Cromwell

We all know that Donald Trump had zero qualifications to be president when he was elected, because his business experience had no relevance to a position defined by law, custom, and the needs of hundreds of millions of people. Unlike the Trump Organization, America is not a corporation, let alone a closely-held one run on the whims of a capricious man on golf cart.

It occurred to me this afternoon that Trump may actually find the experience of governing with a Democratic House somewhat liberating. He had no idea how to legislate and no real ideological agenda, so he was forced to outsource that part of the job to the Republican leadership in Congress for the first two years of his term, which meant sharing the limelight with other members of his party. Today, he knows he can’t legislate, and no one expects it of him, so he can focus on the parts of the job he actually enjoys–running around the world making deals with strongmen, tweeting about his opponents, and holding campaign rallies. His experience as a developer, casino owner, and media celebrity actually has some relevance to those activities.

Fortunately for the rest of us, we can now enjoy the counter-spectacles of the House attempting to hold him accountable, and of his Democratic opponents preparing to take him on in 2020.

Is it Oliver Cromwell dissolving the Rump Parliament, or the Commons speaking to Theresa May? You decide.

We obviously haven’t seen the actual report, and we don’t know if we ever will. My guess, however, is that its nuances are less favorable to Trump than Barr is suggesting, as follows:

1. The facts that are publicly known show that the Trump campaign had far more contacts with the Russians than its officials let on, openly welcomed assistance from them, and repeatedly lied about it. Mueller probably repeats all of this, but goes on to say that there is no evidence of a quid pro quo, and that the contacts themselves do not quite rise to the level of agreement necessary to make out a case for conspiracy. In other words, the Trump campaign, as far as we can tell, just managed to stay on the right side of the line. You could call that an “exoneration,” but not by much.
2. On obstruction, I suspect that the critical issue was intent, and Mueller found the motivations behind Trump’s statements and behavior to be baffling (as do we all, at times). This is a variant of the “he lies all the time, so how can he have a corrupt intent in this case?” defense to which I alluded yesterday. It is hardly a ringing endorsement of Trump’s innocence.

If I’m right, and I think I am, the GOP is welcome to run its 2020 campaign on the basis of “he’s such a liar, he couldn’t possibly obstruct justice.” That’s not quite as catchy as “Make America Great Again.”

There are essentially three ways the United States can work for a peace plan between the Israelis and the Palestinians:

1. The US can operate as a mediator–facilitating discussions between the two parties, and providing the occasional idea where necessary to move the process along.
2. The US can identify its own plan and attempt to impose it by using its economic and political leverage over the parties.
3. The US can abandon any semblance of even-handedness, ask the Israelis for their bottom line, try to get the leaders of the Arab world to buy off on that bottom line, and then ram the consensus down the throats of the Palestinians.

Historically, the preferred approach has been #1, which can only work if both sides view the mediator as being disinterested. #2 has been rejected for the reason that it puts the power and reputation of the US at what has been viewed as an unacceptable risk. We are currently at #3. The Arab heads of state have not bought off on any proposals yet, which is why the Trump/Kushner peace plan hasn’t seen the light of day, more than two years into the Trump presidency, and may never do so.

My guess was right. The report did provide ammunition for both sides, although Trump’s attorneys are undoubtedly happier about it than the handful of Democrats crying out for impeachment. Here are my observations on the Barr letter:

1. Boy, the people who are going to jail for lying about their dealings with Russians must be feeling really stupid right now.
2. Does this mean Trump will stop screaming about the witch hunt and the deep state? Probably not, even though it should.
3. As we know, Trump lies about virtually everything, and on the slightest provocation. Ironically enough, that probably constitutes a defense to an obstruction of justice argument. How can you develop the intent to obstruct justice just by lying if you have no regard for the truth on any matter?
4. The real question with Trump is why he has this weird regard for Putin that causes him to behave in a manner that is inconsistent with the rest of his party and his administration. Mueller didn’t answer that question, so it remains. Maybe the prosecutors in New York who are looking at his business interests will have something useful to say on the matter. Maybe it’s a strange personality quirk, or a general love of strongmen, or fascist ideology. We just don’t know.
5. The Democrats are obviously going to continue to look at the obstruction issue, but I would expect it to peter out slowly over time. That said, Trump is still in clear legal peril over the Stormy Daniels hush money matter. It’s not as if all of the criminal issues surrounding him are somehow going to go away anytime soon.

Tomorrow will be the first installation of Middle East Mondays! We’ll be covering all of your favorite thugs, despots, and theocrats on a weekly basis until I run out of ideas, which, given the volatility of the region, should take quite a while.

There has been a lot of chatter about the Electoral College recently, most notably by Elizabeth Warren. Prompted by the “undemocratic” outcomes in 2000 and 2016, the gist of it is that the winner of the popular vote deserves to prevail–period. Is the argument well taken?

When you break it down, you quickly realize it is actually two different questions:

1. Is it appropriate to organize the presidential election on a state-by-state basis?
2. If so, does the current system have an inappropriate bias in favor of rural states, and can it be fixed?

My responses are as follows:

1. Any system other than a single national plebiscite which ignores state lines runs the risk of having an “undemocratic” result. You could justify that on the basis that “We the people,” not “We the states,” ratified the Constitution. The Constitution, however, contemplated a very significant role for the states. Members of the House and Senate are chosen in elections organized within individual states. All powers that are not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states. I think it is difficult to argue that a state-by-state election is inappropriate.
2. That said, the current system clearly is weighted in favor of rural areas. There is no policy basis in our system for that. You could eliminate the bias simply by removing the 100 votes that are attributable to senators; that way, the allocation of electoral votes would be based purely on population. That would be a much fairer system.

As noted above, an Electoral College with the Senate votes eliminated could still lead to a result in which the popular vote winner loses. However, rural and urban votes would have the same value, and that would be a significant improvement.

The Fed, like the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the military, is designed to be a nonpartisan entity. To the extent that these institutions are run by and for politicians, we are in deep, deep trouble.

Stephen Moore is nothing more or less than a right-wing political hack. He is perfectly capable of taking completely inconsistent positions on monetary issues simply based on who is in power. That is potentially an enormous problem.

If Moore is confirmed, he is going to be voting based on Donald Trump’s approval ratings, not on any kind of reasonable ideology on monetary policy. You can easily imagine him demanding lower interest rates during a Republican administration and higher rates during a Democratic administration regardless of the underlying conditions. You can even, with no trouble, imagine him deliberately sabotaging the economy under a Democratic president in order to impact the next election.

This is a very serious issue that will probably fly under the radar, given everything else that is going on right now. We can only hope that there are enough principled GOP senators to vote against his confirmation. That sounds like spitting in the wind.

As I’ve noted many times before, Barack Obama believed in the Pax Americana, but he wanted it on the cheap. He would only support American military interventions if he had a plausible path to success and a reasonable exit strategy, and if all other means had been tried and failed. His critics, and some of his friends, called this “leading from behind.”

Bernie Sanders takes Obama’s reluctance several steps further; he rejects the entire notion of the Pax Americana. If he is elected, he will cut the defense budget significantly, because he has no interest in making America the policeman of the world. He will rely on diplomatic efforts and, if absolutely necessary, economic sanctions to enforce international norms. In other words, we will operate less like America, and more like the EU.

Can this work? Will terrorists and international thugs be deterred by diplomacy and moral force alone? Will Putin and Xi feel emboldened to take greater risks, knowing that nothing stands in their way but sanctions and speeches?

As you can tell, I have my doubts.

The release of the Mueller report reminds me of the death of a terminally ill patient–everyone expects it, but it’s still a shock when it happens. One way or another, it’s going to change the political landscape for the next few weeks, and probably well beyond that.

There are a variety of scenarios here. My guess has always been that both sides will be able to spin the conclusions, and no one’s mind will be changed. We’ll see.

On the Fed nominee Stephen Moore.

He’s the man that Paul Krugman abhors.

He’s dumb as a rock

So he plays well on Fox.

Herman Cain is the next through the door?

Donald Trump believes that America has no friends and allies–only economic interests and competitors. He has made it clear repeatedly that he despises the EU, that the Germans are every bit as bad as the Chinese, that the ultimate yardstick for international relationships is our trade deficit, and that NATO should be operated as a protection racket.

These ideas are outside of the mainstream of the GOP, let alone the country as a whole, so the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is, will reverse them if elected. The absurd steel and aluminum tariffs will disappear. There will be no more discussions about tariffs on foreign cars. Calls for increases in the defense budgets of EU countries will be much more muted. Things will go back to the way they were, with some scar tissue remaining on both sides.

Some trade issues will be more complex. I anticipate that all of the Democratic candidates will oppose the USMCA on the grounds that it does not do enough to protect American labor; there is no obvious political down side to attacking Trump from the populist left. That issue, one way or another, should be resolved before the 2020 election, and I would anticipate that Democratic nominee, if elected, will not seek to relitigate the matter. If, for whatever reason, it has not been resolved, things could get a bit awkward with Canada and Mexico.

There will be calls from Japan, Vietnam, and Australia for the US to join the son-of-TPP. There are very good economic and geopolitical reasons why that should happen. Will it? Unfortunately, probably not, but one can always dream.

If, as everyone suspects, Biden decides to run, this is what I would tell him:

1. DON’T APOLOGIZE TOO MUCH: Some of the things you said and did years ago were considered perfectly appropriate then, but not now. Ask the American public to look at the entire record, and in context– not just a few isolated episodes here and there. Tell them it’s a positive record, and you’re proud of it, even if you did make some mistakes along a 40 year road.
2. MAKE IT ABOUT OBAMA’S LEGACY: Sanders and Warren essentially believe that Obama was a failure. The base doesn’t agree. Use that to your advantage.
3. TALK UP YOUR EXPERIENCE: You’re the only one running who has dealt with Putin and Xi. That matters, even in an election that will probably focus on domestic issues. Don’t let the voters forget it.
4. LEAVE YOUR OPTIONS OPEN ON A SECOND TERM: You might well decide to leave after a single term, and it’s ok to put that on the table during the campaign to address the age issue, but don’t commit to it–just keep it as an option after your first two years.
5. REMEMBER WHO YOUR VOTERS ARE: You’re not competing with Sanders and Beto for young activists; don’t try. They get all of the attention, but there are plenty of older folks out there who admire you, and they vote.
6. FOCUS ON GETTING RID OF TRUMP, NOT THE POLICY AGENDA: That’s what the public really wants.
7. DON’T BE AFRAID TO BE REAL ABOUT PROGRESSIVE POLICIES: A lot of what you’re hearing from the more leftist candidates is practically impossible. Make that case clearly to the American people, and don’t apologize for it. Realism and honesty are not shortcomings.
8. PICK A YOUNG RUNNING MATE, BUT NOT RIGHT AWAY: You want your running mate to be your political heir. It’s way too early to say who that should be.

You might think I would be violently opposed to Trump’s latest effort to promote his buddy Bibi, but I’m not. The Golan Heights have enormous strategic importance to the Israelis, and the folks to the north are about as cute and cuddly as the White Walkers. Unlike the hapless residents of Gaza, they actually are an existential threat to Israel. And so, if Trump wants to recognize that in public, that’s fine with me.

Theresa May apparently made a speech on TV last night in which she postured herself as the authentic representative of the people against a confused and recalcitrant Parliament. That would make perfect sense if she, like an American president, had a direct mandate from the public. In a parliamentary system, however, it is a deeply weird argument that is likely to offend her colleagues without persuading anyone.

But what do I know? I don’t even get the idea of voting for something that you know will leave you worse off than you are today, and that, in the final analysis, is what Brexit is all about.