One of the hypotheses of the political-electoral strategy is that sort of unwritten rule that “does not change leaders during a war”. Lesson not covered by George Bush (father) who opened and closed the first Gulf War during his term, preparing the electoral prairie for Bill Clinton.
In the family, however, he remedied to the staff of George W. Bush – one of the presidents of the most empty and inconsistent politics of American history, somehow understood – who sustained for eight years the impulse to be “commander in chief” in “war world terrorism “.
The tests invented by the CIA presented with great pomp at the United Nations counted little or nothing. Investigations on the relations between the Bush family, the large American multinationals and the Bin Laden family, and all the doubts and anomalies on the attacks on the twin towers, are even less important.
Michael Moore’s films and the positions of American intellectuals are irrelevant in terms of political communication. Just as it did not matter that in seven years of war not only the theory of “lightning war” in American sauce, neither the “great world alliance” nor the very poor results achieved.
A people in war re-elects its leader, who not by chance repeated the slogan “let’s finish the job”. A lesson that seems to want to follow the Trump administration staff slavishly. In the absence of a strategy, presented to the White House as a sort of weekend hiker, heterogeneous, improvised and without a clear overall project, taken from only two internal needs: lower taxes and reduce spending.
Two ways for the few emphasized as technically and socially racists. Racism and cross-classism: to hit those in need of subsidies, public assistance, federal services of reference (especially first and second generation immigrants), to the benefit of the rich (in the white masters).
But in this strategy there is something more profound and rooted in American society. A company in which at least 30% of income comes from finance (funds for university children, pension funds, supplementary funds, mortgage operations …).
The recent subprime crisis has weakened this system, showing its fragility. Generate fear Above all in the middle class. And that generalist and populist response linked to the fight against delocalization rather than customs duties, was liked by a people that loves and considers its role as an unreliable “empire” without wanting to bear the costs.
It is with this key that Trump and his come to power. But opening the door and doing something new, different and useful requires other skills.
Overwhelmed by scandals, investigations – ranging from perjury, appropriation of funds, distraction of funds, false testimony, harassment of justice (for those who have no memory much more than abandoned Nixon!) – and above all from the absolute zero of the results obtained (all the economic and social indicators have worsened since the settlement), does not remain to Trump’s advisers who take refuge in the traditional and ancient technique of “global war” and law.
And if we go through the various phases, we can clearly see how they are actually trying in every way and in all directions. First North Korea, then Russia, then the embassy moved to Israel, then Korea, then the trade war with Mexico, then threatened to Europe, then to China, then again to Russia, and this time indirectly always with Russia in Syria. All in less than two years.
Trump is looking for a war. His war Any form has and anywhere in the world either. It’s enough to be a war. One of his war. Of which to be commander in chief and to cancel from the public debate the reshuffle of the staff and the government, the minors of the economic politics and of the internal legislation, the inquiries, the investigations, the resignation to the chain, the institutional choices.
Give me a war, it seems to say it for a year, everywhere, everywhere. It is therefore no accident that on the international scene two exceptional allies were found in Syria.
The first is England, where a Teresa May in obvious difficulty, flanked by the worst foreign minister that British diplomatic history remembers, is interpreted as the card of the faithful ally, the resolute and resolutive leadr and the spraying of English power (matters little what it was, if it was or what it was).
Insensitive – and not by chance – his foreign minister, jumped to national honors as mayor of the Olympic in London, a journalist who asked him how he would deal with the problem of alcohol during the games responds “the high consumption of alcohol is a plague, we will make extensive stock before “. That Boris Johnson who, in search of visibility and a political future in order to exist, has spent his time saying the opposite of Cameroon, right up to Brexit.
Brexit of which – from promoter to minister – is more than responsible.
First of all the unfulfilled promises (first of all the one of 360millions of sneezing in more than one week for public health) and then of the consequences: -15% of the value of the pound sterling, -8% of the occupation, in addition to all the companies about to leave and the huge debt that Britain will have to pay to the Union.
Also for Johnson and the May, therefore, shifting the attention of the public from the internal front to the international one, as allies of the Americans and policemen of the world, showing also something more than some muscle was not a discarded card, rather a joker arrived at the appropriate time.
Finally, France, led by a Macron “out of the traditional parties” that still must be accredited on the international scene as a guide capable of inheriting the French grandeur.
From an intelligent person he played on three fronts: on one hand a strong and decisive ally (even without deploying a single man or throwing a single bomb), on the other, of Merkel’s challenger at the European leadership (with a Germany passed from no to to the bombing in less than 12 hours), and finally as a diplomat of global stature.
It was he who avoided the direct confrontation by warning the Kremlin of the attack and the objectives, to avoid being hit even accidentally by Russian soldiers triggering the escalation.
Here, when we think of Syria, we can be distracted by the narration of political communication, which takes pro or against, or we can analyze in depth the choice of the protagonists.
And perhaps we will understand that in this scenario chemical weapons are more halo than the skylight. Or for the voters.