Tweet
If Hillary wins, which she may very well...
She will continue the status quo. The current public US government and elected representatives are beholden to a real government that would permit neither Trump nor Hillary to budge much when it comes to particular foreign policy.
To me as I have grown older and watched American society's trajectory over the last 20+ years I have observed two important things:
1) Bread and Circuses. A Roman statesman once noted that the people can be pacified by these measures. Here, the entertainment industry has become more massive and more entrenched than ever. One sports season ends and the next begins and the people move ever onward staking their hopes, day, and time in their "team."
Even during the recession of 2008 in which the economic collapse was staved off by the TARP, I commented to a friend as we drove past a movie theater in a lower middle class setting that the parking lot was still full. People will sacrifice a lot of income, even in the face of adversity, for that dopamine surge in the brain . Perhaps entertainment brings that- and provides a decrease in circulating stress neuro transmitters.
And then of course there is the monumental access increase. Amazon prime, Netflix, the net itself provides instant access to these shows that are complete fantasy. Everyone has been talking about Game of Thrones and a variety of other shows that have cropped up. Imagine the number of hours invested in public productivity into these shows.
Back in the day, people had to wait to watch their show or tape it or something of that nature. In the ancient days when Nizami was writing his own stories like Haft Peykaar or Laila and Majnun - his audience was not saturated with entertainment. Contrast that with the modern era
I recall in Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury that the public and the protagonists wife was locked into permanent entertainment while the world around her was under lock down and control (the "electronic musical sea shells in the ears").
Essentially, now that this is a part of the economy - the Bread and Circuses will continue unabated and human nature will push the masses to continue to consume this while the world around us is in turmoil.
We are higher level cerebral beings and we certainly need some forms of entertainment in our lives... but when governance is in the hands of an uninformed populace then we have a problem.
2) Taxes: About one third of my earnings get taxed by the federal government. Trump says he will decrease this to 18%. I honestly do not think he could accomplish this even if he wanted to.
The powers that be, both republican and democrat alike understand that stability is key to governance. The bread and circuses maintains a portion of this. But real life issues arise - the need for schooling, healthcare etc.
Despite claiming to be a secular democratric capitalistic enterprise - a good portion of the tax goes to funding hands outs that pacify the public and another portion goes to the military complex.
NEITHER of these institutions (the public welfare oriented system) nor the military complex are going to cede an inch when it comes to giving up their funding and power. Jobs and livelihoods now depend upon this money flow continuing.
Hillary Clinton certainly will not drawback on either of these. In fact she will likely tilt the tax code to provide even more welfare oriented/healthcare oriented goodies to pacify the public all while posturing as a woman who is "strong enough" to make the tough decisions and "conference" with her generals. These generals will never permit her to either de-escalate conflict or cut back on funding.
Proof for my theory on this comes from:
1) Chuck Hagel's having to step down - he was keen on reigning in the funding gone wild to the Pentagon. When he started to touch on foreign entity funding (egypt, israel, etc) he became a goner.
2) Obama has been unable to disengage and even was forced to re-escalate in both theaters of war. The military media complex ramped up criticism of him around the time when the predictable unraveling of Iraq and Afghanistan began.
What this means for Pashtuns and Afghanistan:
These are the throes and the gasps of an empire in its red sun stage. The rise of trump points to native discontent. I have lived in all of the regions Trump has support. These regions are run down, factories are shut down, the supporters do not have the skill and wherewithal to compete with ther international competitors. The issue is that the Indian and Chinese as well as Mexicans merely are willing to work for a wage. They are not asking for goodies like healthcare, childcare funds, etc. The American worker is used to overtime pay and all of the above. Up till the 1990s a high school graduate with vocational training could make a decent living and afford middle class luxuries.
That stability has vanished and a new paradigm has emerged (hence the need for the bread and circuses motif above).
The lure of trying to pacify the middle east and far east as well as central asia has always been a sandtrap.
The momentum of defeat is rather slow (but progressing) and the backward operating base of the insurgencies in both theaters of war are nearly untouchable.
Saudi politically may be coming under greater scrutiny but a Clinton presidency may tamp down on that. And whatever the naysayers here may think, nuclear power does matter and Pakistan may be in a dangerous way but is not teetering.
So the government behind the scenes will keep the US engaged in wars abroad while bread and circuses and greater taxation abounds.
This could continue for a few decades but the demographics are a problem. The US population is aging and like her European counterparts her birthrate per household has gone below the 2.4 births to sustain a population. Some of this may be due to cultural shifts and changes and the economic challenges cited above. While the economic reports tout job growth, these are not high middle class income jobs with sustainability.
All in all the current set up is leading to a slow failure in Afghanistan.
The only benefit of Trump for them was he was asking questions of his advisors like "why can't we use a nuclear weapon if we have them?"
This meant that he was willing to perhaps deploy the US military to be ferocious and annihalate its enemies. In the last debate he made a point about how commanders announce operations giving adversaries the time to flee. He said he preferred to hit cities hard first and then announce accomplishments.
He also made realistic statements such as the purpose of Afghanistan being held was in no way to nation build (he would cut that) but to watch Pakistan's nuclear arsenal closely.
So it will be an interesting era to enter post this election no matter who wins. The polls seem to allude to Clinton - which basically will seal the inevitable decline of Pax Americana.
In a few hundred years they will write about the lure and allure of Afghanistan and that region and how so many generals failed to pacify the resistance (4 generals and counting including Mr. Petreus).
She will continue the status quo. The current public US government and elected representatives are beholden to a real government that would permit neither Trump nor Hillary to budge much when it comes to particular foreign policy.
To me as I have grown older and watched American society's trajectory over the last 20+ years I have observed two important things:
1) Bread and Circuses. A Roman statesman once noted that the people can be pacified by these measures. Here, the entertainment industry has become more massive and more entrenched than ever. One sports season ends and the next begins and the people move ever onward staking their hopes, day, and time in their "team."
Even during the recession of 2008 in which the economic collapse was staved off by the TARP, I commented to a friend as we drove past a movie theater in a lower middle class setting that the parking lot was still full. People will sacrifice a lot of income, even in the face of adversity, for that dopamine surge in the brain . Perhaps entertainment brings that- and provides a decrease in circulating stress neuro transmitters.
And then of course there is the monumental access increase. Amazon prime, Netflix, the net itself provides instant access to these shows that are complete fantasy. Everyone has been talking about Game of Thrones and a variety of other shows that have cropped up. Imagine the number of hours invested in public productivity into these shows.
Back in the day, people had to wait to watch their show or tape it or something of that nature. In the ancient days when Nizami was writing his own stories like Haft Peykaar or Laila and Majnun - his audience was not saturated with entertainment. Contrast that with the modern era
I recall in Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury that the public and the protagonists wife was locked into permanent entertainment while the world around her was under lock down and control (the "electronic musical sea shells in the ears").
Essentially, now that this is a part of the economy - the Bread and Circuses will continue unabated and human nature will push the masses to continue to consume this while the world around us is in turmoil.
We are higher level cerebral beings and we certainly need some forms of entertainment in our lives... but when governance is in the hands of an uninformed populace then we have a problem.
2) Taxes: About one third of my earnings get taxed by the federal government. Trump says he will decrease this to 18%. I honestly do not think he could accomplish this even if he wanted to.
The powers that be, both republican and democrat alike understand that stability is key to governance. The bread and circuses maintains a portion of this. But real life issues arise - the need for schooling, healthcare etc.
Despite claiming to be a secular democratric capitalistic enterprise - a good portion of the tax goes to funding hands outs that pacify the public and another portion goes to the military complex.
NEITHER of these institutions (the public welfare oriented system) nor the military complex are going to cede an inch when it comes to giving up their funding and power. Jobs and livelihoods now depend upon this money flow continuing.
Hillary Clinton certainly will not drawback on either of these. In fact she will likely tilt the tax code to provide even more welfare oriented/healthcare oriented goodies to pacify the public all while posturing as a woman who is "strong enough" to make the tough decisions and "conference" with her generals. These generals will never permit her to either de-escalate conflict or cut back on funding.
Proof for my theory on this comes from:
1) Chuck Hagel's having to step down - he was keen on reigning in the funding gone wild to the Pentagon. When he started to touch on foreign entity funding (egypt, israel, etc) he became a goner.
2) Obama has been unable to disengage and even was forced to re-escalate in both theaters of war. The military media complex ramped up criticism of him around the time when the predictable unraveling of Iraq and Afghanistan began.
What this means for Pashtuns and Afghanistan:
These are the throes and the gasps of an empire in its red sun stage. The rise of trump points to native discontent. I have lived in all of the regions Trump has support. These regions are run down, factories are shut down, the supporters do not have the skill and wherewithal to compete with ther international competitors. The issue is that the Indian and Chinese as well as Mexicans merely are willing to work for a wage. They are not asking for goodies like healthcare, childcare funds, etc. The American worker is used to overtime pay and all of the above. Up till the 1990s a high school graduate with vocational training could make a decent living and afford middle class luxuries.
That stability has vanished and a new paradigm has emerged (hence the need for the bread and circuses motif above).
The lure of trying to pacify the middle east and far east as well as central asia has always been a sandtrap.
The momentum of defeat is rather slow (but progressing) and the backward operating base of the insurgencies in both theaters of war are nearly untouchable.
Saudi politically may be coming under greater scrutiny but a Clinton presidency may tamp down on that. And whatever the naysayers here may think, nuclear power does matter and Pakistan may be in a dangerous way but is not teetering.
So the government behind the scenes will keep the US engaged in wars abroad while bread and circuses and greater taxation abounds.
This could continue for a few decades but the demographics are a problem. The US population is aging and like her European counterparts her birthrate per household has gone below the 2.4 births to sustain a population. Some of this may be due to cultural shifts and changes and the economic challenges cited above. While the economic reports tout job growth, these are not high middle class income jobs with sustainability.
All in all the current set up is leading to a slow failure in Afghanistan.
The only benefit of Trump for them was he was asking questions of his advisors like "why can't we use a nuclear weapon if we have them?"
This meant that he was willing to perhaps deploy the US military to be ferocious and annihalate its enemies. In the last debate he made a point about how commanders announce operations giving adversaries the time to flee. He said he preferred to hit cities hard first and then announce accomplishments.
He also made realistic statements such as the purpose of Afghanistan being held was in no way to nation build (he would cut that) but to watch Pakistan's nuclear arsenal closely.
So it will be an interesting era to enter post this election no matter who wins. The polls seem to allude to Clinton - which basically will seal the inevitable decline of Pax Americana.
In a few hundred years they will write about the lure and allure of Afghanistan and that region and how so many generals failed to pacify the resistance (4 generals and counting including Mr. Petreus).
Comment