USA Africa Dialogue Series - Fw: This Fire and Fury . . .

I tried sending this before I left the US yesterday but it bounced back but I am sitting down here in Heathrow on a 10-hour Virgin Atlantic layover en route Lagos and attempting to send it again. The interesting thing, though, is that I found Fire and Fury in Hathrow!!! I purchased two - one for my library and the other for whichever library I visit first - UI, UniOsun, or OAU, and that if they don't have it already.

===

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Michael Afolayan <mafolayan@yahoo.com>

To: USAAfricaDialogue <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018, 9:37:23 AM CST

Subject: This Fire and Fury . . .

I disciplined myself to read through this "kiss-and-tell" thing called Fire and Fury, three days ago and boy, you might as well change the "fire" in it to "sound" and complete the Shakespearean definition of life. For me, gaining access to it is like getting a promised Christmas package and opening it only to find some not too exciting item you already had in your closet or drawer - a tie, a pair of socks, even a handkerchief. You sigh and smile at the same time and wished you were not fore-warned about the coming of the gift. In essence, it is not so much because of what is in this book but the counter-publicity by the president and his folks that certainly triggered curiosities about the document and gave it the promise to "signify something." Otherwise, one could wait for a few months and purchase it at a dollar store or on eBay, used. Good for Michael Wolff. So good for him!

Out of curiosity, I started to jot down notes long hand while color-marking the lines that caught my attention on my laptop. I had to stop this when I realized every line had something of which I needed to take note. In all, I came to the realization that much of the content is what we already knew through the media, although the book gives some more needed (and not-so-much needed) details at times. Sometimes the narrative is way "too narrative" with no analysis attached to it. Occasional analyses would have been good if only to make it a bit intellectual and add to its literary merit. I guess the author is not in the market for the intellectual readership. I resisted being worn out by circumlocution, especially when all I wanted was grasp some quick, crisp, possibly new, information and then move on to another one. However, my heart's desire to learn something new arrested me, forcing me to endure the rigor of detailed stories, one after another. Michael Wolff is an experienced, albeit controversial, writer. He must know what he is doing. One thing is certain; the American media will glean bits and pieces of the book for a long time to come. While credit should be given to Wolff for a quick production of this book within a short time, questions the book raised in my own mind are many. Here are some of them as well as some observations and meddling of thoughts stemming from it. I am curious to know if anyone else was challenged by some of these issues, for better or for worse:

One, should we trust the information? The source of knowledge production is what every progressive student in this information age curiously wants to find out before owning knowledge to be acquired. This is because in my book, the source of knowledge production is more critical than the intensity of knowledge dissemination and of acquisition. This was an initial concern of mine. On page 9, for example, Wolff states:

Some of my sources spoke to me on so-called deep background, a convention of contemporary political books that allows for a disembodied description of events provided by an unnamed witness to them. I have also relied on off-the- record interviews, allowing a source to provide a direct quote with the understanding that it was not for attribution. Other sources spoke to me with the understanding that the material in the interviews would not become public until the book came out. Finally, some sources spoke forthrightly on the record. 

While this may be true, it raises serious credibility questions. How could I rely on such sources that are so evasive, indeterminate and intangible when what I really would like to hold on to is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Am I not being denied the "gospel of tangibility" here? It's hard to move on without an answer to those specific questions. Honestly, I was  discouraged in wanting to read any further, but I did, anyway, and it paid off because the author soon provides the most authentic sources in the page that immediately follows as he states, on page 10: 

And everywhere in this story is the president's own constant, tireless, and uncontrolled voice, public and private, shared by others on a daily basis, sometimes virtually as he utters it. 

So true! One could as well forget about all those "other sources" and focus on what POTUS himself has to tell us about himself. They should be sufficient data to analyze Mr. Trump and the White House saga of the post-Obama America. A straight-from-the-horse's-mouth story is more interesting and reliable than the staggering details behind the veil of anonimity.

Two: I asked myself, could the president's liability actually turn out to be a momentary asset? I think what helped DT to win was that he did not believe he could win and nobody also believed he could (pp 20, 23, 27). In essence, low expectation helped him to be less nervous, less rigid, and more unconventional. But more importantly, it took the attention of the cynical public off of him. That being the case, nobody took the man seriously and so was able to defy the rule of conventional wisdom in all his acts and antics (p28). It paid off big time;

Three, I further asked, could the perceived asset turn around to be real liability? The unexpected happened: the man won! The real wahala then began. POTUS elect then became more confused and unprepared for winning than any presidential candidate in modern history (p28). I was sad for him, really; 

Four, how many people does a president need to effectively run the affairs of a nation? POTUS had many fellows around him but dealt with and trusted only a few with no experience - only three of them (p35). You wonder why such strategy could be helpful to a man so new to the world of politics that he did not know beyond the fifth amendment! You wonder if is why Bannon, the tree behind the fragile fence, is threatening to the fence (p55);

Five, why should POTUS, a man with such a huge ego, ever dread nothing more than the possibility of his ego being deflated? I had always thought people with a huge ego would not give a damn about who attempts deflating their egos! But he did and could not hide it (pp 76, 77);

Six, should it be considered mysterious for DT not sharing the same bedroom with own wife (p92)? And to be fair to him, would he have been able to tweet as much as he did were the wife to be in the same room, especially in as late (or as early) as 3:00 am? Something to think about;

Seven, isn't the five-prong theories of the Russian connection an interesting piece? (107-109);

Eight, would those utterances of the President show that ill-preparedness could win you an election, but cannot possibly sustain you inside the most expensive real estate in America, the White House? Hear this speech of the POTUS (p142):

There is one allegiance that unites us all, to America, America. . . . We all salute with pride the same American flag . . . and we are all equal, equal in the eyes of Almighty God. . . . We're equal . . . and I want to thank, by the way, the evangelical community, the Christian community, communities of faith, rabbis and priests and pastors, ministers, because the support for me, as you know, was a record, not only numbers of people but percentages of those numbers who voted for Trump . . . an amazing outpouring and I will not disappoint you . . . as long as we have faith in each other and trust in God then there is no goal beyond our reach . . . there is no dream too large . . . no task too great . . . we are Americans and the future belongs to us . . . America is roaring. It's going to be bigger and better and stronger than ever before. . . .

What does anyone make out of this?

Nine, isn't it interesting to note that those around the president could so perfectly predict him but just could not harness him? Hear one of them predict an impending action of POTUS (p214):

"That son of a bitch is going to try to fire the head of the FBI," said Ailes. 

And he did!

Ten, wouldn't it be right for me to be astonished at the pivotal role the thirty-something year old politically inexperienced son-in-law of the President, Jared Kushner played in steering DT's international political agenda? Wolff wrote (p229):

Kushner was the driver of the Trump doctrine. His test cases were China, Mexico, Canada, and Saudi Arabia. He offered each country the opportunity to make his father-in-law happy. 

Pleasantly surprised!

Eleven, is it right to think that at least one of the theories of the Russian meeting will not go away until the matter is laid to rest? Wolff writes (p255):

Among the why-and-how theories of this imbecilic meeting:

• The Russians, in organized or freelance fashion, were trying to entrap the Trump campaign into a compromising relationship.
• The meeting was part of an already active cooperation on the part of the Trump campaign with the Russians to obtain and distribute damaging information about Hillary Clinton—and, indeed, within days of the Don Jr. meeting, WikiLeaks announced that it had obtained Clinton emails. Less than a month later, it started to release them.
• The wide-eyed Trump campaign, largely still playacting at running for president—and with no thought whatsoever of actually winning the election—was open to any and all entreaties and offers, because it had nothing to lose. Dopey Don Jr. (Fredo, as Steve Bannon would dub him, in one of his frequent Godfather borrowings) was simply trying to prove he was a player and a go-to guy.
• The meeting included the campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and the campaign's most influential voice, Jared Kushner, because: (a) a high- level conspiracy was being coordinated; (b) Manafort and Kushner, not taking the campaign very seriously, and without a thought of any consequence here, were merely entertained by the possibility of dirty tricks; (c) the three men were united in their plan to get rid of Lewandowski—with Don Jr. as the hatchet man—and, as part of this unity, Manafort and Kushner need to show up at Don Jr.'s silly meeting.

I wonder which of these will most likely not go away? Your guess is as good as mine. 

12. Apparently, our loss is Mr. Wolff's gain. According to Barnes and Noble, the book is totally out of print.  We should, then, expect its new edition in a short while. But would it be okay for someone to bag millions of dollars in a quick dash on the basis of this single book? Would the continuous attack from the White House further make the publisher's dream come true and the author's purse get fatter? Man, "How d'you solve a problem like Maria?"

Just curious!

Michael O. Afolayan