Dupe of <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13525405" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13525405</a>
Some of the things Trump has said are scarily effective. The Mexico wall being a great example.<p>He turned the debate to who will pay for the wall. The argument about whether there should be a wall or not became a mute point. The slight of hand is impressive.<p>He plays the part of an idiot, but he is anything but.
This is a conspiracy theory on the level of the birth certificate myth.<p>- Nothing in the administration's actions, or the individual actors' history would lead an observer to the conclusion that they're capable of executing a complex and coordinated plan. One example is the press release for Holocaust Memorial Day: it was probably an amateur mistake not to specifically mention jews. But they're now defending that as intentional, repeating it, and getting critiqued in the harshest possible terms even by right-wing zionist groups. There is no universe in which a dictatorial Trump would not profit from the support of jews in the US and Israel.<p>- This "theory" could also apply to almost any policy initiative whose legality is questionable.<p>- The idea that it's a staged event to distract from a reshuffling of the National Security Council is laughable. Nobody (unfortunately) cares about him braking a tradition of keeping the national security side, and the partisan political side of the White House somewhat separate. That's because the majority of people already think everything in government is party politics – the idea of professionals acting with motives beyond Breitbart and HuffPost is laughed at[0]<p>Don't fall for this stuff:<p>- It's easily attacked, and you lose credibility<p>- Protests are actually more effective than you might think. Even the widely-mocked Occupy has made the 1% vs 99% narrative pervasive in political discussions, probably laying the foundation for Sanders' success. Neither the Arab spring nor the Ukrainian revolution, or the protests leading to German reunification had the power to topple regimes willing to use violence, but they did (not saying that they all ended well, only that they had the power the effect change)<p>- This administration is terrible under pressure, see that Holocaust thing above. Continuing protests will create more and more visible failures. His approval ratings are already down, meaning that his voters do react to his failures. The business world, who started out trying to remain neutral, is now almost universally opposed. The bureaucracy is encouraged to sabotage him, leak, refuse, or simply walk away with all the expertise he needs.<p>- If the current level of backlash is sustained, Trump will not be president in half a year. He is desperate for approval (c. f. inauguration crowd) and will just walk away.<p>0: examples if you're skeptical: Roberts voting for Obamacare, or possibly the State departments "dissent memos", if it could be shown that there are people signing both the current one as well as the one criticising Obama on Syria)
I don't see how the protesters hurt the situation. And I don't see how paying for newspapers helps it. I think that the protesters actually are a good thing. Protesters have caused revolutions before: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution</a><p>And if everyone is out of work protesting, and the protesters, using the shear weight of their bodymass, were able to surround the airports and not let anyone in or out, or surround the whitehouse (I'm sure there are tunnels, but running away doesn't look good). Then a protest, even a peaceful one, can be a very effective weapon.
I think this article was written as a justification for the writer's own inaction more than anything else. Protesting the Muslim ban doesn't mean we can't also challenge changes to the National Security Council. Working together on one issue makes us more aware of other issues, and any victory provides momentum toward further victories.
this is the second time I see this strategy described. first time a few days ago on scott adam's blog: <a href="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156532225711/the-persuasion-filter-and-immigration" rel="nofollow">http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156532225711/the-persuasion-fil...</a>.<p>TL;DR trump is not an idiot, he's a very accomplished persuader, he's written a book about how he persuades, he does what he described in it in front of everybody without even trying to hide it and it still works exactly as he wants it to.
Not quite a "headfake" but indeed it is all about testing our response. This is called Lean Fascism: <a href="http://blog.koehntopp.info/index.php/255-lean-fascism/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.koehntopp.info/index.php/255-lean-fascism/</a> - "<i>Political positions are no longer backed by theory and no longer subject to political discourse and societal control. They are simply being implemented, sometimes even purposefully badly crafted, in order to measure societal reaction</i>"
Like an old colleague of mine said: If you're in doubt whether someone is a complete idiot, or a super sophisticated genius, it's probably the first one.