Month: June 2017

Having received some pretty stiff criticism, even from his own side, for a previous column giving a half-throated defense of LePen, Ross Douthat doubles down in today’s NYT, arguing that Corbyn is almost as appalling, but no one is freaking out about him.  The implicit suggestion is that the lack of concern about Corbyn is the product of hypocrisy, left-wing media bias, or both.

I don’t agree.  Here are the differences between the two:

1.  LePen was in a position to do more damage than Corbyn.   A LePen victory could well have destroyed the EU.  Corbyn couldn’t do that; the UK is already leaving.

2.  Regardless of the polls, there was more uncertainty about a LePen victory.  Given the surprises of Brexit and Trump, could anyone really be sure that the French polls were correct?  Would the disgruntled far left abstain, vote for Macron, or cast an anti-establishment vote for LePen?  There were reasons to be concerned.  The British election, on the other hand, is far more “normal” and predictable.

3.  A Prime Minister Corbyn would be subject to far more constraints than a President LePen.  Even without much support in the National Assembly, LePen would have had more freedom to operate on her own than Corbyn, who has no hope of winning an absolute majority, and who has very limited support within his parliamentary party.

The issue:  Were Trump and his agents conducting their own foreign policy, at odds with official governmental policy, between the election and the inauguration?

What we know:  Flynn and Kushner held meetings with Russian officials during this time.  Kushner apparently wanted to create a back channel that would be invisible to US intelligence.

What we don’t know:  What, if anything, did Trump personally know about this? What was discussed during these meetings?  Why was it important for Kushner to communicate outside the scrutiny of the US government?

My analysis:  When it’s all said and done, the record may show that Flynn and Kushner violated the Logan Act.  Since some degree of communication with the Russians was probably inevitable, and maybe even desirable, during the transition period, the legal consequences of this will be somewhere between minimal and nonexistent.

While Ronald Reagan gave his PBP supporters tangible benefits in the form of huge, regressive tax cuts, by any objective standard, he didn’t do much for his Reactionary constituents.  He wasn’t even a consistent churchgoer.  No matter. By his clever use of language, they knew that he shared their vision for the country, and they loved him for it.  They still do.

With the partial exception of the Gorsuch nomination (even a CD like Bush might have nominated him), it would appear that Trump is largely headed down the same road:  tax cuts and deregulation for wealthy businessmen, and shiny objects for Reactionaries.  His rejection of the Paris Agreement is a classic example of a shiny object.  It proves that Trump is on their side without bringing them any meaningful economic benefits.

The problem is that this particular shiny object comes with a very high price: diplomatic isolation and the vast potential political and economic implications of climate change.  By any reasonable analysis, it wasn’t worth it.

The issue:  Did the Trump campaign “collude” with the Russian government during the election?

What we know:  Multiple prominent figures in the Trump campaign had longstanding financial ties to the Russian government or had some degree of knowledge of Russian hacking activities.

What we don’t know:  Was anything promised to the Russian government in exchange for assistance during the election?  And how much of the communication between the campaign and the Russians was authorized by Trump himself?

My analysis:  If, as I suspect, no one can prove that Trump authorized a foreign policy quid pro quo, Russian election hacking is a public policy concern, but not a legal issue for the administration.  Simply being the lucky beneficiary of Russian hacking activities is not a crime.

A year or so ago, I suggested a thought experiment in which it was known that the Chinese were developing a weapon that could do hundreds of billions of dollars of damage to the US (the exact amount wasn’t known) every year.  How would the Trump Administration react to such news?  With some sort of crash program involving billions of dollars of public money, of course.  Protecting the country from foreign military threats is not negotiable with the GOP, regardless of cost.

Climate change has the same potential impact, but is not caused by weapons. The GOP consequently either denies it is occurring or simply refuses to do anything about it on the grounds that to do so would increase the size of the state and unduly burden businesses.

What you should take away from this is that, in the final analysis, it isn’t limiting the size of the state, or even protecting the public, that truly matters to the GOP. If you can’t blow something up, there isn’t any point in spending public money to deal with it.  In other words, the swaggering militarism of the GOP is really the most important part of its DNA.

The issue:  Why does Trump seem so determined to make an alliance with the Russians?

What we know:  Trump has expressed his enthusiasm for Putin, and for better relations with Russia, on many occasions, even though very few people, even in his own government, agree with him.

What we don’t know:  We don’t know very much about the extent of Trump’s business ties to Russia, given his unwillingness to disclose his tax returns.

My take on the issue:   You can speculate that Trump’s affection for Russia has a financial basis, but there is no evidence for that.  I think it comes from two sources:  a correct understanding that Putin effectively runs Russia as the CEO of Russia, Inc., which is what he aspires to do with the US;  and a notion, fed by Bannon and Flynn, that Russia is a more appropriate ally against terrorism than squishy Europeans who are more concerned about protecting human rights than kicking bad guy butt.

Digging a Hole

I’m digging a hole where the truth used to be.

The whole world sits there wondering

Where it will go.

 

I’m plugging the leaks that run through my house.

The fake news all are wondering

Where they will go.

 

And it really doesn’t matter.

If I’m wrong, I’m right.

Since I belong, I’m right.

Since I belong.

Democrats run around.

Don’t worry me.

Never win.

Wonder why they don’t get past my door.

 

I’m taking the time for a number of things

That weren’t important yesterday.

And I still go.

 

Parody of “Fixing a Hole” by The Beatles.