We’ve had a great many recent Presidents who haven’t played for the win, and a couple who have. The winners want to accomplish something big. The “not winners” want to avoid failure.
Many people in government and industry have advanced their careers by avoiding failure, and especially its attendant blame. But avoiding failure rarely achieves the desired outcome (i.e., a win). Eventually the Peter Principle comes calling, and the reluctance to take risks delivers unintended consequences.
We’ve had quite a few Presidents in the past 3 generations who were more interested in “not losing” than winning.
President Johnson didn’t want to win the Cold War. He wanted to contain the Soviet Union. LBJ’s strategy was to confront the Soviets in satellite states, like Vietnam. But LBJ wanted to avoid escalating the war by irritating the Soviets, so we spent years mostly attacking strategically insignificant targets. Bombing empty fields seemed like a swell way to avoid ticking off the Ruskies.
The strategy demonstrated that LBJ had risen to his level of incompetence. By the time Richard Nixon entered office, the damage was done and public support for the war was lost. Avoiding the near-term failure of escalated tensions, delivered a long-term loss.
President Carter wanted to avoid failure on an even grander scale. He sought to contain the Soviet Union, and appease the middle-east into peace.
Jimmy’s strategy for the Soviets was détente. He figured if he made the commies his BFFs, the Cold War would be over. He unilaterally weakened our military to show the commies that we were no threat; we could all be friends. It never occurred to him that those who hold diametrically opposed values to ours make horrible best friends forever. The Soviets took Jimmy’s gestures as an opening to expand and invaded Afghanistan. But Jimmy fought back … by boycotting the Olympic Games – figuring that would show them. Détente only encouraged the Soviet Union to expand its influence into South America, Central America, and the Caribbean.
Jimmy’s strategy in the middle-east was just as effective. He smiled a lot, shook a bunch of hands, undermined Isreal at every opportunity, and handed Iran over to the Islamists. Jimmy won a Nobel Peace Prize and facilitated the establishment of a region wide terror network which eventually led to 911.
Failure avoidance isn’t just a Democrat thing
President GW Bush avoided failure by waging a war, not to defeat Islamic terrorism, but to “win hearts and minds.” GW forgot that a war only ends when the enemy can no longer fight, or quits. After 20 years of fighting, it seems obvious now that our enemies weren’t particularly motivated to quit, while we were trying to force them to love us. Failure avoidance turned Afghanistan into a 20-year waste of lives and treasure.
Joe Biden didn’t even try to avoid failure. He focused on avoiding the blame instead. He surrendered in Afghanistan, gave the terrorists $7 billion-dollars-worth of military hardware, and left hundreds of U.S. citizens behind. Then he blamed the guy that wasn’t President (the bad orange man), and sent his propagandists out to proclaim his surrender the “most effective withdrawal in US history.” After choosing “blame shifting” over victory, Biden’s approval started a downward spiral which he never recovered from.
Of course, America has also had some winners in recent times.
President Reagan wasn’t a “play for the draw” kind of guy. The Gipper shocked his staff when he articulated his strategy for the Cold War: “We win, they lose.” It was simple, goal oriented, to the point, and completely contrary to national security thinking at the time.
Reagan released a blitz of diplomatic, military, and economic warfare. He scared the Soviet Union into economic collapse, trying to keep up with us. The Cold War went into the win column for the United States.
President Trump is a different kind of political animal too. He didn’t become a New York real estate billionaire by avoiding the realities of conflict. He did it by setting goals, ignoring hurt feelings, and overcoming obstacles.
Like Presidents before him, the Donald is confronting the communists too. Only this time, the enemy is of the much more dangerous internal kind – attempting to corrupt our republic into collapse, so that it may be replaced with an autocracy.
Having discovered the enemy among us during his first presidency, the Donald is waging a war for our freedom against the politicians, propagandists, and bureaucrats who are serving the radicals. Furthermore, President Trump is doing it by delivering on what he promised during the campaign.
- Lawfare practitioners – fired
- Political prisoners – pardoned
- No-show bureaucrats – furloughed
- Leftist funding streams – disrupted
- Collectivist (woke) policies – cancelled
- Independent agencies – leashed
- Propagandists – excluded
- Uncooperative allies – trolled
- Radical resistance – exposed
Naturally, the blame game has started. The propaganda ministry is making stuff up – like Nazi Germany being an example of too much freedom of speech. The bureaucrats are crying – now that they’re experiencing the career setbacks employees of private industry have always had to cope with. The Democrats are going bat crap crazy – with people like Adam Schiff whining about political norms (really).
But the Donald is ignoring it, staying focused on the future outcome rather than the current noise – winning instead of “not losing.” He’s not trying to contain, appease, or negotiate with our enemies. The commies among us will either surrender, or their ability to resist will be eliminated.
But as the Donald set himself up for an endless litany of blame, something funny happened – Americans love what he’s doing. Trump’s approval rating is higher than it has ever been, and is still going up. Even more importantly, each of his initiatives enjoys 60+ percent approval by the American public. For the first time this century, polling shows that Americans now think the country in on the “right track.”
President Trump has staffed his administration with “young guns” whom he is preparing to lead the country when he leaves office. What does the future of the Democrat party look like when the Donald’s protégés learn to ignore the noise, skip the appeasement, reject containment, and say, “We win, you lose”?
Author Bio: John Green is a retired engineer and political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He spent his career designing complex defense systems, developing high performance organizations, and doing corporate strategic planning. He is a contributor to American Thinker, The American Spectator, and the American Free News Network. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
3 thoughts on “Not Losing Is not the Same as Winning”