Is Patriotism Something Other Than What Most of Us Believed?

For most of our lives, “patriotism” felt like a straightforward idea. It meant love of country, respect for democratic principles, support for the Constitution, and a shared responsibility to something larger than ourselves. Today, however, the word feels contested...twisted, weaponized, and bent into shapes that often resemble the very opposite of what many of us were raised to believe patriotism meant.

How absurd have our politics become, especially under Donald Trump? Pretty damn absurd. And dangerously so. Ignorance has been encouraged, rewarded, and exploited. 

And layered over it all are the lies...constant, relentless, reality-warping lies.

The uncomfortable truth is simple:

Patriotism has always had competing meanings.

And now, they have crashed into one another in full public view.

How did we get to this point where Americans have to worry about whether our own democracy will survive? What happened to the Republican Party?

HOW can so many within it be so blind to the threat THEY'RE Enabling?

That my friends, is for another article and another time and has already been discussed here many times. This is another consideration based in the foundation of all that.

---

Two Patriotic Traditions — Only One Defends Democracy

1. Civic Patriotism

This is the patriotism of democracy, pluralism, accountability, and the rule of law. It understands that the most loyal citizens are not the quiet ones who salute uncritically, but the ones who demand honesty, confront corruption, and insist that our institutions live up to their promises.

This is the America many of us believed in. The America that expects citizens to protect democracy by participating in it honestly.

2. Tribal or Nationalist Patriotism

This patriotism is different. It is not anchored in principles, but in identity, resentment, and loyalty to a leader, tribe, or grievance. It prioritizes dominance over equality, mythology over truth, and obedience over responsibility. It thrives on anger. It is highly emotional and easily manipulated precisely because it demands loyalty instead of accountability.

One version of patriotism protects a nation and its democratic soul.
The other protects a myth—and the people who profit from that myth.

We are living through the collision between these two ideas of America.

---

This Did Not Come Out of Nowhere

The angry minority now shaping so much of our politics did not simply appear. It has been simmering for decades. You could see it in movements like Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the militia boom of the 1990s. But even that was not the beginning.

It is rooted in something older: unresolved Civil War grievances, cultural resentment, and a romanticized myth of “real America” defined against everyone else.

This was not patriotism. It was grievance wearing patriotism’s clothing.

Eventually, that culture found a political vessel in Donald Trump. He did not invent it. He recognized it, exploited it, fed it, and empowered it. And while he was doing so, Russian state-backed disinformation networks amplified the fracture lines already inside our country. Intelligence assessments and independent investigations have repeatedly made this clear: Russian information operations existed before Trump, intensified once he emerged, and deliberately worked to inflame division and elevate him.

Russia did not create the resentment.
It simply poured gasoline on the fire.

---

Turning Fringe Extremism Into “Mainstream Patriotism”

Before social media, these ideas lived in fringe newsletters, conspiracy radio, and underground spaces that most Americans rarely saw. They were monitored by law enforcement, noted by journalists, but mostly isolated.

Then technology changed.
Then politics changed.
Then power changed hands.

Coordinated digital propaganda campaigns pretending to be everyday conservative Americans began to push disinformation and grievance narratives into mainstream right-wing discourse. Soon these talking points were echoed on Fox News, then repeated by newer propaganda platforms like Newsmax and OAN. What was once fringe became branded as “normal conservative thought.”

Trump didn’t just ride that movement.
He weaponized it.

And suddenly, patriotism itself was rewritten by people who confuse loyalty to a leader with loyalty to a nation.

---

So What Does Patriotism Mean Now?

We return to the central question.

Patriotism has always had two meanings:

• One rooted in democratic values, accountability, and truth.

• One rooted in grievance, identity, and obedience to mythology or strongman authority.

The latter is not patriotism. It is a distortion of patriotism. And right now, it is being used to normalize authoritarian behavior in the United States.

Patriotism worthy of the name is not loyalty to a man.
It is loyalty to the country he swore to serve.

---

Where We Stand Today

Now we once again find Donald Trump in the Oval Office, and patriotism has taken on yet another meaning. Today, patriotism means defending the Constitution from those who would bend or break it. It means resisting efforts to erode democratic norms and gaslight the nation into accepting authoritarian behavior as normal, inevitable, or harmless.

Real patriotism is not blind loyalty.
It is a commitment to truth, to law, and to democracy itself.

We cannot surrender the meaning of patriotism to those who seek power through fear, division, and false nostalgia. The way forward requires choosing the version of patriotism that protects people, not ego; democracy, not authoritarianism; reality, not myth.

If patriotism is to matter at all, it must mean loyalty to America — not loyalty to anyone determined to damage it.

We need to be better. And we need to do it fast.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

After Trump: Why MaGA Will Not Simply Go Away

And What History Tells Us About How Long Recovery Actually Takes

There is a persistent fantasy in American political discourse that once Donald Trump is gone—out of office, defeated, imprisoned, or dead—MaGA will evaporate. History suggests the opposite.

MaGA is not a man. It is a mass grievance identity, a worldview forged through resentment, myth, and emotional loyalty rather than policy or reality. Trump did not invent it. He activated it, amplified it, and weaponized it. When he is gone, the mindset will remain.

That is not speculation. It is historical pattern.

---

The recurring mistake: confusing leaders with movements

Authoritarian and fascist movements almost always become detached from their original leader. Once belief replaces evidence, and loyalty replaces institutions, removal of the figurehead does not restore sanity. It creates a vacuum.

History is explicit on this point.

---

Germany after Hitler: myth outlives the man

When Adolf Hitler died in 1945, Nazism did not end. It went underground, into denial, nostalgia, and quiet reintegration.

Millions of Germans continued to believe Hitler “meant well.” Former Nazis resumed careers in business, law, and government. The real reckoning did not begin until the 1960s, when a younger generation forced public confrontation with the truth.

Time to clarity: roughly 20 years.

The lesson is uncomfortable but clear: belief systems do not collapse when proven false. They decay slowly, socially, and generationally.

---

Spain after Franco: stability before truth

After Francisco Franco died in 1975, Spain chose stability over accountability. A “pact of forgetting” helped avoid immediate unrest, but it delayed truth for decades.

Authoritarian habits lingered in institutions. Francoist nostalgia survived in families and political factions. Even today, Spain is still uncovering mass graves and debating memory laws.

Time to clarity: 30–40 years, and still ongoing.

This matters because it shows what happens when a society avoids confrontation: peace first, truth later—but truth always arrives eventually.

---

Italy after Mussolini: fascism never fully leaves

Benito Mussolini was executed in 1945. Fascism never fully disappeared.

It rebranded. It softened its language. It resurfaced during periods of economic stress. Myths like “at least he made the trains run on time” endured, long divorced from historical reality.

Time to clarity: unresolved. Periodic resurgence continues.

Fascism, once normalized, does not die. It hibernates.

---

The American precedent: McCarthyism

The United States is not immune. After Joseph McCarthy was discredited in the 1950s, the paranoia he unleashed did not vanish.

Blacklists persisted. Careers were never restored. Suspicion of intellectuals, journalists, and “internal enemies” remained culturally acceptable for years.

Time to clarity: 15–20 years.

The pattern repeats even in democracies with strong institutions.

---

What MaGA actually is

MaGA is best understood as:

• A grievance-based identity

• A rejection of institutional legitimacy

• A loyalty test masquerading as patriotism

• A myth-driven worldview resistant to evidence

That combination is durable. Once formed, it does not self-correct.

When Trump is gone, MaGA will fragment, not dissolve.

---

What happens after Trump

History suggests several predictable outcomes:

• Fragmentation into conspiracy networks, “patriot” movements, and grievance media ecosystems

• Narrative inversion, where accountability becomes persecution

• Selective amnesia, where failures are erased and myths hardened

• Radicalization of a minority, especially during perceived humiliation

Most followers will not admit error. Some will quietly disengage as social reinforcement fades. A small fraction will grow more dangerous.

This is the most volatile phase.

---

The danger window

The period after the leader’s fall and before reality reasserts itself is historically the most unstable.

It is when followers feel:

• betrayed

• humiliated

• unmoored

• resentful

That is when political violence, institutional sabotage, and disinformation peak.

Ignoring this phase is how democracies get surprised.

---

What actually restores civic sanity

Across every historical case, recovery required four things:

1. Legal accountability (measured, consistent, not theatrical)

2. Truth documentation (records, testimony, education)

3. Institutional repair (courts, media, civil service)

4. Time (decades, not election cycles)

There are no shortcuts. There is no single election that fixes this.

---

The uncomfortable conclusion

Trump is not the disease.
He is the accelerant and the symbol.

MaGA represents a deeper authoritarian reflex that existed before him and will persist after him. History suggests it will take 15 to 30 years for its cultural power to meaningfully dissipate, even under ideal conditions.

That does not mean surrender.
It means clarity.

Understanding the scale of the problem is the first step toward dealing with it realistically—without illusions, without panic, and without repeating the mistakes history has already documented for us.

---

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

From Difference to Division to Exploitation

First off, wishing all a very Merry Christmas!

All my life, I was told what was right and wrong. What was acceptable. What was “standard.”
Then one day I realized I did not agree with all of that. Some of those things I, ME, actually objected to. Why was MY orientation, my values, my comprehension of life valueless?

Some of the things I liked were not mainstream. They were not approved or fashionable or widely accepted. 

But they were not bad. They were simply different. I learned to celebrate that individuality. Growing up in the 1960s and 70s didn't hurt that orientation, or stop it from coming into being.

That realization expanded. It expanded when I got into the USAF and met people from all around the country and our protectorates. And even other countries. These immigrants were not to be feared but respected for their serving and when I heard they did not have citizenship, were not guaranteed it after having served, I was offended. Put YOUR life on the line for OUR country and you do not necessarily gain citizenship? Who does that?

I came to understand people who were different from me in deeper ways. 

I grew up knowing about Gay people. They were very nice from what I could see. I was never bet up by a Gay person. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that the only people who ever bullied me or harmed me physically were very, very heterosexual. Or so they believed, perhaps they were denying something within themselves. Something that would have to cause one confusion, and pain.

Then trans people came out and were getting rights. All my life I was fascinated by people from other cultures and lived experiences. I was not part of those groups, but I understood the principle. 

Difference was not a threat. It was a feature of a healthy society. And I celebrated that too.

For a long time, this all seemed compatible with a shared center. We were individuals, but we still belonged to something larger. I always believed that common ground was America. Not as an ideology, but as a civic and cultural agreement that allowed difference to exist without tearing us apart.

Then came cable TV/ Then 24 hour news cycles Then news as entertainment and no longer as a "loss leader". Then I gained access in the 1980s to the internet and there was more amazing stuff out there. As I had in the 1960s in connecting with people around the world on a Ham Radio, I could talk to a NASA scientist online in a newsgroup, or an artist in Paris, or a soldier in Germany.

Then social media arrived. 

Then came the monetization of outrage. People discovered they could make money, power, and attention by exploiting division, by turning identity into a weapon rather than a bridge.

That is when things broke for us.

Celebrating individuality is good. Honoring culture is good. But without a shared core of association, without some common civic reality, we do not get freedom. We get fragmentation. And fragmentation is easily manipulated.

While we once had only three TV stations, we all watched the same shows. We had a shared culture. It was largely white, massively white, Christian in nature, but it wasn't oppressive, it wasn't nasty, it wasn't mean. But it was too monocultural. 

In expanding that we took on other cultures. But at some point some were disgruntled, and felt their allowing room for others to exist in was somehow oppressive to their culture, the one that had been dominant from the beginning. 

Rather than being accepting, some because bitter. Sub-cultures recognized and opening and applied pressure to those weak points in our society. Some in power found a potential for power and wealth and they took up those positions and leveraged them. Foreign enemies saw those too and did the same, mimicking they were us and they were not. 

Computer technology enhanced all of that. "To err is human, to really foul things up takes a computer."

That path led us to something darker. 

To figures like Trump, and to movements as toxic as his MaGA, where identity is no longer something to celebrate, but something to mobilize against others. It became a political personality cult.

That is not individuality.
That is exploitation.
And it is costing us the very society that once made individuality possible.

It is not America. Not the America we were evolving into, maturing into, becoming with open arms that were then slapped back until today we are divesting, we are isolating, pulling into ourselves worldwide and not embracing others but seeking the auspices of greed, selfishness and avarice.

That just is not America. It's not My America. And I really don't think it's yours, either.

Because that puts us on a dark path. A very dark path, as we're now on. And if we're not careful, very bad things will come of it. It's happened before. Elsewhere. Decades ago, not that far away. A distance that has shrunken over the years.

So far, we are walking a fine line between darkness and light and it appears we will in the end err on the side of that lightness. Of our "better angels". 

But we need to continue to apply pressure to those weak points of the bad in our culture, to allow the good to seep out and outweigh what is bad.

It is my hope we will succeed. For that IS America. And exactly who we should be.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Place Beyond the Tightest Hold

Christmas Eve 2025

On this quiet evening before Christmas Day (save the issue of weather warning of up to 60MPH winds here in the PNW today), may the pause between the year gone by and the year to come be filled with peace, clarity, and genuine reflection. We need that. We've earned that. We demand that.

Whether you celebrate this season as a time of spiritual meaning, human connection, or simple gratitude, here’s wishing you warmth, insight, and moments that renew the spirit. 

Merry Christmas Eve and may the coming day bring light into every corner of your life. 

On to the matter at hand...

I was recently considering why the concept of God appears so consistently throughout human history. I do not personally believe in a deity. The universe, as far as we can tell, appears to operate through cause and effect. The most common theistic arguments, the Big Bang, origins of the universe or humankind, and the idea of “something from nothing,” therefore demands the answer of requiring a "God", feel disingenuous to me. Too easy. It reminds me of our evolving from pre-history into explanations of our existence and experiences, especially unexplained experiences, as somehow, divinely evoked. 

Not knowing how something began does not logically require a supernatural explanation. That impulse, we cannot explain this therefore religion, is arguably how humanity ended up confused in the first place.

From an evolutionary standpoint, religion appears less as revealed truth and more as an early framework for managing the unknown, a provisional system that filled explanatory gaps until better tools emerged. When any institution positions itself as the exclusive authority on the nature of existence, that authority tends to consolidate. Over time, explanation becomes dogma, knowledge concentrates in the hands of a few, and power follows. Where power accumulates, the potential for abuse inevitably arises.

But recently, I saw something different.

Is what we call “God” primarily an attachment anchor, an explanation engine, or something else entirely? And if it is the function that matters rather than the entity itself, does the role traditionally filled by God persist even when belief in a deity is no longer necessary?

Art by Marvin Hayes

As scientific understanding expanded, religion became less necessary as an explanatory framework. Psychology also evolved out of philosophy, and science (I've explored this in depth, elsewhere). By the nineteenth century, this shift was already being articulated in cultural and philosophical terms, most famously in the claim that “God is dead,” not as a declaration of disbelief, but as an acknowledgment that traditional religious authority was losing its central role in explaining the world.

My shift, my small epiphany, came while watching Part II of Martin Scorsese’s George Harrison: Living in the Material World. Eric Clapton recounts wanting to date Harrison’s wife, Pattie Boyd. What struck him was Harrison’s reaction...or lack of one. 

George was deeply immersed in meditation and in actively reducing his dependence on the material world. According to Clapton, Harrison appeared almost cavalier about the situation, far less emotionally disturbed than expected.

Why? One could argue he just didn't love her, or wasn't really "attached" to her. But I think that misses the point here, entirely.

That moment reframed the entire question for me.

---

God as a place to put attachment

Perhaps the core function of belief in God is not explanation at all, or "individual" (entity, "God"), but attachment management.

Instead of God being the ultimate answer to cosmic questions, God may function as a stable external anchor for emotional investment. A place to direct one’s primary attachment so that material things...possessions, status, even romantic partners...do not become the sole foundation of meaning.

If your spouse leaves you.
If your loved one dies.
If your world collapses.

Then the loss, while still painful, is not total. Your existence does not implode, because your emotional hierarchy does not rest entirely on fragile, impermanent things.

Seen this way, agape love of God is not about obedience or submission. It is about distributing emotional dependency upward, away from objects that inevitably fail us.

George Harrison was not indifferent. He was practicing non-attachment as psychological insulation.

---

Religion as an early emotional technology

Decades ago, psychological research explored something similar. In some experiments, belief in God was replaced with belief in an arbitrary object...a rock, a symbol, a ritual. The results were consistent: belief in an external agency improved resilience, persistence, and stress tolerance, regardless of whether the agent was real.

This suggests something important.

It is not God, per se, that produces these effects.
It is attention directed toward an external stabilizing reference point.

Religion, historically, bundled this function into a shared cultural system:

• a permanent presence

• a benevolent or coherent narrative

• communal reinforcement

• ritualized reminders

Science (while also, though not enough, psychology) eventually replaced religion as an explanatory framework for the physical world. But it did not replace religion’s role as an emotional regulator.

---

Attachment theory, scaled up

From the perspective of attachment theory, humans require a primary attachment figure to regulate fear, loss, and uncertainty. When that figure is another human, the bond is powerful but dangerously unstable.

Religion offers a workaround.

By relocating primary attachment to something imagined as eternal, benevolent, and always present, emotional volatility decreases. The system becomes less brittle.

This does not require belief in the supernatural. It only requires perceived continuity and meaning beyond the self.

That may explain why:

• belief persists even when explanations fail

• rituals matter even when doctrines are doubted

• people replace religion with ideology, nationalism, art, or identity when faith disappears

The nervous system does not care what the anchor is.

It only cares that one exists.

---

Is it God, or is it function?

This reframing does not suddenly make religion true in a metaphysical sense. But it does make it understandable, even inevitable.

Religion did not arise because humans were stupid.
It arose because unbuffered consciousness is psychologically brutal.

• Mortality awareness.
• Loss.
• Chaos.
• Lack of control.

Belief systems evolved as tools to soften those edges.

The danger, historically, has not been belief itself, but when the attachment object becomes coercive, absolute, or weaponized.

---

A different way of seeing belief

This is not an argument for God, nor a retreat from skepticism.

It is an acknowledgment that religion may have survived not because it explains the universe, but because it helps humans survive it.

And perhaps the real question is not whether God exists, but whether humans can function long-term without some form of stable external reference point...religious or otherwise.

Seen this way, belief is less about truth claims and more about where we place our deepest emotional weight.

That insight alone changes how I understand religion, even without believing in it.

When the majority of our attachment is invested in material things, status, or even other people, loss and threat can distort behavior. Fear of losing what we cling to most has always been capable of driving humans toward cruelty, violence, and self-destruction. 

By contrast, systems that redirect primary attachment away from the material world reduce the pressure to defend, possess, or control at all costs.

If that stabilizing function can be achieved without supernatural belief, then we are not bound to religious frameworks themselves, only to the human need they once served. Alternatives exist that involve less social coercion, fewer complications, and a clearer relationship to reality.

Had such an orientation been more widely adopted long ago, it might have spared humanity an incalculable amount of suffering, cruelty, and unnecessary harm. Things we are still experiencing today.

That possibility alone is worth considering.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

“I Agree With Some of His Stuff” Is NO Longer a Serious Argument

One of the most common defenses I hear from Trump supporters—especially those who do not identify as hardcore MAGA—is this:

“I don’t like everything about him, but I agree with some of his stuff.”

At one time, that argument might have carried weight. It does not anymore.

Trump is old, exhausted, and increasingly irrelevant. His ideology was tired and anachronistic before he even began. What remains is not leadership, but the attempt to dance around an obvious reality: his toxicity, and his supporters’ insistence on retaining him at any cost, so long as that cost is borne by others.

That bargain was always unsustainable. Power built on grievance and loyalty eventually turns inward. As we are now seeing, many of those who believed they were exempt are discovering they are not. They, too, are being harmed by the system they defended.

This outcome was predictable. It was inevitable.

That is how autocracy works.

In ordinary democratic politics, partial agreement is often sufficient. Voters regularly support candidates whose policies they only partially endorse. That is the nature of compromise in a pluralistic system.

But that logic collapses when the central issue is no longer policy, but the survival of democratic norms themselves.

---

Policy Disagreements vs. Systemic Threats

Disagreements over taxes, regulation, immigration levels, or foreign policy priorities are normal and healthy in a democracy. They presume a shared commitment to the system in which those disagreements are resolved.

Trump is no longer controversial primarily because of policy positions. He is controversial because he has repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of elections, attacked the independence of courts and the press, demanded personal loyalty over institutional loyalty, and normalized the idea that power should not be constrained by law when it conflicts with his interests.

When those are the defining characteristics of a political figure, “agreeing with some of his stuff” becomes irrelevant.

We do not excuse a structural threat by citing selective alignment. No one would seriously argue that Watergate was acceptable because they liked some of Nixon’s policies. Some actions disqualify the framework itself.

---

Vagueness Is Not Neutrality

“I agree with some of his stuff” is also a deliberately vague phrase.

It avoids specificity. It avoids accountability. It avoids weighing benefits against costs. When pressed, it often dissolves into grievances, cultural resentment, or a desire to punish perceived enemies rather than articulate concrete policy goals.

That is not a policy argument. It is an emotional alignment.

Vagueness in this context is not moderation. It is evasion.

---

In a Democracy, Means Matter as Much as Ends

A constitutional democracy is defined not only by outcomes, but by how power is exercised.

When someone says they like the results but are willing to overlook the methods, they are implicitly rejecting the constraints that protect everyone, including themselves. Rule of law, independent institutions, and peaceful transfers of power are not inconveniences to be bypassed when they become frustrating. They are the system.

Tolerating anti-democratic means in exchange for preferred outcomes is not pragmatism. It is instrumental authoritarianism.

Democracies do not survive that bargain.

---

This Argument Had an Expiration Date

There was a brief period early on when one could plausibly claim policy agreement while assuming democratic guardrails would hold.

That window closed when election outcomes were rejected, courts were attacked as illegitimate, political violence was rhetorically normalized, and loyalty to one individual was elevated above loyalty to the Constitution.

After that point, continued support ceased to be ambiguous.

Repeating “I agree with some of his stuff” now is not a sign of nuance. It is a refusal to grapple with what has become unmistakably clear.

---

Responsibility Follows Foreseeability

Supporters are not responsible for everything a leader does. They are responsible for what they knowingly enable.

Once a pattern of behavior is established, continued support implies acceptance of foreseeable consequences. That is a basic ethical principle, not a partisan one.

At this stage, no one can reasonably claim ignorance of what Trump represents or how he governs.

---

“I agree with some of his stuff” is not a serious argument when the question is whether democratic norms, constitutional limits, and the rule of law are optional.

At this point, the statement does not function as justification. It functions as avoidance.

The American experiment depends on the idea that no leader is above the system, and no grievance justifies dismantling it. If that commitment is negotiable, then democracy itself is already being traded away.

And then there's his Chief of Staff's comments about him... 

White House chief of staff Susie Wiles may have given up the game

Donald Trump is not a good guy. So what does that say about those who support and love him?

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Bailouts Aren’t Socialism: Keynes, Schumacher, and the Confusion We Live In

Just because this came up today...about so many things being called out incorrectly as socialism, or communism by people who have lost the thread, and farmer bailouts are due to Trump’s misguided tariff issues mostly because 1) he's stuck in the past, a defective past, and 2) he doesn't usually know what he's talking about or 3) understand much of anything beyond his one trick pony act.

So much confusion where it’s just…not what is claimed. So I posted about it...

A friend pointed out: “From a purely economics perspective, government bailouts are most closely aligned with Keynesian economics. Specifically, the Keynesian Multiplier principle.”

I responded: “Agreed. An important distinction. Keynesian interventions like bailouts are tools meant to stabilize markets. The problem isn’t the economic theory behind them; it’s when they’re used as ad-hoc political fixes or to paper over bad leadership decisions, where this ‘mess’ really comes from.”

He replied back: “Agreed. Even Keynes argued that when the full effect of the multiplier had been achieved, the government intervention (spending, bailout, etc.) should cease. That concept was lost long ago.”

And that, led me to all this...

Here are a few concise, high-interest facts about John Maynard Keynes that work well in a conversation or comment thread:

1. He wasn’t anti-capitalist...he was trying to save capitalism.

Keynes believed unmanaged recessions could destabilize democracies and lead to extremism. His ideas were meant to preserve free markets by preventing economic collapse.

2. He made (and lost) a fortune as an investor.

Unlike many economists, Keynes actively traded the stock market. After early losses, he adopted a long-term, value-driven strategy and achieved impressive returns for King’s College, Cambridge.

3. He shaped the post-WWII global financial order.

Keynes was a central architect of the Bretton Woods system, helping design the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

4. He warned against permanent government intervention.

As your conversation noted, Keynes insisted stimulus should stop once recovery begins. He opposed ongoing deficits during economic expansion.

5. He revolutionized macroeconomics at age 36.

His landmark work, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), reshaped modern economics and remains one of the most influential social science books ever written.

Waikiki, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1978 photo from the balcony I spent some time reading this book on.

The iconic pink hotel on Waikiki , The Royal Hawaiian, is not only a landmark in itself but was also a favorite stay of writer Joan Didion during her Hawaii sojourns. Most famously associated with Ernest Hemingway who stayed there in the 1940s, and wrote while overlooking Waikiki, where the hotel still serves a “Hemingway Daiquiri” in his honor.

My favorite book on economics is still Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, E.F. Schumacher (1973), a book I read in 1978 in Hawaii. I picked it up at the airport in Seattle and was fascinated by it. I still have the book today.

Schumacher thought Keynes was brilliant, but incomplete. He worked directly under Keynes.

Schumacher respected Keynes deeply, but he believed Keynesian economics didn’t go far enough in questioning:

• resource depletion

• environmental limits

• the assumption of infinite economic growth

Schumacher’s later work, especially after he converted to Catholicism and embraced Buddhist economic ideas, pushed into moral and philosophical territory beyond where Keynes ventured.

In the 1950s, E. F. Schumacher became the Chief Economic Advisor to the British National Coal Board, but he was also invited by the Government of India as an economic consultant during the Nehru period.

Schumacher nailed the big point:

• you can’t run a global economy as if nature has no limits,

• people are cogs, and

• bigger is always better.

He saw the environmental crisis, the alienation crisis, and the fragility of giant systems long before they arrived.

As for us, we need to better understand our reality and just, do better. Together. OK?

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Is Trump Playing 3D Chess, Chess, or Checkers on the World Stage?

Chess demands foresight, coherence, and an understanding of positional dynamics. Trump’s actions on the world stage indicate a persistent unfamiliarity with all three. Effective strategy begins with recognizing the structure of the board itself. Trump’s record suggests that he rarely perceives the board, let alone the strategic relationships that define it.

So, is everything Trump does wrong? No. Paradoxically, his hostility toward NATO helped galvanize and strengthen it, an outcome achieved despite his own dissatisfaction with the alliance and the outcome of his very own actions.

However...

Supporters often claim that Donald Trump is playing “3D chess” on the global stage. The idea is that while critics see chaos, Trump is supposedly executing a deeper, unseen strategy. That claim sounds clever, but when examined through the actual standards of modern statecraft, it does not hold up.

Real geopolitics is not improvisational theater. It is a discipline built on continuity, credibility, coalition management, and long-term consequence modeling. When those fundamentals collapse, what remains is not hidden genius. It is institutional damage.

This is why many analysts, diplomats, and allied governments increasingly interpret Trump’s behavior not as multidimensional strategy, but as something far closer to political checkers.

---

What Genuine Strategic Statecraft Requires

High-level strategy in foreign policy depends on several core pillars:

• Alliance stability and treaty reliability

• Predictable signaling to both allies and adversaries

• Second- and third-order consequence planning

• Coordination between military, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence institutions

• Multi-year or multi-decade planning horizons

Strategy is slow, layered, and disciplined. It is rarely flashy. It is built on consistency, not spectacle.

---

What Trump Actually Practices Instead

Trump’s approach to foreign policy consistently displays a different pattern:

• Transactional bilateral deals instead of alliance-centered diplomacy

• Public attacks on long-time allies

• Open admiration for authoritarian leaders

• Foreign policy conducted through social media theatrics

• Policy reversals that undermine long-term deterrence

• No stable doctrine beyond immediate leverage and attention dominance

This is not multidimensional strategy. It is personal branding fused to impulsive power projection.

---

Why the “3D Chess” Narrative Persists

The myth survives for three main reasons:

First, it acts as failure insulation. Any outcome, even damaging ones, can be reframed as misunderstood brilliance.

Second, it reinforces Trump’s cultivated identity as an unbeatable negotiator. The narrative protects the brand regardless of the results.

Third, it functions as propaganda. It turns visible disorder into supposed hidden mastery without needing evidence.

---

How Europe and U.S. Allies See It

From the perspective of NATO and European governments, Trump’s behavior does not project strength. It injects instability into deterrence systems that depend on clarity and reliability.

When alliance commitments become uncertain, adversaries test boundaries. That is not strategic dominance. That is degraded deterrence.

Instead of strengthening collective security, Trump’s conduct forces allies to prepare for U.S. unpredictability itself.

---

Why “Checkers” Is a More Accurate Metaphor

Checkers is a game of immediate captures. Chess is a game of long-term positional control. Trump’s behavior consistently reflects the former.

• Moves prioritize instant optics over future vulnerability

• Threats are made without defensive coverage

• Short-term attention beats long-term positioning

• Consequences are externalized to institutions and allies

This is not how durable international strategy is built. It is how leverage is burned down for short-term effect.

---

Conclusion

Trump claims strategic depth. What his behavior demonstrates is tactical impulsivity.

The “3D chess” framing functions as marketing, not analysis. It excuses disorder by labeling it genius after the fact. Meanwhile, the real costs show up in weakened alliances, degraded deterrence, and rising global instability.

On the world stage, statecraft remains a multi-layered discipline of patience and structure. What Trump practices instead looks far more like checkers, fast moves, loud captures, and little protection for what comes next.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT