Author: hamilton1788

Yes, my muse is in overdrive today.  Wait until you see what I have prepared for the next few days!

The NSC leader named John

Wants Iran’s current government gone.

He’s dreaming of war

Though exactly what for

Is a mystery to both him and Don.

The great would-be emperor Xi.

He doesn’t think trade should be free.

He’ll subsidize tech.

Make the system a wreck.

To bring the US to its knees.

On the newbie dictator named Kim.

He’ll kill people just on a whim.

No problem with Trump.

Liberals make him a grump.

But strong men are ok with him.

If there was ever any doubt, it should be gone by now–Donald Trump has fired the EU.  The same demeaning ritual has been repeated over and over again:  Trump announces his plan to change American policy; the Europeans troop to his office, suck up to him, and beg him to change his mind; and he ignores them.  Disbelief is turning to anger.  Something must be done to show Trump that life doesn’t imitate “The Apprentice,” and he is not the boss of the EU.

But what?  The EU can remain consistent with its rules-based approach to problems and call on the assistance of the WTO, but that takes years.  Blowing up NATO and jacking up defense budgets won’t be welcomed by EU taxpayers.  The emerging illiberal democracies in the EU don’t really agree with the rules-based approach, anyway.  Another way has to be found.

There is one:  protectionism.  Historically, the EU has been far more protectionist than the US.  Today, with the shoe on the other foot, I suspect it would be relatively easy to unite the continent on the basis of sanctions against the US.  These could be removed once the US returns to its senses, which will probably happen sometime around January 20, 2021.

I’ve never interviewed Hillary Clinton, and I probably never will.  If I did, however, it would go something like this:

I enter her office, where she is waiting.

C:  Thank you for seeing me today.

H:  My pleasure.  I understand you were one of my supporters during the campaign.

C:  Yes, but not an uncritical one.  In particular, I had concerns about your position on the TPP.

H:  Well, I never demanded uncritical support.  Unlike some other people we know.

C:  I would like to ask you some questions about your two campaigns, your tenure as Secretary of State, and the current state of America and world affairs.

H:  That sounds ambitious.  Shoot.

C:  Let’s start with the 2008 campaign.

H:  That seems like a long time ago.

C:  I have opined that you will go down in history for being unlucky more than anything else.  Part of that was the timing of the Great Recession.  If it had happened six months earlier, you would have been elected in 2008.  Do you agree?

H:  I’ve never considered that, but yes, I think the economy would have been a much bigger issue, and that would have helped me.

C:  I have also opined that one of your biggest problems in 2008 was that you couldn’t decide whether you were running as a man or a woman.  You seemed to resolve that in 2016.  Do you agree?

H:  In 2008, the idea of a woman president was more of a novelty, and I assumed I would be running against a Republican who would attack me for being soft on national security.  So yes, that was an issue.  It was less of a problem after I had been Secretary of State.

C:  Your Iraq War vote was also a problem.  I have always assumed that it was motivated, in part, by your concerns about being attacked from the right in a presidential campaign.  Am I right?

H:  Unfortunately, I was persuaded by bogus information from the Bush camp, just like everyone else.  But yes, it did enter my mind.  I can’t lie about that.

C:  If you had been elected instead of Obama, how different would the country be today?

H:  Not very.  I would have been a bit more willing to use force abroad.  I would have been tougher on the GOP in Congress earlier.  The broad policy outlines would have been the same.  We didn’t really disagree on policy, even during the campaign;  it was all about personalities.

C:  You seem to be very proud of your work as Secretary of State even though you had to be persuaded to take the job.  Am I right about that?

H:  Yes.  I didn’t really want the job initially, and it was hard work.  Way too much travelling.  But I think we did a lot of good in the world.  Some of that will even survive the current administration.

C:  Obama has been criticized for being overly rational in his foreign policy, and ignoring the overriding importance of emotion and nationalism.  Do you think that is fair criticism?

H:  I don’t apologize for being rational, but yes, there is probably something to the idea that we underestimated the power of irrationality.

C:  The reset with Russia didn’t really work.  What do you think happened?

H:  Well, part of that was just excessive expectations.  A big part of it was our support for democratic revolutions in Ukraine and the Middle East.  That made Putin very uncomfortable.

C:  Do you have any regrets about that?  About Libya, to use just one example?

H:  What we were supposed to do, ignore our allies and let Qaddafi murder his people because it would upset Putin?  Libya hasn’t exactly turned out the way we planned, but that’s more due to the follow-up than the original decision to get involved.

C:  Let’s move forward to 2016.  Some of your supporters blame Bernie Sanders for damaging you during the primaries.  Do you agree?

H:  Bernie didn’t help, but I don’t harbor any grudges against him or his supporters.  He had a particular point of view that deserved to be heard.  He campaigned for me without any reservations after he lost.  I don’t blame him for Trump.

C:  Do you regret not spending more time in the Rust Belt at the end of the campaign?

H:  Not really.  I just wasn’t very popular there.  Going there didn’t help.

C:  What was it like being on stage with Trump looming behind you?

H:  It was weird and creepy.  I’ll leave it at that.

C:  I have the impression that you felt you let women down in 2016.  That appeared to bother you more than your personal loss.   True or false?

H:  Definitely true.  All the little girls out there who were being inspired by me, and then I was beaten by a patently unqualified man–that really hurt.

C:  Do you think we’ll see a woman president in your lifetime?

H:  Yes, but it will take some time.  My suspicion is that the first woman president will come from the GOP, and will be a sort of steel magnolia type.  We’ll see.

C:  You said during the campaign that you were the only thing standing between us and the end of the world.  Have you changed your opinion on that?

H:  Have you seen what’s going on out there?

C:  We’re running out of time, so I will just ask you for a brief critique of Trump.

H:  We’re now living in a world in which we have better relationships with strong men than with democratic states, and we appear to be headed in the same direction at home.  We take money from the poor and give it to rich people to buy government bonds to fund the deficit.  That’s appalling.  The road back to sanity starts in November.

C:  Thank you for your time.

Stormy Daniels played herself in an SNL sketch last week.  While this was undoubtedly amusing, was it a good idea?

No.  Trump has done this country a great disservice by blurring the lines between politics and reality TV.  This kind of activity ultimately plays into his hands.

It’s clear in hindsight that the crowds of culture warriors baying for Sarah Palin at the end of the 2008 campaign were a foreshadowing of the success of Donald Trump.  The question for today is, would Palin have been worse than Trump?

The answer is no, even though she was (and is) an even brighter red Reactionary than Trump, because:

1.  Palin isn’t a habitual liar;
2.  Palin isn’t as driven by her ego as Trump;
3.  Palin hasn’t shown any signs of being an authoritarian;
4.  Palin isn’t corrupt, at least to my knowledge; and
5.  Palin had experience in government, and had a track record of reaching out to members of both parties in Alaska.

 

Gina Haspel stated under oath yesterday that she would refuse a direct order from President Trump to torture prisoners.  It was an appropriate question, and the correct answer.

The real issue, however, is whether we can believe her.  What actually happens if we have a large-scale terrorist attack, and the order to torture is issued, as it almost certainly would be?  Will she view the severity of the crisis as an extenuating circumstance that releases her from her promise?

Based on her record and her comments about what happened after 9/11, the most likely response is yes.  And so, in my opinion, she should not be confirmed, even though she probably will be.

Scenario #4:  The GOP hangs on to the House and increases its majority in the Senate.

Result:  It’s Obamacare repeal time again, y’all!

The GOP stalwart named Mitch

Beat Blankenship’s butt with a switch.

He blew him away.

Not much else you can say.

The establishment’s ire is a bitch.

Key questions from Trump’s decision to exit the Iran deal:

1.  Will the sanctions cause the Iranian economy to crumble?  No.  They didn’t before, and Russia and China were participating last time.  They won’t cooperate this time.  Life was already tough, and will get tougher, but the Iranians will manage to get by.

2.  Will the sanctions result in regime change?  If they do, it will only be to empower the hard-liners, who will take more control of the economy and unleash more repression.  Even to a greater extent than before, anyone complaining about the regime will be treated as an American agent.  The US will serve as a handy scapegoat for the government’s failures.

3.  How will the Europeans react?  The effect of the sanctions will largely be felt by European companies, who will call on their governments for help.  The governments will temporize.  Public opinion in Europe will swing wildly against America.  Trump’s trip to the UK will be marked by large demonstrations.

4.  How will the Russians and Chinese react?  Both will view the sanctions as obnoxious American financial imperialism.  Both will assist the Iranians in avoiding them.  The Russians will openly offer the Iranians diplomatic and economic support;  the Chinese will work to avoid war in order to maintain their oil supply.

5.  Will Iran go straight for the bomb?  In the short run, the Iranian government will probably try to make a deal with the Europeans that features partial compliance with the deal (with some symbolic changes needed to appease the hard-liners) in exchange for active support against the US.  If that fails, and it probably will, they will resume their nuclear program.

6.  Does Trump know he’s heading for war?  Most of the pundits believe he is plunging into a thicket without a viable Plan B.  My guess is otherwise.  Certainly Netanyahu and MBS want war.

7.  How will the American public react?  Again, I’m guessing here, but I don’t think that 1979 rings in the ears of the American public as much as the Iraq War.  Higher Trump gas prices will not be welcomed.  There will have to be a serious provocation to get public support for a war.

8.  How does it end?  Either Trump backs down or Iran is annihilated.  Netanyahu and MBS will make sure it’s the latter.

Scenario #3:  The GOP retains narrow control of both the House and Senate.

Result:  Status quo.  No major legislation, no investigations, no shutdowns, and most of Trump’s appointees are confirmed.

Trump is reportedly urging GOP congressional candidates to use the avoidance of impeachment as a primary theme during the campaign.  It only stands to reason;  everything is about him, not the country or even the party’s agenda.

Impeachment is, to be sure, a tricky issue for the Democrats;  they have to thread the needle between their angry base and moderate swing voters.   While the approach will have to be different depending on how blue the district is, I would suggest the following as both a principled and practical response:

1.  Impeachment is an extreme remedy that should not be normalized.  If it is, our politics will become even more poisonous than they are today, to the benefit of no one.
2.  While there is plenty of reason to be concerned about the relationship between Trump and the Russians, and about obstruction of justice, there is not enough information in the public realm today to justify impeachment.
3.  That could, of course, change after Mueller finishes his work.  I’m reserving judgment until then.
4.  It is essential that Congress maintain strict oversight over such a corrupt and lawless administration.  I will support all reasonable efforts to do so, and will support legislation which would prevent Trump from firing Mueller.

Scenario #2:  The Democrats take the House, but the GOP retains a slim majority in the Senate.

The result:  No meaningful legislation of any kind.  Lots of Trump investigations by House Democrats.  Trump’s nominees are approved by the Senate.  Plenty of white noise, but the government doesn’t shut down or default on the debt.

So what happens after the midterm elections?  Here is the first of four scenarios:

Scenario #1:  The Democrats control both houses of Congress.

Result:  There is some talk of cooperation on infrastructure, but it melts away quickly.  The House immediately begins a host of investigations involving Trump’s business practices and the behavior of his “fox in the henhouse” Cabinet members.  The Senate refuses to confirm many of Trump’s appointees, and Chuck Schumer, based on the Garland precedent, declines to hold hearings for  Supreme Court nominees.  The government shuts down.  Default on the national debt becomes a real possibility.  Everyone looks for a resolution in 2020.