Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览保罗·克雷格·罗伯茨(Paul Craig Roberts)档案
特朗普的任命

书签 全部切换变革理论添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

他们的意思是什么?

Before I give an explanation, let’s be sure we all know what an explanation is. An explanation is not a justification. The collapse of education in the US is so severe that many Americans, especially younger ones, cannot tell the difference between an explanation and a defense, justification, or apology for what they regard as a guilty person or party. If an explanation is not damning or sufficiently damning of what they want damned, the explanation is interpreted as an excuse for the object of their scorn. In America, reason and objective analysis have taken a backseat to emotion.

We do not know what the appointments mean except, as Trump discovered once he confronted the task of forming a government, that there is no one but insiders to appoint. For the most part that is correct. Outsiders are a poor match for insiders who tend to eat them alive. Ronald Reagan’s California crew were a poor match for George H.W. Bush’s insiders. The Reagan part of the government had a hell of a time delivering results that Reagan wanted.

Another limit on a president’s ability to form a government is Senate confirmation of presidential appointees. Whereas Congress is in Republican hands, Congress remains in the hands of special interests who will protect their agendas from hostile potential appointees. Therefore, although Trump does not face partisan opposition from Congress, he faces the power of special interests that fund congressional political campaigns.

When the White House announced my appointment as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Republican Senator Bob Dole put a hold on my appointment. Why? Dole had presidential ambitions, and he saw the rising star of Republican Representative Jack Kemp as a potential obstacle. As I had written the Kemp-Roth bill that had become Reagan’s economic policy, Dole regarded me in the Treasury as a one-up for Kemp. So, you see, all sorts of motives can plague a president’s ability to form a government.

With Trump under heavy attack prior to his inauguration, he cannot afford drawn out confirmation fights and defeats.

Does Trump’s choice of Steve Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary mean that Goldman Sachs will again be in charge of US economic policy? Possibly, but we do not know. We will have to wait and see. Mnuchin left Goldman Sachs 14 years ago. He has been making movies in Hollywood and started his own investment firm. Many people have worked for Goldman Sachs and the New York Banks who have become devastating critics of the banks. Read Nomi Prins’ books and visit Pam Martens website, Wall Street on Parade ( http://wallstreetonparade.com ). My sometimes coauthor Dave Kranzler is a former Wall Streeter.

Commentators are jumping to conclusions based on appointees past associations. Mnuchin was an early Trump supporter and chairman of Trump’s finance campaign. He has Wall Street and investment experience. He should be an easy confirmation. For a president-elect under attack this is important.

Will Mnuchin suppport Trump’s goal of bringing middle class jobs back to America? Is Trump himself sincere? We do not know.

What we do know is that Trump attacked the fake “free trade” agreements that have stripped America of middle class jobs just as did Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot. We know that the Clintons made their fortune as agents of the One Percent, the only ones who have profited from the offshoring of American jobs. Trump’s fortune is not based on jobs offshoring.

Not every billionaire is an oligarch. Trump’s relation to the financial sector is one as a debtor. No doubt Trump and the banks have had unsatisfactory relationships. And Trump says he is a person who enjoys revenge.

What about the hot-headed generals announced as National Security Advisor and Secretary of Defense? Both seem to be death on Iran, which is stupid and unfortunate. However, keep in mind that Gen. Flynn is the one who blew the whistle on the Obama regime for rejecting the advice of the DIA and sending ISIS to overthrow Assad. Flynn said that ISIS was a “willful decision” of the Obama administration, not some unexpected event.

And keep in mind that Gen. Mattis is the one who told Trump that torture does not work, which caused Trump to back off his endorsement of torture.

So both of these generals, as bad as they may be, are an improvement on what came before. Both have shown independence from the neoconservative line that supports ISIS and torture.

Keep in mind also that there are two kinds of insiders. Some represent the agendas of special interests; others go with the flow because they enjoy participating in the affairs of the nation. Those who don’t go with the flow are eliminated from participating.

Goldman Sachs is a good place to get rich. That Mnuchin left 14 years ago could mean that he was not a good match for Goldman Sachs, that they did not like him or he did not like them. That Flynn and Mattis have taken independent positions on ISIS and torture suggests that they are mavericks. All three of these appointees seem to be strong and confident individuals who know the terrain, which is the kind of people a president needs if he is to accomplish anything.

The problem with beating up on an administration before it exists and has a record is that the result can be that the administration becomes deaf to all criticism. It is much better to give the new president a chance and to hold his feet to the fire on the main issues.

Trump alone among all the presidential candidates said that he saw no point in fomenting conflict with Russia. Trump alone questioned NATO’s continued existence 25 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Trump alone said that he would work to bring middle class jobs back to America.

And Trump said that he would enforce immigration laws. Is this racism or is this a defense of citizenship? How is the US a country if there is no difference between illegal aliens and citizens?

立即订购

Commentators of all stripes are making a mistake to damn in advance the only government that campaigned on peace with Russia, restoring middle class jobs, and respect for the country’s borders. We should seize on these promises and hold the Trump administration to them. We should also work to make Trump aware of the serious adverse consequences of environmental degradation.

Who is blowing these opportunities? Trump? Mnuchin? Flynn? Mattis?

Or us?

The more Trump is criticized, the easier it is for the neoconservatives to offer their support and enter the administration. To date he has not appointed one, but you can bet your life that Israel is lobbying hard for the neocons. The neocons still reign in the media, the think tanks, university departments of foreign affairs, and the foreign policy community. They are an ever present danger.

Trump’s personality means that he is likely to see more reward in being the president who reverses American decline than in using the presidency to augment his personal fortune. Therefore, there is some hope for change occuring from the top rather than originating in the streets of bloody revolution. By the time Americans reach the revolutionary stage of awareness the police state is likely to be too strong for them.

So let’s give the Trump administration a chance. We can turn on him after he sells us out.

(从重新发布 保罗·克雷格·罗伯茨 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 思想 •标签: 唐纳德·特朗普 
隐藏7条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. Anon • 免责声明 说:

    Thank you, Mr. Roberts; this is an excellent article and one that many of the more easily agitated could bear reading.

    Personally, I don’t mind having (relative) hawks in Defense or National Security, especially so long as there is some tendency to take their recommendations with a grain of salt. I’ll get attacked for this, but my ideal cabinet would have a dove in State and a hawk in Defence; that way we won’t fight wars but will prepare for the possibility. And I’d change “Defense” back to “War”.

    It would be nice to see either our esteemed author or Mr. Buchanan in some role, unlikely though that may be. I would gladly nominate Mr. Roberts for Ambassadorship to Russia, for instance. Or Assistant Sec’y of the Treasury, of course.

    I wonder what the “exile” positions are nowadays. Perhaps some #NeverTrump neocons can be “rewarded” with the embassy to Ghana or the Holy See.

    Too bad Newt Gingrich is too old; he is clever enough to make a great advisor (though he should be kept away at all costs from any executive powers whatsoever).

    With tongue only slightly in cheek,
    RSDB

  2. Old fogey 说:

    及时而优秀的作品。非常感谢。

    • 同意: Ivan K.
  3. Dan Hayes 说:

    罗伯茨博士:

    Your balanced essay has given me reason to hope. And as you so presciently stated: let’s give Trump a chance as we have plenty of time to turn on him after he sells us out – a real paleoconservative sentiment!

  4. Anonymous [AKA "Not Dov Zakheim"] 说:

    This is so pathetic. Trumps hired numerous pro-war on Iran neocons(Mattis called them the biggest threat on the planet, so did Flynn) and numerous Goldman and Soros lackeys, and he hasn’t sold out yet? Give me a break Paul. He even has his Israeli spy son in law “working on Israel-Palestine”.

    And I guess not all billionaires are oligarchs, but Devos and Ross most certainly are ,with Ross even being connected to the same billionaire pedophile that Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are tied to(and likely blackmailed by). Stop being an apologist for Trump like you were for that empty suit coward you worked for in Ronald Reagan. Trump will lay down for the deep state and other powerful interests just like Reagan did, and you know it.

  5. anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    The talent pool in some areas is rather shallow hence the constant recycling of the same people over and over in things like foreign policy. It’s almost impossible to find somebody who wasn’t a member of the club so one has to find those who seem willing to split from that and renounce it, like those who leave the mafia and help bring it down. I don’t know what to make of Flynn or Mattis since what seems to be publicly known is a mixed bag and erratic. However, the information mainly comes from the controlled media which lies and distorts everything so one never knows what the actual situation may be. As a hands-on executive I expect Trump to sit on top of his appointments and monitor them closely. This would be unlike the spineless weakling Obama who couldn’t say no to his own Secretary of State and allowed Clinton to run amuck and destroy Libya and engage in potentially disastrous brinksmanship with the Russians.

  6. Sensible reasoning, through and through. The author has clearly a superior intellect than most of his professional colleagues.

    I don’t have a dog in this race (I live in Brasil), but, when you consider that some people waste their time on things such as sports matches, I do not feel so silly by comparison to be rooting for a good Trump administration.

  7. Ivan K. 说:

    PCR,四年前你写道:

    有人问,如果我是通过书面选举而不是立即被暗杀,我会任命谁?

    一个容易回答的问题。

    诺米·普林斯 (Nomi Prins) 将担任财政部长,帕姆·马滕斯 (Pam ​​Martens) 将担任副财政部长……。

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/09/what-paul-craig-roberts-administration-would-look-like/

    你错过了说 ……如果我能用精神控制国会的批准,就像艾萨克·阿西莫夫的科幻小说中的骡子一样.

评论被关闭。

通过RSS订阅所有Paul Craig Roberts的评论