The end of Trumpistan?

 

I can’t help but feel guilty about the Iran war.

Namely, because it’ll be the downfall of Donald Trump. I’m almost sure it will. Trust me (I keep telling myself), it will.

It will be his downfall, not because he decided to bomb a country without the support of his allies or Congress or the American people. Sadly, it all comes down to the price of gas.

Inflation, in any form, appears to be the one thing that persuades the American public to rise up with the proverbial (or perhaps real) pitch forks. Unless it affects our pocket book, most of us pay little attention to international affairs. How much did the average American (or Canadian) think about the war in Afghanistan? Very little, and in the end, our international intervention didn't work, as the Taliban is back in power.

The Iran War appears to be headed in a similar direction, where a dominant military power cannot defeat a smaller nation whose will cannot be crushed.

Trump came to power claiming that every previous president was either incompetent or a sucker. The invasion of Iraq was a disaster. The Afghanistan war ended horribly. But here he is, second year into his term, already in a quagmire.

It would be delightful if it wasn’t so disastrous.

For Iranians, it’s the end of any chance of regime change. From the looks of it, the war only strengthened the position of the Islamic Republic. If change were to happen, it would have had to come from within, but the clear enemy has now become the US. How to convince the Iranian people that the American way of life can offer more freedom when its leader, acting like a unhinged dictator, is destroying their homeland?

It’s clear that Iran has only one goal at this point: survival. When a country is fighting an existential battle, it can never be truly defeated.

In Ukraine, Russia has been trying to exert control for over four years. The more Russia destroys, the more Ukrainians dig in – fighting even harder, now sending deadly drones deep into Russia.

Putin, if he had had any advisors who dared speak truth, should have played the long game and used coercion instead of force. Take time to manipulate the political system, finding a like-minded dictator to gain control. Like in Belarus, stifle the opposition through manipulation of the media and institutions. Control a fervent few, like MAGA controls the Republican Party, and you can eventually control the entire country.

This may be all it takes for dictators to control the world. I would have never thought it could be so simple and easy until I saw what Trump is doing to a country that claims to lead the free world.

His crucial mistake, to attack Iran, would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. It’s the beginning of the end for Trumpistan, rest assured (please, let it be). As you can tell, I’m a little less sure of myself than I used to be.

Let me tell you a story.... I grew up in the 1990s, when democracy was spreading like wildflowers throughout the world. It was "the end of history", as described by political scientist, Francis Fukuyama, when the Cold War ended –  and we all believed him. The world appeared to be turning the tide when it came to hard-fought political freedoms, with many countries like Ukraine becoming independent and democratic. Who could have ever imagined, that only a few decades later, the two Cold War superpowers are now both working to destroy the international world order.

We may have forgotten that history has no end and, sadly, tends to repeat itself.

Still, I’m hopeful, we're seeing the political end (fingers crossed) of at least one dictator.

Rowling's transgender views cast in stone

 

Can I say something in defense of J.K. Rowling? She sticks to her principles. That’s what I say to my daughter, anyway.

Rowling, the wealthiest and most famous author of our century, has raised a lot of controversy for her views on transgender issues. Much of her fanbase, including my daughter, has been turned off by her views. So much so, she no longer wears her Harry Potter attire in public (true story).

I listened to a revealing podcast, called the Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling, where the author is given opportunity to explain herself. I heard her point of view, and then I judged her – ahem – I mean, I critiqued her views. Assuming you have no idea what I’m even talking about, here is what I’ve learned.

Rowling (whose first name is Joanne – J.K. was suggested by her publisher so young male readers wouldn’t be turned off by a female author), is a liberal who once had to defend her books against fundamentalist Christians who believed her books promoted witchcraft. In fact, her books are still among the most banned in the world. As a self-proclaimed feminist, she is an unlikely critic of a progressive issue like the rights of transgender people.

Part of it has to do with her own personal experience. A victim of domestic violence, Rowling argues that policies identifying transitioned men as women pose a risk to women’s safety. Men who have transitioned shouldn’t be allowed in women’s prisons, in women’s bathrooms, or to work in rape centres, she asserts. But she has also made comments that have questioned the validity of men who now call themselves women.

This might sound reasonable to us older folk, but not to my daughter, nor her friends, nor, dare I suggest, almost all of Gen Z. To them, Rowling’s strident stance comes across as cold and intolerant. My daughter had friends in high school who wanted to be referred to as they/them. Their pronouns changed but none fully transitioned. Even if they had, it wouldn’t have been a big deal to my daughter and her peers – they respected and supported them and, unlike some politicians, didn't make it into a bigger issue than what it was.

This is a different generation. There’s an openness that didn’t exist during my time in high school when gay kids were fearful to come out of the closet. Today, young people can more freely talk about their sexual preferences and gender identities.

Yet some of the most victimized people in this world continue to be those of the LGBTQ community. Transgender youth in particular are a vulnerable minority (a very small minority, to be clear) who struggle first and foremost with the decisions they make to change their bodies and how they will be perceived by friends and family. 

Rowling says she doesn’t oppose transgender people – in fact, she says she would walk with them in support – but her vocal views against their equal rights cast doubt. She sticks to the claim that women will somehow be harmed. 

I would argue it’s not so black and white. There can be guardrails built into any new policy. Transgender women should probably not be in all-female prisons if they haven’t had gender reassignment surgery, for instance. There are always rules that can be put in place, even though, in general, these are not dangerous people.

Where she has a point is that undergoing sex reassignment surgery at a young age is risky if that person is not properly assessed. This is an irreversible surgery that can potentially cause emotional trauma for a young person if they later regret their choice. Again, there need to be guardrails put in place when evaluating young people who are about to undergo permanent changes to their bodies.

But Rowling’s underlying issue, from what I heard, is the potential harm to women. It almost sounded as though she fears men are going to start dressing like women so they can abuse them more easily. But the statistics show that most abuse is not random. It’s not inflicted by men who dress as women but rather cis men in relationships with women. If anything, there should be more laws to protect women from domestic abuse and from those who abuse their positions of power.

Rowling seems to think transgender people are the real threat to society. Let’s not forget, it wasn’t so long ago that similar views were held of gay people.

Such views rarely hold up with the passage of time.