I’m all confused. Is it true that Kamala Harris’s earrings at the debate were clip-on earbuds? Probably not, but it would be fun if they were. Imagine if they were programmed by the CCP to spy on the councils of the blob.

And whatabout the Haitians of Springfield, Ohio, eating cats and geese? Could be, but the most important thing is Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Rule 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

Hello! Do our people love generating memes about Trump and cats and geese, or what?

But I have more serious things to discuss today, given that our wise leaders are talking about sending long-range missiles to Ukraine. I think that AT’s own Stephen Bryen nailed it by writing:

The truth is Washington wants to take up Zelensky's proposals for deep strikes on Russian territory because Ukraine is losing the war and could be defeated even before the Presidential elections in November.

(h/t Clarice Feldman)

And that would really put the cat among the geese, as far as the presidential election is concerned.

It is obvious to me that our rulers are out of ideas and losing control. That’s what Trump in 2016 means; that’s what the Bernie-to-Biden switcheroo in 2020 means; that’s what the Biden-to-Harris switcheroo meant in July. That’s what the three-against-one debate on September 10 was all about. Our rulers are desperately trying to hold their regime together as it crumbles into dust.

But I have the answer to our foreign policy problems, because I just finished Kissinger’s 2014 book World Order. Of course, Kissinger veils his ideas in Straussian “esotericism.” But we are wise, and can read between the lines.

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin.

At the end of the book Kissinger tells us that, far from One World Order, we must understand that today’s diplomats must negotiate between four foundation narratives. First there is the western Westphalian order, an assembly of independent nation states. Then there is China:

Confucianism ordered the world into tributaries in a hierarchy defined by approximations of Chinese culture… Thus China felt no need to go abroad to discover a world it considered already ordered[.]

Islam is different:

Islam divided the world order into a world of peace, that of Islam, and a world of war, inhabited by unbelievers… Islam could achieve the theoretical fulfillment of world order only by conquest or global proselytization[.]

India is also different:

Hinduism, which perceives cycles of history and metaphysical reality transcending temporal experience, treated its world of faith as a complete system not open to new entrants by either conquest or conversion.

Yes, but whatabout Russia, Hank?

Kissinger deals with Russia at the beginning of the book, quoting Catherine the Great. Given Russia’s gigantic territory, the Prussian-born princess wrote that Russia needed to be governed by “absolute Power.”

Every other Form of Government whatsoever would not only have been prejudicial to Russia but would even have proved its entire Ruin.

I’m sure that Vladimir Putin would agree with her.

And I am also sure that Biden and Harris and Wynken, Blinken, and Nod are all fully up to speed on this Kissinger wisdom, and have the sense not to get into a missile war with Russia in order to avoid the embarrassment of Ukraine collapsing right before the election.

But you and I should think about the hidden meaning of Kissinger’s book. My take is that it’s crazy to talk about “world order” when you have four different cultural realms and their four different “lived experiences.” So it’s crazy to think that a bunch of world-order conventional-wisdom diplomats are going to solve the very human and very complex question of the coexistence of four very different cultural universes.

Did I say four? Don’t forget Russia, of which Lord Montgomery said “do not march on Moscow.”

Then there is Africa, and I don’t have a clue what to say about that.

Back in the day, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams came up with the idea of the Monroe Doctrine, which told the European countries to stay off our lawn and we’d stay off their lawn.

Of course, in the 19th century the Europeans ignored the Doctrine, and in the 20th century we staged two world wars in Europe to the greater glory of college presidents and Social Register swells.

But maybe it’s time to disinter the dear old Monroe Doctrine. After all, the United States is still protected by two great oceans. Nobody in their right mind would attempt to land on the beaches of the Jersey Shore or Santa Monica today. And so long as Justin keeps his Canada geese north of the border and AMLO keeps his Mexican cat-tels south of the border everything in these United States is copacetic. Come to trade and to visit our national parks, dear foreign friends, but don’t invade.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

Images: AT via Magic Studio