Category Archives: Trump administration

An Innocent Abroad 2 November 2019.

Posted on by
Reply

After graduating from Yale Law School in 1996, Hunter Biden[1] went to work for MBNA.  MBNA is a bank-holding company based in Wilmington Delaware.  It was reportedly a major contributor to the political campaigns of Joe Biden.  Within two years, Hunter Biden had become an executive vice president.  From 1998 to 2001, he worked for the Department of Commerce during the second Clinton administration.  From 2001 to 2009, he worked as a lobbyist, and served for two years on the board of Amtrak.  From 2009 to 2019, Hunter Biden was busy on several fronts.  He worked for the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner; he founded an investment firm with Christopher Heinz, the step-son of John Kerry; and he formed an investment firm focused on China (2013-2019).

In April 2014, Hunter Biden was recruited to a five year term on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas company.  The company is run by Mykola Zlochevsky.

It is fair to ask why Hunter Biden was invited to join the board.

In 2014, the prosecutor general for Ukraine began investigating Burisma.

It has been reported that Hunter Biden himself never was under investigation, let alone charged with anything.  Similarly, the investigations of Burisma were wound up after the payment of back taxes and penalties.

Nevertheless, then and later, Hunter Biden’s position raised eyebrows.  Reportedly, Christopher Heinz opposed his business partner joining the board because of the risk to their firm’s reputation.[2]  Biden went ahead.  Heinz then ended his business relationship with Biden.[3]

Others also questioned the decision.  In June 2014, the Associated Press wrote that “Hunter Biden’s employment means he will be working as a director and top lawyer for a Ukrainian energy company during the period when his father and others in the Obama administration attempt to influence the policies of Ukraine’s new government, especially on energy issues.”[4]

In December 2015, Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, told the Wall Street Journal that “If an investigator sees the son of the vice president of the United States is part of the management of a company … that investigator will be uncomfortable pushing the case forward.”

In late 2014, Mykola Zlochevsky hastily left Ukraine after it was alleged that he had illegally enriched himself during his time as Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources in 2010-2012.  In December 2017, the government’s investigation of Burisma ended with no charges filed against Zlochevsky.  In February 2018, he returned to Ukraine.

Did Burisma bring Hunter Biden on board not to entangle him personally in corrupt acts, but rather to put up a shield against prosecution by Zlochevsky’s Ukrainian enemies?

It would be useful to know what–if anything—the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the Central Intelligence Agencies reported on Hunter Biden’s time with Burisma.  Or, like Joe Biden and his son, did they also have a “don’t ask-don’t tell” relationship?

[1] See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden

[2] Paul Sonne, Michael Kranish, and Matt Viser, “The gas tycoon and the vice president’s son: The story of Hunter Biden’s foray into Ukraine,” The Washington Post, 28 September 2019.

[3] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7519043/Chris-Heinz-split-business-partner-Hunter-Biden-board-seat-Ukrainian-energy-company.html

[4] https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/

Election Investigations 2 21 October 2019.

Posted on by
Reply

In April 2019, soon after publication of the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Attorney General William Barr appointed John Durham, the United States Attorney in Connecticut, to investigate the origins of the probe into allegations of a conspiracy between Russia and the Donald Trump campaign.

According to the New York Times[1]:

President Trump has “attacked [Mueller’s investigation] without evidence as a plot by law enforcement and intelligence officials to prevent him from winning the election.”

“Mr. Durham and his investigators have sought help from governments in countries that figure into right-wing attacks and unfounded conspiracy theories[2] about the Russia investigation,…”

One of these is Australia, whose government reported the contact between one of its diplomats and George Papadopoulos.

Another is Italy, where Joseph Mifsud, suspected of being a Russian agent, first made contact with Papadopolous.  However, the American embassy in Rome also once played home to a senior F.B.I. agent investigating organized crime in Russia and Central Asia.  If that agent is still assigned to Rome, did Durham also want to talk to him and away from the hurley-burley of Washington, DC.?

Another is Britain, where Papadopolous first shared his news with Alexander Downer.  Did Downer share the information with his own Senior Adviser for Intelligence?  If he did, then did the Intelligence Adviser then share the information with MI-6 and/or with the CIA station-chief in London?  Then, there is the whole issue of Stefan Halper at Cambridge University.  What were his orders regarding the Papadopolous incident?

Durham’s team also “has interviewed private Ukrainian citizens,…”  Are these Steele’s intermediate sources for Russian affairs?[3]

Soon-to-be-not-the White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney “infuriated people inside the Department of Justice” by suggesting a connection between the Durham investigation and Rudi Giuliani’s investigation.  Barr’s office has denied any connection between his inquiry and that of Giuliani.

So far, according to the NYT, Durham’s team has interviewed lower-level officials.  Some of them have been questioned about why Peter Strozk signed to approve his own draft of the paperwork needed to open the investigation.  Normally, it seems, this process involves two separate officials.  Also, they have asked the witnesses about why Strozk began the investigation on a week-end.  Apparently, Strozk’s superior was Andrew McCabe, who did not sign the document.

Durham has “asked witnesses about the role of Christopher Steele….Law enforcement officials used some of the of the information Mr. Steele compiled into a now-infamous dossier” to obtain a wiretap on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign official [whose e-mails and phone conversations had been tracked and archived by the National Security Agency.]

Durham’s people asked why “F.B.I officials would use unsubstantiated or incorrect information in their application for a court order…”[4]

Standard investigatory procedure appears to be to start at the bottom and work upward.

William Barr’s investigators have not yet interviewed James Comey, Peter Strozk, Andrew McCabe, James Baker, John Brennan, or James Clapper.

Again, there is much still to be learned.

 

[1] Adam Goldman and William K.  Rashbaum, “Prosecutors Reviewing Russia Inquiry Appear to Seek Bias in F.B.I.” NYT, 20 October 2019, p. 22.  This statement ignores the fact that the “Steele Dossier

[2] “Unproven” is one thing; “unfounded” is another.  Which investigation has proven these allegations to be “unfounded”?

[3] Reportedly, Steele began having difficulty getting information directly from Russia in June 2016.

[4] See: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/steele-dossier-mueller-report.html

Election Investigations 1 21 October 2019.

Posted on by
Reply

James B. Stewart is nobody’s fool.[1]  His most recent book paws over what is known of the near-simultaneous and mid-election investigations of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.[2]

Hillary Clinton had used a private e-mail server for business and personal matters when federal regulations banned that practice.  She then “wiped” the hard-drive, deleting tens of thousands of messages about purely personal matters.[3]  The subsequent FBI investigation concluded that there existed no sign of criminal intent.

However, FBI agents in offices which had previously dealt with the Clintons (Little Rock, New York City) were “hotbeds of anti-Clinton hostility.”  FBI Director James Comey told Attorney General Loretta Lynch that “there is a cadre of senior people in New York who have a deep and visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton.”[4]

The Inspector General of the Justice Department later excoriated Comey for having usurped the authority of the then-compromised Attorney General Lynch.[5]  He had denounced Clinton’s “extremely careless” handling of information.  Then, an unrelated investigation of Congressman Anthony Weiner revealed that his wife, Huma Abedin—Hillary Clinton’s chief aid—had not informed the FBI that she had another computer on which “sensitive” information had been stored.  This had forced Comey to re-open the investigation late in the election.  This may have cost Hillary Clinton the 2016 election.[6]  Arguably, this was a violation of standard operating procedure in the FBI.

Stewart seems to suggest that there are a great many Republicans within the FBI and the Justice Department.[7]  Furthermore, they are motivated by their partisan commitments, rather than by a professional commitment to law enforcement.  “Comey felt bound to appease the Clinton-haters because they refused to accept any process that failed to yield their preferred outcome.”[8]

Exactly why Comey would feel obliged to appease the Clinton-haters is not clearly stated.  Would they leak embarrassing information about Clinton or someone else?  Would they compromise his re-appointment as Director?  Then, Comey seems to have leaked his memos to trigger appointment of a special prosecutor, who turned out to be Robert Mueller, a Republican.  Much remains to be learned.

[1] See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Stewart  I wonder if that makes him feel lonely?

[2] James B. Stewart, Deep State: Trump, the FBI, and the Rule of Law (2019).  See the review by Jonathan Chait, “There Are No Winners Here,” NYTBR, 20 October 2019, p.  11.

[3] Apparently, she did NOT transfer this trove of treasured personal communications to an external hard-drive for future reference because she isn’t someone who dwells on the past or retains e-mails from her daughter.

[4] As I understand it, the New York office had wanted to investigate the allegations of influence-peddling suggested in Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich (2015).  They were not allowed to do so, probably because the source of the information was a partisan opponent seeking to discover harmful information.  FBI agents in the New York office may have leaked anti-Clinton information to conservative media.

[5] See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/world/scathing-justice-dept-watchdog-report-rebukes-james-b-comey-cites-major-missteps-by-fbi/2309/

[6] Actually, it is difficult to say exactly what caused Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the election.  See:  Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign (2017).

[7] So it’s like military service.  Most Democrats will not fight for their country, although Pete Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard are exceptions.  For that matter, neither will most Republicans.

[8] Chait, “No Winners.”

Barr the Door 17 October 2019.

Posted on by
Reply

By April 2019, the investigation into allegations of conspiracy between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russkies concluded with a sort-of “Scotch verdict.”  Depending on your point of view of course.  Soon, Attorney General William Barr ordered an investigation of the origins of the “Russia probe” that had been carried out by the FBI before and after Donald Trump was elected President.  Barr wondered if the FBI might have “abused its power” in the investigation.  The Inspector General of the Department of Justice already had launched an inquiry into the FISA warrants used to justify surveillance of Carter Page.  However, the IG could compel testimony and secure documents only within the Department of Justice and the FBI.  Barr’s new investigation, backed by a presidential order for all agencies and departments to co-operate and permitting Barr to declassify any documents that he thinks right, seemingly could touch on the State Department, the Defense Department, and the intelligence community.  Barr had asked US Attorney John Durham to carry out that investigation.

In early October 2019, Barr and Durham went to Rome.  The two wanted the cooperation of the Italian government in their investigation.  Why Italy?  It’s the operating base for Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor who is suspected of having ties to the Russian intelligence service.  Mifsud had told Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.  Later, Mifsud eluded the FBI and then disappeared.  Where is he?  Will he talk?  Furthermore, in early July 2019, Christopher Steele met with an FBI agent stationed in Rome.  They had known each other from having participated in investigations of Central Asian-Russian organized Crime.  Steele shared his early concerns with the agent, who reported them to Victoria Nuland at the State Department.  It might be useful to sort out the details not covered by the documents and e-mails.

In addition, the two hoped to get help from the governments of Britain and Australia.[1]

They are interested in Australia because Papadopoulos told the Australian High Commissioner to Britain and his assistant, that he had learned that the Russian had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton during a meeting in May 2016.  Durham may want to know exactly when the Australians communicated this knowledge to the Americans.  Did they share the knowledge immediately, by mid-May, with the FBI or the CIA?  Did they share it in mid-June after the Russian hack of the computer server of the Democratic National Committee and of Hillary Clinton’s secret server became public knowledge?  Did they wait until mid-July, as the timeline of the FBI seems to suggest?  If they waited, why did they wait?  It was interesting news.

They may be interested in Britain because of the potential involvement of the British intelligence services, both MI-5 (domestic) and MI-6 (the foreign Secret Intelligence Service).  Christopher Steele had been a senior member of MI-6.  Now he runs a private “intelligence” organization out of London.  Can that business thrive if the intelligence “community” doubts you?  So, what—purely out of self-defense—did Steele tell the British s well as various Americans?  Did British agencies share that information with their American “cousins”?

It is important here to not confuse William Barr with Rudolph Giuliani.  Nor—so far–do the subject areas of their investigations overlap.  Will Barr’s investigation survive?

[1] “Barr hunts for signs of a plot to undermine Trump,” The Week, 11 October 2019, p. 5.

Apophenia 6 October 2019.

Posted on by
Reply

The German psychiatrist Klaus Conrad (1905-1961) studied the development of schizophrenia.  In a 1958 book he defined an early stage of schizophrenia as “apophenia.”  Conrad explained that apophenia consisted of the “unmotivated seeing of connections [accompanied by] a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness.”[1]  What follows is an attempt to illustrate this idea by reference to a contemporary political controversy.

 

The “Steele Dossier” was inserted into public consciousness between July and September 2016.   The “Whistleblower Complaint” was inserted into public consciousness between July and September 2019.

The author of the “Steele Dossier” reportedly was Christopher Steele, a highly-regarded former British intelligence officer.  The author of the “Whistleblower Complaint is believed to be a highly-regarded Central Intelligence Agency officer.

The basis of the “Steele Dossier” was unverified hear-say.  The basis of the “Whistleblower Complaint” was largely then-unverified hearsay.

The “Steele Dossier” was first communicated to a consulting firm in the employ of the Hillary Clinton campaign, and to an FBI agent stationed in Rome.  Then, when the information did not reach the public or result in an official investigation, it was shared with journalists.  The “Whistleblower Complaint” was first communicated to a government “tip-line” and resulted in a formal complaint.  Then, when the information did not result in an official investigation, it was shared with Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

The “Steele Dossier” alleged—among other things–that: 1) that Trump presidential campaign officials conspired with the Russians; 2) that Carter Page played a key role in this conspiracy; 3) that Paul Manafort directed the conspiracy; 4) that Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, had met secretly with Russian representatives in Prague.

“The Whistleblower Complaint” alleged—among other things–that: 1) Trump tried to extort the government of Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden; 2) Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, played a key role in this conspiracy; 4) US Attorney John Durham may be investigating Ukrainian leads as part of his probe of the origins of the Russia-Trump investigation.

It is useful to recall the context for both cases.  In the case of the “Steele Dossier,” Russians had intervened in the 2016 US presidential election, not least by releasing secret information stolen from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton.  The Australian government informed American officials that a Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, had told one of their diplomats that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.  President Trump has doubted/denied the reports of American intelligence agencies about Russian interference and took umbrage at the investigation of alleged conspiracy between his campaign and the Russians.

In the case of the “Whistleblower Complaint,” 1) Ukraine suffers from endemic corruption.  During the Obama Administration, Vice President Joe Biden led an effort to pressure the government of Ukraine to shape up.  2) Information on the dealings in Ukraine of Trump’s one-time campaign manager, Paul Manafort, provided some of the basis for Manafort’s indictment.  3) In 2014 Hunter Biden joined the board of a Ukrainian energy company run by oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky.  Once Vice President Joe Biden took charge of trying to damp-down Ukrainian corruption, Hunter Biden’s position created an apparent conflict-of-interest that was acknowledged by the New York Times.  4) In Spring 2019, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko began alleging “interference” in the 2016 US presidential election by Ukrainians working against Trump.  Other officials have denied these allegations.

 

It is impossible at this point to predict the final outcomes of the two cases.  The case of the “Steele Dossier” is not yet concluded.

1) In March 2019: Special Counsel Robert Mueller “did not establish” that a Trump-Russia conspiracy had existed.  2) The Special Counsel did not charge former Trump campaign official Carter Page with any crime.  The Special Counsel stated that Michael Cohen never visited Prague.  Paul Manafort was convicted of financial crimes committed before 2016 and for obstruction of justice committed during the investigation of those crimes.  He was not charged with conspiring with the Russians.  3) The Department of Justice Inspector General has been investigating allegations of Federal Bureau of Investigation misconduct in FISA warrant applications to surveil former Trump campaign official Page.  This investigation included a July 2019 extended interview with Steele.  By mid-September 2019, a draft report on the FISA warrants was circulating inside the Department of Justice and the FBI.   4) In late April 2019, Attorney General William Barr appointed US Attorney John Durham to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation.

The case of the “Whistleblower Complaint” is just beginning.

1) After the Mueller Report, Democratic efforts to impeach Trump had languished, with House majority leader Nancy Pelosi paying more attention to public opinion polls and the situation of the moderate new members of the House than to the left wing of the party.  2) The “Whistleblower Complaint” shifted the balance of forces.  House of Representatives Democrats launched a formal impeachment inquiry.  3) Attorney General Barr has denied being asked to contact Ukrainian officials, having any contact with Ukrainian officials, having any contact with Giuliani with regard to Ukraine, and knowing about the Trump phone call until several weeks later, possibly as a result of the whistleblower’s complaint.  4) In late September 2019, John Durham was reported to be investigating how the incriminating information on Manafort reached the FBI from Ukraine.

There is a lot of scope for apophenia in these events.

[1] See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia.  I first encountered the term in William Gibson, Pattern Recognition (2003), a sort-of science fiction novel set in what John LeCarre called “the recent future.”

The Socialist Boogie Man 21 September 2019.

Posted on by
Reply

When it comes to the trajectory of Socialism, critics of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are either ignorant or liars.  Historically, Socialism is an economic system in which 1.) society, not the private individual, owns the “means of production”; 2.) planning, rather than the market, determines the production of goods; and 3.) co-operation, rather than competition, is the guiding principle.

Socialism arose as a response to what people saw as the “injustices” of Capitalism; poverty, frequent unemployment; the destruction of the old handicraft industries, awful living conditions in factory cities, and a political system that tilted hard in favor of the capitalists.  Unions and strikes were illegal; there were high property requirements to be able to vote or run for office in most places; and real power belonged to the bourgeoisie.

Early Socialism (1820s-1848) argued that a humane economy and society could be created by building co-operative factories and towns managed by the people who worked and lived in them.  Many amusing stories come from this time.  (See: phalanstery; see: Brook Farm.)

In 1848 the German intellectuals Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto, creating the form of Socialism later called Marxism.  Marxism argued that a) capitalist greed would lead to a few owners gobbling up all their competitors so that ownership would end in a few hands; b) capitalist greed would lead to wages being forced down to the bare survival level; c) poor people can’t buy the things they produced, so capitalist governments would fight wars to conquer new markets and destroy surplus production that they could not sell; and d) all the miserable poor people would recognize that they belonged to one class (“those who work”) and the few owners belonged to another class (“those that don’t”); and e) revolution would replace Capitalism with Socialism.  Everyone would live happily ever after.

Marxian Socialism became the dominant movement in Socialism after 1848.  However, capitalism began evolving: unions were legalized, wages and living standards rose, governments created social insurance systems, and the bourgeoisie accepted political democracy.  In the early 20th Century, Marxism split into two opposing groups.  Reformist or Democratic Socialists said that Marx’s predictions hadn’t worked out, that revolution had to give way to participating in democratic politics, and that politics required a willingness to bargain with the other classes.  In contrast, Communists said that to achieve Socialism it would take a small group of professional revolutionaries to organize “the masses” and then to lead a continuing revolution.

In practice, Communism turned out to represent “prison camps, overalls, and a damned long march to nowhere.”  Communism is what contemporary American conservatives describe as “Socialism.”

In fact, the British Labour Party, the French Socialist Party, and the German Social Democratic Party have never been anything but guardians of political democracy.  They have never tried to create a monopoly on political power and they have never failed to yield power when they lost a democratic election.  Sanders and Warren clearly fall within this tradition.

Fight them on the real and many failings of Socialism, but don’t scare-monger and lie.

Shareholders versus Stakeholders 1 21 September 2019.

Posted on by
Reply

Historically, American industry grew from a foundation based on prioritizing “shareholders” over “stakeholders.”  Labor and communities didn’t count for anything in the epic period of industrialization.  In my original home town, Seattle, the railroad tracks ran right along the shore of Elliot Bay because that led directly to the piers for loading cargo on ships. That’s where the railroads wanted their lines and the public be damned.   In my adopted home town, Easton, the Coal and Iron Police of the Lehigh Valley were deputized by the Commonwealth so that they could lawfully counter unionization.  Then came the Great Depression.  The great corporations were humbled and regulated by the federal government.

Then the Second World War devastated the industrial economies of most countries in the world.  Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan emerged from the war with their industrial plant and agriculture in ruins.  After 1945, the pressing demands for economic reconstruction conflicted with pressing demands for higher standards of living and social welfare systems in many countries.  To make matters worse, Britain and France spent heavily on defense in order to maintain “great power” status.  All of these factors made for a slow revival of competitiveness on international markets.

In the meantime, the United States provided the goods demanded by the rest of the free world.[1]  Thus, during a “golden age” of the 1950s and 1960s, American corporations enjoyed huge profits without struggling very much.  They could reward shareholders and “stakeholders” in ways that satisfied all concerned.  Corporate social responsibility came to mean not laying-off workers or cutting wage and benefits, not closing down plants, not getting rid of unprofitable or incompatible divisions, and not off-shoring production.

Most people were happy with this situation, but not all.  In a 1970 New York Times Magazine essay Milton Friedman, asserted that “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”  Radically at odds with recent experience, Friedman’s view did not receive wide acceptance.  Instead, America’s economy became increasingly uncompetitive without most people noticing.

Soon after Friedman had spoken, huge waves of change broke over the American economy.  Globalization unleashed rebuilt foreign industries on the international and American markets.  Deregulation allowed the entrance of hungry and innovative new competitors onto the domestic market.  Rapid technological change contributed to globalization, while also substituting machines for men.  Furthermore, the 1970s witnessed the two “oil shocks” (1973, 1979).  While impossible in economic theory, combined high inflation and high unemployment turned out to be all too possible in economic reality.

Forced to choose how to use shrinking profits, corporations prioritized “stakeholders” over shareholders.  Savers—you have to save before you can invest—felt themselves to be getting “skint” from management.  Then, in the 1980s, appeared the corporate raiders launching hostile takeovers.  Disgruntled stockholders unloaded their stock on the raiders.  Successful takeovers led to fat, dumb, and happy corporations getting put through the wringer.  Fairly quickly, many boards and managers began prioritizing shareholder value over stakeholder value as a defense.  By the end of the 20th Century, Milton Friedman’s formula had triumphed.

[1] Steven Pearlstein, “When Shareholder Capitalism Came to Town,” The American Prospect, 9 April 2014, https://prospect.org/article/when-shareholder-capitalism-came-town

The Sentimental Imperialists 1 15 August 2019.

Posted on by
Reply

There’s this interesting book by Alan Weisman, The World Without Us (2008).  Weisman asks how long would our massive physical creations—buildings, dams, roads, tunnels—survive if humans were not constantly maintaining them?  He answers Not long at all.  Flooding, erosion, deer, those weeds that sprout through cracks in the sidewalk, would need only decades to begin erasing the human scar on the Earth.  Things that seem unimaginably durable and solid can quickly disappear.

What if we apply the same approach to political institutions?  What if we stopped maintaining them?  It wouldn’t matter much with domestic political traditions and institutions.  Those tend to be the product of long periods of development and bargaining.  They survive both triumph and disaster.  Trying to graft foreign or theoretical arrangements onto a long-existing political tradition isn’t likely to work.[1]  So, “tribes” (local identities) would survive.

But what if you apply the same approach to the cob-web of links between countries in what political scientists like to call an “international system” or “cosmopolitanism”?  There the approach seems more valid, at least at first glance.  Take Asia as an example.

China has grown into the second largest economy in the world.  Its wealth has allowed a massive military build-up and an aggressive posture in the Western Pacific.  Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has challenged the West in Eastern Europe, in the Middle East, and in the conduct of democratic elections.  North Korea’s acquisition of advanced missile technology—from whatever source—poses a grave security threat to American forces and American allies in Asia.  Meanwhile a combination of refugee problems with a revolt against the “Eurocrats” of the European Union’s “administrative state” have disabled Europe as a force in international affairs.

That’s why the “Nervous Nigels” and “sissies in striped pants”[2] who populate the diplomatic corps of many nations and of international agencies have been bleating so hard.  Where will many millions of people be without the World Health Organization, the World Agriculture Organization, or the United Nations High Commission on Refugees?  Malaria, malnutrition, and massacres, that’s where.

Normally, many people would grudgingly look to the United States for leadership in crises.  The Trump Administration’s “America First” strategy challenges this reflex.  However, there are real limits on what the United States could accomplish under any administration.  Hong Kong has been a part of China since 1997.  China claims Taiwan.  If it buckles on Hong Kong, then its future with Taiwan may be in doubt.  The Uighurs are Chinese subjects.  Kashmir is a part of India.  North Korea already has been plastered with sanctions for decades without abandoning its pursuit of nuclear weapons.  The Philippines resents the United States and forced the closure of American bases decades ago.  Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton either opposed or backed away from the Obama administration’s “Trans-Pacific Partnership.”  Loathsome person though he may be, Donald Trump isn’t far off the mark in Asia.

[1] This was the position of early 19th Century Conservatives.  You couldn’t make Britain into Prussia and you couldn’t make the Austrian empire into the United States just by writing some documents.  However, the experience of the Third Reich and its adventures proved sufficient to make Germans open to new approaches.  Which proves my point.

[2] The Economist and Franklin D. Roosevelt respectively.

The News 6 August 2019.

Posted on by
Reply

Pro-Trump News.

The Supreme Court (5-4) allowed the administration to—temporarily–shift $2.5 million from the defense budget to building border walls.[1]

Anti-Trump News.

During the first segment of the second round of the Democratic debates, rivals–of most of whom no one has ever heard–heaped abuse on Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders for their “radical” proposals—like “VA for All.”[2]  According to the critics, their plans are too extreme for many Democratic voters and for all “swing” voters.  So, in sports terms, “Go Big AND Go Home.”  “Mayor Pete”—what were the Immigration clerks on Ellis Island thinking that day?—tried to sell a more middle-of-the-road plan: “Medicare for all who want it.”[3]

There was a strong backlash against President Trump’s criticism of Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD).[4]  Congressman Cummings had criticized the treatment of the large numbers of people being held in border detention facilities.  As with his criticism of “The Squad,” the president basically said “Go back where you came from [Baltimore] and fix that before you criticize me!”  The president described Baltimore as a “disgusting rat and rodent infested mess.”

As with his criticism of “The Squad,” Democrats denounced Trump’s attack as “racist.”[5]  So, what is “racism” in the liberal understanding?  Slavery was racist.  Jim Crow was racist.  “Red-lining” was racist.  Racial and religious real-estate “covenants” are racist.  Employment discrimination is racist.  Is “white flight” racist?  Are “bourgeois values” racist?  Is affirmative action racist?  Is criticism of individual persons of color, on whatever grounds, racist?

Still, is Donald Trump a “racist”?  Very likely.[6]  Michael Cohen, once his attorney, recalled riding through Chicago with Trump.  Not-yet-President Trump remarked that “only blacks could live like this.”  For how many American voters does Donald Trump speak?

[1] “Supreme Court accepts wall construction,” The Week, 9 August 2019, p. 6.

[2] Petty self-interest prompts a question.  If you wipe out all private health insurance, what will happen to the stock value of the companies that provide health insurance?  About half of American workers have 401k retirement plans.  Most of these include health insurance company stocks in their portfolios in various mixes.

[3] “Moderates vs. progressives in Democratic debates,” The Week, 9 August 2019, p. 5.

[4] “Baltimore: Why Trump called it ‘disgusting’ and ‘infested’,” The Week, 9 August 2019, p.6.  My guess would be that he took a break from “Fox and Friends” to binge-watch “The Wire.”  I can’t imagine him in a limo going north on I-95, then suddenly telling his Secret Service driver to “Get off here, go west on Pulaski Highway, and then look for a sign for “The Gold Club.”  Wait.  What am I saying?  Yes, I can.  See: https://www.yelp.com/biz/the-gold-club-baltimore?osq=Full+Nude+Strip+Club

[5] Prominent denouncifiers included Charles Blow, a columnist for the New York Times.  Apparently, Blow does not read the Times.  Back in March 2019, the NYT Magazine ran a scalding piece on the collapse of city government and public order in Baltimore after Freddy Grey got arrested-to-death by the BPD.  Meanwhile, the Baltimore Sun confessed that Baltimore does have a problem with rodents.

[6] At least he is anti-African-American, anti-African, and anti-mestizo.  It isn’t clear what are his views on East Asian and South Asian people.  Trump pretty clearly isn’t an anti-Semite.  But is Philo-Semitism “racist”?  If so, a bunch of Americans are in trouble.  Does one have to think all races are inferior to one’s own race to be a racist, or is it enough to think that one race is inferior to all other races to be a racist?  On the other hand, the attack by both Mayor Bill DiBlasio and the Editorial Board of the New York Times on Asian students attending the elite high schools in New York City might strike some people as racist.