January 21, 2017
I normally avoid patriotic events. They invariably remind me of the flag-waving idiocy that led to World War I.
In fact, I was even kicked out of the Boy Scouts in New York City after loudly commenting that their uber patriotic display of flags, drums, crashing music and paramilitary uniforms looked like the old Hitler Youth.
But watching the inauguration of President Donald Trump (that’s the first time I write these words) I must admit the ceremony moved me way beyond my normally cynical self.
Mind you, I’ve been observing presidential investitures since my father flew us down from New York City to observe President Dwight Eisenhower’s inauguration in 1953. I vividly recall being awed by the giant atomic cannon being towed down Pennsylvania Avenue. I remember reading a fine biography of Genghis Khan on our Eastern Airlines flights.
What I found most impressive this time was the reaffirmation of America’s dedication to the peaceful transfer of political power. This was the 45th time this miracle has happened. Saying this is perhaps banal, but the handover of power never fails to make me proud to be an American and thankful we had such brilliant founding fathers.
This peaceful transfer sets the United States apart from many of the world’s nations, even Britain and Canada, where leaders under the parliamentary system are chosen in a process resembling a knife fight in a dark room. The US has somehow managed to retain its three branches of government in spite of the best efforts of self-serving politicians to wreck it.
Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump’s biggest legacy headaches and priority will be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course.
Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits America’s longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy mess in Iraq and now Syria.
This week US B-2 heavy bombers attacked Libya. US forces are fighting in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and parts of Africa. For what? No one is quite sure. America’s foreign wars, fueled by its $1 trillion military budget, have assumed a life of their own. Once a great power goes to war, its proponents insist, ‘we can’t be seen to back down or our credibility will suffer.’
Trump will struggle to find a face-saving retreat from these unnecessary conflicts and shut his ears to the siren songs of the war party and deep state which just failed to stage a ‘soft’ coup to block his inauguration. Waging little wars against weak nations is a multi-billion dollar national industry in the US. America has become as addicted to war as it has to debt.
If President Trump truly wants to bring some sort of peace to the explosive Mideast, he will have to reject the advice of the hardline Zionists with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Their primary interest is Greater Israel, free of Arabs, not in a Greater America. Trump is too smart not to know this. But he may also listen to his blood and guts former generals who lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Trump appears to have been gulled into believing the canard that Mideast-origin violence is caused by what he called in his inaugural speech, radical Islamic terrorism. This is a favorite device promoted by the hard right and Israel to de-legitimize any resistance to Israel’s expansion and ethnic cleansing. The label of ‘terrorism’ serves the same purpose.
Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases, acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the ‘American Raj’ as I term it.
Unfortunately, President Trump is unlikely to get this useful advice from the men who now surround him, with the possible exception of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Let’s hope that Tillerson and not Goldman Sachs bank ends up steering US foreign policy.
Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2017
This post is in: USA
Nah! I’m a Brit, and certainly, as regards Eric’s comment that Brit leaders are chosen by “knife-fight in a dark room”, he’s pretty well on target! Transfer of power from one Prime Minister to another is usually a pretty bloody and underhand affair and we, the British public – the minions – have ceased to be amazed of the juvenileness of it all. Then again, we Brits are the Jack Russell mongrels of Europe (so many inter-bred nationalities the result of centuries of in-fighting) and have learned to get along together and the occasional dog-fight between politicians is not only par for the course but provides some light relief from (generally) our nation’s spirit of fairness. Keep it up, Eric.
Iain,
.
Perhaps Queen Victoria was right when she said of the British North America act: “It is a Canadian thing”
.
We don’t have the infighting in Canadian Parliamentary politics. Good debates and skill during Question Period; mostly Civil.
.
I admit I was not aware of the jejune vitriol in British politics, the grandfather of all British Commonwealth parliamentary democracies.
Yours respectfully,
ad iudicium
Great article, but I stand by the other Canadians here in defense of the parliamentary system of government.
Party leaders here are chosen by ranked ballot. We don’t elect a Prime Minister, but the Members of Parliament that choose the Prime Minister. Usually, that means the person elected by the members of the party with the most Members of Parliament, but not necessarily.
A big bonus of this system is that if the Prime Minister starts saying and doing scary things that break with legal boundaries and to expand their personal power, they can be replaced pronto. That has never been an issue before, but sure looks like a great feature as we watch the goings on to our south.
Ancaster Mike,
Perhaps not your examples of legality or power, but an example of a Prime Minister that was replaced and the government fell happened to PM Joe Clark. He went against his own Progressive Conservative platform of not raising taxes. His Cabinet ousted him with a Non-Confidence vote. PM Trudeau was back in power.
.
If the cabinet backs our Prime Minister, he has more power than the President in this regard; he can declare war, prepare for war(build weaponry and start a draft), and fight a war.
.
The President can declare war but cannot pay for weapons build up and pay the troops. A part of the American system of Checks and Balances.
.
Yours respectfully,
.
ad iudicium
Patriotism vincit omnia.
You are my most admired writer, but, wow, your articles on your fascist leader just do not make sense.
It is difficult to swallow your thoughts on the comparison of the Canadian and American electoral systems, as well.
You mean that eleven months of name calling, lies and generalizations is something that the rest of the world admires?
Canadian elections still stick (largely) to issues.
Just imagine what America could do for environment, health care, inner cities, and education if it did not spend so much on occupation and control of other countries who do not want them!
Joe the Canuck,
.
Alas nationalism breeds patriotism which propaganda bends into it conquering all.
.
What it should be ‘aboot’ is: vincere respectu omnium hominum
.
Yours respectfully,
.
ad iudicium
Damn!! Eric!! All the die-hard neo-cons are now fuming – you’ve emboldened the enemy. You Un-patriotic SOB!! LOL
Eric please I’m from Canada and can’t believe that our election process is like a knife fight in the dark…..What? I have great respect for you and unlike the US all of our votes get counted. Also we don’t cheat like say…..Bernie Sanders.
You completely misread his words – he speaks about the specific process of electing the LEADER of a party (potentially a Prime Minister) in the parliamentary system, and makes no reference to the general election process. And the Canadian general election process of ‘first past the post’ is hardly something worth getting your nickers in a knot for.
And you are seriously saying that Bernie Sanders is a cheat????????
Mimicoboy and Euclid,
.
Please see my Reply post to Steve M below. Examples of Non-Conficence might be what Eric is talking about.
.
ad iudicium
mimicoboy,
.
Please provide evidence of your allegation regarding Bernie Sanders, that is not apocryphal.
.
ad iudicium
Mister Margolis,
Long time reader, first time commenter…(We miss you at the Toronto Sun, another sign of their decline)
Just curious to know who wrote your childhood Genghis Khan book? I ask because I recently found my grandfather’s “Genghis Khan-Emperor Of All Men” by Harold Lamb, on my mothers bookshelf, and read it on the beach in Hemingway’s old haunt of Petoskey, Michigan.
Never miss your column!
PK
Interesting commentary. But, I dispute Eric’s weird and ignorant statement that under the Canadian and British parliamentary systems the Prime Ministers (party leaders) are chosen under what amounts to a “knife fight in a dark room”. Eric knows better, but if not he should get himself an education. Party leaders in both Britain and Canada (also Australia, New Zealand, and many other parliamentary democracies) are chosen either through conventions or through votes by all party members. When a party wins an election and its leader is able to command majority support in the newly elected parliament, either because his / her own party wins the majority of the seats or he / she can get the support of two or more parties to support his or her “minority government”, the transfer of power from one prime minister and his / her cabinet to another is entirely peaceful. Taking Canada as a recent example, the transfer of power from Harper’s Conservative government to Trudeau’s Liberal government was very peaceful, was certainly not marked by any angry protests as happened in Washington on Jan. 20th, and was carried out (on Nov. 4. 2015) a mere 16 days after the election held on Oct. 19th of that year. Canada, Britain and many other parliamentary democracies not only carry out their transfers of power from one government to another on a very peaceful basis, but do so much more quickly and efficiently than is possible under the US constitution.
Steve,
Well said.
.
I wonder if Eric was referring to a vote of Non-Confidence, within the Prime Ministers Cabinet; PM Joe Clark as an example, when he went against his party platform and planned to raise taxes?
.
An open vote of Non-Confidence on the floor, could have some backroom “negotiations” to get the Member of Parliament to vote for his PM if the vote is close with a narrow majority, or with members of another party (other than the Loyal Opposition who most likely called for the vote), who might vote either way.
.
ad iudicium