Cromwell

While Putin is winning in Syria, he is losing (at least so far) in Ukraine.  Here’s why:

1.  Putin’s objective is not to physically occupy Ukraine or eliminate its nominal legal independence (that would be too risky and expensive);  it is to turn Ukraine into a willing economic, military, and political vassal of Russia.
2.  He was very close to success prior to the revolution, at which time his plans went completely out the window.
3.  He retaliated by sending his green men to occupy Crimea, and by supporting separatists in the remainder of Ukraine.  His allies control a substantial portion of eastern Ukraine.  The ultimate prize, however, is the whole of Ukraine, not just the eastern rust belt, which has limited value to him.
4.  His intention is clearly to use the potential reunification of Ukraine as a carrot, and various economic measures as a stick, to change public opinion and bring the government to heel.
5.  It isn’t working.  The government of Ukraine has shown no inclination to return to the fold in exchange for reunification.  There is little or no public support for such a change in policy.  In the meantime, the US and the EU have imposed punishing sanctions on Russia as a result of his aggression and the outrageous actions of his separatist allies, and he has lost all of his credibility with the EU governments that really matter.

Putin is playing a long game here.  It is not impossible that Ukraine will implode under the pressure he can apply in the end.  As of today, however, a betting man would bet against him.

Andrew Sullivan compared Trump and Richard III in his weekly column in last Friday’s New York Magazine.  On balance, he found Richard to be the more sympathetic figure, given his physical issues and difficult upbringing.  He identified an essential similarity, however;  both of them used outrageous lies as a tool to enforce loyalty and eliminate political opponents.

The similarity does, in fact, exist, but I’m more impressed by the differences.  Trump is ego-driven;  he didn’t want power as much as the adulation that comes with it.  Richard, on the other hand, was a grim practitioner of realpolitik; he came of age at a time when defeat in politics at the highest level meant death.  Richard was also a very experienced politician, and competent, unlike Trump.

In other words, Richard resembled Putin far more than Trump.

Putin has accomplished all of his objectives in Syria, which were, in no particular order:

1.  To make it clear to the world that Russia is still a great power, and must be reckoned with even far from its borders;
2.  To save the bacon of a fellow strong man;
3.  To divide the EU over the refugee issue;
4.  To make the US and the EU look weak and indecisive; and
5.  To protect Russian investments in the country.

He had advantages in this effort:  his assistance to an existing regime was consistent with international law; he could rely on the help of Hezbollah on the ground; and he didn’t have to engage in any nation-building, as an experienced and reasonably competent strong man was already in place.  The problem, however, is that the situation in Syria is still unstable, and his partners will want to use him for their own ends.  Iran and Hezbollah want protection from Israel, and Assad wants the eastern part of the country back, even though American-backed forces operate there.

What will Putin do next?  I seriously doubt he has any interest in sticking his neck out for either Assad or Iran.  He’s either going to have to broker a deal that everyone can tolerate or declare victory and pull back to the maximum extent possible.

Believe it or not, we’ve actually lived through a third of Trump’s term!  It’s time to take stock of what we now know and what we don’t:

What We Know

1.  As promised, he’s run the government like his business.  As a result, his administration has been corrupt, inept, and chaotic.  No change is likely on this front.
2.  His authoritarian impulses have been on display on Twitter on a daily basis.  However, he has not taken any concrete action to turn them into law.
3.  His only major legislative success is a regressive tax cut which is driving up the deficit and exacerbating inequality.
4.  He failed to repeal Obamacare, although that is mostly attributable to differences in the GOP factions in Congress.  He is consequently nibbling around the edges in an effort to sabotage the health care system.
5.  He is making the CLs and PBPs happy with deregulation, although that is likely to bite him in the butt at some point.
6.  There will be no infrastructure bill.
7.  He has done a lot of damage to our relationships with our principal allies.
8.  He has launched a trade war, with an uncertain result.
9.  His attempts to reduce the cost of welfare programs have been thwarted.
10.  He has gone full Sunni in the Middle East.
11.  He has, to put in mildly, changed the tone of our diplomacy regarding North Korea.
12.  Notwithstanding the opinions of Roseanne Barr, he has completely thrown in his lot with the evangelicals on social issues, and has been rewarded for it with their unquestioning loyalty.

What We Don’t Know

1. Will the trade wars result in quick settlements, or escalation?
2.  Are we heading for a shooting war in either Korea or the Middle East?
3.  How will he react to opposition if there is a war?
4.  What does Mueller have, and what does it mean for the midterms?
5.  What will the long-term effects on our alliances be?

I don’t know about you, but I would be really pissed off if I found out that my lawyer was using his connection with me to make big profits without my permission.  I would contact the bar and request them to take disciplinary action.  I would make my displeasure known in a very public way.  I might even file suit.  It would be an outrageous breach of fiduciary duty.

Donald Trump frequently complains that the MSM are making money off of him.  And yet, he has done very little to distance himself from Cohen.

What does that mean?  There are some obvious possibilities.  You decide.

 

 

 

 

The UK has royal weddings; we have school shootings.  Theirs are better.

Oh, well.  Meghan and Harry will be in my thoughts and prayers today.

Fast forward to October.  Mueller has released his report, and while it doesn’t contain a smoking gun, it certainly doesn’t look good for Trump, whose approval ratings are at a new low.  Democratic control of the House, at least, seems to be assured.

With that as background, Trump attacks Iran without any kind of authorization from Congress.  He subsequently wraps himself in the flag and demands that the country unite around him and the war.

Every day, every hour, nearly every minute, the message from Fox News is:

If you don’t support Trump and the war, you’re a traitor.  If you don’t support Trump and the war, you’re a traitor.  If you don’t support Trump and the war, you’re a traitor.

Would our system, as we know it, survive this experience?  I honestly don’t know.

The US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia didn’t qualify for the World Cup, so for whom will Trump be rooting?  My guess is Brazil, because:

1.  It has a trade deficit with the US;
2.  We don’t pay anything to protect it;
3.  It has a right-wing government beset by legal problems (he can relate);
4.  It throws great parties;
5.  It’s not a “s—-” country; and
6.  Their team is the favorite.  Trump doesn’t root for losers.

The obvious alternative is Russia, but we’re not going there.

We are told on a daily basis that the Democratic Party is a group of smug, self-satisfied, wealthy coastal elites who have lost touch with the aspirations of real American workers in the heartland.  What is the basis for that opinion?

Well, it isn’t the utterances of the leaders of the party.  With a few exceptions, most notably Obama’s “bitter” speech and Clinton’s reference to the “basket of deplorables,” you never hear Democratic politicians bash red America.  It has to be coming from somewhere else.

It is.  Part of it is a cynical calculation by GOP candidates and Fox News that continually reminding red Americans how disrespected they are will result in ratings and votes.  Part of it, however, is just the daily operation of the MSM.  You see it during all of the awards shows.  You see it in sitcoms that focus on the condition of ethnic and cultural minorities in America.  Sometimes, you even see it on the national news.

How can the Democrats deal with this problem?  There is no easy answer.  Mostly, you just have to control your own message through campaign commercials and social media and hope for the best.

If the Democrats are to win a decisive victory in 2018, they are going to have to pick off a large number of votes from people who voted for Trump in 2016.  Here is how it lays out relative to the GOP factions:

1.  CDs:  Given Trump’s record, they should be easy pickings.  Just try to avoid sounding too enthusiastic about abortion.
2.  CLs:  Don’t bother.  Your view of the role of government is too different from theirs to make it work.
3.  PBPs:  Talk about the irrationality and danger of Trump’s trade wars and promise to keep his incompetence and corruption in check.  Don’t advocate a complete rollback of the tax cut.
4.  Reactionaries:  Make your sympathy for traditional rural values clear.  Advocate true populism and denounce Trump’s faux brand as a sellout to Wall Street.

There is an obvious tension between #3 and #4;  you will have to choose one or the other.  Your decision will be dictated by the makeup of the electorate in your district.

 

David Brooks calls himself a “Whig.”  By that, he means that he believes in incremental change driven largely by local actors and the free market, and in targeted federal investment to boost the economy and address social issues.  In my parlance, even though he’s Jewish, he’s a CD.

Brooks is in despair about politics at a national level, and with reason.  His beloved GOP has been exposed by Trump as a white nationalist party with a “starve the beast” tax cutting economic program.  The Democrats are clearly moving left.  What’s a poor Whig to do?

The dilemma is real.  But what Brooks doesn’t seem to realize is that he had a president who agreed with him on incremental change and public investment just a few years ago.  Brooks was too loyal to the GOP to provide any meaningful support to the Obama agenda when it was on the table.  Now he’s paying the price for it, and he has nowhere to go.

Like his father and grandfather (and Putin), Kim loves being unpredictable.  There are three reasons for this.  First of all, the element of surprise is obviously a strategic advantage.  Second, it makes him the focus of attention, and boosts his ego.  Third, the use of arbitrary power makes it clear to everyone that you are the man, and that the only sure way to avoid your wrath is to provide unconditional loyalty.

Trump values unpredictability for all of the same reasons.  The difference is that Kim and Putin aren’t really accountable to anyone in their respective political systems, while Trump is the leader of what used to be called the “free world.”  He has different obligations to the public.  He just doesn’t acknowledge them; to him, being president of the United States is no different than being the CEO of his companies.

Is Kim bluffing with his threats to call off the summit?  Most likely, he is sending a message to Trump that both of them can be capricious, and trying to find out exactly how desperate Trump is for a “win.”

The most likely outcome is still that the summit will go forward and that Trump will give away the store, but let’s be honest–this could go anywhere.

By virtue of geography, Gaza can be fairly described as the world’s largest open-air prison.  It is contained completely by Israel.  The inmates have no hope of attaining freedom on their own, by force or otherwise.

It is in that light that you should view the demonstrations at the border.  The Israelis are undoubtedly using disproportionate force in response in order to send the message to the protesters that the rest of the world is focused on Iran and doesn’t care about them.  The Palestinians, for their part, are probably playing a longer game.  It is true that no one is going to help them in the short run, but the images that are being created today will be etched in the minds of the Arab world for a long time, and Israel is just an Islamist revolution in Egypt away from having a serious problem on its hands.

My wife and I are big fans of “Fear of a Black Hat,” a mockumentary about a fictional African-American hip-hop group called NWH (the “H” stands for “Hats.”)  NWH is a caricature; its members can be described as follows:

1.  They lie outrageously all the time;
2.  They exploit and demean women;
3.  They glorify violence;
4.  They love to bluster and talk trash;
5.  They have a huge chip on their shoulder; and
6.  They despise the establishment.

Wait a minute!  Doesn’t this sound vaguely familiar?

Perhaps, when Trump’s term is over, he can go out on the road and perform as an elderly white rapper.  He could use the stage name “Cheetos” or “Orange Julius.”

The British public seems to have embraced the biracial American.  That’s good.  In a post-Brexit world, it gives you some hope for the future.

Donald Trump is likely to get a very different reception when he visits the UK in a few months.  That’s good, too.

If I have any readers in the UK, don’t let me down–go out and demonstrate!