Month: May 2017

Crooked media people say I have the mind of a child.  Bad!

Netanyahu and Trump are old friends, so you have to think that Bibi told everyone in Israel that a golden age had arrived after Trump won in November. Imagine how embarrassing it must be for him to justify his old buddy’s decision to leak Israeli intelligence to the Russians.  His best case is that Trump simply didn’t know what he was doing, which can’t sound very reassuring to the Israeli public.

It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

On the new special counsel named Bob.

It would seem he’s the man for the job.

I see smoke, but no fire.

Sure, the Don’s a big liar

But impeachment’s a door with no knob.

 

Predictably, the speculation about President Pence has begun in earnest.  As I noted yesterday, the fact that the GOP establishment prefers him to Trump makes impeachment a plausible alternative, but only if the party concludes that Trump is leading them off a cliff.  We’re not even close to that point right now; Trump still has the unwavering support of his base, which views everything going on in Washington as fake news.

The image of the Trump White House created by articles in the NYT, the WaPo, and Politico is reminiscent of a medieval monarchy in which the king is incapacitated, the government consequently lacks any sense of direction, and the courtiers are all desperately looking out for themselves and trying to knife their rivals.

That’s bad enough, but it could get much worse.  Trump is bound to figure out at some point that a successful war is the solution to his public relations problems. It’s just a matter of time.

In the final analysis, the biggest threat to Trump is the undoubted fact that the vast majority of Republicans on Capitol Hill would prefer to see Mike Pence in the White House.  Sure, there would be some backlash from Trump’s die hard white nationalist supporters, but where else are they going to go?  Are they going to wish they had voted for Hillary?  Not a chance.

And so, if it appears that Trump is leading them off a cliff, the GOP may be prepared to take preemptive action.  The question then is, what would happen next?

Pence would take the drama out of governing.  He would be sane and competent. He wouldn’t send provocative tweets or leak classified information to the Russians.  He wouldn’t start wars in a fit of pique.  He wouldn’t lie every time he opens his mouth.  For all of that, the country would have reason to be grateful.

On the other hand, the GOP House and Senate leadership would have an easier time getting its tax cutting, benefit cutting, and deregulatory agenda through the system.  Something like the Trump tax program would be more likely to pass with steady leadership from the White House, and entitlement cuts would probably be on the table to a greater extent than they are today.

In other words, Trump is the sizzle, but Pence is the steak.  There would be clear benefits to getting rid of Donny Rotten, but changing the agenda (except to some extent on free trade and entitlements) isn’t one of them.

 

It appears that even some right-wing commentators have finally discovered that Trump is, essentially, a spoiled child.  To me, the best analogy is to a punk rocker; he’s filled with anger, he wants to blow up the establishment, he has no positive agenda, and he wants to be the center of attention at all times.  He has no sense of restraint or decorum, lies constantly, and refuses to take responsibility for any of his failures.

It’s an incredibly volatile mix, to be sure.  The pathetic thing is that he made no attempt to hide it from anyone during the campaign, and millions of people voted for it, anyway, because at least he wasn’t Hillary Clinton.

I read an article on Politico.com last week in which a former Obama Administration official argued that the North Korean economy is more exposed to the outside world than you would think, and that severe sanctions, followed by an Iran-style deal, could work there.  I’m a bit skeptical of his conclusions about the vulnerability of the North Korean economy, but in any event, the two countries are fundamentally different in the following ways:

1.  The Iranian government had to take public opinion into account; the North Korean government does not.  Iran is certainly no Jeffersonian democracy, but it does at least have some democratic elements in its system.  The North Korean government doesn’t care in the slightest about the well-being of its subject people; its only interest is in self-preservation.  If additional austerity is the price of maintaining power, so be it; the country has seen worse days.

2.  Iran was more diplomatically isolated than North Korea is.  You wouldn’t think that the hermit kingdom would have any friends, but the fact is that the Chinese will not, in the final analysis, take any actions that could jeopardize the existence of the regime.  Iran couldn’t rely on anyone like that.

It occurred to me a few days ago that Trump combines the worst features of Reagan and Nixon.  He resembles Reagan with his swagger and his lack of interest in policy details, but he has Nixon’s thin skin, perpetual sense of grievance, cynicism, and lack of respect for the truth, the law, and democratic norms.

Reagan was a fundamentally decent man, and Nixon was competent.  Trump can’t claim to be either.

It’s So Easy

It’s so easy to run the world.

It’s so easy to run the world.

 

It’s so easy, it’s so easy

Whoa

It’s so easy, it’s so easy

Whoa

It’s so easy, it’s so easy

Whoa

I’ll fix it all and go play golf.

 

Oh, it’s so easy to run the world.

It’s so easy to run the world.

 

Parody of “It’s So Easy” by Buddy Holly.

The one thing that Trump has done that has received bipartisan support and a positive media response (both were misguided) was the pinprick missile attack on Syria.  It was an effort to prove that he was tough and unpredictable without any meaningful practical consequences.

Given his love of popularity and lack of imagination, can you imagine him launching a similar pinprick attack on North Korea in the hope of putting an end to Kim’s missile and nuclear programs without a full scale war?  I certainly can. The difference, of course, is that Kim could either see through the bluff or respond by starting the ghastly war that Trump would presumably prefer to avoid, if possible.

The bottom line facts regarding the relationship between the US and the Koreas are as follows:

1.  North Korea already has enough firepower (both nuclear and conventional) to destroy South Korea, but cannot currently project it to the US;
2.  The progress made on their nuclear program, and their missiles, consequently threatens the US, but is irrelevant to South Korea;  so
3.  The interests of the historically allied US and South Korean governments in this critical matter are largely inconsistent.

Now, add the new South Korean government, which clearly wants to engage in a “sunshine policy,” to the mix.  “Sunshine” means that additional US sanctions have absolutely no chance of success in bringing the North Korean government to heel.  What are Trump’s options if the Moon government puts this approach into practice?

Acquiescence to the North Korean first strike capability against the US, or war. That’s it.

On the 45th President Trump.

He claims that he’s priming the pump.

A word to the wise:

Get your story straight, guys.

And still, there’s no sign he’ll be dumped.

One of the principal features of AHCA is its reliance on state governments to improve the health care system.  Sure, Medicaid is being slashed, and protection for pre-existing conditions may be devolved to state high risk pools, but aren’t the states better equipped to solve problems than the feds?  After all, they’re closer to their people, and know their issues better, than the federal government. Just give them a little flexibility, and they can do the job better than a bunch of Washington bureaucrats.

Your response to this will depend on how you perceive the governments of red states.  If you think that the legislatures and governors of red states are predominantly populated by one-world Christian Democrats who genuinely feel the pain of their poor constituents even though they typically vote for the Democratic Party, you might accept this line of reasoning.  On the other hand, if experience tells you that red state governments are usually controlled by Reactionaries who actively despise poor people, oppose all forms of wealth redistribution on principle (particularly to undeserving minorities), and want to make the lives of people relying on the public purse as miserable as possible, you certainly won’t.

No prizes for guessing which camp I’m in.

Not many Americans remember this, but back in 2003, the German economy was stuck in the mud, and there were even suggestions that Germany was the “sick man of Europe.”  Gerhard Schroder responded with Agenda 2010, a pro-business reform program that trimmed the welfare state and reduced labor regulations. The program split the SPD (it has never really recovered) and probably increased inequality, but, along with the vast demand for German products in China, it ushered in a new era of prosperity.  Today, the German economy is the envy of all other nations in Europe.

France didn’t have an Agenda 2010.  While the French economy has grown somewhat, and came out of the Great Recession in better shape than many other European countries, France has fallen behind the Germans, and is no longer taken seriously as an equal partner in the EU.  It is not a surprise, however, that Macron’s platform sounds a bit like Agenda 2010.  What is likely to happen to it?

Macron starts with some advantages;  for one thing, he won’t have to force a right-wing program down the throat of a Socialist Party.  It will be very important for him to portray the program as a means to regain equal status with the Germans;  if it appears that he is just doing Merkel’s bidding, the program will be dead on arrival.

On the ex-FBI man named James.

His firing’s his loss, but Trump’s gain.

Will the Russia probe end?

What’s the message it sends?

At least we all know whom to blame.