on his cabinet.He was at the time widelt criticized fot it but history proved him right.

It's still very early in the game but so far so good in my estimation.

I, for one, am shocked - shocked I say! - that you would so conclude.

we seem to be in the stages of exhausted resignation. Trumps settlelemnt in the "Trump U fraud cases" seems to be bearing no concern, let alone some of his recent inane teweets.

I think we shall be afforded some Black Humor opportunities that have not been enjoyed since the days of Nixon.

Im amazed at how the bulk of GOP's "intelligentsia" have come 360 to joyously embrace the same guy on whom , just several months earlier, they plying with every evil intent and RICO activity (with the exception of the ST Valentines Day Massacre).
They dont show a tiddly bit of evidence of concern that they may have just picked Calligula to serve as chief executive

I guess my concern is that weve just picked Lou Costello.

I believe you have made your views here obvious and clear. So far very few predictions on this matter, - some from the most esteemed among us - have been proven accurate. We shall all see what unfolds.

I recognize that you get your opinions predigested from other self appointed savants and therefore don't need to observe unfolding new facts or even think about such things for yourself. However, we are in a period in which you and they (and I as well) have repeatedly been proven very wrong in assessing an unfolding situation. In such circumstances some reconsideration of going in assumptions seems warranted and I believe most thinking observers would react that way.

That Trump settled even while having previously bragged during his campaign about how he never settles was predictable, of course. And, yes, there's an evident resignation on the part of ourselves and the media as regards responding appropriately to this news and his tweets and the extremist choices he's making for very important posts. As with his constant flow of lies and comments that would normally outrage while campaigning, a real problem for the media is countering such an avalanche of crap. That would be a problem even if the right didn't now have it's own media universe to use as a very effective propaganda machine.

Black humor opportunities? Sure, I suppose that's so but it gets me wondering whether we might identify some color even darker than black?

Well, doubling down is also an option.

I intend to keep my eyes, and mind, open.

Indeed. But that presumes a party actually concerned with democracy and governmental history and norms. The real concern, the matter of deepest importance to modern conservatism, is accumulation of power such that nobody else might gain or wield it. Almost every move they make as politicos or as rhetoricians has this fundamental goal up front.

One of the facets of this election which has yet to gain much coverage (that I've bumped into at least) is how the extensive and well-funded Koch networks were essential to the election results. These guys have now pretty much taken over control of the GOP and Trump's picks so far will make for widespread happiness in that quarter (eg Pompeo's biggest funder was the Koch brothers and they've sent him off a congratulations letter, and are they going to love Sessions or what).

And yeah, I've used the Caligula analogy myself. This dude ain't going to "administer" in the manner of any prior US president. He's going to outsource that stuff and concentrate on crowd-cheers and punishing those who he feels denigrate his magnificent status. On this Limbaugh and Jane Goodall actually are in accord - Trump is playing the alpha male game.

Good idea! It's time you exercised some muscles that have seen little use for an extended period of time. Keep some good scotch at hand as this looks likely to be a bumpy ride for you if such an exercise regimen does happen in the real world.

Let's take this up briefly because you keep yelling into the rafters about it.

I did get some stuff wrong. What? First, who would win the election and gain control of the Senate. Second, the consequences for the GOP and conservatism.

Because I got the first one wrong, we now cannot see what would have happened to the GOP and its mix of support groups had Clinton won. So that set of predictions I made falls off the table. We'll never know what I got right and what I got wrong.

And as a mirror image of that last point, I had not considered the possibility of a Trump and Senate victory so failed quite utterly to think about what the
consequences would be for the Dem party and its support groups.

So, that's what I got wrong.

I believe that is an overstated proposition that has limited, but roughly equal applability to both the left and the right in our politics. Certainly it provides no added insight to the interpretation of unfolding events. It is mere prejudgment.

What do you have against alpha males? Nature does indeed create them.

Are the Koch brothers in their chosen arena materially any different from George Soros in his?

Our current President didn't "admionister" either, He extended his executive powers well beyond normal limits (one of the reasons for the recent defeat) and demonstrated a consistent disregard for the Congress. Trump may well repeat those errors or others of that kind, but we haven't seen it yet.

Of course you do. It's your default position on almost every question and I almost envy how simple it makes things for you.

I love them. Joe Stalin is one of my big favorites. Napoleon another, Caesar another. There's a long and admirable list of such personality types who moved forward to make the world a better place for all. (PS... nature also creates lots of poisonous plants and animals that will kill your grandchildren in mere seconds or minutes, not to mention the rich and glorious array of human psycopaths).

Unfortunately, you'll never have an answer to that question because you will never undertake a careful study to determine the facts of this matter.

I've studied Soros' history and writings more than you may think, and the Koch brothers as well. I've probably read a lot less predigested opinion aout both than have you, but I see that as a boon, not an impediment.

The fact is the political structures we see, across the policy spectrum are all populated with human beings, all replete with the many contradictions of human nature. People are motivated by many things; fear, greed, ambition, anger, a lust for power and wealth and as well by thought, ideas wisdom and folly. The behavior we observe ranges from the occasionally sublime to grasping and sordid. Those are universal facts. It often appears to me that you imagine that humans have segregated themselves along contemporary political lines, with the thoughtful and virtuous on the left and the grasping and evil on the right. Experiuence in lifr teaches us this is not the case.

You appear to see my view as some sort of "equivalence rule". That is a distortiuon - human nature is the common unifying element.

I know I started to think some on the left (beside one who says she is left)was not going to come back. The day after Trump won I think I went a tad insane and messed up my computers.

That's such an interesting charge you keep leveling - "predigested".

So then enlighten me as to what you've read on the Koch brothers' operations which arrived in front of your eyes without the mediation of the writers?

Sure, but this tells us next to nothing at all. It's like saying dogs are dogs and they vary but have universal traits. So therefore it's just fine to let your kids play around with the local corgi or a pit bull guarding a drug operation.

See doggie example above.

You aren't alone in that response. It sure as hell hit me and rather like a sledgehammer. There was a great line in a West Wing episode where an important election went the wrong way and one staffer was very upset. Another pointed out the truth of things, "Democracy means that sometimes the wrong guys win".

But their are wrong guys and there are WRONG GUYS. Trump and the people around him are in that second category. How much damage these fucks bring about that pushes the US in the direction of a failed state is what frightens all of us.

http://bit.ly/2friN40
Indeed. This piece is by Adele Stan who writes at The American Prospect. She's very bright and I recommend folks attend to her.