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:
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:
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.
A contempt for traditional morality.
Combative and litigious.
A genius for generating national publicity.
An uninhibited sex life.
Is it Trump or Stormy Daniels? You decide.
Rick Scott is running for the Senate against Bill Nelson. He recently released a commercial with the theme that we need a businessman to deal with all of the dysfunction in Washington. That’s hard to understand, because:
You could describe the commercial as a failure of imagination–the GOP always wants to play its greatest hits, even if they don’t make sense in today’s world. But really, what else can he say? Elect me so we can have a second big regressive tax cut? Elect me so we can take another run at depriving you of your health insurance? Elect me so I can enable my good friend Donnie Rotten to run a chaotic White House, offend all of our allies, and avoid impeachment?
The thesis that America’s role in managing the world must decline in the long run as its GDP becomes a smaller percentage of world GDP makes perfect sense. The question is, what then? Who keeps order if we aren’t the world’s policeman?
Realistically, there are two options:
1. Spheres of influence: One could imagine a scenario in which we get the Western Hemisphere, the EU runs itself, Russia controls the former USSR, and China turns its near abroad into vassal states. The concept could work, but it leads to lots of questions. Who would want responsibility for Africa and the Middle East? Would South Korea and Japan accept Chinese hegemony? How do Australia and India fit into this scheme? Who regulates friction among the various spheres? These are all matters that would have to be worked out in practice by agreements among the major powers, and it wouldn’t be easy.
2. Bolster international institutions and the rule of law: If individual nations can’t be trusted to keep order, then international institutions are the only alternative to anarchy and oppression. This approach would undoubtedly require the US to accept more Chinese leadership and input into the rules. The Chinese, for their part, would have to accept more responsibility for issues that don’t impact them directly, agree to interfere in the internal affairs of other states when things get out of hand, and embrace the rule of law more openly.
Without saying as much, Obama’s approach of “leading from behind” through the creation of trade agreements and international coalitions was consistent with the second option. In the long run, it is the best (and certainly least cynical) option to replace the Pax Americana.
At first glance, you might think that China and Russia, as fellow revisionist, authoritarian states, present similar challenges to the Pax Americana. They don’t.
Russia has a GDP about the size of Australia’s. It is growing very slowly. It doesn’t sell anything anyone wants except oil and weapons. Its objectives are to dominate the near abroad by patching together something resembling the political structure of the USSR, and to regain the international clout the USSR enjoyed prior to 1989. As a result, Putin is basically just a spoiler outside of what he views as Russia’s natural sphere of influence; he makes life as difficult as possible for the US, not because it serves the economic interest of his people, but because it makes them feel strong and important.
China also seeks to dominate its near abroad, as it did for centuries. Its economy is growing by leaps and bounds. It pursues its interests predictably, and does not behave as a spoiler. Its objective is to become an equal partner with the US, preferably without any military confrontations. It has benefited from the current rules-based system, and does not wish to overthrow it, but it wants more say in how the system operates.
In the long run, dealing with Russian aspirations is a minor issue. Accommodating the Chinese in a manner that is mutually acceptable will be the greatest challenge of the 21st century.
David Brooks argues in today’s NYT that, due to the power of tribalism in this country, the Democratic Party is doomed to become the left-wing mirror image of the GOP in its disdain for liberal democracy and the rule of law.
Heil, Bernie? Give me a break. There isn’t anyone in the leadership of the Democratic Party who looks remotely like Trump, let alone Hugo Chavez.
This is the voice of a man who can’t bring himself to admit that the GOP is the problem. He can’t stand what he sees, so he blames America, not his party.