Chess, Checkers, and The Presidency

There is no shortage of wackiness in the world today. I would go as far to say that if you look at the daily news cycle and everything you see and hear makes perfect sense to you, then you are probably insane. We do not live in simple times. Despite having access to more information than any other previous generation of Americans, it has actually become more, not less, difficult to figure out what is going on in the world. Most of the ‘news’ I hear is nothing but editorializing and extremely biased and illogical editorializing at that.

Perhaps no other contest devised by humans is as good at testing mental capacity, strategic decision-making, and outright nerve as the the game of chess. Chess and checkers are played on the same board but they are two very different games. Checkers is a game that is easy to learn and if you picked two random individuals to play a game of checkers, there is a good chance the match would be competitive. Chess on the other hand is a completely different story. I understand the basic rules of chess, but that’s about it. Any experienced and knowledgeable chess player could beat most people easily. There are a seemingly infinite number of patterns and strategies available to each player in a game of chess. To win you don’t have to think one, or two or even three moves ahead, but more along the lines of 7 or 8 moves ahead. Few can do it.

Chess is definitely not a contact sport. There are no concussion protocols in chess. Nevertheless, chess is not a sport lacking in craziness department. The first couple of chess world champions went insane as did many of their successors, most notably, Bobby Fischer. Chess is a game so complex that even modern computers aren’t capable of identifying every possible strategy/solution. In some ways, being the world champion of chess is analogous to being the world champion of boxing. You have to beat the reigning champion in a formally sanctioned match to win the title. Though not a popular spectator sport, chess does have its fans and it’s possible to watch live chess tournaments on the Internet.

Though you would think it wouldn’t be the case, chess is run by people even nuttier than boxing promoters. The main sanctioning body of Chess is called the World Chess Federation. It is run by a man named Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. Ilyumzhinov has gone on the record as stating he believes he was once kidnapped by extraterrestrials and taken to their planet. The apparent motivation behind the abduction has to do with Ilyumzhinov’s assertion that aliens created chess.

Chess and it’s associated personalities however, do provide an interesting metaphor for the current political climate. In boxing it’s conceivable that a vastly overmatched fighter could land one lucky punch and beat the best boxer on the planet. If you saw it, you could comprehend it. In stark contrast, there is no way an amateur chess player could beat a top ranked chess player, let alone the world champion. It would be impossible to comprehend. I don’t get the sense that a top ranked chess player would have a very ebullient personality. They are totally serious and not likely to show much emotion or humanity…kind of like Hilary Clinton.

The difficulty associated with being elected President of the United States has got to be more challenging than any chess match. So-called ‘amateurs’ aren’t supposed to beat seasoned pros…especially if the board has already been prearranged to give them a considerable advantage from the very start. Clinton was like the reigning world chess champion. Donald Trump was supposed to be the ‘novice’ chess player. As they took their seats to play, the board overwhelmingly favored Clinton. All she had to do was carry out the seemingly predetermined outcome. She failed. Trump won. That should have been the end of the story. It wasn’t.

The leftist media sees themselves as ‘chess’ experts. Trump’s win made them look like a bunch of fools. Therefore, Trump’s win is seen as something that must be invalidated. ‘The Russians had to have helped him cheat’ is the what we hear ad nauseam, despite the fact he won a legitimate election. There have been no assertions the balloting process itself was rigged. Therefore, Trump’s win reflected the will of the American people at that point in time. Consider the level of control a foreign country would have to exert to control the American people in such a fashion. It’s nonsense. Plus, Trump has proven himself a really good chess good player in my book. He causes people to make fools of themselves. Think about it: He was aggravated NFL players knelt during the National Anthem. If his intent was to hurt the NFL he succeeded. He criticized players who knelt. The MSM predictably portrayed this as some sort of bullying. So most of the players began kneeling…which was a completely foreseeable reaction to the Tweet. This has upset a lot of people and has resulted in boycotts, empty stands and lower ratings for the NFL…which means less revenue. Trump called them unpatriotic and they reenforced his assertion. I think he completely knew what he was doing and got the desired punishment. Senile? Not hardly.

There is a constant agenda being pushed to impeach Trump. MSM has depicted impeachment as a legitimate means to remove the President from office. Very little of it is rooted in any logic because if the same scrutiny had been applied to the last three Presidents, I’m pretty sure there would have been equal, if not greater reasons to impeach them. MSM says Trump poses a threat to our freedom. How? If the Presidency has accrued too much power, then Congress needs to rebalance things. The removal of a duly elected President from office is a far greater threat to freedom. In Trump’s case it would mean removing a person who stands in direct opposition to the status quo. If leftists are able to remove him through impeachment, the implications are terrifying. It would mean regardless of the outcome of an election a person could be removed simply because they aren’t playing ball with the establishment.

Trump is without question the most criticized President in history. I believe the copious amount of criticism is coming dangerously close to sedition. CNN is the worst offender. They post at least 2 or 3 negative news alerts about Trump every day. Today’s point of sharp criticism was the most ridiculous I have heard yet: The Trumps have no pets.

There was actually an article on CNN arguing that the Trumps are breaking with tradition by not having any pets at the White House. How is this relevant news? It isn’t. Unfortunately, CNN’s vendetta against Trump means anything is fair game. The article implied the President dislikes dogs. It was undoubtedly directed at pet owners and animal lovers and it’s purpose was to make Trump seem ambivalent if not hostile towards animals. Seriously? How petty can they get?

There is no requirement in the US. Constitution that the President must have pets. I’m sure some Presidents have genuinely loved their cats, dogs, and other assorted pets but that doesn’t mean they can’t be used as great PR tools. After all, Nixon’s dog Checkers saved his political career. The ‘Checkers Speech’ has gone down in history as one of the most heartfelt and effective appeals in political history. It kept Nixon on the Eisenhower ticket. I’m expected to believe Presidents haven’t seen the PR advantage to having pets? Trump is pragmatic, which makes him an unconventional politician. CNN’s argument amounts to this: Even if Trump hates animals, he should at least put up the front that he does. Why? Maybe he’s allergic to cats and dogs. Who knows? I love my dog, but it wouldn’t be fair to him to own him just for appearances? If you believe that cats and dogs need love and attention as I do, then it would be unfair to own one if you don’t have time to spend with them. Trump is too busy for pets. He has more important priorities…he is playing a high stakes game of chess.