Cromwell

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.

On the woman named Betsy DeVos.

She’s got billions, but Trump’s now her boss.

She hasn’t a clue.

She won’t know what to do.

So the GOP’s win is kids’ loss.

Crooked media not paying attention to terrorist events like Women’s March. Don’t be fooled by their clothes–they were jihadis in disguise.

If anyone in the Middle East is entitled to our sympathy, it is the Kurds.  While their political system is a far cry from Jeffersonian democracy, it at least works in a fashion, and their soldiers are actually willing to fight.  Over the last several years, they have been our most reliable boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq.

The problem, of course, is that their aspirations for independence are inconsistent with the maintenance of a unified Iraqi state.  Furthermore, they are essentially at war with Turkey.  As a result, getting the Iraqi government, the Turks, and the Kurds to work together against IS has been very difficult, and has slowed down our progress in destroying the “caliphate.”

How will Trump change this picture?  My guess is that he will gravitate to Erdogan, who will successfully portray himself as a fellow strong man and terrorist fighter and the Kurds as dangerous insurgents.

In short, Trump is going to sell the Kurds out.  It is just a matter of time.

If you’re Trump, this is how you will attempt to govern:

1. Hire clearly unqualified people for important government posts.
2. Give them vague instructions which assume that it is not necessary to make policy trade-offs.
3. Take the credit if they somehow succeed.
4. If they get bad ratings, berate them in public and sack them.

Sounds like a great gig, eh?

Bush 43’s massive ground assault against Saddam was patterned after his father’s success in the Gulf War, and with good reason;  an occupation was necessary to uncover the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and to refashion Iraq as a liberal democracy that would transform the Middle East.  The war, of course, was a disaster that cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

To Obama, the lesson of Iraq was not to do “stupid stuff.”  He was determined to maintain the Pax Americana at the lowest possible cost, which typically meant relying on allies and unconventional warfare.  He had some successes, and he unquestionably did reduce the direct costs of American intervention.  However, the indirect costs of his unwillingness to escalate in Syria included terrorism, a refugee crisis, and, in all likelihood, some loss of American prestige.

Trump, as we know, has a quick temper and a very short attention span.  He is also determined to make the world feel the power of our military, which he will undoubtedly view as an extension of his own ego.  On the other hand, he has no use for Bush-style occupations and nation building.  How will he square the circle?  By shock and awe aerial campaigns.  It is the only plausible answer.

 

Unelected so-called judge has no right to stop me.  I alone speak for America.

The Nixon team consisted of the following:  a President who thought it useful to pass himself off as a madman with our adversaries (Nixon);  an influential, famously “realist” head of the NSC who brought about a diplomatic revolution (Kissinger); and a Secretary of State who handled routine issues, but had no real influence on things that mattered (Rogers).

If this sounds familiar, it should.  Trump/Flynn/Tillerson looks like the Bizarro World version of the Nixon team.