I feel obligated to write something about the latest bit of insanity, though I'm not sure where to start.
There is a certain viewpoint I have debated with myself off and on over the years, regarding power. Some people believe that underneath our civilized facade, underneath the ideals and morals and principles, is a simple and brutal calculus.
That ultimately power decides who gets what, and any softening or benevolence is either due to the charity of the powerful or due to some calculation where that softness benefits the powerful more than brutality.
It is... hard to argue with, though I think it's the type of thinking that is self-referential. I.e. if you believe it, everything you see will provide evidence supporting it... and if you don't, no evidence will be persuasive, but that reflects more on your subjective judgement than any objective reality.
I know that could just be my own unwillingness to accept such a brutal calculation, but my own rejection of the idea says something too, don't you think?
I can understand that states may, perhaps, need a monopoly on violence. That there is an element of hard power that underlies the ability to wield soft power. That for example perhaps MLK, Jr was only successful because of the fear of Malcolm X.
And yet I think that is insufficient. To focus only on that hard power, to focus solely on gaining 'strength' and 'power' that allows you to dictate the results you want reveals... only a partial understanding.
I have pondered this, and I'm not entirely sure if it's instinct or emotion or if I'm really on to something, but I think of a couple of things.
First of all, that such power and strength generally requires cooperation. That is, a brutal dictator is only able to dictate things when their followers obey. It's kind of like how Trump repeatedly 'orders' insane things, only a fraction of which is actually followed up on. Some of it just gets dismissed as his typical bullshit, and goes nowhere.
A brutal ruler can rule through fear... if they have someone willing to follow through and enforce that rule. (This is generally why said dictator has a group of loyalists they try to maintain control of through some combination of carrot and stick.)
Too brutal a ruler risks winding up the way Caligula did, assassinated by his own guards.
So if cooperation is required, and 'strength' often means having more people cooperating... then who we choose to cooperate with can dictate who is 'strong'.
Okay, okay. I know that sounds twisty and complicated and perhaps even a bit self-referential. Let me back that up and try to explain why it matters.
We each help decide what world we live in. Sort of that 'be the change you want to see' concept. If we choose to support a brutal dictator, then we live in a world where brutal dictators are strong.
If, however, we choose NOT to support such a ruler, then we live in a world where the 'strong' are the ones who aren't brutal dictators.
I'm basically saying that strength in this case comes from strength in numbers. In how many people support your cause.
And that if we choose to support someone who rules through fear, than we make it so that ruling through fear makes you strong.
If, however, we choose to consider that a sign of foolishness and poor leadership and only support leaders who refuse to use such tactics, then the ones who grow strong and gain numbers are the ones who rule through other means.
In other words, brutality is not actually strength. It can seem like it, especially when it appears to work. When people are terrified and go along with it, it definitely seems like they're strong. And that the strong rule.
But the reality is more subtle than that. Especially because ruling this way comes with a lot of negative consequences, such as poor decision making and difficulty in using people's talents effectively.
I'm not sure if I've explained that very well, but spending more time on it probably won't make it any clearer.
The main point was to say that hard power calculations are not always the full story, and can even lead you astray.
Furthermore, I mostly agree with the Russell Kirk's second conservative principle. Custom, convention, and continuity matter. These customs and conventions developed for a reason, and while we should never be so ruled by convention that we stick with them even when they stopped serving their purpose, we should understand that purpose before we go changing them willy nilly.
In this regard, Trump and his supporters are definitely not conservative. Honestly, we shouldn't be applying that term to them because they aren't conserving shit. They have thrown out all custom and convention, they aren't ensuring any sort of continuity, and they are doing whatever the hell they feel like.
Especially when it comes to Venezuela, where they have thrown out all we ever understood about international law.
I get why some people find this appealing. All too often it seems like we are bogged down, tied up in a plethora of customs, conventions, and laws all telling us why we can't do one thing or another. It paralyzes us, makes us unable to do little more than wring our hands and say 'oh no! That's terrible'.
And yet... actually taking action comes with long term consequences we don't really seem to understand. Like invading Iraq, and then not being prepared for the instability unleashed or the resentment we created.
There's a reason Trump's critics keep comparing his rule to that of a toddler. He throws out norms and conventions and does whatever the hell he wants, and doesn't seem aware of or care at all about the messes he makes in the process.
So to get back to Venezuela - I could go into the long and boring arguments about why what he did went against international law, and set dangerous precedents, and all these issues that will probably take a while before the negative consequences show.
But at the same time, going back to a hard power analysis - who is in a position to stop him? Who will enforce that law?
Russia?
China?
NATO?
I suspect it will seem like Trump got away with it, at least in the short term, even as I believe it will have long term consequences that we'd have been better off avoiding.
I am not sure yet what will happen in Venezuela - it does sound like Trump did it all for oil, and intends to be more actively involved in the country, but that makes it more likely we'll face resistance and perhaps even a homegrown insurgency not too different from what we saw in Iraq. Or maybe he'll be more hands off, but then what happens if Venezuela doesn't go along with whatever the hell he wants them to do?
Oh, and this whole Trump Corollary shit seems on the surface like a logical extension of the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary, except that despite the hard power elements of those concepts they rested on a deep American belief in the right to self-determination. The Monroe Doctrine was supposed to protect the rest of America from European colonialist powers, after all. Honestly I think part of why we created our own immigration problem and failed so miserably with the 'red scare' was because we let our fear of communism sway us into policies that completely disrespected that right to self-determination. Trump is continuing down that path, and it could easily lead us from a soft sphere of influence to a harder sphere of direct control... a path we have shied away from (more or less) for very good reasons.
I have given up truly trying to predict what this administration is going to do, or what the consequences will be.
I am not sure there's any coalition of power willing and able to force a hard stop.
I also do not believe there will truly be no consequences, nor that this is setting a good precedent.
God help us get through this, because it's probably only going to get worse.
