Sure, a stopped clock is right twice a day, but could Trump ever be anything but a short-fingered vulgarian?

(c) by Mark Dempsey

Harry Truman used to say there's nothing new under the sun, just history you don't know. The history of vulgarity and opportunism taking power is certainly long but reminds us that recent American vulgarity is nothing new. Robert Caro's latest book his multi-volume biography of Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ), Master of the Senate discusses this at length.

Short-fingered vulgarian Trump is supposed to be something exceptional, but LBJ had multiple mistresses, conducted press interviews while seated on the toilet, and even stole the election for his Senate seat--see Caro's Means of Ascent for the election theft details. Colleagues in the Senate used to call LBJ "Landslide Lyndon" since he won that Texas Senate seat by 72 votes even after buying votes.

The big difference between LBJ and Trump: LBJ grew up poor.

Despite his vulgarity, LBJ was a key player in getting Civil Rights legislation, Medicare, and the "War on Poverty" passed. These were striking departures from the right-wing impulse to crush labor and the poor. Will Trump surprise his detractors by making peace in the Ukraine and Gaza? Who knows?

Sadly, LBJ's accomplishments were overshadowed by the Vietnam War, which he escalated, but didn't start. The Eisenhower administration sent military advisors in the 1950s and sponsored a government that kept the French colonial oligarchy in power, despite a peace treaty promising a plebiscite that Ho Chi Minh would have won handily. Vietnam was an American ally in WWII, but while Japan and Germany deposed their oligarchies and enjoyed blanket bankruptcies for the population's obligation to the defeated elites, the US was unwilling to offer such a deal to Vietnam.

One of the current components of Trump's election victory is the popular aversion to continuing the Ukraine and Israel-Gaza wars. Yet comments online from peaceniks who are "Fighting for peace" are common. These comments are like screwing for chastity--at least hypocritical.

The protests against the Vietnam War elected Richard Nixon, our last liberal president. If the far more liberal Hubert Humphrey, LBJ's vice president, were elected then we would have a very different country now.

Among other things, Nixon started the drug war and the massive increase in US incarceration that's currently five times the world per capita average. He also shut down having the federal government build affordable housing, contributing to the current homeless crisis.

Some antiwar voters endorsed the switch from the Democrats to the Republicans because Nixon had a "secret" way to end the Vietnam war. His "secret," it turns out, was war crimes like bombing Cambodia, but given LBJ's example, it's hardly surprising Nixon employed this brutish "secret."

Personally, dismissing Humphrey as simply an apologist for a despised war was regrettable. My immature self didn't understand that democracy requires compromise, and declarations of loyalty (like not criticizing LBJ's war efforts). I don't know whether Humphrey would have been less callous. Still, the Nixon presidency was a disastrous turning point in American politics, and Humphrey would have made a difference I was too clueless to appreciate.

Many people are now angry at Trump and his supporters. These people need to understand that it's part of the design. Divide the people and you can rule them. A genuine solution to our public policy problems is more likely to require setting aside anger, despair, and frustration, no matter how legitimate are those feelings. The anti-oligarchy agenda needs passion, but just as much, it needs calm deliberation about how to address our current problems and prevent future dislocations.

---

Scott Ritter--a former arms inspector and current critic of American foreign policy believes Trump's appointment of Tulsi Gabbard may signal a less aggressive foreign policy.