The Supreme Court, Using Protesters to the Advantage of Trump & Fun with the IRS

The coinciding of the legal battle over Trump’s executive orders with his nomination to fill Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court provides this lesson to the administration, a lesson his advisors would do well to emphasize to him: whenever an opening appears on the High Court, Trump should always nominate a Conservative to occupy it.

With Ginsburg age 83 and in poor health, Anthony Kennedy 80, and Stephen Breyer 78 the odds are very good that Trump will have to make nominate at least one more Supreme Court Justice.  However many further opportunities emerge, Trump should select a Conservative judge every time because the more Conservative the Court is the more likely his agenda is to survive lawsuits against his program.  The pressure on him to select a moderate will be especially acute if the moderate Kennedy or one of the Liberal justices vacate their seats.  This pressure should be ignored by Trump; instead he should move decisively to make the Court Conservative leaning for a generation.

This leads us to discuss the issue of Liberal protesters.

Unlike the makeup of the Supreme Court – which is decisive because it is policy – protests are transient because they are hysteria.

In the Hamiltonian view this hysteria of the Progressive Left is a force that Trump’s persuasive powers can and should manipulate to his advantage.

Because the protesters are prepared to mobilize at a moment’s notice over the most trivial of issues Trump should invent trivial issues every week to send them running around in circles, exhausting themselves, dividing their resources and public attention.  With the media spotlight and the rest of the Left chasing decoys everywhere Trump will be free to pass his policy agenda (such as replacing Kennedy or a Liberal Justice with a Conservative) without the public having enough bandwidth to process that his main objectives are marching ahead.

The hope of the Left that there is somewhere a hidden media sensation that can defeat the Trump administration is a sign of how feeble and lazy they have become because of their degeneracy.  A proper political strategy is built around a slow game.  A winning case against the policies of a ruling party must be made gradually, carefully highlighting to the public its weakest points, and strategically coordinating political resources.

The Left clearly has no patience for this traditional – intelligent – politics.  Instead, by reacting instantly to the most inconsequential of matters, they are dividing themselves into a completely incoherent frenzy.  The Left is conditioning itself to be perfect foils for Trump’s fearsome powers of manipulation, powers that will be only too happy to send them snapping at bait while Trump proceeds with his true agenda.

To optimize the protester’s ineffectiveness (and their persuasive powers are already highly exaggerated) we recommend Trump use the IRS liberally against any non-profit that helps coordinate the protests.

Anytime a protest leads to any kind of violence the IRS should immediately revoke the tax exempt status of the non-profit that sponsored the demonstration just as the Obama administration used the IRS to withhold tax exempt status for Conservative Tea Party organizations.

This takes advantage of the non-profit’s role as a subsystem within Dictatorial Bureaucracy leaving them in an uncomfortable no win situation:  If the protest sponsors do not control their hysterical attendees they stand to be punished in one of the most severe ways the IRS can punish a non-profit.  If they do manage to hold their protesters on a tight leash the demonstration will be too tame to garner anyone’s interest.

With the Technocratic Left in such a decayed state and starved for talent, walking the tight rope between not being too rowdy at a protest while also not keeping things too dull is a feat we doubt the Progressives, who are made up of the mediocre Sociological bourgeoisie, can pull off.

Instead, with the help of partisan Trump-IRS, the administration will gain the best of both world by having its opposition compensate for the hurdles the IRS will place in its way by investing more resources in wasted protests that yield fewer benefits.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “The Supreme Court, Using Protesters to the Advantage of Trump & Fun with the IRS”

  1. The winning strategy against such incoherent and unending hysteria is hard to know. The hysteria is almost as bad here in the UK, with everyday seeing negative stories against the President on the BBC etc. (a supposedly neutral broadcaster). There is not one news outlet that is solidly pro-Trump. My fear is that continual negative reporting will gnaw away at Trump’s floating vote. Doubling down on the media probably won’t help. Maybe a better strategy is to ignore the negativity and just get on with fulfilling his policy pledges. You mention the SCOTUS. My own guess is that the SCOTUS is becoming politicised, and that at some time in the future, all members will be subject either to a mandatory retirement age, or more likely limited terms (after which they need to be reappointed). The left certainly won’t accept a SCOTUS that is majority conservative. While Trump might find that truly conservative and independent judges are exceedingly scarce nowadays. The omens aren’t good about Gorsuch.

    Like

  2. Good strategy overall.

    The trouble is, I think, that Trump is probably trying to govern for the good of the country, and win reelection; however, the progressives simply want to destroy him in any way they can. They have the institutional inertia behind them, and can simply wait things out.

    You are correct in saying that a good political strategy is a long term one. The problem is is that Trump is really a one off. He has no Party, no real institutional backing (except for the military), and no successor. If he did, then the rational thing to do, would be to crush the progressives. Naturally, that would take up much of his time and energy, with no short term results that could get him re-elected.

    The deep state just got Flynn taken out. (Though maybe the Russians did it, or helped.) The progressives are trying to knock out every one of Trump’s team, and they just scored a major victory.

    Not looking good, because know they will focus on Trump and Russia.

    Like

  3. The hysteria is almost as bad here in the UK, with everyday seeing negative stories against the President on the BBC etc. (a supposedly neutral broadcaster). There is not one news outlet that is solidly pro-Trump.

    Not that this was your point but this really highlights the lack of strategic thought on the Technocratic side everywhere across the West.

    However well the British outlets succeed in kicking up Trump’s negative ratings among UK citizens it will have no political impact on him over here. At least not unless the BBC is planning on smuggling millions of illegal British voters in 2020 through our unguarded Canadian border to tip the electoral votes of the Midwest in favor of a cryogenically frozen Hillary.

    Unlikely. But beware Trump has time to militarize that border too.

    From their perspective they would be better off diverting their energies at home to prop up their tottering Fabian agenda as much as possible. With their eyes on Trump your PM has an opportunity to sneak some objectives past them, but I doubt she will take them.

    That they would rather exert themselves on Trump is an indication of their weakness.

    My fear is that continual negative reporting will gnaw away at Trump’s floating vote. Doubling down on the media probably won’t help. Maybe a better strategy is to ignore the negativity and just get on with fulfilling his policy pledges.

    If his policies advance I suspect his approval rating will settle in the mid-40s once Republicans and Republican leaners consolidate around him. That may seem bad but remember he defeated Hillary decisively with approval ratings in the 30s.

    Not that he was a Conservative but Bush II was savaged in the media as well. If he had restricted immigration and antagonized his base on multiple issues he would not have left office so unpopular, even despite the Iraq War.

    He should definitely work the media in a frenzy just to divert them away from his policies.

    You mention the SCOTUS. My own guess is that the SCOTUS is becoming politicised, and that at some time in the future, all members will be subject either to a mandatory retirement age, or more likely limited terms (after which they need to be reappointed). The left certainly won’t accept a SCOTUS that is majority conservative.

    It would be hard to pass if the Republicans get a lock on the Supreme Court for a generation; no elected Republican would vote for those reforms once they have that great prize.

    In practice it will also sort out to be a double edged sword cutting both ways thanks to the law of averages. For every conservative who is forced by term limits to leave a liberal will also be term limited out eventually.

    While Trump might find that truly conservative and independent judges are exceedingly scarce nowadays. The omens aren’t good about Gorsuch.

    There are enough Conservative judges and lawyers that he won’t run out of good options. Gorsuch I don’t see anything indicating he may be another Souter. The latter was a blank slate with no record, Gorsuch has a well defined resume. I haven’t heard one Conservative pundit complain about the choice.

    Like

  4. The trouble is, I think, that Trump is probably trying to govern for the good of the country, and win reelection; however, the progressives simply want to destroy him in any way they can. They have the institutional inertia behind them, and can simply wait things out.

    At some point their throwing a fit 24/7 over non-issues drowns itself out in the minds of voters. I agree he is in good shape to win reelection.

    You are correct in saying that a good political strategy is a long term one. The problem is is that Trump is really a one off. He has no Party, no real institutional backing (except for the military), and no successor. If he did, then the rational thing to do, would be to crush the progressives. Naturally, that would take up much of his time and energy, with no short term results that could get him re-elected.

    I assure you there are ways to crush the Prigs…

    The deep state just got Flynn taken out. (Though maybe the Russians did it, or helped.) The progressives are trying to knock out every one of Trump’s team, and they just scored a major victory.

    I will be writing on that Flynn tomorrow.

    But the political impact of this will be negligible since the public doesn’t really vote on Russia.

    Like

  5. On Flynn.

    I have written about it on my blog (see first update).

    https://darkreformation101.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/how-trump-won-part-6-trumping-the-cathedral/

    Here is the passage:

    “…..Michael Flynn has been (politically) assassinated by the Deep State Polygon. Trump could perform a “Judo” move here. He now has the excuse to flush out his Deep State enemies and crush them. He could adopt a similar strategy to Mao. (Once thing about the left, is that they are the best when it comes to politics, because they understand power because that is their life’s purpose. The right, meanwhile, only view politics instrumentally and reluctantly. They enter politics only defensively – against the left. Trump, however, is a fighter. So, the next couple of weeks will be crucial – they will either make or break his administration.”

    Links from the post:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-14/the-political-assassination-of-michael-flynn

    https://theintercept.com/2017/02/14/the-leakers-who-exposed-gen-flynns-lie-committed-serious-and-wholly-justified-felonies/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-did-obama-dawdle-on-russias-hacking/2017/01/12/75f878a0-d90c-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.72b2c0f26409

    http://theweek.com/articles/680068/americas-spies-anonymously-took-down-michael-flynn-that-deeply-worrying

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/former-obama-officials-loyalists-waged-campaign-oust-flynn/

    Like

  6. Michael Flynn has been (politically) assassinated by the Deep State Polygon. Trump could perform a “Judo” move here. He now has the excuse to flush out his Deep State enemies and crush them. He could adopt a similar strategy to Mao.

    Flynn assassinated himself.

    But, you are correct, this is an opportunity to bring resisters in the Civil Service to heel. That topic will make up Friday’s article.

    Like

  7. “My own guess is that the SCOTUS is becoming politicised”

    You’re excused for being a foreigner, but saying SCOTUS is ‘becoming’ politicized is like saying Moses is ‘becoming’ a Hebrew Patriarch; viz. it already happened, a long time ago.

    I have an (I think) interesting hypothetical around Flynn.

    First, let’s establish that despite the character assassination of Flynn, if he were useful to have around Trump could have kept him. What CNN screams about is of no interest to Trump except as something to laugh over while he eats his Wheaties in the morning. The disconnect in news sources between Trump supporters and Trump haters is an immense chasm getting wider every day.

    Flynn and Trump never really agreed about foreign policy and a bunch of other things. Mattis and Trump are a much better fit, though of course they’re not synonymous. (They at least both seem to agree on the idea of a post-unilateral US diplomacy.)

    Flynn was a useful appointee to firm up the military vote, and more important than the military vote, the military-Trump identification, especially among the foot soldiers. (This is also why Mattis was chosen, among other reasons.)

    However, Flynn never got the memo about Trump’s post-unilateral foreign strategy. So Trump dumped him at the earliest possible opportunity provided by his enemies. We already know Trump is a hire-fire kind of guy; he built his campaign around finding the right person for the job and then firing them when the job changed.

    This provides Trump with several advantages. First, it sends a message to his team that he’s in charge. (That might seem counter-intuitive, since it looks like he was forced into it, but he personally fired Flynn, despite this bruhaha about a resignation.) Second, Flynn was useful in signalling that Trump would play ball with the Pentagon State, but has outlived his usefulness now that Trump is in office and they have a fundamental disagreement about military foreign policy.

    Third, it sends a message to the Russians that Trump is independent. Willing to work with them, but just in case they were starting to get the wrong impression from unclass sources (namely, our media), he’s not willing to be a stool. He wants to deal with them at the table, not be their mouthpiece for their own foreign policy.

    Fourth, it actually firms up Trump’s support among his base and disarms his enemies.

    To those getting their news through the Red State, Flynn’s firing is a political assassination forcd upon the Trump administration by the (ever-more-obvious) Blue State machinations with little or no real evidence of any wrongdoing. Expect the Senate hearings to clear Flynn easily. Trump can still look sympathetic to the Pentagon, which now rallies behind him because it’s under attack in the character of Flynn. (Mattis remains untouched, because he’s untouchable and Trump doesn’t want him gone.) This puts Trump in charge of the military/President relationship yet more, and further gives the rank-and-file cause to rally behind him as their President because he’s under attack. It’s a loyalty play, and it’s working.

    To those getting their news through the Blue State, Flynn’s firing is a) proof that the corruption is deep and we all need to gird up and do everything we can to avoid Hitler even more now, and b) a win for their side that raises the morale of the troops. Raising morale might sound like a bad thing for Trump, but it will cause them to get even more brazen and careless. The black bloc has been domestically imported; expect them to get even more obvious.

    Meanwhile, Trump gets someone else appointed to take Flynn’s place who’s more suited to the long game of actually running things the way Trump wants them run.

    Of course all of this assumes Trump is competent not just at the public relations game (where he’s a master) but also at the ruling game (where he’s untested). If the latter’s anything like managing a business (an hypothesis popular among Conservatives, but on shaky ground), he’ll be great.

    Like

  8. @Rhetocrates

    It’s perfectly possible to believe Flynn was getting more and more into policy disagreements with Trump.

    It is also likely Flynn’s removal was a relief for Trump simply because Flynn has a talent for making enemies unnecessarily.

    In addition to being loathed by the intelligence organs he was interfering with Mattis’ staffing decisions (unwise because Mattis is far better liked and connected than Flynn could have hoped to be), apparently wasn’t forthcoming with Pence about his conversations with the Russians, he was gaffe prone in public, and who knows what other problems he was causing behind the scenes.

    And all this trouble with less than a month on the job! As I said, the Left knocked him out far too early in the game.

    When it comes to dealing with the Russians the temperament of Rex Tillerson is a better fit. He has connections with old Cold Warrior diplomats like Baker and Kissinger who he can rely on for clearheaded advice and he is circumspect in public.

    The military wasn’t much more keen on Flynn than the intelligence agencies. With H.R. McMaster Trump’s choice to replace Flynn, Trump will gain ever more credit with his military base of support.

    McMaster also demonstrates Trump knows how to hire well and fire where appropriate.

    If he deligates well he should be fine as President. Reagan was not a policy wonk but he succeeded partly because he was surrounded by a very strong advisory team and could see the big picture.

    Like

Comments are closed.