Im-Politic: New Evidence that Trump-Russia is a Voter Nothing-Burger

Tags

2016 elections, 2020 elections, collusion, foreign policy, Gallup, Im-Politic, midterm elections, polls, public opinion, Russia, Trump, Trump-Russia

I know that it’s only one poll, and that poll results can be pretty dodgy. (See “2016 U.S. Presidential Election.”) But the results of a new Gallup survey on Americans’ views towards U.S.-Russia relations seem well worth spotlighting anyway, especially given the continuing unrelenting headlines being generated by the alleged Trump-Russia scandals, by all the evidence of Russian meddling in American politics, and various investigations of the above.

Gallup asked respondents whether it’s “more important to improve relations with Russia” or “more important to take strong diplomatic and economic steps against Russia.” And by a healthy 58 percent to 36 percent margin, the “improve relations” option won out. Just as striking is that a hard line against Moscow is strongly opposed even though 75 percent of the public believes that Russia interfered in the last presidential election, and 39 percent believes that such activities “changed the outcome.”

As predictable these days, these views are sharply divided along partisan lines. But what’s less predictable is that the Democrats come across as the most intense partisans by far. To be sure, their support for a “hard” vs a “soft” line toward Russia wasn’t overwhelming – 51 percent for the former, 45 percent for the latter. But it contrasted sharply not only with the opinion of Republicans (who favored a softer line by a lopsided 74 percent to 22 percent margin). Democrats’ views also differed significantly from those of independents (who favored a softer line by 55 percent to 37 percent).

And this Gallup survey makes it tough to blame supposed public apathy or ignorance for these findings. Specifically, two-thirds of respondents told Gallup they were following news about Russia and the 2016 election “closely” and 33 percent reported following such developments “very closely.” Gallup contends that this level of attention is “slightly above” the norm for their news attentiveness results going back to 1991.

Moreover, Gallup reports that the more closely its sample members followed the story, the likelier they were to believe that Russia interfered and that its interference mattered. Indeed, ninety percent of the true newshounds accepted the meddling claims. But only 51 percent of this highly attentive group believed that the alleged Russian operations changed the outcome. And those respondents who were following such news only somewhat closely split nearly evenly on the matter (with 42 percent agreeing that the meddling affected the outcome and 40 percent disagreeing)

The same pattern was evident when it came to views on Russia relations options. Of those Americans following these stories very closely, a majority favored the harder line. But the margin was only 53 percent to 42 percent. The results for Americans following the Russia coverage only somewhat closely was the reverse – and then some. Only thirty-seven percent backed the hard line while fully 59 percent opposed it.

When combined with other Gallup findings that, through June, the constellation of Trump-Russia issues wasn’t even moving the needle in terms of Americans’ rankings of their top concerns, this new survey indicates that, unless a genuine smoking gun is uncovered, Democrats would be best advised to stress other anti-Trump messages in their campaigns this year to regain control of Congress. For if voters were strongly responsive, wouldn’t they be demanding that their leaders make Russia pay dearly for an attack on their democracy? At the same time, since voter turnout in mid-term elections is typically very low, hammering away at Russia and impeachment etc could possibly bring to the polls more “resistance” true believers and swing some close races.

The implications for the next presidential race – again, barring a smoking fun – seem clearer: In such a generally higher turnout race, voters are likely to be paying much more attention to the standard array of pocketbook and cultural issues (along with foreign policy, if crises break out) than to whatever’s left of the Trump-Russia controversy.

Advertisements

Im-Politic: You Bet Oprah Could Win

Tags

2016 elections, 2018 elections, 2020 elections, Bernie Sanders, Democrats, economy, Elizabeth Warren, Im-Politic, independents, Joe Biden, Oprah Winfrey, politics, Republicans, Trump

Here’s a confession: I’ve never watched “Oprah.”

Still, since I’ve been in a waking state for much of the last few decades, I’m of course aware of the prominence she’s achieved in American culture and society, and the high regard in which so many hold her. That’s why I take absolutely seriously the idea that Oprah Winfrey could win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, and even take the White House.

One suggestive data point is already out. In a new poll, she tops President Trump by an impressive ten percentage points as a presidential choice. And as many observers have pointed out, unless the field of likely Democratic White House hopefuls changes markedly in the next two or so years (and we’re of course still awfully early in the presidential cycle, so don’t rule out that possibility by any means), Winfrey would face unusually flawed opponents.

Indeed, at this point, the leading Democratic contenders look to be Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, and former Vice President Joe Biden. Whatever you think of them as individuals either personally or politically, all three are septuagenarians, and two look to be well to the Left of a critical mass of American voters. And underscoring their vulnerability is how enthusiastically so many Democrats and progressives have reacted to the idea of “Oprah 2020.”

More reasons for optimism about a Winfrey White House run:

>She’s rich as Croesus and would have no trouble raising outside money.

>She has ocean-wide name recognition.

>She has made a career largely on her matchless ability to “feel the pain” of Main Street Americans (a skill that former President Bill Clinton so effectively conveyed).

>Mr. Trump has already broken through the celebrity “glass ceiling.”

>Similarly, she shows no evidence of being a whiz on policy issues, but no one associated such expertise with candidate Trump, either. And plenty of veteran Democratic- and liberal leaning academics and other specialists would no doubt flock to her cause and give her all the tutoring she needs for a campaign.

>Like the president, she can boast real business success.

Obviously, Winfrey would face important obstacles. I wouldn’t include race or gender on that list. It seems clear to me she’s transcended both categories. But her background isn’t completely scandal-free – as this article makes clear. In this vein, she could well be hurt from the inevitable gushing her candidacy will draw from a Hollywood/celebrity class that much of the public finds completely off-putting.

Perhaps most important, once Winfrey throws her hat in the ring, the halo currently surrounding her will surely fall off, and she’ll start looking more like a conventional politician. Certainly, even though the Mainstream Media will be favorably disposed to her (as they have been to any Trump opponent), she’ll still be under a much harsher spotlight than she has been so far.

Even so, there’s one advantage she’ll have in a 2020 campaign that I believe will be especially important in putting her over the top. And I feel pretty confident about this view even if Mr. Trump enjoys major traditional tailwinds like an economy that keeps performing reasonably well (at least by the standard indicators that attract all the media attention) and U.S. avoidance of military involvement in foreign crises that generate lots of casualties and costs.

Let’s call this advantage “Trump fatigue syndrome.” It’s entirely possible that Americans could enjoy the kinds of safety and prosperity that have often won presidents second terms, and still yearn for a return to normality in their politics and public life – or at least greater normality.

On the one hand, I agree with those (including many Democrats) who insist that the typical voter is much less interested in the “Russia-gate” charges and the other scandals with which the president has been charged than with their personal financial and economic conditions, and their sense of security.

On the other hand, though, I’m confident that those charges, their endless repetition in the media, and the President’s consistently harsh reactions to them and to any and all criticisms, are generating a wearying effect – and starting to erode the broad voter anger that contributed so much to Mr. Trump’s 2016 victory. In other words, outrage can be exhausting even for a die-hard Trump-er, and I expect Trump fatigue to spread as long as the current level of political warfare continues.

Indeed, the recent Alabama U.S. Senate and Virginia gubernatorial elections – won by moderate, soft-spoken Democrats amid an improving economy – indicate that precisely this syndrome is becoming established among relatively well-to-do suburban voters who supported the President in the general election. The persistence of Mr. Trump’s weak national poll ratings during at least decent economic times is another sign that many of his Republican, conservative, and independent backers are tiring of his act.

I also expect that the Democrats and the President’s other opponents know this, and will ensure that the various investigations underway into the actions of Mr. Trump and his family, aides, and other associates continue as long as possible. Trump foes in the media, political, and entertainment worlds are likely to keep baiting him with social media and other attacks for the same reason. The only risk they would run (and it’s not negligible):  At some point, the public could well demand that they “put up” (with some specific evidence of major Trump wrongdoing) or “shut up.”     

Even so, unless opposition research, or simply the campaign grind, destroys her aura of empathy and moderation and good sense, who better to cure Trump fatigue, at least by promising to restore some peace and quiet and dignity to the White House, than Winfrey?

Strangely, though, my case for Oprah 2020 also indicates that a major turn for the worse in America’s fortunes could greatly reduce her odds of winning the White House. Despite her impressive business career, I’m by no means convinced that many voters would regard Winfrey as an effective recession fighter. It seems even less plausible that she’d be seen as a promising commander-in-chief type if the world starts appearing a lot more dangerous. (Nor does that judgment reflect gender considerations. Unless you think many voters doubted 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s national security experience or toughness?) Even more important, a worsening economy and a more menacing world would appear a great formula for reigniting American political anger – which Winfrey would struggle to mollify.

And don’t forget the biggest threat to a Winfrey candidacy (though it seems to me unlikely at present):  Mr. Trump is removed from office, and in the process eliminate the shine from the ideas of celebrity candidacies and presidencies. 

But however strongly I feel that, barring a Trump exit, Winfrey could be taking the oath of office in Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2021, I’m less sure about two other big questions: Will she start to play a political role on behalf of Democrats in this year’s off-year elections? And will she be able to encourage enough additional Trump fatigue to affect the outcome notably?

Making News: New Marketwatch.com Op-Ed on Trump and NAFTA

Tags

2016 elections, Donald Trump, globallization, Making News, Marketwatch.com, NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, Trade

I’m pleased to report that my latest op-ed piece has just been published by Marketwatch.com.  Available at this link, it argues that Donald Trump has nailed it regarding what’s really wrong with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): Rather than creating meaningful incentives for companies all over the world to manufacture in North America – as its founders intended – the two decade-old free trade zone has foolishly permitted goods from Europe and Asia to keep pouring into the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican economies almost unimpeded.

Keep checking in at RealityChek for the news on upcoming publications and other events!

 

Im-Politic: Hillary Clinton Could Have a 1950s and 1960s Problem

Tags

1950s, 1960s, 2016 elections, America First, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, Immigration, minorities, Obama, Robert B. Reich, shared prosperity, The New York Times, Trade, women

Should the 1950s and 1960s in America be mainly remembered as a halcyon economic era of growth that was strong and whose benefits were widely shared? Or an age when increased prosperity was confined mainly to white males?

Whatever your own view, and whatever the merits, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s so-called victory speech last week revealed – no doubt unwittingly – that her party could be deeply divided on the question. In turn, this split could create major confusion about a campaign theme she’s apparently become taken with, and about what economic policies she genuinely supports.

In the June 7 speech declaring her historic victory in this year’s Democratic presidential campaign, Clinton clearly painted the early post-World War II decades in dark tones. In her view, her likely GOP rival Donald Trump’s call to “Make America Great Again” is “code for, ‘Let’s take America backwards.’ Back to a time when opportunity and dignity were reserved for some, not all, promising his supporters an economy he cannot recreate.”

Nor has this been a one-off remark. At a Planned Parenthood event yesterday, Clinton repeated “When Donald Trump says, ‘Let’s make America great again,’ that is code for ‘let’s take America backward.’ Back to a time when opportunity and dignity were reserved for some, not all.”

What Clinton doesn’t appear to recognize is that many of her fellow Democrats have portrayed these years much more positively. Here’s one example: “In the decades after World War II there was a general consensus that the market couldn’t solve all of our problems on its own. …This consensus, this shared vision led to the strongest economic growth and the largest middle class that the world has ever known. It led to a shared prosperity. “ The speaker? President Obama.

Robert B. Reich stands further to the left than Mr. Obama on the political spectrum – and was also Labor Secretary during the presidency of Clinton’s husband. He’s even more all-in for the early post-war decades, terming the period, “The Great Prosperity” that was fueled by “what might be called a basic bargain with American workers. Employers paid them enough to buy what they produced. Mass production and mass consumption proved perfect complements. Almost everyone who wanted a job could find one with good wages, or at least wages that were trending upward.”

The New York Times Editorial Board is also pretty keen on these decades:

“Economic growth and rising productivity are needed for broadly shared prosperity, but rising living standards require policies that ensure regular increases in the minimum wage, which peaked in 1968; greater investment in the social safety net; full employment as a government priority; progressive taxation; and effective financial regulation to avoid overgrowth followed by collapse.

“These kinds of policies dominated from the late-1940s to the 1970s, a time of broadly shared prosperity and a strong middle class.”

In fairness, Clinton is absolutely right in contending that women and minorities didn’t generally prosper along with the rest of the population. And no knowledgeable liberals would disagree. Yet what’s the evidence that Trump wants to reserve all future gains made by the American economy to white males? Indeed, he’s repeatedly condemned numerous recent economic policies for leaving minorities behind, most recently in yesterday’s call to take federal funds currently targeted for refugee relief programs and use them instead to foster employment in inner cities.

This last point spotlights what might be the most politically important difference between Clinton and Trump on the legacy and lessons of the 1950s and 1960s. When the former Secretary of State accuses her Republican counterpart of “promising his supporters an economy he cannot recreate,” she’s focused most tightly on his opposition to highly permissive immigration policies and amnesty for the nation’s current illegal population.

Clinton has recently voiced criticisms of current U.S. trade policies.  Yet her past record and – as I’ve noted – some of her recent rhetoric indicates that she’s also fundamentally OK with the great and overwhelmingly one-sided opening of the American economy to import competition that almost immediately followed the early post-war years. Interestingly, it’s a critique of Trump-ian views on immigration and trade that’s identical with that of America’s donor class and its hired guns in the Republican party’s establishment wing.

If Clinton keeps repeating her charge about Trump’s supposedly unrealistic and retrograde nostalgia, it would be relatively easy for his campaign to counter with the kind of “America First” response he outlined in his own “victory speech“. The argument? Clinton’s endorsement of the trade and immigration status quo amounts to a program of aiding workers abroad and foreigners living illegally in the United States at the expense of the nation’s legal residents – of all genders, races, and heritages.

And if the Republican candidate can stay on this message (an awfully big “if”), he’ll be able to show that prominent Democrats, including President Obama share this economic nostalgia, too – along with the confidence that restoring this kind of economic greatness (albeit with a somewhat different policy mix) is eminently realistic.

Im-Politic: Polls Apart

Tags

2016 elections, economy, Gallup, Im-Politic, Jobs, national security, polls, terrorism

Since it’s a presidential election year, we’ve heard even more than usual about polls, and their dominance of the political news will only increase through the upcoming election. If only there was any reason to believe that all this polling will make us much better informed about the choices we face, or even about our views of these choices. Certainly, it’s tough to justify much optimism after looking at the Gallup organization’s work yesterday.

In one survey, Gallup asked Americans whether they are “satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time.” Just 29 percent of respondents expressed satisfaction, which, as Gallup observed continued “the trend of low satisfaction levels since 2007.” Since Gallup began asking this question, in 1979, the average “satisfaction level” has been 37 percent.

It’s easy to take this result and conclude that it cuts in favor of Republican political candidates this year, since Democrats hold the White House, since presidents usually take most of the blame or credit for the state of the union, and since this kind of question is seen as a key determinant of how successful the president’s party is likely to be. Also of note – during the satisfaction Obama years, the satisfaction level has averaged only 24 percent. So that’s another reason to suppose that voters are hankering for a change.

But on the very same day, Gallup released a survey pointing to exactly the opposite type of conclusions. The company asked respondents whether they think that now is a “good time or a bad time to find a quality job.” Those optimistic about the job market came to 43 percent of respondents – a level so high that it’s only slightly below the record of 48 percent, registered in 2007, just before the recession struck. (This data series began in 2001.) And when President Obama was first elected, in 2008, this reading was in the 20s.

It’s of course possible that Americans aren’t thinking of job-related issues when they rate the current state of national affairs. Maybe they have many other, more important matters on their minds? Yet other Gallup research casts major doubt on this possibility. It has consistently found that huge majorities of Americans in both parties – in the high 80s and 90s percent, view “the economy and jobs” as “extremely or very important to their vote for president.” That looks awfully promising for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and awfully gloomy for her likely rival, Republican Donald Trump.

To be fair, “terrorism and national security” are also seen as major keys to presidential voting by the electorate according to Gallup, and climate change and race relations (mainly among Democrats) rank as major concerns as well. But the latter two in particular register well below the economic issues.

Maybe next week, the polling concern will come out with results that resolve the apparent disconnect between the public’s views of the economy and its views of the nation’s course in general. Until it does, however, I’ll be vacillating back and forth over whether I should be pitying the politicians who need somehow to make sense of these contradictions, or simply swearing off polls altogether.

Im-Politic: Should Hillary Clinton Give Bill the (Campaigning) Heave-Ho?

Tags

2016 elections, Bill Clinton, border security, bridge to the 21st century, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, Immigration, Islam, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic terrorism, Jobs, reeducation, retraining, San Bernardino, Saudi Arabia, Tashfeen Malik, terrorism, Trade, white working class

If I were Hillary Clinton, I’d be having big second thoughts about how extensively I’d want to use husband Bill Clinton as a surrogate in her presidential campaign. For the former president keeps – I assume unwittingly – laying all sorts of traps for the still likely Democratic nominee on the super-sensitive and explosive issues of the economy and immigration-related threats of terrorism. This report of a an appearance Bill Clinton made yesterday in New Jersey shows why his stumping is so problematic for Ms. Clinton.

Take the economy. Although at the 2012 Democratic convention, Bill Clinton made a politically brilliant case for the Obama administration’s economic record, he sure sounded more downbeat at Union College: “All over the world there is stagnant economic growth, stagnant incomes, rising inequality and deep arguments over what to do about our increasing diversity,” he contended. Since the United States remains part of that world, this indictment sounds an awful lot like it includes President Obama’s second term – which former Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in no position to condemn.

Bill Clinton also claimed to recognize a major component of America’s economic failings – the worsening plight of the white, working class that has helped foster the rise of presumptive Republican candidate Donald Trump. In Mr. Clinton’s words, “We all need to recognize that white, non-college-educated Americans have seen great drops in their income, have seen great increases in their unemployment rate, have seen drops in their life expectancy….”

Trouble is, his credibility on these issues lies in tatters. In part, he’s a fatally flawed messenger on this score because the job- and wage-killing trade deals he spearheaded as president starting with NAFTA deserve such blame for white plight (along with undercutting minorities’ progress). Similarly the former president’s vague call that Trump supporters and the like “be brought along to the future” echoes his utopian presidential promise to help Americans harmed by trade liberalization by building a “bridge to the twenty-first century” constructed of retraining and reeducation programs.

Nor did Bill Clinton help his wife’s cause by insisting (in the reporter’s words) “that fortified borders and immigration bans can’t prevent terrorism.”

According to the former president, “The last serious terrorist incident in the United States occurred in San Bernardino, Calif. Those people were converted over the internet.” But although that seems clear for Syed Rizwan Farook, it’s anything but for his wife, Tashfeen Malik. While still living in her native Pakistan, Malik reportedly “attended the Al-Huda Institute in Multan, part of a chain of women-only religious schools in Pakistan.” Al-Huda says it aims to promote a peaceful message, but it’s “known for its puritanical interpretation of Islam” – an interpretation that’s played a decisive role in fostering terrorism both theologically (by promoting intolerance) and institutionally (through activities sponsored by the Saudi theocracy that champions such reactionary values).

Indeed, Malik also reportedly changed dramatically following a trip to Saudi Arabia several years before immigrating to the United States. And speaking of her entry into America, Republican Members of Congress have charged that Malik’s visa application was never properly vetted by U.S. immigration authorities.

Mr. Bill Clinton’s other comments on immigration and terrorism issues ranged from the ignorant to the inane. Apparently the former president thought he could definitively establish Trump as a kook by noting, “You can build all the walls you want. You can build them all across Canada; they got a bunch of foreigners in Canada.” But even under President Obama – no immigration hard-liner – “The US-Canadian border [has] increasingly [become] a national security hotspot watched over by drones, surveillance towers, and agents of the Department of Homeland Security.”

And kooky is the only apt description for President Clinton’s suggestion that such border security measures are pathetically irrelevant because “You could not keep out the social media.” In other words, because all dangers can’t be prevented, all prevention efforts are pointless.

President Clinton could well find his campaign mojo again before the November elections. No politician who has won the presidency twice should ever be underestimated, much less counted out. But time keeps getting shorter, and unless Mr. Clinton ups his game soon, his new boss might soon have to send him the Trump-ian message, “You’re fired.”

Making News: On Akron, Ohio Radio this Morning!

Tags

2016 elections, Akron, Making News, manufacturing, Ohio, Ray Horner, Trade, WAKR-AM

I’m pleased to announce that I’ll be appearing again on The Ray Horner Show this morning on Akron, Ohio’s WAKR-AM radio.  I hope you’ll all be able to listen live starting at 9:10 AM EST for what promises to be a great discussion about how trade and manufacturing issues keep shaping this year’s tumultuous presidential campaign. Click here for the station’s website.

 

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: North Korea Nuke Progress Shows Trump’s Right on Asia Strategy

Tags

2016 elections, alliances, Donald Trump, East Asia, escalation dominance, Japan, missile defense, North Korea, nuclear deterrent, nuclear weapons, Obama, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, South Korea, submarine-launched missiles

All that was left out of the (minimal) press coverage of North Korea’s latest weapons test were the two most important – and intimately related – aspects. First, Pyongyang’s apparently successful launch of a ballistic missile from a submarine further undermines the grand strategy pursued in the East Asia-Pacific region by the United States for half a century — by bringing the North a big step closer to the ability to drop nuclear bombs on the American homeland. Second, as a result, the American people and their leaders need to start taking Donald Trump’s critique of this strategy much more seriously right now.

Although everything North Korea does is shrouded in mystery, the U.S. military said its “systems detected and tracked what we assess was a North Korean submarine missile launch from the Sea of Japan.” South Korea’s military seemed to agree, and added that what appeared to be a ballistic missile traveled about 19 miles from its naval platform.

Now 19 miles obviously doesn’t get the North’s weaponry very close to American territory. And the Pentagon conspicuously added that the launch  “did not pose a threat to North America.”  But these points are completely beside the point. Pyongyang’s last such test – at the end of last year – evidently was a flop. So progress has clearly been made. And the U.S. Army’s commander in the Pacific has testified to the Senate – in public, for attribution – “Over time, I believe we’re going to see [North Korea] acquire these capabilities [to strike the United States with nuclear weapons] if they’re not stopped.” The big question is, “Why would any responsible American leader assume the opposite?”

Shockingly and scarily, however, that’s exactly what every prominent figure in U.S. politics and policy seems to be doing – except for Trump. For their criticisms of the Republican front-runner’s challenge to America’s alliance strategy in the Far East all assume that America will indefinitely retain escalation dominance in the region. As I’ve explained, this means that the United States will be able to keep deterring aggression from the North with threats to use nuclear weapons against Pyongyang that would be credible because U.S. territory would remain safe from any comparable danger.

As I (and many others) have reported, escalation dominance on the Korean peninsula has been fading for years, as Pyongyang has moved steadily toward building land-based missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads on U.S. soil. But submarine capabilities greatly magnify even this terrible threat, as the near-impossibility of finding these vessels – unlike land launchers – rules out the possibility of knocking them out in a preemptive attack. And although the United States keeps working on missile defenses, their test record so far shouldn’t inspire any confidence.

In other words, according to the nation’s leaders and the rest of its foreign policy establishment (not that they dare make this point overtly), they’ve yoked the United States into a policy of risking Los Angeles to defend Seoul, Trump calls this “a position that at some point is something that we have to talk about,” and he’s the irresponsible one.

Even more ludicrously, the establishment (including President Obama) insists that it’s Trump’s comments – not the mounting dangers to U.S. survival created by Washington’s current approach – that are undermining the long-term American goal of keeping nuclear weapons out of Japanese and South Korean hands. What these supposed experts either don’t know or won’t admit is that these allies are bound to go nuclear because the increasingly suicidal nature of America’s Asia strategy is so glaringly obvious and literally unbelievable to them. Indeed, Japan is widely thought capable of manufacturing a working nuke in six months. It’s true that the Japanese – responding to U.S. pressure – are transferring much of their existing large stockpile of weapons-grade and near-weapons-grade nuclear fuel to American facilities. But it’s also true that they’re still planning to build new facilities to make more.

The establishment is almost certainly correct in arguing that, all else equal, the fewer nuclear powers in the world the better. But all else hasn’t been anywhere near equal for years. Despite his personal flaws, Americans already owe Trump thanks for calling out an economic elite whose policies have disastrously failed the nation and world. Arguably, he deserves even greater thanks for calling out a foreign policy elite that’s now unmistakably – and needlessly – exposing the United States to literal destruction.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Why Obama’s Muslim Policies Look More Naive than Ever

Tags

2016 elections, Arabs, Donald Trump, Islam, Middle East, migrants, Muslim ban, Muslims, Obama, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, radical Islam, refugees, World Values Survey

Although he’s not running, President Obama’s record on dealing with the challenge posed from the Islamic world to America’s national security keeps roiling this year’s race for the White House. And a new study has once again revealed why the approach taken by Mr. Obama – and the two remaining Democratic White House hopefuls – remains so deeply and rightly unsatisfying to so many American voters.

As I’ve noted previously, the president’s ambiguous rhetoric on the Muslim challenge hasn’t helped – and in recent weeks, it has gotten no clearer. He continues to blast “the language that [front-running GOP presidential candidate] Donald Trump has used and his logical conclusion that we should ban Muslims from entering the country, including potentially Muslim citizens.” Mr. Obama further declared, “I’m amused when I watch Republicans claim that Trump’s language is unacceptable, and ask, ‘How did we get here?’ We got here in part because the Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent, that this is who these folks are.”

It’s a coherent position to be sure. But when it comes to setting policy, it’s certainly hard to square with his acknowledgment that although the “violent, radical, fanatical, nihilistic interpretation of Islam by a faction [is] a tiny faction—within the Muslim community,” after many years of horrific terrorism and atrocities by this faction, there is still a “need for Islam as a whole to challenge that interpretation of Islam, to isolate it, and to undergo a vigorous discussion within their community about how Islam works as part of a peaceful, modern society.”

These statements vigorously beg the questions, “Why does Mr. Obama think it has taken the ostensibly huge moderate global Muslim majority has been so slow to wake up to this threat?” and – more urgently – “How long should America wait before admitting that the problem is much broader?”

The new findings, from the World Value Survey (WVS), strongly indicate that the answers, respectively, are “a long time,” and “pretty darned soon.” For the survey sampled 12 Arab and 47 non-Arab countries, and shows that a combination of Islam and autocratic governments has produced Arab world populations with values that are remarkably medieval and conducive to spawning harsh versions of fundamentalism. Even worse, the results make clear that simply expanding educational opportunities within the Muslim Arab world will be no panacea – since its dictatorships have infused school systems with “conservative, religious values – first in order to fight leftist opposition groups, and later to compete with Islamic groups on their own terrain.”

As described by Ishac Diwan, a Middle East specialist at Harvard University, education in the Arab world generally, is “designed for indoctrination. Most [school systems] are characterized by rote learning, disregard for analytical capabilities, an exaggerated focus on religious subjects and values, the discouragement of self-expression in favor of conformism, and students’ lack of involvement in community affairs. These features are all geared to promote obedience and discourage the questioning of authority.”

So not surprisingly, when it comes to supporting values like democracy, respect for authority, and patriarchy, the WVS reports (a) that there’s a big lag between the Arab countries and the rest, and (b) that “The biggest differences between Arab countries and the rest of the world can be found among the educated.”

A Trump-like ban on all foreign Muslims’ travel to the United States surely isn’t the answer. But just as absurd – and dangerous – are the president’s claims that his administration can adequately vet all refugees from war-torn Middle Eastern countries; that migrant flows from those lands don’t pose special threats that don’t require special responses; and that anyone who disagrees is a hater.

For however reasonable it might sound to focus on ensuring that U.S. policies and rhetoric don’t needlessly antagonize Muslims, and on retaining the support of that faith’s ostensibly moderate majority, the WVS results add to the evidence that this battle looks ever less winnable.

Following Up: Inept Defenses of the NATO Defense Commitment

Tags

2016 elections, Baltics, Cold War, Department of Defense, Donald Trump, Europe, NATO, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Peter Cook, Russia, Soviet Union, The New York Times, Ukraine

Thanks to Donald Trump, signs are appearing of a national debate breaking out over America’s membership in its major security alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Actually, it hasn’t been much a debate so far in the sense of a two-way exchange. The Republican front-runner has called the alliance “obsolete” and has accused its European members of free-riding while the United States foots most of the common defense bill. (He’s made similar points about similar defense arrangements with Japan and South Korea.) The nation’s policy, political, and media establishments – including most of Trump’s presidential rivals – have almost uniformly assailed these claims as ignorant, outrageous, and even dangerous.

Last week, I explained that the free-riding point is perfectly valid – and has been for decades. Trump is also, contrary to his critics, right to worry about the major expenses incurred by the United States to defend countries amply rich enough to defend themselves much more effectively. What’s notable this week about how the evolution of this all-too-one-sided debate is:

>the revealingly lukewarm endorsement given to NATO by the U.S. Defense Department; and

>the equally revealing, though completely incoherent, endorsement provided by the New York Times editorial board

The lukewarm endorsement came from chief Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook. Asked at his daily press briefing yesterday whether NATO had become “obsolete,” Cook responded that the alliance “is far from obsolete.” This is a rave review? To be sure, Cook added that “We think NATO is as relevant as ever right now in the current environment,” which could mean that it’s viewed being every bit as important to U.S. security as during the height of the Cold War. But he also used the formulation “NATO’s as relevant today as it’s been in sometime,” which clearly narrows the time-frame, possibly to include many years during which NATO and European security weren’t exactly keeping American leaders up night and day.

The incoherent endorsement came the day before, in a Times editorial condemning Trump’s “dangerous babble on foreign policy.” The indictment extended across-the-board but featured this passage:  

“Mr. Trump also challenged decades of American policy by calling NATO“obsolete. Since the Cold War, the alliance has undergone reforms and remains the primary organization that can deal with military threats. It is central to the stability of Europe, which is vulnerable to terrorist attacks, weak economies and the flood of refugees from the Syrian war. With Russia’s aggressive movements in Ukraine and threats to the Baltics, this is no time to suggest that Washington is rethinking its strongest commitments to its allies. Although Mr. Trump said he doesn’t want to pull America out of NATO, he said it has to be changed so the United States bears less of the cost.”

The closing thought is in many ways the most disingenuous. The Times acknowledged that Trump is calling for an end to U.S. Involvement in NATO, but wants the Europeans to spend more to defend themselves. Leave aside the question of whether this is a reasonable position as such or not. Times writers should have told their readers that this is basically current American policy – as Pentagon spokesman Cook made clear in his briefing. Why does Trump’s agreement represent a kiss of death?

But the substance of the Times argument is also difficult to follow – at best. On the one hand, “the alliance” is called “central to the stability of Europe. Although the Times didn’t make this claim, presumably it considers Europe’s stability central to the security of the United States. But the editorialists then go on to describe the Continent as economically weak, flooded with refugees, and vulnerable to terrorism. Why do they believe that NATO can help on those fronts? And if this is their view, why hasn’t it? Just as important, how does an American commitment to protect militarily a region floundering on so many non-military fronts contribute to U.S. security?

The paper is on stronger grounds when noting Russian threats to Baltic countries that are now members of NATO. Failure to defend treaty allies would surely undermine America’s global credibility, and surely damage its security to some extent. But why is Ukraine the slightest bit relevant to this discussion? It stands outside NATO. Its security has never been viewed as crucial to America’s by U.S. leaders – even during the Cold War. Has it suddenly become crucial now? If so, why?

Nor is the Baltics point beyond criticism. These countries were brought into NATO after the Cold War ended. Like Ukraine, they were actually part of the Soviet Union before it fell apart – with no apparent adverse impact on the United States. Yes, their official relationships with Washington have now changed. But did their admission to NATO reflect any significant change in their value to the United States? Or was it a completely unnecessary gesture that has now committed America to defend countries that remain as un-defendable (at least with non-nuclear forces), due to their location right on Russia’s borders, as they were when Stalin annexed them in the early years of World War II. I lean markedly toward the latter view – meaning that one of the Times’ main justifications nowadays is actually a problem of Washington’s own making.

Someone – I think it was the late novelist and essayist Norman Mailer – once wrote something to the effect that “There is nothing so dangerous as to introduce a new idea in America.” (Crowd sourcing hint!) Nowhere is that more true that in the world of American foreign policy, dominated as it’s been in recent decades by hide-bound careerists who are little more than lavishly credentialed yes men. Donald Trump and his supporters are learning that hard truth now. Here’s hoping they’ll batter the NATO and alliance relations conventional wisdom as powerfully as they have other establishment sacred cows.