Category: Uncategorized

ANOTHER BAD SNL EPISODE!  BALDWIN ISN’T FUNNY!  I SHOULD TALK TO PUTIN ABOUT TRADING HIM FOR SNOWDEN.

Unless you’re Adele or Beyonce, you don’t have Meryl Streep’s stature and credibility, so please don’t annoy us with political speeches.  They will only make us turn off the TV.

It’s too early to move the embassy to Jerusalem.  New settlements are an obstacle to peace.  Sanctions for Crimea won’t be lifted anytime soon.  We adhere to the One China policy.  Playing golf with Abe.

If you take all of this seriously, Trump has moved away from his unconventional ideas on foreign policy and towards a more normal, albeit inept and blustery, approach.  But should you assume that it means anything?

No.  Remember, Trump lies constantly in order to create confusion and preserve his freedom of action.  In addition, there were good tactical reasons to take the actions listed above.  He’s helping his buddy Bibi with the Israeli right by taking a harder line on the embassy and settlements; he creates leverage with Putin by maintaining the status quo for now; and he has too much on his plate to confront the Chinese just yet.

His ideas on mercantilism and terrorism are at the heart of his political identity. If you think they’re going away anytime soon, you’re making a big mistake.

The general known as “Mad Dog.”

His boss operates in a fog.

He’s promised our friends

It’s not really the end.

The task is a difficult slog.

I grew up during the 1970’s, and part of me will always live there.  While I would argue that some aspects of the culture then were better than they are now, for the country in general, it was hardly a golden age:  Vietnam; Watergate; inflation; “national malaise;” Iran; etc.  America seemed to be in an irreversible decline. Even the cars, clothes, and houses were ugly.  It is no wonder we were looking for something completely different in 1980.

My wife and I watched the CNN series called “The Seventies” a few weeks ago, and even though we both lived through the times and internalized them, we were startled by some of the images–particularly the film of New York looking like a war zone.  She observed, and was correct, that Trump’s dystopian rhetoric about crime, decline, and the inner cities appeared to be grounded in those images, which in no way reflect current conditions;  after all, the debate that rages in New York City today is about gentrification, not decay.  And so, the question for today is whether Trump actually believes the doom and gloom that he offers up by the tablespoon because it is a big part of his early experience.

I don’t think so.  Trump was a big player in the Gatsby 80’s, as well.  Furthermore, he didn’t really start talking about crime and urban decay until late in his campaign.  I think it is just another instance of him finding and reviving a theme that played well with his constituents and milking it for political gain.

The Trump travel ban has gone down.

His tweets make him look like a clown.

It’s really good news

‘Cause the Don hates to lose.

Don’t mess with a man in a gown.

Having broadcast his intention to confront the Chinese over the trade deficit and the South China Sea, Trump has apparently changed his tune.  Now, he’s talking to Xi in a more traditional and diplomatic way.  Is this a genuine change of course?

It is a mistake to attach much importance to anything that Trump says at any given time, as he tells lies in order to remain unpredictable.  On the other hand, if he has said something consistently throughout his life, you can probably rely on it.  There is no doubt that he actually believes the neo-mercantilist garbage that he has been spouting for the last thirty years, so a confrontation with China is inevitable, regardless of what he is saying today.

There is a much-discussed article in this month’s Atlantic in which David Frum describes a rotting constitutional structure during Trump’s first term. Corruption becomes the norm; administration critics are silenced by pro-Trump internet trolls; businessmen suck up to the President in order to curry favor and stave off misuses of regulatory authority; and the GOP majority in Congress does nothing to stop any of this, as it is too invested in Trump’s success.  It is an appalling picture.

Except, of course, that it is way too optimistic.  Frum’s nightmare is actually a better case than my best case scenario.

The article assumes the economy is booming as a result of the “Funhouse Reagan” tax cuts.  It assumes that there will be no trade wars and no immigration crackdowns.  Most importantly, it assumes that there will be no diplomatic revolutions, no large scale domestic terrorist attacks, and no foreign wars.  All of this, in my view, is unrealistic.

Trump loves popularity and hates criticism.  He is going to try to wrap himself in the flag in order to silence his opponents when the next big crisis rolls around.  It is just a matter of time.

Crooked judges are friends of terrorists and should be impeached.  I alone can save America from Muslim extremists.

The Cowardly Lion apparently made a well-reviewed speech on the Senate floor yesterday in which he asked both sides to behave in a civilized manner and stop hating each other.  This would be a lot more compelling if he were willing to direct it to the Twitter King, who is living proof that incivility works, but he will never have the nerve to do so. It would cost him too much support among GOP core voters.

Roar, Cowardly Lion, roar.

 

Does calling an Islamist group that is typically willing to participate in the democratic process a terrorist organization sound smart to you?  Me neither, unless you want your only allies in the Arab world to be military dictators.

 

I don’t want to sound like an alarmist, but the fact is that we are just a war or a major domestic terrorist-related incident away from a potential crackdown on civil liberties in this country.  Trump hates criticism; if presented with the opportunity to do away with it, you can be fairly certain he will take it.

His nominees have to be scrutinized with that in mind.  If the crackdown comes, Sessions will be in the front lines.  Will his legal experience and respect for the law outweigh his ambition, ideology, and investment in Trump’s success? I don’t know the answer to that, but there is certainly reason to worry about him that goes far beyond his inevitable “white is the new black” approach to civil rights issues.

Gorsuch, on the other hand, has a reputation for being an independent (albeit conservative) thinker and a man of integrity.  His comments about Trump and the judiciary may just be a tactic, but, based on his history, I am inclined to think not.  The Democrats consequently need to handle him with care.  He should not be subjected to the politics of personal destruction, and he should be confirmed without rancor after the filibuster is extinguished.

One thing is obvious:  don’t rely on Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell to protect your rights if the day I fear becomes a reality.  Their priorities are elsewhere.

Ross Douthat, in today’s NYT, attributes the intensity of the opposition to DeVos to typical Democratic interest group politics.  As usual, this conclusion is partly, but not completely, true.

Douthat thinks the Democrats would be better served taking on other cabinet nominees who are either less competent or more dangerous to the country.  In fact, however, the Democrats have opposed an unprecedented number of nominees, including Sessions and Tillerson.  What makes DeVos different, other than her painfully obvious lack of qualifications and knowledge of her brief, is the concern expressed by GOP supporters of public schools.  That gave the Democrats some reason to believe that DeVos could be defeated.

So yes, the grassroots opposition to DeVos was largely led by traditional Democratic interest groups behaving in their usual manner.  But no, the Democrats in the Senate did not really treat her as a special case, and to the limited extent that they did, it was because she was uniquely vulnerable.

Trump’s attitude towards fighting terrorists is clear and simple:  if you think you see one, blow him up, and deal with any collateral issues later.  No wimpy Obama-style liberal, he.

The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t work, as the failed effort in Yemen indicates.  Military operations come with risks as well as rewards.  Even apparently successful operations can ultimately create more terrorists than they kill, which hardly aids the cause in the long run.

It is essential to keep the big picture in mind when deciding whether or not to take military action in any given case.  Is Trump capable of this kind of nuance? There is plenty of reason to doubt it; instead, it is more likely that we will see cycles of ever-increasing violence as his simplistic approach runs aground.

So Trump and the GOP have just expended lots of political capital to approve a woman who is likely to embarrass them while in office.  That doesn’t sound very shrewd to me.