He is Frank Underwood.

Once again, we should be paying attention to the lessons of history.  As the oft-quoted saying goes, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  The best example which proves the case is the Marshall Plan. After the fall of the Axis powers, Allied governments understood humiliation of the defeated would only result in the rise of new demagogues rallying their countrymen under a banner of nationalism.  While no one would argue Adolph Hitler or Nazism was a good response to what ailed post-World War I Germany, historians recognize conditions in the Rhineland, including the imposition of wartime reparations, hyper-inflation and high unemployment, were a perfect storm which contributed to the rise of an authoritarian ruler.  In 1932, German voters, who legitimately feared for their economic and social well-being, made a bad but somewhat logical choice supporting the Nazi party, leading to Hitler’s appointment as chancellor.

Here’s what makes little sense to me. If the United States was going to have a similar swing towards authoritarianism, one would have expected it to come eight years ago.  In 2008, world financial markets were facing collapse, the value of personal assets (pensions, homes and stock portfolios) were tanking and unemployment was approaching double-digits.  Yet, voters elected a candidate who offered hope, not draconian measures to counter despair.  At the end of eight years in office, President Obama left his successor with a much healthier economy and less foreign military engagement than he inherited. Unemployment is now 4.7 percent, the Dow stands three times higher than it did in January 2009 and housing values have rebounded in most of the country.  American service men and women are not daily casualties.  There has been no equivalent to 9/11.

Which brings us to Donald Trump and Frank Underwood.  In the final episode of Season 4 of House of Cards, Underwood appears to be a presidential candidate headed for defeat.  Then Frank and his wife/running mate Claire join in a game of chicken with the leader of ICO (the fictional equivalent of ISIS) resulting in the violent death of an American hostage.  Underwood’s response, “We do not submit to terror. We make the terror.”  Such a statement might be viewed as a warning to ICO.  However, one suspects Underwood hopes the electorate will be as rattled as the ICO caliphate.

Similarly, in Trump’s alternate world, if conditions do not justify support for authoritarian rule, change the conditions.  Manufactured chaos is the order of the day.  Consider the following analysis by Mother Jones reporter Kevin Drum in which he questions whether there is a method in what looked like an amateurish roll-out of the immigration ban.

In cases like this, the smart money is usually on incompetence, not malice. But this looks more like deliberate malice to me. (Trump advisor Steve) Bannon wanted turmoil and condemnation. He wanted this executive order to get as much publicity as possible. He wanted the ACLU involved. He thinks this will be a PR win…Bannon thinks middle America will be appalled that lefties and the elite media are taking the side of terrorists.

A word to the wise.  If you are in a Washington Metro station and you see Steve Bannon, don’t stand too close to the edge of the platform.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP