Month: December 2017

I haven’t interviewed Kelly, and I probably never will.  If I did, however, it would go something like this:

I meet with Kelly at his office in the White House.

C:  Thank you for agreeing to speak with me.

K:  It’s my pleasure.  It’s also my job.

C:  So what is it like for a military man to work for Donald Trump?  Does life in the White House feel chaotic?

K:  I wouldn’t call it “chaotic.”  It’s challenging.  And dynamic.

C:  But surely you miss the tidiness of the military chain of command.

K:  It’s a different challenge.  I knew that coming in.  You take it as it comes.

C:  The world knows that Trump gets a lot of his information from television.  How much TV does he watch a day?

K:  I don’t know, and I don’t really care.  You’d have to ask him.

C:  How can you really control the flow of information if he’s getting his facts from TV?

K:  I do what I can.  It is what it is.

C:  I’ve expressed a concern on my blog that the very visible military presence within the Trump Administration could deepen the wedge between blue America and the military.  Is that something that concerns you?

K:  To some extent, but there isn’t anything I can do about it.  The three of us are just patriotic Americans serving our country.  We believe in civilian control of the military.  What more do you want us to do?

C:  You’ve made statements about the importance of public service.  Would you support bringing back some form of the draft in order to close the gap between the military and the population?

K:  There’s a case for it, but it isn’t on the table.

C:  Does it trouble you that you are making the case for public service while working for a man who avoided serving in the military during Vietnam for fairly spurious medical reasons?

K:  He avoided serving for perfectly legal reasons, and he’s serving the public today.

C:  Do you think it will be a problem to motivate the minorities in the military to fight wars for a man who appears to despise them?

K:  They will be fighting for their country, not Donald Trump.  I have every confidence in them.

C:  Do you have political views of your own?

K:  Yes, but I pretty well keep them to myself.  My job is to see that the President makes decisions based on the best available information.  That’s it.

C:  How do you feel about his use of Twitter?

K:  If it were up to me, he wouldn’t do it, but it isn’t up to me.  I work around it as best I can.

C:  Do his tweets represent government policy, or not?

K:  No.  The press pays too much attention to them.

C:  Prior to working for the White House, you were known to advocate for a fairly sophisticated approach to border control.  Today, you support the wall.  Why the change?

K:  Control of the borders is a legitimate domestic and foreign policy issue.  The American people voted for Donald Trump, and his views are well-known.  My job is to make his opinions reality.

C:  Don’t you worry that all of the anti-Mexican rhetoric will result in a wave of anti-gringo sentiment, and an AMLO victory, with everything that entails?

K:  I just go to work each day and try to help the president do what’s right for the American people that day.  I’ll deal with tomorrow’s issues tomorrow.

C:  You’re a pretty linear thinker, right?

K:  That’s the way it’s done in the military.

C:  Thank you for your time.

Sweet home, Alabama.

Where the votes were so blue.

Sweet home, Alabama.

Doug Jones is representing you.

From the Lynyrd Skynyrd song

So, in the end, Bannon’s gamble failed.  The PBPs in Alabama couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Moore, and he lost, albeit barely.

It would be a mistake to read too much into this.  Moore was a uniquely, remarkably bad candidate.  Even at that, he almost won.

Will it result in a course correction?  Of course not.  Trump will probably conclude that the margin of defeat was people voting illegally, and step up his voter suppression efforts.  That’s about the only course correction you can expect.

It will, however, be fun to watch the Bannonite Reactionaries and the McConnellite PBPs savage each other for the next week or so.

As a result of the gay community’s legal victories over the last few years, members of the religious right have come to view themselves as a beleaguered, victimized minority, and have embraced Donald Trump as their unlikely champion.  For their part, members of the gay community appears to believe that overturning thousands of years of cultural precedent was a self-evident proposition, and that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot.

This is an issue that called for restraint on all sides.  Of course, that hasn’t happened, and as a result, we are likely to wind up with a Supreme Court opinion that is the gay rights equivalent of the “plastic reindeer rule” for Christmas displays.  Just what we need.

The mainstream view is that whatever Trump says at 5 AM on Twitter is spontaneous and, therefore, “authentic.”  As a result, it may presage changes in policy, and it is definitely newsworthy.

The cynical view is that Trump views his tweets as a way to entertain himself and engage the base, but nothing more.  They may in some way be “authentic,” but they don’t represent government policy, and they are not newsworthy.

The problem is that the world has trouble telling the difference.  It is perfectly possible that the North Korean government could interpret provocative statements meant solely for the base as a desire to go to war, and act accordingly. It is also likely that casual statements of opinion on events in other countries may damage our relationships with those countries.  Just ask Theresa May.

The bottom line is that Trump craves attention, and believes that keeping the world off-balance is a benefit to him and the US.  The down side to his Twitter account, however, far outweighs its advantages.

 

Given the amount of infighting within the GOP over the last few years, it is fair to ask whether it is likely that the party would ever formally split.  The answer is no, and the reason is that the predominant Reactionary and PBP factions are natural allies on the issues that matter most to them.  In the case of the PBPs, the issue is tax cuts and deregulation;  Reactionaries don’t benefit much from pro-business legislation, but they tolerate it because, in their Victorian way, they think that returning “their own money” to the wealthy is OK.  In the case of the Reactionaries, the biggest issue is benefit cuts for the “undeserving” poor (in their view, mostly minorities);  the PBPs are more than happy to go along with that, as it saves them money.

The issues on which the interests of the two factions are completely inconsistent are free trade and immigration.  If the GOP ever splits, you can be reasonably certain that it will be over one or both of those issues.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity is grounded in the divine right of kings.  If the right to rule is conveyed directly to the king by God, it stands to reason that the king is subject to judgment only by God, and is not subject to the law.  Hence, the king can do no wrong, at least from a legal perspective.

The argument that Trump cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice because he is the chief law enforcement official of the US sounds more than a little like this line of reasoning.  You can see why it would appeal to him.  Unfortunately for him, our political system is based on contract theory, not the divine right of kings.  In our country, the people are sovereign, and they have chosen to divide power among the various branches of the federal government and between the federal government and the states.  There is no such thing as the chief law enforcement official in our country.  As a result, the argument fails miserably.

What, did you think I only wrote parodies of pop songs?

Donald Trump is Coming to Town

You’d better watch out.

You’d better not cry.

You’d better not leak.

I’m telling you why.

Donald Trump is coming to town.

 

He’s keeping a list

Of enemies foul.

He’s gonna make the establishment howl.

Donald Trump is coming to town.

 

He’s tweeting while you’re sleeping.

He knows your left-wing views.

So don’t you be surprised tonight

When you wind up on Fox News.

 

Oh, you’d better watch out.

You’d better not cry.

You’d better not leak.

I’m telling you why.

Donald Trump is coming to town.

On the GOP candidate Moore.

He’s fighting the old culture wars.

He’ll probably win.

If he does, it’s a sin.

But his state’s a bright red to the core.

Assume, against the odds, that Trump is impeached or resigns.  That would put Mike Pence in more or less the same position as Getald Ford.  How do the two stack up?

                    Ford.      V.         Pence

Party.                               GOP.                      GOP

Elected VP.                       No.                       Yes

Conservative  Icon         No                        Yes

Wife’s Fame                    Clinic                    “Mother”

Pardon Me                       Yes                          ???

And the winner is . . . Ford, who wasn’t a terrible president.

 

The Democrats have shown themselves to be the party of virtue by purging Al Franken for jerkish (not immoral or illegal) actions that took place years ago. The question for today is, what are the broader political implications of the Franken resignation?

To reframe the question, will white women in Alabama who voted for Trump be so impressed by the Democrats’ commitment to end sexual harassment that they will pull the lever for Jones on Tuesday, or will they view this as:  (a) political correctness run amok; (b) yet another example of the excessive feminization of the Democratic Party; and (c) an attack on traditional values (after all, boys will be boys)?

My money is on the latter.  Most women who knowingly voted for Trump in spite of his history are going to vote for Moore.  Jones will come tantalizingly close, but he will lose.

My mother’s line is still the best:  Bill Clinton was guilty of “low crimes and misdemeanors.”  But what, exactly, is meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors?”  Is it a legal or a political standard?

Having considered the history of the issue, including its English political antecedent, it is my opinion that “high crimes and misdemeanors” means an action or series of actions that seriously jeopardizes the normal functioning of our political system.  It is thus a political, not a legal, standard.  Some actions that would qualify as crimes do not meet the standard, and some actions that are not crimes would.  It includes misfeasance as well as malfeasance.  It encompasses corruption and gross incompetence as well as deliberate abuses of power.

And so, for example, proof of a quid pro quo between the Russian government and the Trump campaign would be legitimate grounds for impeachment even though “collusion” is not a crime, because active collaboration with a foreign government for self-interested reasons is exactly the kind of behavior that the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent.  Would Trump actually be impeached if evidence of this nature came to light?  Given the current state of the GOP, I very much doubt it.

For those of you who are amused by counterfactuals, consider what would have happened if Clinton had done the right thing and resigned:

1.  With the advantages of incumbency, and no longer burdened by the equivocal Clinton legacy, Gore won the 2000 election.
2.  9/11 occurred on his watch.  He won the war in Afghanistan.  Since he didn’t have to shift resources to Iraq prematurely, the victory was more complete, although the presence of the Pakistani safe haven provided protection to what little remained of the Taliban.
3.  There was no Gore tax cut.
4.  There was no Iraq War.  Saddam remained an irritant, but he stayed in place as a deterrent to Iranian adventurism.
5.  Weighed down by a tepid economy, boredom with 12 years of Democratic rule, and his own personal failings, Gore lost the 2004 election to John McCain.
6.  McCain could not summon any public support for a war in Iraq years after 9/11.
7.  McCain was totally befuddled by the stock market crash in 2008.  His big thing in life was eliminating wasteful public spending, not enacting stimulus packages. The Great Recession was consequently worse than it was in actual life.
8.  The dynamics of the 2008 Democratic campaign were very different.  On the one hand, Clinton was not required to justify her vote for the war; on the other hand, the resignation of her husband was an even bigger issue than in reality. Obama was nominated and won the general election handily.
9.  Since there was no Iraq War, Iran was less of a threat, and IS never came into existence.
10.  With the exception of the events flowing from the Iraq War, the events of the Obama years would have mirrored reality.

On the whole, the world would have been a much better place.  You just never know.

2016 really sucked.

This year brought no better luck.

Our politics still make me ill.

The nation stands divided still.

 

Marlowe died six weeks ago.

I’ve rarely ever felt so low.

Darcy’s here;  she’s eased our pain.

Our house is now a home again.

 

September brought a hurricane.

We fled the state; it seemed insane.

The house was fine, and so were we.

For weeks, we picked up storm debris.

 

A brighter note:  great trips were planned.

We went to China and Japan.

Chicago and Niagara Falls.

When we left town, we had a ball.

 

Our work is pretty much the same.

A few more years, we quit the game.

We’ll spend our summers in NC.

A safer, cooler place to be.

 

An endless year is nearly gone.

I doubt we’ve seen the worst from Don.

It’s now three years until he goes,

So keep the faith, and hold your nose.

The avalanche of sexual misconduct allegations against a variety of politicians and celebrities over the last few weeks has caused some pundits to reassess their view of the Clinton impeachment.  My opinion at the time was as follows:

1.  Clinton’s conduct was disgraceful, and it had an impact on his ability to do his job.  He should have resigned.
2.  In the event that he chose not to resign, however, the allegations against him were insufficient to warrant impeachment.

Having reconsidered the matter, that is still my opinion today.  A discussion on the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and speculation about how Clinton’s resignation would have changed history will be posted later in the week.

Like many of Trump’s initiatives, this one is a disaster on a number of levels, including the following:

1.  It further alienates our European allies;
2.  It endangers moderate Sunni regimes;
3.  It makes it clear that we cannot be taken seriously as an intermediary working for peace; and
4.  It enhances the image of Iran and its allies relative to the Saudis at a time when the Saudi regime is making noises about liberalization.

Even Bibi has to have his doubts about this.  But hey, Sheldon Aldelson will be happy.

The bottom line is that this is just another ploy to throw red meat to the base.  That is all the man knows how to do.