Month: May 2019

If there is one thing we know for sure about Trump, it is that he absolutely loves tariffs, because the system gives him essentially unlimited power to ruin his adversaries and get attention by imposing them to solve bogus “emergencies”. His latest threat to Mexico over illegal immigration is a case in point.

The majority of GOP members of Congress hate his tariffs. They could join with the Democrats to put appropriate limits on his discretion to impose them if they had the nerve. Their fear of him, of course, is far stronger than their devotion to free trade and the national interest, so it won’t happen. Let’s hope they pay the price for it in 2020.

One of Trump’s favorite practices is to make outrageous statements about his opponents and then to falsely claim he didn’t say them, blatantly lie about what they meant, or maintain they were a “joke” if they backfire. So it was with his concurrence with his strongman buddy Kim’s assessment of Biden in Japan, which didn’t go over well at home, even with Republicans.

Fortunately, Trump hasn’t figured out that he is actually building support for Biden with the blue base by singling him out for attacks. If he genuinely fears Biden, he really should be praising him, not insulting him.

A few days ago, the NYT featured similar columns from Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat explaining how Trump will win in 2020. Stephens says this will happen because the Democrats are lurching to the left; Douthat is more equivocal, as he acknowledges that Trump isn’t as accomplished a politician as some of his right-wing populist partners in crime, but he thinks the Democrats need to be more accepting of reactionary views on the culture wars. Are they right?

They’re being too pessimistic, even assuming that the economy continues to roar in spite of the inverted yield curve, which may well not be true. The center of the Democratic Party, in spite of Stephens’ nightmares, hasn’t moved that much; otherwise, why would Biden be leading in the polls? The Democrats won the midterms just a few months ago. Trump’s approval ratings are still stuck well below 50 percent. Trump himself is still the divisive, obnoxious blowhard who turns off moderates and women. Just because Modi won doesn’t mean he will.

The Democratic candidates aren’t directly responsible for any impeachment decisions, so they are free to take positions that are consistent with their self-interest. How is that breaking down?

You might think initially that the fundis would support impeachment and the realos would be more cautious, but the situation is more complex than that; for example, Warren strongly supports impeachment, but Sanders is less enthused. Here is how I see it:

1. If your brand emphasizes working with the GOP to get results, or your independence and good sense, you’re likely to defer to Pelosi on impeachment. Don’t close the door, but don’t demand immediate action, either.
2. If you want the “revolution,” impeachment isn’t going to help you get there. It’s a distraction from the real issues.
3. If you’re behind in the polls and need attention, talking up impeachment makes a lot of sense, regardless of whether you are a realo or a fundi.

If you take this template and apply it to the candidates’ statements, I think you will find it is a very good match.

The arguments against impeaching Trump are: (a) that impeachment cannot succeed; (b) it will damage the Democrats’ chances of winning in 2020; (c) it will unnecessarily divide the nation; and (d) it will normalize impeachment as a political weapon, even against presidents with an impeccable record. The arguments for are: (a) it is a good way to raise public awareness and to generate evidence; (b) Mueller has provided plenty of reasons to pursue an obstruction of justice claim, which has in the past been the basis for articles of impeachment; and (c) failing to impeach under the current circumstances will lower the bar for future presidential conduct.

All of these positions have at least some merit. Which is the stronger side? Here is my line of reasoning:

1. The applicable legal standard here is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which has been understood to mean, not indictable crimes, but actions that endangered the integrity or the security of the state. In that sense, whether Mueller believed Trump’s behavior met the statutory standard for obstruction of justice is irrelevant; the real question is whether Trump’s behavior was a danger to the state.
2. Given that it was determined that there was no underlying conspiracy, and that Mueller was permitted to finish his work, I find it difficult to conclude that Trump’s actions, however deplorable, were “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
3. As a result, I do not think that the current record justifies a quixotic effort to impeach.
4. That isn’t the end of the story. There is plenty of reason to investigate the man on multiple fronts. His determination to stonewall legitimate efforts to hold him accountable could amount to a precedent that would effectively change the Constitution in a manner that would eliminate critical checks and balances. That could amount to a “high crime and misdemeanor.”
5. And so, my judgment is that if Trump ultimately defies a court order requiring him or his administration to provide documents that are necessary for an appropriate level of oversight of the executive, that could well be grounds for impeachment, regardless of the short-term political consequences, because he would be endangering the integrity of the system as we know it.

You can make a pretty good argument that Elizabeth Warren’s innumerable plans, financed by her wealth tax, actually put her to the left of Bernie Sanders. Unlike the “democratic socialist” Sanders, however, she is portraying herself as a capitalist who wants to save the system from itself. In historical terms, she’s trying to play FDR to Bernie’s Huey Long.

It’s a sensible move, and one that will make her more acceptable than Sanders to the electorate if she wins the nomination. But, given her schoolteacher personality, can she persuade the public that she truly is FDR’s heir, and that we need a Second New Deal at a time when the unemployment rate is 3 percent? Don’t hold your breath on either count.

The pattern is becoming clear, at least in dealing with strongmen: Bolton plays the bad cop, while Trump plays the capricious good cop who really prefers negotiations to war. Pompeo just runs around the globe spouting what he thinks his boss believes and pretending they are on the same page when Trump undercuts him, which is most of the time.

This only works, of course, with strongmen; there are no good cops in dealing with liberal democratic regimes. They were part of the “axis of adults” that departed long ago.

The multiplicity of voices is a feature, not a bug, of this administration. Trump thinks it makes him more unpredictable, and increases his freedom of action; that is why he continues to tolerate Bolton’s warmongering. Is the dissonance a good thing? Not if you are relying on the word of the United States in any way, shape, or form, which is most of the world most of the time.

A: This foreign leader sucked up furiously to Trump, but gained nothing for his pains.

Q: Who is Shinzo Abe?

MADMAN ACROSS THE WATER

We can see very well.

There’s a clown overseas with an unhinged mind

And we can see him very well.

He’s a joke and we know it very well.

Just one of those that I warned of long ago.

Take my word, he’s a madman, don’t you know.

______________

Once a fool, but we voted him the boss.

It’s his gain, but surely, it’s our loss.

He’s quite peculiar in a funny sort of way.

Some think it’s funny, everything he’ll say.

Get a load of him, he’s so insane.

The world just hopes he won’t bring a hard rain.

___________________

He’ll be on TV every afternoon.

The Saudis hope to see him very soon.

But is it in your conscience that you’re after

Another laugh about the madman across the water?

Parody of “Madman Across the Water” by Elton John and Bernie Taupin

In about six weeks, BoJo is likely to be the PM. Remainers within his party will, of course, be horrified. He will call for unity in spite of his, to put it mildly, divisive views on Brexit in order to keep Corbyn out. Will he succeed?

This will be a difficult call for each individual Remainer. If you’re young and aspire to higher office, you have to realize that crossing the aisle is a dead end. If you have few or no ambitions and strong principles, it will be a different story.

It will be close. I make no predictions on who wins.

My wife and I spent the long Memorial Day weekend visiting museums in Philadelphia. The American history museums are just outstanding. I particularly recommend the National Constitution Center, which has excellent permanent displays and featured special shows on Reconstruction (we saw an actual carpetbag!) and Hamilton.

The permanent display tried to be fair to everyone, but the overall message was clear; following Lincoln, MLK, and Obama, the implicit argument was that the purpose of the Declaration is being fulfilled through the continuing battles to guarantee equality for disfavored groups. The arc of American history, as it were, operates in favor of the inclusion of the powerless.

The show ends, logically enough, with Obama. My reactions were:

1. What is this place going to say about Trump? When will that decision be made, and how?
2. The difference between originalists and adherents of the living Constitution are essentially the two sides of the arc of history battle. If you don’t believe that American history is a long process favoring inclusion, it makes sense to stop your legal analysis with the Founding Fathers, with just a brief and unfortunate detour to address the Reconstruction amendments. If you do believe in the arc of history, you can’t ignore the 200+ years of experience between 1787 and today. It just wouldn’t make sense.

Bret Stephens has a lengthy list of grievances with Iran. He thinks Trump should offer completely normal relations with the Iranians in exchange for the normalization of the regime. This would, of course, amount to regime change, and it won’t happen.

The problem with the list of grievances is that most of them apply to Saudi Arabia, too, and many also apply to Russia and China. The first is our partner in crime, and we do business with the latter two, because we have to.

The bottom line is that you can’t have a foreign policy, in the Middle East or anywhere else, that revolves solely around moral judgments about the quality of regimes.

There are three models for a winning campaign in 2020. If you believe that the election will be decided by swing voters, you should nominate a realo. If you think there aren’t enough swing voters to matter, you should pick the candidate who will best motivate the base- probably, although not certainly, a fundi. If nothing less than the revolution will do, nominate someone who will downplay the culture war by making concessions to white reactionaries.

Sanders should be running the third kind of campaign. In reality, he is just a base mobilizing guy. That could conceivably win him the election, but it won’t bring about the revolution.

Other than being old white guys with plenty of experience in the Senate, the two would appear to have little in common. Bernie will be relying on LBJ as a role model of sorts, however, because the Great Society is the best example of a major expansion of federal power that did not occur during an economic crisis.

Unfortunately, the analogy is unlikely to hold. LBJ was a very resourceful politician; JFK’s death created a degree of public sympathy for his agenda; and he ran against Goldwater. Bernie will have none of those advantages.

William Barr and Julian Assange are two of my least favorite people in the whole world. If the two have to collide, you wish that some cosmic force would cause both of them to be completely annihilated.

The DOJ, at least in public, is being careful to maintain that they are not trying to create a precedent that can be used against real journalists. Under Barr’s leadership, those statements cannot be trusted. This situation bears very careful watching.