Kremlinology in Bizarro America

[{ Emilia }]

So... bringing politics back to misc...

Back during Soviet times people used the word Kremlinology to describe the act of trying to decipher what the heck is going on in the secretive inner circles of the Kremlin. Trump has formed his own Bizarre Version of the Kremlin, bringing people to the White House that nobody knows what they're actually doing (Ivanka, Jared, Bannon).

So what do people think are the factions in the White House now?
Is Bannon actually all sad and lonely now? Is the mighty godfather of alt-right insanity without any allies? How influential is he still? I sometimes think he's just there to appease the alt-right nutters but has lost his influence.
And where the hell do Ivanka and Kushner stand? They seem to be a moderating influence but do we even know what their agenda is? Are they even conservative?
What about the rest? Where does Pence stand?
Do people like Perry, Carson or Sessions have any significant influence? (lol Carson)
What the fuck is Reince Priebus doing?
Do Tillerson and Mattis stand on the side of relatively predictable Republican hawkish policy that's at least not as crazy as Trump?

And did McMaster get rid of Bannon?

 

[Mudd]

The oft-cited mistake of American strategists was, at least anecdotally, imagining the Soviets "to be ten feel tall" - more clever and dangerous and less fallible as a group than ourselves. I think the media portrayal of Bannon has always partaken of that - there's never been much evidence that he's an evil genius; somebody's going to be anointed the "architect" of the winning side. The man hasn't been credited with an idea that worked, that I know of, since January 20.

 

[{ Emilia }]

The oft-cited mistake of American strategists was, at least anecdotally, imagining the Soviets "to be ten feel tall" - more clever and dangerous and less fallible as a group than ourselves. I think the media portrayal of Bannon has always partaken of that - there's never been much evidence that he's an evil genius; somebody's going to be anointed the "architect" of the winning side. The man hasn't been credited with an idea that worked, that I know of, since January 20.

No kidding. I'd feel sorry for lonely Bannon if he wasn't such a giant douchebag. I still wonder what the factions are really like or if the whole thing is really just a big mess.
The way all the Trump administration's proposals are prepared so terribly suggests that it really is a mess but I do think we're seeing some actors gain influence.

 

[Mudd]

Ironically (might as well use that badly, everyone else does), any mystery about what's going on inside the White House is probably the result of folks in the WH not knowing what's going on themselves - because it's supposedly the leakiest crowd in decades.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If the mantra is to run government like a business, then what's going on is that the White House is serving the interests of its "owners," who certainly aren't the American people at large. Things like the Wall are simply distractions, catnip to keep the populace and their representatives occupied. The "important work" steams ahead unimpeded in the form of Executive Orders, not the EOs with the populous agenda getting struck down in Court (more catnip) but rather in particular those that are deemed "pro-business."

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Cool thread topic!

So what do people think are the factions in the White House now?

I'm thinking:

1. Bannon and the alt-rightists
2. Ivanka/Jared, your more traditional "business" conservatives with a splash of NYC liberalism
3. Mattis and the neocons, hawks who never gave up on PNAC even after W and his cronies did

Is Bannon actually all sad and lonely now? Is the mighty godfather of alt-right insanity without any allies? How influential is he still? I sometimes think he's just there to appease the alt-right nutters but has lost his influence.

I'm inclined to think the same. Ironically, it's not his incompetence that did him in, but that he kept getting touted as the "real" President, such as on SNL. Word is that shit piqued Trump to no end. Plus, Bannon got his appointment to the National Intelligence Committee by slipping it into an EO and Trump didn't know it was there. I'm sure Trump doesn't like being bamboozled like that. Nobody would.

And where the hell do Ivanka and Kushner stand? They seem to be a moderating influence but do we even know what their agenda is? Are they even conservative?

I think they are conservative more or less the way Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are: pro-business, somewhat reasonable, absolutely not interested in pushing Culture War issues which they see as a dead end.

What about the rest? Where does Pence stand?

Pence is a loyal party man who shifts with the winds. He probably views himself as a liaison between the Trump administration and the rest of the GOP.

Do people like Perry, Carson or Sessions have any significant influence? (lol Carson)

Given that Trump is trying to run the government like a business, he probably thinks of each executive department as a corporate division. You put your favored person in charge, then you let them do whatever they want, and you don't interfere unless and until they seem to be doing something you don't like. Perry and Carson have no fucking clue about their departments, so hopefully the people who actually work in them will just keep things running and ignore the rampant idiocy of their bosses.

Sessions has a clearer agenda: he wants policing to go back to the Reagan era, if not further. He's the one that bothers me most, out of that trio.

What the fuck is Reince Priebus doing?

He's out there running interference for the Trump administration, it looks like. He goes out and does whatever Trump tells him to--blame Dems when some Trump initiative fails, and sells Trump's plans to fellow Republicans. The only job I can imagine being more thankless is Sean Spicer's.

Do Tillerson and Mattis stand on the side of relatively predictable Republican hawkish policy that's at least not as crazy as Trump?

Not sure about Tillerson. I think the skeleton crew with which he's being forced to run the State Department will keep him from doing much of anything. Given Trump's obsession with his image abroad, Tillerson is probably kept on a short leash and not allowed to do anything that might contradict Trump's ever so erratic foreign policy agenda.

Mattis may take us back to W-era war policies: lots of shock and awe and killing people, but little real progress. He gets a lot of mileage out of that quote about how he doesn't believe torture is as effective as a pack of cigarettes and a beer, but we must remember he is an absolute hard-liner against Iran, and sees American enemies everywhere. Of course, how this differs from W-era foreign policy... you tell me.

I am often puzzled when people try to find a method to Trump's madness, when there clearly isn't one. It's not even a deliberate strategy of appearing not to have a strategy--Reagan did that, and it's not at all the same thing. Trump literally doesn't know what he's going to do from one minute to the next. All he cares about are his poll numbers, his media image, and his own feelings. Notice how quickly he gives up on almost anything once he realizes it's a losing battle or is making him look bad in the media. He does also have a few pet issues--most notably The Wall. I think we can safely dismiss those as personal obsessions he sees as contributing to his personal grandeur, and not part of a larger strategy to serve any particular end except his own self-satisfaction. But there is no master plan. There may be a number of master plans, held by various people in his administration, and it's unclear which of them--if any--will be implemented. Trump doesn't like people stealing his spotlight, so anyone who moves too openly is liable to get Bannoned. This means we probably won't know what the administration really did and who was behind each action until after Trump is out of office.

 

[{ Emilia }]

If the mantra is to run government like a business, then what's going on is that the White House is serving the interests of its "owners," who certainly aren't the American people at large.

It's a shame voters don't know more about business because from what we know Trump isn't actually that good at making deals because the actual-deal making was always done by his employees. He was just giving orders without knowing much, which incidentally is how he runs the government now, too.

Cool thread topic!

Thanks, I hope misc is going to embrace political threads again. You know @Locutus of Bored loves them.

1. Bannon and the alt-rightists
2. Ivanka/Jared, your more traditional "business" conservatives with a splash of NYC liberalism
3. Mattis and the neocons, hawks who never gave up on PNAC even after W and his cronies did

I guess those are the three factions I see, too. I suppose factions exist in every government, but which faction is behind the corporate tax reform? Ivanka and Jared? Or is that just the GOP going nuts and failing at math?

I think they are conservative more or less the way Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are: pro-business, somewhat reasonable, absolutely not interested in pushing Culture War issues which they see as a dead end.

Anybody else watched the documentary about Romney's failed attempts to become president? I thought it was fascinating. Romney seemed so human all of a sudden and I think he genuinely tried to do the best for America. It's just that as a rich businessman he sees the world through the lens of a rich businessman. He can even relate to small businesses to some degree and his whole rationale evolves around business and job creators. He lacks understanding of regular workers' lives.

Still... I wish Romney was president now.

Going back to business: I think it's silly how much people wanted government to be run like businesses. Having studied and researched economic crises and adaption processes I'm often shocked by how awful businesses are at long-term planning. Governments are not like businesses.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Having spent 15 years in the private sector, I am terrified of people who think "business" is a good model for running the government.

 

[urbandefault]

"Insanity" is relative. I think a lot of people are insane, and they disagree.