Month: November 2023

It’s complicated.

A few years ago, I suggested that the best way to evaluate presidents on foreign policy was to use a graph with active and passive as one axis and interests and values as the other. Kissinger would have been at the top of the active/interests quadrant.

He clearly identified with Metternich, which made sense; after all, both of them were in charge of foreign policy in the country that had most to lose if they failed. Metternich’s career ended when he was driven out of power by a revolution in 1848, however. That should suggest to you that there are limits to anyone’s ability to keep the lid on.

In a lot of ways, Kissinger reminds me of Netanyahu, who believes in conflict management rather than solutions and thinks Israeli values and interests are ultimately the same. After all, if Israel doesn’t do what it has to do to survive in an overwhelmingly hostile environment, there are no Israeli values. Kissinger probably would have said the same thing about American liberal democracy during the Cold War; you had to make deals with dirty people and kill a lot of innocents to keep the beacon of democracy safe from Soviet imperialism, which was the ultimate value.

A lot of people really hated Henry. If you lived in Chile or Cambodia, you probably had reason. I don’t, so I had mixed feelings about him.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that foreign policy realism, to be complete and effective, has to include an understanding of America’s messianic streak. Ideology and national character cannot be completely divorced from realism, and circumstances evolve with time. If you don’t understand that, you look like a 21st century King Lear, screaming about change and trying fruitlessly to bomb it out of existence.

Or, to put it another way, values do exist independently of interests, and they have to be considered and accommodated as part of the geopolitical equation.

It might have been well-intentioned, but the Trump/Rubio plan to overthrow the Maduro government was a complete failure. It generated lots of misery and migrants without accomplishing its purpose.

Biden clearly plans to change the existing regime change policy, and with good reason. Leaving aside the fact that it wasn’t working, a policy of accommodation could lead to lower gas prices and fewer desperate illegal immigrants at the border.

You would think the GOP would support this–at least, the reduction in illegal immigration part. Don’t hold your breath. The Venezuelan immigrants the GOP says it despises are vehemently anti-socialist and have helped turn Florida red. The GOP will therefore continue to rant about illegal immigration, while profiting from it at the polls.

Rishi Sunak is a PBP. Liz Truss is a CL. Boris Johnson is a Reactionary. They have very different visions about what is best for Britain, but they were all leaders of the Conservative Party.

Is it any wonder that the leadership of the party keeps changing? Is it any surprise that the party doesn’t seem to know what it is doing or where it is going?

Donald Trump has managed to avoid any public scrutiny of his extreme positions by refusing to debate. If the debates are to be meaningful, that has to change. But how?

By reframing the questions to include his positions. The candidates who show up should be encouraged to discuss them. Here are some examples:

1. From all indications, Donald Trump wants to force Ukraine to capitulate to Putin by cutting off aid. Do you agree with that?
2. Trump has also indicated on occasion that he thinks America should withdraw from NATO. Would you do that?
3. Trump has said many complimentary things about Xi and Putin. Do you agree with him?
4. Trump clearly believes that human rights issues should be put on a back burner in our relationships with China and Russia. Do you agree?
5. Trump has suggested on occasion that he would exchange support for Taiwan for a better trade deal with China. Would you do that?
6. From published reports, it appears that Trump wanted to bomb Iran during his last days in office. Under what circumstances would you do that?
7. Trump wants to impose a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on all imports. That would be a huge tax increase on average Americans and would alienate our allies. Do you agree with that?
8. Do you support the Trump plan to further cut corporate taxes?
9. Trump has said recently that he wants to try again to repeal and replace Obamacare. Would you do that?
10. Trump has said many times that he wants to send American special forces into Mexico to kill producers and sellers of illegal drugs. That would be opposed by the Mexican government and would result in America being at war with Mexico. Would you do that?
11. Trump has stated very clearly that he plans to direct the DOJ to prosecute his political opponents. Do you think that is appropriate?
12. Trump has called his political opponents “vermin.” Do you think the roughly 50 percent of Americans who vote for Democrats are vermin?

This approach puts Trump front and center during the debates. If he won’t show up to defend himself, the other candidates would be in a position to punish him.

Do you remember the pandemic? You should. Over a million Americans died. The economy was at a standstill. The welfare state expanded dramatically, and successfully, to alleviate suffering. Crime went up significantly, starting in 2020. Trump responded to the crisis by refusing to wear a mask, because he thought it would show weakness to the base. He told us to eat bleach. One day, he would say he was in charge; the next, he insisted that the problems were overblown, or that he had nothing to do with it. His irresponsibility probably cost him the election.

If the polls are right, most Americans have forgotten all of this. They don’t remember Trump’s erratic behavior, or what dire straits the economy was in at the time of the election, or how government aid was so critical to such a large number of people. All they know is that prices aren’t what they used to be, even if wages are higher, too. They want the economy of 2019. They blame Biden for not giving it to them, even though inflation was obviously the product of the pandemic.

It is up to the Biden campaign, and to the rest of us, to make America remember again. The baseline is November of 2020, not 2019.

Hamas and the Israelis have extended the pause in the fighting for two more days in order to exchange more hostages for fairly low value prisoners. The current exchange rate is 3:1. What happens when the pause expires?

The most important long-range questions, of course, revolve around the length of the occupation and who runs Gaza after the Israelis leave. The short-range questions are as follows:

1. Will the Israelis agree to release active Hamas fighters trapped in the tunnels to Syria or Lebanon in exchange for the rest of the hostages?
2. What kind of campaign will the Israelis run in the parts of Gaza that they do not currently occupy?

As to #1, my best guess is that the current exchange rate will continue to operate, although Israeli public opinion will make deals involving active Hamas fighters harder to sell, so this is hardly a given. As to #2, world public opinion will not let the Israelis engage in any kind of shock and awe tactics in areas that have been set aside for Palestinian civilians. The Israeli campaign will consequently look more like a low-key police action, with commando raids and identity checks instead of bombs, missiles, and tanks.

Israeli commentators, and some Americans, are fond of comparing Hamas to IS. How do the two stack up?

Consider the following:

HAMAS/IS

Brutal terrorists Yes/Yes

Sunni fundamentalists Yes/Yes

Iranian allies Yes/No

Ultimate objective Destroy Israel/Universal Caliphate

Belief in democracy Slight/None

AND THE WINNER IS . . . Hamas. There really are nothing but losers here, but Hamas is breaking even in the world court of public opinion, and its chances of crushing the Israelis, however microscopic, exceed the likelihood of the universal caliphate.

The Economist acknowledges the danger of climate change and wants to do something about it. That something, of course, is a carbon tax. It constantly criticizes Biden and the Democrats for supporting and approving a system of massive green subsidies which it considers to be wasteful and protectionist.

The criticism is logically correct and totally beside the point. Biden chose subsidies because a carbon tax is politically impossible. It is politically impossible because the GOP is adamantly opposed to any kind of new taxes (except tariffs, of course).

Who are the leaders of the GOP? Why, the kind of people who read The Economist. If the editors of the magazine want to do something useful, they will try to persuade their readers instead of attacking Biden for using the one avenue that is legally and politically available to him to avert climate disaster.

The Economist is a strong supporter of liberal democracy around the world, and it is fully aware of the military threat posed by China in its backyard. On the other hand, it was created over a century ago for the purpose of promoting free trade, so American efforts to limit our exposure to, and dependence on, Chinese exports are naturally viewed with suspicion. As a result, we have seen a series of articles and special sections over the last few months to the effect that de-risking is impossible, or unnecessary, or is already failing. Do these positions have merit?

Here are my reactions to some of these articles:

1. On the one hand, we have been told that the American effort to diversify supply chains away from China are a miserable failure, because the Chinese are manufacturing and selling critical components to companies in countries like Vietnam. On the other hand, the numbers indicate that China’s overall trade surplus has dropped significantly. How can this be, if the diversification process has been such a disaster?
2. The series on the weaknesses of the Chinese military was based on a faulty premise–that the biggest threat was an invasion of Taiwan. For reasons I have laid out on several occasions, an amphibious assault on Taiwan would be far too risky; the Chinese will rely on missiles and an air and sea blockade instead. Any holes in China’s ability to pull off an invasion are consequently of little importance.
3. One cannot logically argue concurrently that de-risking is impossible and that it is unnecessary due to the ability of the American private sector to adapt quickly to supply chain problems.

Like The Economist, I would like to see an end to Trump’s stupid Chinese tariffs, but the Biden approach to tech exports with national security applications makes perfect sense.

Javier Milei certainly looks and sounds like a right-wing populist. He has the swagger, the anger, and the reactionary views on social issues to fit the bill. But Milei is operating in an environment in which populist economics are the status quo. As a result, he ran as a radical deregulator. Think of Paul Ryan’s head on Trump’s body.

This unusual combination of CL and Reactionary, reminiscent of the Tea Party, probably won’t work in the end, because CL economic measures are the very antithesis of populism. They promise long-term gain in exchange for intense short-term pain that is typically intolerable for a reasonably prosperous democratic electorate. They can only work if the country as a whole is so fed up with the existing system, it feels it has nothing to lose (Poland and the Baltic states) or if the government is willing and able to use force to impose them (Pinochet). Milei is not in a position to do the latter, and it is doubtful that Argentina as a whole is ready for the former.

The real irony here, of course, is that Trump is a Peronist at heart. The success of his Argentinian right-wing counterpart and the economic failures of the previous government should operate as a warning to him. Not that they will.

Joe Biden initially ran in 2020 as a moderate who could work with Republicans, get things done, and beat Trump. When the pandemic completely changed the political landscape, he turned into a wannabe FDR who would transform the dollar store economy into something more equitable for workers. In office, he had some successes, but the FDR phase died at the hands of inflation, Manchin, and Sinema. So how will he run in 2024? Will he try to inspire the public with leftist rhetoric, or will he be the Great Triangulator?

I think we will see some of both, but mostly B. The fear of Trump in office is still his strongest card, and there is no realistic possibility of the Democrats winning a large enough majority in the Senate to ram through an ambitious agenda. In fact, the likelihood is that they won’t have a majority at all after 2024.

In 2016, if you weren’t paying attention, it was just possible to believe that Donald Trump was a brilliant outsider businessman who would make America great again by upsetting a turgid status quo and making inspired deals with politicians on both sides of the aisle. Millions of people voted for him for that very reason. We all know how that turned out. It was an illusion.

In 2024, if Trump wins, it will probably be because millions of Americans think he will bring back the economy of 2019, and that all of the authoritarian talk is just empty noise. That is also an illusion. The truth is that Trump has no idea how to bring back 2019, but he now knows very well how to make himself a strongman, and he is grimly determined to do so. This time, take him both seriously and literally.

Irsay, an incredibly rich white guy whose family is best known for spiriting the Colts out of Baltimore in the middle of the night, claims he was arrested for DUI in 2014 because he is a white billionaire. To be sure, that puts a completely different spin on the concept of the offense of DWB.

What can we learn from this? First of all, the idea that the law only applies to little people isn’t limited to Donald Trump. Second, Irsay is either so caught up in the right-wing culture of victimization that he has actually started to believe it, or he’s so cynical that he thinks there is a large audience for it. Either way, it’s not a pretty sight.

Putin apparently told representatives of the G20 yesterday that the Ukraine war was a “tragedy,” making it sound like an earthquake or a hurricane. The war was a choice–his choice. It wasn’t imposed on him. He can stop it any time he likes.

The Ukrainians, the civilians in Gaza, and hundreds of millions of other people around the world have precious little reason to be thankful today. Americans are not in that group, regardless of what Trump and his friends will tell you.

Happy Thanksgiving!

It’s always a mistake to pay ransoms, according to the leadership of the GOP. As a matter of principle, we should never deal with terrorists. In addition, it just encourages more hostage taking. Democrats who make deals for hostages are just unprincipled wimps who don’t have the guts to stand up for what’s right.

Of course, Bibi makes deals for hostages. Is the GOP outraged? Have you heard, say, Tom Cotton talk about what wimps the Israelis are?

Silence. That rule only applies to Democrats.