The Criterion of Power
By Kennedy Applebaum
November 28, 2016
The mainstream media, none moreso than The New York Times, are hellbent on making it look like President-elect Donald Trump’s transition is in chaos. This illusion serves the nefarious purposes of the Western ruling elite, who seek to disrupt Trump’s inauguration to office in any possible way, from slanderous press, to bogus vote recounts, to massive planned demonstrations on inauguration day. Let us hope there is nothing worse in store.
On the subject of chaos, MSNBC now reports that Trump is “furious” with his winning campaign manager Kellyann Conway for her objection to his potential appointment of Mitt Romney as Secretary of State. No doubt this is pure fabrication on the part of MSNBC and other mainstream outlets. Conway said in an interview Sunday that she thought the consideration of Romney was a betrayal of Trump supporters. And maybe it is, if judged on the surface. Deeper analysis, however, may shed light on Trump’s underlying strategy.
Regarding Conway’s public statement, it seems unlikely Trump would be angry over such a minor disagreement, especially after her magnificant performance as campaign manager. Trump says he likes to work with people who disagree with him. Conway would be no exception. It is worth recalling that Vice President-elect Mike Pence made a public statement about his support for the Iraq War, yet Trump took this in stride, dismissing the episode in the second presidential debate with a mere, “I disagree with that.”
Alexander Mercouris, political analyst and one of the founders of The Duran, opines that the billionaire real estate tycoon is managing his transition quite smoothly, thank you, as one would expect from a mega-businessman. There’s no cause for worry on that score.
But what is the real story about Trump’s team appointments, some of whose policies raise questions in our minds? To investigate more deeply what Trump might be thinking, we need to pan the seascape.
First and foremost, the ruling establishment in America and Europe are upset with the billionaire’s victory. These aristocrats are not accustomed to losing, and will wield every weapon at their disposal to stop Trump from spoiling their global dominion. This reactionary backlash is evident in the European Parliament’s proposed ban, passed last Wednesday, against Russian media and “Russian propaganda” internet sites, which the elite blame for their darling neocon cadidate Hillary’s overwhelming loss in the electoral college—a manifestation of starkly divided United States demographics. The establishment’s desperation is reflected as well in the drive by failed Green Party candidate Jill Stein—apparently one of their minions—to disrupt the electoral vote by demanding recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, or suing if refused. News site Zero Hedge, in a meticulous process of elimination, concludes that Stein cannot have a reasonable motive for her lucrative recount drive, as even the profits would be meager. The only incentive remaining is a subversive intent to stall the electoral college vote scheduled for December 19. The recounts would likely still be in progress, and if so, the electors from those states might decline to cast their votes. This would leave Trump with a plurality, but not a majority. In such cases, law requires Congress to select the next President.
Of course, this might not be the only ploy up the fatcats’ satin sleeves. Fortunately, they have not resorted to starting World War III. But what other plots are in the works?
Given these real and potential threats, Donald Trump—captain of a lone lifeboat in a perfect political storm—must keep foremost in his mind the goal of reaching shore: his inauguration. He hasn’t the luxury of attending to the comfort of his passengers—those supporters who disapprove of his appointments.
My theory now is that Trump, above all else, is choosing his team according to one criterion: power. The more powerful his group, the more likely Congress, the Supreme Court, or both—God forbid if it should come to these—will uphold his presidency. He must build an impregnable fortress, and this is what he appears to be doing.
From this point of view, it seems less important that Trump select, for example, a Secretary of State we might prefer, such as Dana Rohrbacher or David Petraeus (both under consideration), over one we would deplore, such as Mitt Romney or John “Warhawk” Bolton. Trump must chose, above all, individuals with stature and influence, people who will build a powerful synergy in partnership with himself. This will ensure his successful ascent to the Presidency.
Once Donald Trump is sitting in the Oval Office, then we can step back and assess his direction. That will be the time to criticize. And our criticism will be appreciated.