Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats are projecting competence by swearing.

If you cant be persuasive, be interesting. If youre neither persuasive nor interesting, try to be funny. And if all of that fails, just be provocative; at least your audience will remember you. For Democrats, all else has failed. Theyve giving up on being compelling, coherent, or even just entertaining. In a desperate, spastic flail to capture your attention, Democrats have settled on a tactic: shock.

Democrats have internalized a caricature of the GOPas a group of aggressive vulgarians, one that they are mimicking in exaggerated fashion with the expectation that they will berewarded at the polls. Toward that end, Democrats in Congress forged new precedents in obstructing the will of the executive branch, including a doomed filibuster of a Cabinet nominee. Democrats have nurtured their bases darkest impulses in this effort by indulging, among other conspiracy theories, the notion that Donald Trump is an illegitimately elected president. Most pathetic, the Democratic Party seems to be pantomiming Donald Trump by imitating his most boorish behavior if only to get a rise out of anyone who happens to be paying attention.

A New York Magazine profile of obvious 2020 hopeful Kirsten Gillibrand featured the esteemed gentlewoman from New York unleashingcascade of profanity upon her interlocutor. Her interview included one f***, two f***ings, one bulls***, and a variety of other lesser but equally crude expletives, according to Politicos Alex Caton. At a public event, while sitting across from several former speechwriters for Barack Obama, California Senator Kamala Harris (another likely 2020 candidate) castigated Representative Raul Labrador for claiming that Americans do not die for want of health insurance. What the f*** is that? she remarked. Her audience roared and ate it up.

Republicans dont give a s*** about people, barked newly elected Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez in an attack on the GOPs approach to health-care reform. Perez employed similarly salty language to attack the Trump White Houses spending proposals. They call it a skinny budget, he said. I call it a sh***y budget. Representative Beto ORourke can often be seen weaving the occasional s*** into stump speeches as he prepares to challenge Senator Ted Cruz. Mr. President: If there was a wiretap at Trump Tower, that means a fed judge found probable cause of crime which means you are in deep s***, tweeted Representative Ted Lieu, whose garment-rending online persona has attracted a devoted following of hysterical liberals.

Once is sui generis. Twice is a coincidence. Forty-seventimes is a campaign. Democrats are quite clearly doing their best to not just generate ink but to speak above the din of opportunistically panic-stricken liberals. These are not the first Democrats to appeal to crass profanity in a contrived effort to burnish their populist credentials. As Howard Fineman chronicled for Newsweek in 1991, former Iowa Senator Tom Harkin tried to position himself as the angry man at the end of the bar by denouncing the bulls*** of the Reagan-Bush eras economic record. Harkin miscalculated. When virtually all major media outlets were regulated for decency, almost no one could broadcast those remarks. The proliferation of media outlets outside the FCCs jurisdiction has changed the Democratic Partys calculation.

Its not just the Democratic Partys political professionals who are rebranding themselves provocateurs to meet the measure of the populist moment. The liberal activist class is gearing up to make their case to the public by harassing lawmakers and scaring voters to death. Politico reported on Tuesday that Democratic protesters are preparing to lay down in the streets, ship the ashes of the dead to GOP lawmakers who voted to repeal ObamaCare, and to stage mock funerals for the unwitting constituents of Republican congressmen and women. We cant win based on the merit of our ideas, confessed the proprietor of a liberal super PAC, but rather on the way in which we deliver that message. Some might call that an admission against interest.

That is, however, a more honest assessment of the Democratic Partys predicament. In the electorally unenviable position they are in and lacking a positive agenda, Democrats can only oppose. When that message of blanket opposition gets stale, break the emergency glass; get vulgar, project anger, and, above all, be uncompromising. Democrats would probably cite apocalyptic Republican rhetoric in the early years of the Obama administration as precedent, and theyd not be entirely wrong. The Democratic Partys shock jock persona is, however, their own invention.

During the 2016 primaries, Trump-skeptical conservatives fretted over the possibility that, were the populist real-estate mogul from Manhattan to win the GOP nomination, much less the presidency, Americans would become inured to his loutish persona. In the process, Trump would de-stigmatize rudeness and profanity, generate a more ill-mannered civic society, and accelerate the general coarsening of the culture. They were right. They just didnt know that it would be the Democrats, not the GOP, who would first rush to follow in Donald Trumps footsteps.

Join usyou'll be in good company. Everyoneworth reading is reading (and writing for) COMMENTARY:

Subscribing to COMMENTARY gives you full access to every article, every issue, every podcastthe latest stories as well as over 70 years of archives, the best that has been thought and written since 1945.

Join the intellectual club, today.

Subscribe Now

It's a trap!

One week ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin propositioned the United States. Russias chief executive revealed that, in a phone conversation with President Donald Trump last Tuesday, he suggested that the U.S. should join Russia in creating and policing safe zones in Syria backed jointly by Russia, Turkey, and Iran. This is, on its face, laughable. How could anyone in the West think that legitimizing the actions of three illiberal powers, one of which is an American ally in name only, would benefit U.S. interests abroad? Enter the New York Times editorial board.

After six years and with some 400,000 people killed, almost any plan to end or reduce the carnage in Syria would be welcome, the Times editors noted. So the Trump administration would be derelict if it did not give serious consideration to a plan for a cease-fire and safe zones brokered by Russia, with the backing of Turkey and Iran.

The Times editors contend, correctly, that the Trump administrations plan to arm anti-ISIS Kurdish factions directly will only further alienate Turkey. Ankara has deployed air and ground forces in Syria not to target ISIS but to attack Kurdish positions. This necessitated the deployment of American ground forces to the region to act as a deterrent against such aggression. As necessary as Turkish cooperation is for the United States in its campaign against ISIS in Syria, so, too, is the support of the regions disaffected Sunnis, who have been the targets of Bashar al-Assads relentless air campaign (with the support of Russian and Iranian forces). How aligning with these anti-Western powers would advance that cause, the Times does not say.

Even more confounding was the fact that theTimes appeared skeptical that these safe zones, maintained by a collection of rogue states, would be stable. They note that the Syrian government, a party to the talks that led to the creation of safe zones in rebel-held areas of the country, proceeded to seize the village of al-Zalakiyat near Hama on Sundayunder heavy bombardment, the Times neglected to adddespite the cease-fire.

Syria remains adamant that only soldiers loyal to Damascus or Russian forces will monitor these new safe zones, and not multinational forces or United Nations peacekeepers. To join or even consent to Russia policing territory in Syria is to forgive the crimes Moscow committed in its effort to put down the insurrection against Assad. Moscow colluded with Damascus or was an active participant in the bombing of civilian targets, including hospitals, and starvation campaigns targeting entire cities. The late Vitaly Churkin, Russias Ambassador to the United Nations, assured the world that the images of dead and shell-shocked children streaming out of the Syrian charnel house were faked and the subjects of those images mere actors.

Activists have documented for international observers how Moscow deployed cluster and incendiary munitions on civilian targets in Aleppo. They have further alleged that Iranian-backed militias were integral to closing off the city, maximizing civilian casualties. Iran has supported the Assad regime not just with the influx of regular army soldiersan intervention that began as early as 2012but with funding and materials support. To align with Russia and Iran is to join with General Qassem Soleimani, arguably the architect of Russian intervention in Syria. Soleimani is directly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, and to reward him and Iran with legitimacy would be to dishonor the memory of Americas fallen.

By the end of the Times editorial, the editors appear to talk themselves out of the utility of Americas participation in a Russian-Iranian-Turkish axis in Syria. They note that, while the prospects for this ceasefire are shaky and carving up the country is a suboptimal state of affairs, what other options are there? Desperation and a colossal failure of imagination do not justify Americas shedding its moral character, rewarding bad actors, and betraying the allied forces on the ground in Syria that have stood with the West these last seven years.

On Wednesday, the president and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Syrian safe zones were surely on the table. Heres hoping the White House doesnt take the New York Timess advice.

Join usyou'll be in good company. Everyoneworth reading is reading (and writing for) COMMENTARY:

Subscribing to COMMENTARY gives you full access to every article, every issue, every podcastthe latest stories as well as over 70 years of archives, the best that has been thought and written since 1945.

Join the intellectual club, today.

Subscribe Now

Displaying contempt for public opinion has consequences.

As John Podhoretzobserved last night, President Donald Trump had every reason to dismiss FBI Director James Comey. Contrary to the passionate response from Trumps more reflexive detractors, nothing about the FBI directors firing exceeded presidential authority, violated the Constitution, or was even unwarranted. But the way in which the White House went about dismissing Comey creates an impression that something untoward has happened here. Trumpssloppy preparation, miscalculations, disregard for public opinion, and utter lack of any coherent communications strategy have robbed the president ofthe benefit of the doubt.

Suddenly, despite assurances to the contrary from President Trump, the way in which Comeyhandled the Clinton email affair morphed into an offense meriting termination. At least, that was the assessmentof Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The members of the inner circle in the TrumpWhite House were kidding themselves if they thought the public and their political rivals would accept this at face value.

Immediately, Senate Democrats turned the heat up to boil. Chilling, declared Kirsten Gillibrand. We are in a full-fledged constitutional crisis, Brian Schatz averred. Not since Watergate have our legal systems been so threatened, Richard Blumenthal remarked. Perhaps more compelling was the response from Senate Republicans, who will take an active role in advising on and consenting to Comeys replacement. GOP Senators Richard Burr, Jeff Flake, John McCain, and Ben Sasse all expressed reservations about the timing and intent of Trumps maneuver, to say nothing of its impact on the investigation into Russian meddling.

The White House was caught entirely off guard. Sources soon began leaking to reporters that the administration didnt expect Democrats to be able to protest Comeys firing too loudly because they had criticized his behavior in 2016. If the White Houses strategy rested on politicians declining to indulge in hypocrisy, its the most nave organization in history.

The White House recalled all its communications staffers to mitigate the unexpected fallout, but the strategy they employed was nothing less than incompetent. You want to question the timing of when [the president] hires, when he fires. Its inappropriate, Kellyanne Conway asserted with maximum petulance. Hell do it when he wants to. When pressed as to whether this firing would affect the investigation into the Trump campaign and its links to Russia, Sarah Huckabee Sanders insisted that it was time to move on adding when are they going to let that go?

Demonstrating even more naked contempt for public opinion, President Trump announced yesterday that he would take a rare meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the White House fewer than 24 hours after Comeys dismissal.Thus, not only did the White House refuse to allay the voting publics concerns about Russia, the 2016 election, and the Trump administrations alleged links to Kremlin agents, they contributed to those fears.

Its hard to begrudge anyone who reaches the worst possible conclusions about those allegations now; the president and his administration are not behaving like innocents. In many ways, that is a more dangerous condition for the president than if he was facing concrete charges that could be rebutted. Instead, a cloud of vague suspicion will now hang over his administration. There are no charges that he can define, isolate, and counter. Trump will struggle with a general mistrust of his conduct that will only sap the public of faith in his leadership. If this White House believes Republicans in Congress will continue to play blocking tackle for Trumpeven as faith in this administration erodes, itmay soon learn that public opinion has a way of shaking things loose.

There is no hard evidence to suggest Trump was acting in bad faith in exercising his constitutional prerogative to fire an executive branch official in whom he had lost confidenceand those in the commentariat who see creeping fascism around every darkened corner would do well to exercise more prudence. And yet, even if this White House wereentirely in the right, itsbizarre failure to prepare for this moment and itsdisregard for public opinion may well leadpreviously skeptical observers to concludethere really is a scandal here. For that, Trump only has himself to blame.

Join usyou'll be in good company. Everyoneworth reading is reading (and writing for) COMMENTARY:

Subscribing to COMMENTARY gives you full access to every article, every issue, every podcastthe latest stories as well as over 70 years of archives, the best that has been thought and written since 1945.

Join the intellectual club, today.

Subscribe Now

Obama should have done it when he had the chance.

The sudden dismissal of FBI director James Comey has suddenly transformedthe man blamed by many Democrats for Hillary Clintons defeat into the liberal Twitterspheres Thomas Becket and Donald Trump into Henry II, ridding himself in vile fashion of ameddlesome priest. Such is the nature of whiplash politics, when a bad guy becomes a good guy simply by virtue of the utility he serves in whatever argument you wish to make.

I have no idea why Trump fired Comey, and neither does anyone else. Trumps firingletter says (with an unfortunate split infinitive) that Comey is not able to effectively lead the bureau. But Comeyseffectiveness is not in question, to be honest, and the contention of the Becket Bunchthat Trump might be working to impede the FBIs examination of Russian meddling cannot be dismissed.

Comeys judgment, however, should have been and should be questionedand should have been found wanting by any chief executive serving or elected after his dreadful conduct during the 2016 election.

What Comey did on July 5 of last year in announcing his decision not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton in the email investigation was a travesty. If, as he and everyone else has said, it was the unanimousdecision of those looking at all of the evidence not to seek an indictment, it was a misuse of his power and authority to take to a podium and criticize her for her behavior. Indeed, his speech was so savagely negative, it sure sounded like he was going to announce an indictment referral up until the moment he declared he would not do so. That was not right, it was not just, and it was not proper.

He cleared her by casting a giant shadow over her campaign. This was prosecutorial indiscretion, and in my view, Barack Obama should have fired him right then and there.

It was the shocking and confusing nature of his statement that led the House to call Comey to testify and promise he would keep its members up to date on any changes or alterations in the proceedings. So when the investigation into Anthony Weiner revealed he had emails on his computer forwarded to him by his wife Huma Abedin, Clintons closest aide, Comey indeed had no choice but to inform Rep. Jason Chaffetz that the FBI was going to look at those emails to make sure they werent new and werent classified.

Comey has declared himself mildly nauseous at the thought he might have had a material effect on the election, but maybe nausea isnt the right word. Maybe what was bothering him wasnt his stomach but his conscience. His insistence on making himself part of the electoral story on July 5 rather than simply putting out a statement saying the Justice Department did not find grounds on which to indict Mrs. Clinton placed his own overweening pride and insistence on defending the honor of his agency above all things.

In announcing the dismissal, the White House included a document written by Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein that actually makes this argument very well. We do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation, declared Rosenstein. He pointed out as well that the Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney Generals authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement.

Rosenstein is no political hack; he was U.S. attorney in Maryland under both Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic President Barack Obama before his nomination to the #2 slot at Justice, a post he only assumed after his confirmation two weeks ago. There is no reason to assume the argument Rosensteinmakes in his powerfully argued memorandum, which he titled Restoring Public Confidence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is anything but genuine.

Comeys fixation with his own virtueled him and us into uncharted waters. He set a dangerous precedent according to which people given the awesome and delicate responsibility of investigating their fellow citizens for crimes and misdemeanors can simply do whatever they please without hewing to the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and no one should be talked about as though he or she were a criminal while being cleared of charges. It is better for the country that he is no longer director of the FBI. Comey is not Thomas Becket. Hes Inspector Javert.

Join usyou'll be in good company. Everyoneworth reading is reading (and writing for) COMMENTARY:

Subscribing to COMMENTARY gives you full access to every article, every issue, every podcastthe latest stories as well as over 70 years of archives, the best that has been thought and written since 1945.

Join the intellectual club, today.

Subscribe Now

Peace and power-sharing, or perpetual war?

In the search for effective proxies in Syria, the U.S. has found the Kurdish YPG militia to be the best bet. It may be the group most willing to fight ISIS but also the one least infected by Islamist extremism. The Obama administration was prepared to overlook the YPGs links to the PKK, the Kurdish terrorist group in Turkey, to the Bashar Assad regime and to Iran. It still hesitated, though, to provide the YPG with the heavy arms that would be necessary to take back Raqqa, ISISs capital, for fear of offending Turkey.

The Trump administration has now made the decision that Obama put off before leaving office. Trump has reportedly agreed to provide the YPG with what it needs to move on Raqqa. This decision is hardly disguised by the fact that the U.S. support is ostensibly going to the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-Arab coalition. Everyone knows that the YPG are by far the strongest element within this coalition and that its Arabs are largely window dressing.

Supporting the YPG has long been the preference of the U.S. armed forces, whose advisers are working with this group, and so it is hardly surprising that Trump has taken the militarys advice. Indeed, this decision seemed inescapable as long as the U.S. wants to liberate Raqqa without sending its own ground forces to get the job done.

Turkeys president, Recep Tayyip Erdoan, will not be happy. He recently sent his air force to bomb the YPG despite U.S. protests. He views the YPG as a threat to Turkey, not only because of its close ties to the PKK but also because it is bent on creating a Kurdish state (Rojava) in northern Syria. He is not wrong about this; the creation of Rojava is indeed the YPGs goal.

It is understandable that the administration did not accede to Erdogans protests given how he has ignored American equities, shredded Turkish democracy, and drawn closer to Russia. But offending Turkey carries obvious risks, given the extent to which the U.S. is dependent on access to the Incirlik air base in Turkey to support its operations in northern Syria and Iraq. Erdogan can make life difficult for the U.S. if he were to suspend the use of Incirlik. Still, the U.S. military could rely on air bases in the Persian Gulf region, so Erdogans opposition is not a deal-breaker.

The real issue here is less the impact of this decision on U.S.-Turkish relations, which are already poor, but, rather, its effect on Syrias future. What exactly does the administration seek to accomplish in Syria beyond defeating ISIS? At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, then-Major General David Petraeus asked a prophetic question: Tell me how this ends? The same question should now be applied to the U.S. campaign in Syria: How will it end?

With any luck, ISIS will lose its strongholds on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border by the end of the year. But who will then administer the territory? The U.S. hope is that locals of moderate predilection will take control of their own communities and that Syria will devolve into a series of autonomous cantons. But if there is one thing we should have learned from the past decade and a half in Iraq and Afghanistan it is that moderates can seldom stand on their own against well-organized extremists such as ISIS and al-Qaeda.

In Syria, the moderate opposition has been losing ground for years, thanks in large part to Western neglect. Growing stronger have been the government forces of Bashar Assadbacked by Iran and Russiaand the Sunni extremists of al-Qaedas Syrian chapter which, after several re-brandings, is now known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. HTS is becoming the strongest force in opposition-controlled areas and stands to benefit from ISISs demise. If the administration has a plan to prevent al-Qaeda from gaining at ISISs expenses, it remains a closely guarded secret. n fact, from all that I have been able to discern, no such plan exists. Nor does the administration seem to have any plan to diminish the power of Shiite extremist groups such as Hezbollah, which have become an increasingly powerful force in government-controlled areas.

As far as I can tell, the administration simply hopes that, by defeating ISIS, it will enable negotiations to create some kind of Syrian confederation with Kurds, Sunnis, and Alawites dividing up the country between them. This may be the ultimate endgame, but it will only work if none of these cantons are under the sway of violent extremists. The model here is the 1995 Dayton Peace Accords, which divided Bosnia into the largely Serbian Orthodox Republika Srpska and the largely Bosniak (Muslim) and Croat (Catholic) Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The division wouldnt have worked if Serbian war criminals had taken control of the former and Muslim extremists of the latter.

Likewise, Syria will never see peace or stability as long as Shiite and Sunni fanatics remain dominant on both sides. Indeed simply the continuing rule by war criminal Bashar Assad ensures that the majority of the population will continue to remain in revolt, consigning Syria to perpetual warfare.

What plan, if any, does the administration have prevent Sunni and Shiite extremists from dividing Syria between them? Has it given any thought to how to remove Assad and what would replace him? So far, there is no sign of any Syria policy beyond defeating ISIS, the cruise missile attack on one Syrian air base earlier in the month having been an apparent aberration.

This is hardly a failing of the Trump administration alone; the Obama administration also had no endgame in mind in Syria, and it was presented with a much less complex situation in the early years of the civil war which broke out in 2011. Or, rather, it would be more accurate to say Obama had no realistic end game in mind since his strategy was hinged on the fanciful talks convened in Geneva by Secretary of State John Kerry. The Trump administration has not restarted those futile negotiations, but nor has it presented a more realistic blueprint for ending the Syrian civil war. That is a much more significant issue, and a much harder one to resolve, than the arming of the YPG.

Join usyou'll be in good company. Everyoneworth reading is reading (and writing for) COMMENTARY:

Subscribing to COMMENTARY gives you full access to every article, every issue, every podcastthe latest stories as well as over 70 years of archives, the best that has been thought and written since 1945.

Join the intellectual club, today.

Subscribe Now

Can Jewry in Turkey survive?

Much has been written about Turkeys turn toward Islamism and President Recep Tayyip Erdoansgrowing autocracy. Turkish officials and their proxies argue, however, that Turkey remains both tolerant and democratic. The problem, they say, is limited to the followers of Islamic theologian Fethullah Glen and Kurdish politicians and activists whom Erdogan accuses of terrorism. Turkeys minorities, they say, are safe. The Turkish Heritage Organization, for example, argued, Turkey has been a safe haven for Jews, Arabs, Kurds, Yazidis and Muslim nations for generations.

That may have once been true for minorities besides Armenians and Kurds but, increasingly, its no longer the case for Yezidis, Christians, and Jews.

The Erdoan years have been scary ones for Turkeys Jews, with wild anti-Semitic conspiracy theoriesbecoming increasingly commonplace. Many Jews have nonetheless remained hopeful that the repression and intolerance would pass. There were reasons for hope: Turkey was never a perfect democracy but, even after setbacks, its developmental trajectory was toward greater tolerance.

No longer. In many societies, Jews have been the canary in the coal mine. When a country loses its Jews, it is a sign that its democratic evolution has halted. Four years ago, some Turkish Jews began to leave. That trickle appears to be turning into a flood. From the European Jewish Press:

Today Turkeys Jews, most of whose ancestors sought refuge here from the Spanish Inquisition, are on edge. Their school and synagogues are behind security tunnels, shielded by steel blast protection. In 2016, the Jewish immigration from Turkey has doubled. In percentage terms, the largest increase of Aliyah registered during this period was the immigration from Turkey, notes theJewish agency. It appears to be connected to growing political instability in that country and fears that the Jewish community is being targeted, the agency says. According to Jewish Agency estimates, more than 220 Turkish Jewsmoved to Israel by the end of 2016. And 74 Turkish Jews moved to Israel between January and March, almost the triple last years quarterly number. The figures seem to reflect a growing insecurity among Turkish Jews, many of whom blame Erdoan of using anti-Israel rhetoric with anti-Semitic overtones.

The Forward reportedthat the descendants of many of the Jews who fled Spain for the safety of the Ottoman Empire more than 500 years ago now seek to return to Spain or Portugal:

Over the past 15 monthsa stormy political stretch culminating in a disputed vote to expand President Recep Tayyip Erdoans already substantial executive powers close to 4,700 Turkish Jews applied for or received passports from Spain, Portugal and Israel. When children of applicants to Spain are added in, the number balloons to over 6,200. The number is cause for concern in a community that totals just 15,500

Erdogan may meet with American Jewish and Israeli community leaders and offer assurances but, increasingly, such meetings appear to be little more than empty photo opportunities. Simply put, the numbers dont lie. A centuries-old community appears to be ending faster than most imagined it would or could.

Join usyou'll be in good company. Everyoneworth reading is reading (and writing for) COMMENTARY:

Subscribing to COMMENTARY gives you full access to every article, every issue, every podcastthe latest stories as well as over 70 years of archives, the best that has been thought and written since 1945.

Join the intellectual club, today.

Subscribe Now

Visit link:
Shock-Jock Democrats - Commentary Magazine