Cromwell

Much has been made of Tillerson’s decision to limit press access during his trip to Asia.  Some of that can be attributed to a degree of natural caution, given his lack of experience as a major player on the diplomatic stage, but I think there is more than that going on here.  I strongly suspect that he is giving the Chinese the message that they have x number of days to get their North Korean client under control or military action will ensue, and he quite understandably doesn’t want to read that in the newspaper.

Assuming that I’m right, how will the Chinese react?  Will they view it purely as standard negotiating tactic from “The Art of the Deal,” and disregard it?  Even if they take it seriously, do they have either the will or the practical ability to bring North Korea to heel?  I’m not optimistic on either score.

“The leader of the free world meets with Donald Trump.”  Yep, that sounds about right.

I’ve read the order.  While the plaintiffs made a variety of constitutional and statutory claims, the order focuses solely on their First Amendment argument. The decision relies very heavily on statements made by Trump and his principal surrogates during the campaign and shortly thereafter to show that the primary purpose of the new travel ban is not “secular.”

Does it please me to see Trump, Giuliani, Miller, and the rest being legally skewered by their own irresponsible public statements?  Yes, indeed, it does. That said, I have some legal concerns about the weight that was placed on comments made during the campaign.  I think Trump has a decent argument that the decision drifted too far away from the actual text of the order, and that an appellate court should reach a different conclusion.

Which is just another way of saying that the Trump campaign should be taken neither seriously nor literally by the judicial system.

Will the EU even exist in 2020?  That depends on the outcome of the French election.  I’m not making any predictions at this point.

Assuming, for purposes of argument, that there still is an EU in 2020, it will be looking for leadership.  As I noted yesterday, it is highly likely that the Germans, having been burned over the last several years, will prefer to play a more supporting role.  Their most plausible successors are:

1.  The Franco-German alliance is revived after a Macron victory.   The EU seems to work better when the French and Germans are collaborating as equals. The French provide a bridge between German austerity and south European poverty.  This is the best case scenario.

2.  Someone from the EU itself steps up to the plate.  Just who that would be is unclear to me.

3.  Nobody takes charge.  The EU, buffeted by nationalism everywhere, slowly descends into irrelevance.

The Holy Roman Empire, which the EU resembles in many respects, withered away after the Thirty Years’ War as a result of nationalist pressures and its own inability to maintain order.  Scenario #3 is a recipe for the same outcome.

 

Crooked Hawaiian so-called judge shouldn’t take my campaign statements seriously or literally.  Makes me look like a loser.  Bad!

Viewed as a stand-alone, Germany in 2017 is unquestionably a success story. Unemployment and inflation are low; the country is running a large trade surplus; and the debt is at reasonable levels.  If you’re a German today, life is pretty good.

Viewed as the leader of Europe, Germany has been an abysmal failure.  Its attempts to Teutonize its neighbors by imposing austerity have led to economic stagnation throughout much of the EU and a corresponding nationalist backlash. Putin is looking more dangerous by the day, and even the US may now see the Germans more as an enemy than a friend. Britain is leaving the EU, whose very existence can no longer be taken for granted.  If you’re a German today, you’re looking for friends, and you’re not sure whom you can call.

Since the Alternative for Germany tainted its anti-euro stance by hobnobbing with racists, there is no likelihood of any meaningful change in German opinions regarding the EU in the foreseeable future.  My guess is that the coalition will continue, and that the German government will pull back from its unrewarding EU leadership role and hope nothing evil fills the void.  That will be the topic of tomorrow’s post.

                   Angie

Angie, Angie

When will those clouds all disappear?

 

There’s no lovin’ from the Don.

All your US friends are gone.

Let me whisper in your ear.

Angie, Angie,

Where will you lead us from here?

 

No more bailouts for the Greeks.

Won’t they just leave you in peace?

You can’t say they’re satisfied.

But Angie, Angie

They can’t say you never tried.

 

All your dreams for the EU

Now it seems that they’re all through.

Come on, baby, dry your eyes.

But Angie, Angie

Keep democracy alive.

 

Angie, Angie

It ain’t time to say goodbye.

 

Parody of “Angie” by the Rolling Stones.

It may not be completely fair to judge the merits of a religion by the company it keeps, but it is consistent with human nature;  after all, other than Constantine’s conversion, nothing helped spread Christianity like the martyrs.  In light of that, the inevitable association of Christianity with irascible old Trump voters screaming about abortion, gay rights, and the wall isn’t exactly going to help spread the gospel among young people in this country.  In the long run, the connection between Trump and the religious right is going to accelerate the decline in Christianity, bigly.

Much has been made over the years about the impact of the Christian right on American politics, but it may well be that the more significant change has run in the other direction, and not for the better.  If Christians really want to take their country back, they would be well-advised to make more of an effort to win the intellectual and moral argument instead of imposing their will on the rest of us through the political process.

The condition of France in 2020 is obviously going to depend largely on the outcome of this year’s election.  If the current polls are accurate, and there is no particularly good reason to doubt it, the two finalists will be outsiders with very limited support in the National Assembly.  I can foresee four different scenarios, only one of which is positive:

1.  Macron wins, and succeeds in building a bipartisan center-right coalition for change within the current system:  This will only happen if he has very impressive political skills.

2.  Macron wins, but cannot get anything meaningful done through the legislative process:  France continues the Hollande drift, only more so.

3.  Le Pen wins and attempts to make constitutional changes by referendum, but fails:  The political temperature of the country reaches new highs, but nothing is accomplished.

4.  Le Pen wins and succeeds in pulling France out of the euro and the EU by referendum:  I don’t see how that makes France great again.

If I were a betting man, I would put my money on #2, but that remains to be seen.

Well, that certainly was timely, wasn’t it?

The political argument for Scottish independence has never been more compelling.  The Conservative Party barely has a presence in Scotland, but it is likely to govern the UK for the indefinite future.  The Scots voted overwhelmingly against Brexit, but are stuck with its consequences.  It would appear, therefore, that the government of the UK no longer has much of a claim to represent the interests of the Scottish people, and that is a big problem.

On the other hand, the economic argument for independence has rarely been weaker.   The value of “Scottish” oil is diminishing by the day, so there is no obvious way for an independent Scotland to pay for a Scandinavian-style welfare state.  In addition, a Scotland within the EU would undoubtedly have to adopt the euro, with all the consequences that entails.  An independent Scotland would be proud, but poor.

If Scottish independence does become a reality, my guess is that the new country will be forced by the markets and the EU to adopt strong austerity measures almost immediately.  In the long run, Scotland will have to look more like Ireland than Norway–that is, with an open, deregulated, low tax economy and a limited welfare state–in order to survive economically.

Do the Scots love the idea of independence more than their welfare state? We’ll find out in the next few years.

Now that the ghastly CBO score for AHCA is a matter of public record, you can expect the GOP to respond in two ways.  The first, naturally, is to attempt to discredit the CBO, which is led by experts that were handpicked by the GOP itself; the second is to argue that AHCA is about “freedom,” not the number of uninsured.

Republicans love “freedom.”  What it means in any given case depends on who you are.  The “freedom” Republicans aspire to most is “freedom” for wealthy people to avoid paying taxes.  For some reason, the “freedom” to be uninsured doesn’t have the same cachet among the medically needy;  it has about the same value as the “freedom” to be hungry or homeless.

If AHCA were truly about “freedom,” the GOP could have simply struck all of the mandates from Obamacare and left the rest intact.  It is true, of course, that any such legislation would have roiled the markets, but, if “freedom” is really an overriding objective, that would be a price worth paying, and the 30 percent surcharge is going to damage the markets in any event.  If, on the other hand, AHCA were about limited government, it would be a straight repeal of Obamacare.

No, AHCA is simply a mechanism to redistribute wealth from the poor and medically needy to the wealthy.   That’s not what I call “freedom.”

I remember many years ago reading a book about the Supreme Court called “The Brethren.”  It was written from an unsophisticated left-wing perspective, and the question that ran through it (implicitly) was whether the Chief Justice was evil or stupid.  It fell fairly heavily on the side of stupid, although there was some evidence for both positions.

Having dealt with government for over 30 years, I can tell you from personal experience that the average official is not particularly malevolent, and is not capable of generating a conspiracy.  In the real world, if you’re faced with this question, the default position should be stupid.

It is with this mindset that I considered the issue of whether the GOP leadership deliberately created a bill that is destined to fail in order to avoid paying the political price for it, and to move on to what it really wants–tax cuts.

From a policy perspective, yes, the bill is ridiculous.  It maintains most of the structure of Obamacare that is so obnoxious to the hard right, while depriving millions of people of their health insurance.  As a result, you might well view it as a “solution” in search of a problem.  From a political perspective, however, it gives the GOP exactly what it wants:  the destruction of a key part of Obama’s legacy; and a big tax cut for the rich.  Furthermore, it is carefully weighted with goodies for both factions:  a Planned Parenthood defunding measure here; a tax credit there.  Trump and Ryan are both clearly and publicly invested in it, and the bill is moving with remarkable speed in spite of its critics.

And so, it is my opinion that the GOP conspiracy does not exist, and that the leadership does fully intend for this awful piece of legislation to become law.

The next few years in the UK will, of course, be dominated by Brexit and its collateral damage, both economic and constitutional.  By 2020, however, the Brexit process will presumably be over.  What will the political landscape look like at that point?

The Conservatives will win a huge majority at the next election.  Since Labour will, for all intents and purposes, be dead, all of the real opposition will be found within the Conservative Party itself, which will no longer be subject to any effective discipline (that, presumably, is the reason Theresa May hasn’t called for an early election).  Infighting among hard and soft Brexiteers is likely to become ugly, particularly if the economy starts to struggle.  That is when things will start to get interesting.

My prediction is that the two-party system will return, but the parties will look different, particularly if the Scots vote for independence (the subject of tomorrow’s post).  The opposition party will look, not like today’s outdated version of the Labour Party, but more like the Democratic Party in the US;  its support will come primarily from the London area, and it will promote a dynamic, open, multi-cultural society, as opposed to the nostalgic fish-and-chips world of the hard Brexiteers.

The New Democrats will fight for as close a relationship as possible with Europe. In the long run, I think they will win, because the demographics of the Brexit vote suggest that time is on their side.

We don’t know, of course, because his behavior has been the very opposite of transparent, but I strongly suspect that the record will ultimately show that there was no meaningful collusion between Trump and the Russians during the campaign. The Russians saw an opportunity to make our system look bad, and succeeded beyond their wildest dreams;  Trump was basically the unwitting, lucky beneficiary of their efforts.

The real significance of this episode is that it shows, to no one’s surprise, that Trump is uniquely ill-equipped to deal with a political crisis.  When transparency is required, he retreats to a bunker; when things are going badly, he doubles down; when he needs to stop digging, he starts on a new hole.

Imagine what is going to happen when he is confronted with something genuinely serious!  It’s going to get ugly, folks, and not just for him–we are his hostages.

Donald Trump is in the Oval Office, contemplating the portrait of Andrew Jackson. He looks grim.

Kellyanne Conway enters the room.

KC:  (in an obnoxiously whiny voice) Mr. President!

DT:  What, K.A.?  Can’t you see I’m busy?

KC:  You don’t look busy.

DT:  Shows what you know.  What do you want?

KC:  Jeff Sessions is here, and he wants to see you.

DT:  I don’t want to talk to him.  Tell him I’m not here.

KC:  Why?

DT:  He screwed up that Russian thing royally.  I’m pissed off at him.

KC:  What do you want me to tell him?

DT:  I don’t know . . . tell him I’m in Florida playing golf.

KC:  But that would be a lie, er, alternative fact.

DT:  Don’t be a dingbat, K.A.  Just do as I say.

Conway leaves.  Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner enter the room.

IT:  Hi, Dad!  How’s it going?

DT:  Not very well.  The crooked media putting out fake news about me, the conservatives are on my back, and now I find out that Obama has bugged the Oval Office!

IT:  That’s terrible, Dad!  How did you find out about the bugs?

DT:  It’s all over Breitbart.  I know it’s true;  that guy would do anything to bring me down.  Sticks his head under the desk.  Hellooooo, Barack!  I know you’re in there somewhere!

IT:  We need to talk to you about a couple of things.

DT:  I’m just dying to hear them.  What?

IT:  We need to start making some progress on government support for day care.

DT:  Not that woman thing again!  I agreed to support that for the purposes of the campaign, but we won, and now it’s over!  I’ve got more important things to do.

IT:  But Dad, you promised!

DT:  The right is all over my back as it is.  I don’t want to hear another word about it!

IT:  But Dad. . .

DT:  Stifle yourself!

JK:  I need to talk about the Middle East.

DT:  Another favorite topic.  Just do what my buddy Bibi wants and you’ll be OK. He’s a real butt kicker, like me.   He’s my kind of guy.

JK:  That’s the problem.  How am I supposed to come across as a credible mediator if you’re always sucking up to Bibi?

DT:  You’ll figure it out.  Don’t be a meathead.  Now I have to get ready for a meeting with Shinzo somebody, so you need to go.  They leave.

Trump picks up a briefing book, stares at it for a minute, sighs, and then puts it down.  He then picks up his phone and starts tweeting furiously about Obama and Arnold Schwarzenegger.