Let’s take a moment to recalibrate expectations. The history of US populist political movements is filled with stories of unmet high expectations and the subversion of these movements by established political power centers. I personally endorsed Donald Trump and continue to support the logic I described previously. However, I do not believe it will be easy to make fundamental changes in the US bureaucracy or the Imperial/War State upon his election. I am familiar with the Machiavellian ways of Washington, DC, which have deep roots and mirror power centers worldwide.
The argument for American Exceptionalism has merit in theory, but many disagree in practice. At the ground level, people exhibit traits like narcissism and sociopathy, and Machiavelli’s The Prince remains relevant for its insights into political realities. Steve Bannon pointed out that the only thing that DC political culture and the “Deep State” respect is power. For any significant reform to happen, President Trump and RFK Jr. need to come out strong.
Historically, populist movements emphasize “the people” versus “the elite. ” The MAGA/MAHA movement is just one example. Unfortunately, history shows that Western populist movements often fail to meet expectations, especially in the short term. For instance, the Populist Party of 1892 aimed to address agrarian issues, yet despite regional victories, it never achieved national success and eventually dissolved. This pattern of failure occurred also in 20th-century Europe, although similar dynamics are now resurging.
Failures in populism often stem from common problems. These movements tend to prioritize national interests, leading to protectionist policies that can harm global trade and financial stability. Additionally, many lack a comprehensive policy agenda and often rely on divisive rhetoric, which aggravates social tensions instead of promoting unity. Such tactics may energize the base but hinder collective goals.
Failures aside, populism can influence change and sometimes replace dysfunctional political structures. Recently, I have been receiving calls from disillusioned MAGA/MAHA supporters questioning their leadership's commitment to their populist agenda. Their hopes were for appointments in the HHS motivated by “medical freedom” but instead observed selections favoring established figures with less confrontational backgrounds.
A recent posting by a key leader in the HHS transition team shed light on the confusion around recent nominations. The optics of the situation seem discouraging, especially following the strong support Trump received from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. There are rumors of a meeting with big Pharma's representatives to strategize a response, which may have influenced the transition team to appoint mainstream doctors over oppositional figures. This suggests a shift favoring Pharma interests, reminiscent of past political dynamics.
A trusted colleague commented succinctly, calling the situation a "Hot Mess. " Many have invested efforts into the health movements, making the current state feel disappointing. I have been asked to contribute to this transition team and do not intend to criticize their decisions, acknowledging my own conflict of interest as a vocal opponent of the vaccine program.
I feel uncertain about the potential administrative role but value the importance of these positions. I have dedicated my efforts to promoting resistance against various health policies and strive to maintain personal and professional integrity. Bannon insists that this moment requires assertive action rather than caution, as the government faces time constraints and must address the looming national debt.
I suggest allowing the current nominees to demonstrate their abilities while they face scrutiny. There is little to gain from escalating conflict at this point. President Trump has the right to appoint whomever he chooses, and Senate oversight will scrutinize these appointments.
To those of faith, remember we cannot foresee the future. Testing is a part of the process, and we will see the truth of people's actions over time. It’s essential to remain composed and focused on long-term goals, remembering the core principles of the MAGA/MAHA movements: integrity, community, personal sovereignty, and freedom.
Changes take time. Commitment to reforming the HHS bureaucracy requires immediate action with awareness of potential consequences. Ultimately, political administrations are transient, and while they may not meet all aspirations, they can make significant progress.
This new administration might set back numerous issues if it operates from a position of courage. While it won’t eliminate systemic corruption, it offers a chance to reclaim America, needing sustained effort over years. It should improve the current situation compared to the alternative.
https://brownstone.org/articles/trumps-populism-in-historical-context/
No comments:
Post a Comment