Im-Politic: Bernie’s Conspiracy Charges are Wrong (So Far)

Tags

Bernie Sanders, caucuses, Democratic Party, Democrats, election 2020, Im-Politic, Joe Biden, moderates, primaries, progressives, Super Tuesday

As must be clear to RealityChek readers, I’m no fan of Joe Biden’s. What may be less clear is that I have a soft spot for Bernie Sanders. That’s largely because the Democratic Socialist Senator from Vermont is the only one of his party’s current presidential candidates that I’ve dealt with personally – and in small meetings on the subject, and generally speaking, he’s been terrific on U.S. trade policy.

But even though I’ve always considered the former Vice President’s record on this key matter – and most others – miserable (see, e.g., here), it’s clear now, in the wake of the Super Tuesday Democratic primary results, there’s no case to be made that the party’s establishment-arians are effectively rigging the campaign against the more left-leaning Sanders, either because they abhor his policies or because they think he’ll blow the chance they see of defeating President Trump and performing well in House and Senate races this fall.

Instead, yesterday’s voting, along with the totals from earlier primaries and caucuses, show what polls have consistently found: Most Democratic voters have remained moderate, or at least so describe themselves. Relatively few view themselves as being “very liberal. And these Democrats, as so many candidates have pointed out, “don’t want a revolution.”

Of course, because politics and policy are never totally, or even largely, separate, the results of Election 2020 can also be read as supporting an alternative interpretation, but one that’s also been consistently found in opinion surveys: Even many Democrats who might align best with Sanders (or other progressive candidates, like Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren), seem to be voting for moderates because they view them as the best hope for ousting Mr. Trump.

Moreover, the Democratic results debunk another major belief about Democratic primary voters in another curious way. The conventional wisdom has long held, and maintained this year, that activists closest to the party’s left-wing fringe would dominate turnout – or at least vote at rates considerably greater than their actual representation in Democratic ranks. (Similar conclusions have been drawn about Republicans, as this popular textbook demonstrates.) But the clear majorities voting for Biden and other moderate candidates throughout the campaign to date indicate that even many progressive voters are holding their ideological noses and pragmatically backing the candidates they believe will perform best against the President this fall.

And perhaps most interestingly, the Super Tuesday and other results place in an unusually interesting light the Democratic Party’s recent shift to the progressive end. Not that the shift hasn’t taken place. But at least according to the Pew survey linked above and this Gallup data series, it’s still left moderates and liberals with a slim majority. And these voters seem to be turning out this election year.

Two big related questions remain, though. First, there’s no doubt that moderate Democratic candidates like Biden and recent drop-outs Pete Buttigieg, the South Bend, Indiana mayor, and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, thought that the progressives held the upper hand in primary voting. That’s why they’ve pandered so heavy-handedly on issues like race relations and gender identity and immigration issues. Now that the Super Tuesday votes are (nearly all) in, will survivor Biden tack back to the center?

Second, even if he does, has the former Vice President made too many far-out statements on such matters already that they’ll still be effective ammunition for President Trump?

I don’t doubt that if the Democratic establishment thought that it needed to or could rig the process against Sanders, it would. Recent history makes that clear. I also understand that the quick campaign exits and Biden endorsements of Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar look suspicious to Sanders World (and maybe to much of its Warren counterpart?). And of course, if Biden falters for whatever reason (health, a genuinely troubling gaffe, his son Hunter’s fishy activities in Ukraine and China), this establishment could spring into action in the back rooms once again.   

But at this point, unless you’re totally paranoid, you need to recognize that the Democratic primaries are reflecting what the party’s voters, not its bosses, want. And their obvious message is that moderate Joe Biden is “the One.”

Im-Politic: Muddled Iran Deal Messages from the Democrats

Tags

allies, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Democratic Party, Democrats, election 2020, foreign policy, Im-Politic, Iran, Iran deal, Iran nuclear deal, JCPOA, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Kamala Harris, McClatchy News Service, Obama, oil, Persian Gulf, sanctions, Trump

The usual gang of political observers and commentators (apologies to the soon-to-be-departed Mad magazine) seem to agree that this year’s Democratic candidates for President haven’t been paying much attention yet to foreign policy. Here’s my explanation: The more many of them say about the subject, the clearer their ignorance and incoherence will become, and the last few weeks have just provided a splendid example – public positions stake out on whether to rejoin the 2015 international deal aimed at curbing and slowing Iran’s nuclear weapons development.

You’ll recall that the Iran deal (officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) was signed by the Islamic Republic on the one hand, and China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States on the other. Under its terms, Iran agreed to certain restrictions on its nuclear program in return for substantial relief from various, mainly economic, sanctions imposed by some of these individual countries, along with the United Nations as a whole, in retaliation both for Iran’s nuclear and some other activities deemed unacceptable threats to international security.

Even the deal’s backers conceded some serious flaws, but insisted that its terms were the best possible given divisions among the United States, its allies, and Russia and China about how hard to press Iran (generally due to differences over the value of resuming commerce as usual with Iran). I initially bought this line, too. But as I recently wrote, ensuing developments – mainly the devastating impact on Iran’s economy of unilateral U.S. sanctions reimposed by Washington once President Trump withdrew from the agreement in May, 2018 – makes clear that Iran’s interlocutors had much more leverage than they (including then President Obama) claimed, and that a better deal was always possible.

Enter the 2020 Democrats. Understandably, they’re seeking to criticize the Trump foreign policy record whenever they can, and many have attacked his decision to pull out of the JCPOA. But most of these attackers have implicitly expressed agreement with the Trump view that the deal can and must be improved.

Take Flavor of the Month Kamala Harris. According to the first-term California Senator, Mr. Trump deserved the blame for the recent rise in tensions in the Persian Gulf that culminated in alleged Iranian attacks on oil tankers and an American drone because he “put in place a series of events that led to” those moves. By this she of course meant Iran’s apparent decision to follow through on its threats to defend legitimate interests it sees as threatened by (a) the United States’ overall economic “maximum pressure” campaign aimed at ending Tehran’s alleged regional aggression, and (b) more specifically by the Trump administration’s cancellation of sanctions waivers that had permitted other countries to buy some of the oil Iran desperately needs to sell in order to stay afloat economically.

As the Islamic Republic stated, it would seek to press the other signatories to convince the United States to back off the sanctions by pulling out of several provisions of the nuclear deal (chiefly, those limiting its ability to create bomb-grade uranium) and by preventing any other countries from importing any Persian Gulf oil themselves.

How would Harris respond? She told a CBS News reporter, “Well frankly, I believe that we need to get back into the Iran nuclear deal.” That’s certainly logical, since respecting the deal’s terms would require that Washington drop its sanctions, presumably granting Iran the economic support it’s seeking and eliminating any reason for attacking Gulf shipping.

But she then (unwittingly, it seems) endorsed the position of the President and other critics that deal improvements are urgently needed – and possible: “I would strengthen it. I would include ballistic- ballistic missile testing. I think that we can strengthen what we do in terms of monitoring and verification, of progress.” Never mind, of course, that there’s no sign to date that any of the other signatories agree.

And to compound the confusion, Harris proceeded to pivot back to praise for the agreement as-is: “But there’s no question that a lot of negotiation with a great deal of depth took place over a long period of time to reach that agreement, and it was it was an agreement that was being complied with by all parties.”

My head is spinning, and yours should be, too.

But evidently Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota understand Harris’ message perfectly. Because it’s their message, too.

In their initial presidential debate appearances, both these supporters of the original deal attacked the Trump pull-out but their support for reentry seemed linked to implementing changes.

Said Booker ““It was a mistake to pull out of that deal. Donald Trump is marching us to a far more difficult situation.” But he then promised, “If I have an opportunity to leverage a better deal, I’m going to do it.”

Klobuchar charged that the Trump pullout “made us less safe” because although the agreement “was imperfect…it was a good deal for that moment.” But apparently she now worries that – just a few years later – the moment has passed. For she suggested that (according to the McClatchy News Service summary cited above) “the agreement’s ‘sunset periods’ – caps on Iran’s enrichment and stockpiling of fissile material set to expire five to 10 years from the next inauguration– [are] a potential point of renegotiation.” Of course, the short duration of these caps was cited by deal critics as a major weakness.

A common aphorism holds that it’s “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.” If these Iran deal stances are any indication, most Democratic candidates are demonstrating major political smarts, at least, by avoiding foreign policy issues.

Im-Politic: On the Democrats’ Debates

Tags

African Americans, Amy Klobuchar, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, China, Cory Booker, debates, Democratic Party, Democrats, Democrats debates, economy, election 2020, Elizabeth Warren, Im-Politic, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Michael Bennet, Pete Buttigieg, race relations, tariffs, Trade, Trump

So thanks to last week’s two debates, we’ve now seen most of the Democratic presidential candidates in, as sportscasters like to say, “limited action,” and have had some time to ruminate about the results. Here’s my sense of some of the biggest takeaways.

>The Democrats generally are in denial about the health of the economy. This problem became clear immediately, as the first question on Night One, posed to Massachusetts U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, noted that her “many plans” for the economy come “at a time when 71 percent of Americans say the economy is doing well, including 60 percent of Democrats. What do you say to those who worry this kind of significant change could be risky to the economy?”

Warren’s response? Ignore the cited polling data and claim – presenting no evidence – that “Who is this economy really working for? It’s doing great for a thinner and thinner slice at the top.” For good measure, sharing her fact-free perspective at the outset were her Minnesota Senate colleague Amy Klobuchar, and former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke. And don’t forget former Vice President Joe Biden’s charge on Night Two that “Donald Trump has put us in a horrible situation” economically. Or California Senator Kamala Harris’ view that the economy is great only for those who own stocks.

No one is saying that too many Americans aren’t still being left behind in an economy that’s unmistakably shifted into a somewhat higher gear under President Trump. No one is saying that the economy hasn’t shown some signs of slowing. (See, e.g., this recent post.) No one is saying that the economy is going to be a decisively winning Trump issue in 2020. (This new poll throws lots of cold water on that proposition.) And no one is saying that because the economy is so far performing pretty well, Americans are especially happy about the overall state of the union. (Survey results like these make clear that they’re not.)

But no one should be feeling too great about so many politicians remaining so deeply in denial (or at least pontificating as if they are) about a state of affairs that is so easy to document.

>Kamala Harris is simply race-baiting. Let’s assume that all of the California U.S. Senator’s allegations about former Vice President Joe Biden’s record on school busing decades ago are completely accurate. How can the conclusion be avoided that she’s trying to portray Biden as remaining deficient as racial issues today, and in the process, stir up the worst kinds of national divisions? After all, he served as the second-in-command to the nation’s first African-American president. Black politicians, and especially long-serving black politicians, have publicly praised him as a long-time trusted ally.

In other words, whatever Biden’s past shortcomings on race, nothing could be more obvious than that they’ve vanished in every meaningful way, and in every way relevant to policymaking. It’s no longer possible accurately and responsibly to depict him as a problem for the African-American community. Harris’ indictment also indicates a refusal to acknowledge that individuals can learn, evolve, and grow, and to give them any credit when they do.

I recently spoke about this privately with an African-American friend who argued that the real Biden race problem that’s emerged recently stemmed from his indignant response to similar allegations and insinuations by New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, another 2020 African-American Democratic hopeful. In other words, Biden’s refusal to apologize for comments about racist southern Senators signaled an insensitivity to racial slurs (like describing African-American men as “boys”) that could well prompt younger blacks to stay at home in the fall of 2020, and boost Mr. Trump’s odds of reelection.

I don’t disagree with that political analysis at all (though I don’t consider it a foregone conclusion, either). But politics aside, that would point to the same type of intolerance, censoriousness, and sanctimony being displayed by Harris. More of this, America these days clearly doesn’t need.

>Biden performed better than I expected. The former Vice President and still 2020 Democratic front-runner has widely been declared a major loser in his debate exchange with Harris, and poll results reinforce that conclusion. I agree that Biden was poorly prepared for attacks on racial issues that he must have known would come that evening from someone. In particular, his substantive defense of his busing record – that he only opposed a sweeping federal mandate – did indeed (as Harris charged) ignore the decisive role that the Federal government has regularly needed to play in advancing civil rights when state government were either hostile or indifferent to the cause.

Nevertheless, Biden certainly didn’t act like the “Sleepy Joe” he’s been labeled as by President Trump, and that seemed like an apt description for some of his more disjoint moments in these early phases of the 2020 election (for example, this rambling discussion of the China challenge). He flashed temper (or at least indignation), he sounded articulate, he stood tall, his energy level didn’t notably flag. In fact, assuming that his health holds up (he turns 77 in November), Biden looked like a candidate who could mix it up with Trump on a debate stage. As demonstrated by the race relations storm he’s kicked up, however, he’s as gaffe-prone as ever.

>The Democrats have no grip on China issues. Sure, they generally acknowledge that China poses problems for the United States (but there’s some disagreement as to what they are). But few so far have offered realistic solutions to these problems.

For example, Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, “I think the president’s been right to push back on China but he’s done it in completely the wrong way. We should mobilize the entire rest of the world who all have a shared interest in pushing back on China’s mercantilist trade policies and I think we can do that.”

What a shame that he was never asked why countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea, which profit enormously from selling sophisticated industrial machinery to China, would want to see any slowing in U.S.-China trade when so many of those machines are used in factories that supply the American market?

Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana agrees that the China challenge “is a really serious one,” but seemed most concerned that the Chinese are “using technology for the perfection of dictatorship.” He endorsed the stale and misleading “tariffs are taxes” trope, and insisted that “the biggest thing we’ve got to do is invest in our own domestic competitiveness.” He never explained if he’s OK with the infrastructure the nation unmistakably needs being manufactured in China and elsewhere abroad, or why “education” is so critical when children in China and everywhere else have the same capacity to capitalize on their learning as children in America – even though population considerations will long ensure that their wages stay orders of magnitude lower no matter how advanced the work they do.

Interestingly, Sanders is the only Democratic hopeful with a lengthy record of voting in Congress on China trade and related economic issues – always correctly (in my view) opposing reckless expansion. That explains CNBC’s ironic but on-target recent observation that “Sanders in particular has targeted Trump because his trade views overlap with the president’s.” And hence mushy Sanders statements like “I think we do need new trade policies that are fair to the working people of this country not just to the CEOs, but as usual, I think Trump gets it wrong in terms of implementation,”

Warren seems equally conflicted, agreeing with Mr. Trump that “tariffs are one part of reworking our trade policy overall” but lamely chiding him for engaging in “tariff negotiation by tweet” instead of “fighting back” with “strength and a coherent plan, not with chaos.”

Indeed, Warren has a detailed-looking plan for implementing a strategy of “economic patriotism.” It contains some good features, like what seem to be industrial policy proposals (with no real specifics), tightening up Buy American government procurement policies, and requirements that production that results from (amped up) taxpayer-funded research and development programs take place in the United States. But it’s unclear whether she realizes that tariffs are going to be central to their success. In addition, she appears quite enamored with devaluing the dollar as a trade policy panacea. And she puts considerable stock in government-run training and reeducation programs that, to date, have been proven failures and that have long (as noted above) evidently assume that Americans are the most educable and train-able people on earth.

If you’re a Democrat, or any American who wants to see elections held between the most qualified candidates possible, the good news is that the party’s hopefuls will have eleven more debate chances to up their games. Unfortunately, it might also turn out that the nation will simply witness eleven more events marked by hollow, and too often angry, grandstanding.

Im-Politic: Manchester and the Wages of Multiculturalism

Tags

assimilation, Christopher Hitchens, Democratic Party, homegrown terrorists, Im-Politic, immigrants, Islam, London, Londonistan, Manchester bombing, multiculturalism, Muslims, New Labour, Saudi Arabia, Sharia, terrorism, Tony Blair, United Kingdom

The aftermath of the horrific Manchester bombing is seeing the reappearance of a familiar pattern that keeps dangerously muddling major issues. I’m talking about the tendency to emphasize that the suspect was a “homegrown” terrorist, not an immigrant or a refugee from a majority Muslim country. Therefore, this reasoning goes, responses that emphasize restricting immigration from such countries are at best misguided and at worst bigoted. The latter charge has even become a mainstay of the U.S. judicial system.

The dangers and fallacies of this analysis become clear upon reviewing the emergence of the United Kingdom as a major target of terrorist attacks from Muslim extremists and a major source of foreign fighters and other operatives in the Middle East and worldwide for Al Qaeda and ISIS. If these terrorists aren’t newcomers to the UK, you can be sure they were overwhelmingly homegrown in the country’s Muslim immigrant communities. And their numbers and destructiveness point to shocking British failures both to control the country’s borders adequately and to assimilate Muslims safely. More specifically, they reveal the perils of the British government’s determination starting in the 1980s, and especially in the 1990s, to make the establishment of an identity politics focused on Muslims a top national priority.

Spearheaded by former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his New Labour party, London dealt with the country’s Muslims as a group with official standing, represented in government councils by a national organization created to “represent mainstream Muslim opinion.” It provided safe haven for prominent jihadists wanted for terrorism by countries like Jordan and France. It permitted a network of Islamic religious law (sharia) courts to spread across the country and formally recognized some rulings involving divorce and other domestic issues. Perhaps most damaging in the long term, it offered “state funding for Muslim schools on the same basis as Christian and Jewish schools” and paid no attention to their curricula – many of which were developed by arch-fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia.

Among the results? As the British government reported after 2001 riots involving white and South Asian gangs in several northern industrial towns, these localities contained

“‘separate educational arrangements, community and voluntary bodies, employment, places of worship, language, social and cultural networks,’ producing living arrangements that ‘do not seem to touch at any point.’ As one Pakistani Briton told the report’s authors, ‘When I leave this meeting with you, I will go home and not see another white face until I come back here next week.’ Last year, Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, warned that much of Britain was ‘sleepwalking its way toward segregation.’ And this segregation is especially entrenched among Muslims.”

In addition, “A non-Muslim child who lives in a Muslim-majority area may now find herself attending a school that requires headscarves. The idea of separate schools for separate faiths—the idea that worked so beautifully in Northern Ireland—has meant that children are encouraged to think of themselves as belonging to a distinct religious ‘community’ rather than a nation.”

In fact, by July, 2005 – in the wake of an Islamist bombing of London’s Tube that claimed 52 innocent lives – even Blair had had enough. In major speech, he warned that anyone who did not “share and support the values that sustain the British way of life,” or who incite hatred against Britain and its people, “have no place here.” But the Manchester attack, and numerous smaller predecessors over the previous twelve years, indicate that his turnabout – which by all accounts had been ambivalently implemented – came too late to slow the destructive dynamics he set in motion.

Skeptics will rightly note that the British experience is a far cry from America’s, with the U.S. Muslim community – whether immigrant or homegrown – showing many fewer signs of dangerous radicalization. At the same time, identity politics has now become such a hallmark of one of the country’s two major political parties that even many of its leaders are warning about the consequences (though mainly at the ballot box). And the late British writer Christopher Hitchens wrote of what had by that time come ruefully to be called “Londonistan” by the time of the 2005 bombing, “It‘s impossible to exaggerate how far and how fast this situation has deteriorated.”

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: The Holes in Obama’s Middle East “Doctrine”

Tags

Al Qaeda, border security, Democratic Party, foreign policy establishment, Iran, ISIS, Jeffrey Goldberg, Middle East, missile defense, Obama, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, September 11, terrorism, The Atlantic

If you have any interest in American foreign policy, international affairs, President Obama’s overarching strategy, or simply how he makes decisions generally, The Atlantic‘s current cover story based on a series of lengthy interviews with the chief executive is an absolute must-read. Kudos, incidentally, to author Jeffrey Goldberg for his skill at inducing Mr. Obama to open up so completely.

In fact, the only legitimate criticism – and clearly this wasn’t under Goldberg’s control – involves how late in the president’s term most of these thoughts came out. The public would have had a much better basis for judging Mr. Obama’s record and talent as a commander-in-chief and diplomat – and a much better chance of influencing his moves – had this window into his mindset appeared much earlier.

Any number of RealityChek posts can – and I hope will – come out of this material, but to me what deserves spotlighting right away is the completely incoherent approach the president has taken to the Middle East. Specifically, it could not be more obvious that he has concluded that the region is as utterly hopeless as I have contended repeatedly. Yet he still refuses to overhaul American policy, much less American objectives, in ways that logically follow. The result is what Goldberg calls an “Obama Doctrine” that still leaves gaping Middle East-related holes in America’s security.

Not that the president has always dismissed the notion that, within the foreseable future, the Middle East can even be minimally pacified or stabilized, much less modernized or democratized. As the author shows, “The story of Obama’s encounter with the Middle East follows an arc of disenchantment. In his first extended spree of fame, as a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama often spoke with hope about the region. In Berlin that summer, in a speech to 200,000 adoring Germans, he said, ‘This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East.’”

Two years in office didn’t change Mr. Obama’s outlook appreciably: “Through the first flush of the Arab Spring, in 2011, Obama continued to speak optimistically about the Middle East’s future, coming as close as he ever would to embracing the so-called freedom agenda of George W. Bush, which was characterized in part by the belief that democratic values could be implanted in the Middle East. He equated protesters in Tunisia and Tahrir Square with Rosa Parks and the ‘patriots of Boston.’”

According to Goldberg, what soured Mr. Obama on the region was a combination of growing pique with most of its leaders and then the failure of his Libyan intervention. That debacle “proved to him that the Middle East was best avoided. ‘There is no way we should commit to governing the Middle East and North Africa,’ he recently told a former colleague from the Senate. ‘That would be a basic, fundamental mistake.’” Added Goldberg, the president now believes that “thanks to America’s energy revolution [the Middle East] will soon be of negligible relevance to the U.S. economy.”

Goldberg’s explanation is something of a paradox: “The rise of the Islamic State deepened Obama’s conviction that the Middle East could not be fixed—not on his watch, and not for a generation to come.” Yet in the president’s own words, ISIS “has the capacity to set the whole region on fire. That’s why we have to fight it.”

In fact, these passages reveal one big internal contradiction of the Obama approach. On the one hand, he’s happy to talk endlessly in public about his genuine belief that the Middle East is little more than one big potential Vietnam-like quagmire for America. Indeed, he told Goldberg that the region’s tribalism is “a force no president can neutralize” and is a major source of his fatalism. On the other hand, Mr. Obama insists, as above, that the United States has no choice but to try preventing conflagration.

As a result, here’s the clearest way that the president can describe how he determines when and how to act: “We have to determine the best tools to roll back those kinds of attitudes. There are going to be times where either because it’s not a direct threat to us or because we just don’t have the tools in our toolkit to have a huge impact that, tragically, we have to refrain from jumping in with both feet.” But when Middle East threats are “direct” but the “toolkit” is wanting, the United States should just…what exactly? No wonder so few Americans have confidence in the president’s national security chops.

The more fundamental flaw with the Obama doctrine, however, is its evident assumption that when “direct threats” to American security emerge in the Middle East, or show signs of stirring, extensive intervention in the region’s madhouse politics – whether with meaningful allied assistance or not – is America’s only option.

That’s certainly been the American Way for decades. But as I’ve pointed out, because of the nation’s favorable geography, two vastly superior alternatives have been available since the September 11 attacks so dramatically revealed that simple benign neglect of the region had become unacceptable. The first alternative measure is to establish genuine border security, to ensure that terrorists face much greater obstacles entering the United States and remaining in the country (the visa overstay problem). The second is to build the kind of missile defense that could protect America from the kind of small-scale nuclear strike that Iran could launch in the policy-relevant future if the worst fears about its military ambitions and the president’s de-nuclearization deal come to pass. (Such a system would help counter North Korean nuclear threats.)

Of course, because these programs will take years to complete, a bridging strategy is needed. That should focus on using special forces units and airstrikes to keep ISIS and Al Qaeda (which hasn’t disappeared) sufficiently off balance to prevent consolidation of a terrorist state that could be used as a training center and launchpad for September 11-like operations. Accordingly, talk of finally defeating ISIS et al should be eliminated – because even if the goal is achieved, successor groups will surely arise.

A final point worth making: One of the most important services performed by Goldberg is documenting beyond any reasonable doubt that most of the current Democratic Party foreign policy establishment – including presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, Mr. Obama’s former Secretary of State – is much less ambivalent about interventionism than he is. And generally speaking, these attitudes are even more pronounced in Republican ranks. That’s why it’s hard to look at the politics of 2016 and feel much confidence that the United States will have the wit and wisdom to extricate itself safely from the looney-bin Middle East any time soon.

Im-Politic: Labor’s Immigration Priorities Keep Putting Americans Last

Tags

Democratic Party, EB-5 visa, illegal immigration, Im-Politic, Immigration, Jobs, unions, UNITE HERE, wages, Washington Post

Just when you think the intertwined worlds of politics and policy can’t get any loopier, reality stomps in to prove you wrong. The latest evidence? Attacks by a major U.S. labor union on a federal program that aims to attract immigrants who promise to make job-creating investments.

The program sounds like exactly the kind of immigration policy America needs – encouraging immigration that unmistakably strengthens the economy and actually trickles down to Main Street.

I’m sure it’s not perfect, and therefore equally sure that if and when it gets re-authorized by Congress (which needs to happen by sometime next month), improvements can and should be made – e.g., in oversight, in maximizing the overall hiring requirements, and in ensuring that it meets specific legislative targets (like benefiting poor rural regions, which allegedly have gotten short shrift).

So it’s good that UNITE HERE, the big service sector union, seems to support Congressional Democrats and Republicans seeking such changes. But that’s far from the union’s main objection to the program, according to a new Washington Post report. What’s really wrong with the EB-5 visa process is that it doesn’t benefit enough of America’s illegal immigrants! As a UNITE HERE staff member complained to the Post (for attribution), “How does this [program] help the 11 million people in this country who are stuck in immigration reform limbo?”

There’s nothing new about unions’ steady shift on immigration policy – from fear that excessive inflows would undermine employment and wages for native-born workers to nearly unbridled enthusiasm for opening the border much wider. (The rationale seems to be enlarging that share of American voters who will support the Democratic Party’s Big Government agenda, and gaining access to large number of potential dues-paying members.)

What is new here is at least one major union’s decision that an immigration program that’s unmistakably (if perhaps inadequately) a job-creator needs to explicitly aim at fostering employment for Americans here illegally, as well as for legal residents (including legal immigrants). What’s next? Numerical quotas? Well why not? Continued and even growing public anger at both liberal and conservative U.S. elites’ determination to put Main Street native-born Americans and even legal immigrants last in their economic plans? Count on it.

Following Up: Trump & Sanders, Obama’s Katrina Moment, Manufacturing Fakeonomics – & an Overdue Thank You

Tags

2016 elections, Bernie Sanders, climate change, cyber-security, Democratic Party, Donald Trump, Following Up, hacking, Hillary Clinton, Immigration, Institute for Supply Management, ISM, Katherine Archuleta, manufacturing, Obama, Office of Personnel Management, Open Borders, OPM, Populism

For some reason, Hillary Clinton’s campaign website isn’t technologically up to speed enough to have posted a transcript of the “economic vision” speech she delivered this morning. So instead of analyzing it, I’ll try something a little different on RealityChek – a “Following Up” offering covering multiple subjects.

The first starts off with an apology. In last week’s piece on how Donald Trump could (but probably won’t) help generate long-term change in American politics, I wrote that his president candidacy nonetheless seemed more likely candidate than Democrat-Socialist Bernie Sanders’ to foster badly needed ideological realignment. My stated reason was that the big obstacle to Trump efforts along these lines is his personality, whereas the big obstacle to the Vermont Senator playing such a role is his ideology.

But then when I discussed in detail Sanders’ prospects as a change agent, I wrote that “he seems to be a more plausible candidate to help create an enduring populist alternative to the two major parties.” And my stated reasons included the ideological flexibility he’s displayed on issues like gun control! So what gives? In a word, I messed up. So let me try to clarify.

I still believe that Trump’s “superstar CEO” nature and consequent unwillingness to take advice from anything but Yes-men will prevent him from trying to turn his presidential campaign into a lasting movement once the former runs its course. Nor do I see any reason to change my mind despite some new comments from him suggesting the possibility of running as an independent in the fall campaign and continuing his political work beyond the current election cycle.

I also remain impressed with Sanders’ pragmatism and willingness to reach across the aisle for both legislative support and also counsel. But I don’t believe that he’ll display the same traits on the immigration and climate change issues I focused on. Re the former, he seems to be too personally invested to moderate much. Re the latter, I don’t believe he’ll want to buck the overwhelming tide I see in the Democratic party for ever more Open Borders.

Hence my conclusion – that a Trump personality change relevant to creating a new, bipartisan American populism is a better bet than a similar Sanders ideological change. But that doesn’t mean I view such a Trump transformation as even close to likely. And I do apologize for the confusion I might have created.

Second, my post on how unqualified Katherine Archuleta was to head the mega-hacked federal Office of Personnel Management left out the strongest evidence for that argument: She wasn’t only a veteran Democratic political operative (with zero background in technology). She was also a senior official in President Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. In other words, in an age of mounting cyber-threats, the president treated the government’s main personnel agency like a cushy ambassadorship to some Caribbean island mini-state. And he still hasn’t caught much heck from the Mainstream Media for this dangerously cavalier decision.

Third, one of my longtime bugaboos is how seriously economic journalists and even economists themselves take the monthly reports on domestic American manufacturing’s health by the Institute for Supply Management (ISM). In particular, I’ve shown that neither ISM’s headline readings, nor its sub-readings on production and manufacturing orders, correlate well at all with the more reliable output and orders data put out by the federal government.

Imagine, therefore, how pleased I was to discover that, a few years ago, a Commerce Department economist came to pretty much the same conclusions. According to this study, the ISM surveys don’t even do an especially good job at what’s supposed to be their strong suit – not precisely gauging the state of manufacturing in any given month, but presenting evidence of approaching changes in its fortunes and the broader business cycle. As author Daniel Bachman demonstrated exhaustively, “While more information about the state of the economy is always better, analysts of the business cycle should realize that the ISM surveys do not supercede or fully anticipate more comprehensive official data.”

Finally, one house-keeping point: an overdue thank you to the growing ranks of RealityChek followers. Your interest is greatly appreciated – and I hope you’ll spread the word!

Im-Politic: How Trump Can “Win”

Tags

2016 elections, Al Gore, amnesty, Bernie Sanders, China, conservatives, Democratic Party, Donald Trump, Im-Politic, Immigration, independents, Japan, liberals, Mexico, multinational corporations, NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, Open Borders, Populism, Republican Party, Ross Perot, Trade, unions

First off, a confession. I don’t think either Donald Trump (or Senator Bernie Sanders) can win their parties’ respective presidential nominations. I don’t even think they can come close. But both candidates can win in this important sense: They can change this latest version of the quadrennial national debate occasioned by presidential elections even more dramatically than they have already done. And they could even foster real progress toward the realignment that American politics could really use.

The trouble is, both candidates would need to modify some key planks in their platforms, and even though such fixes make eminent political and logical sense, I see few signs that either man will meet the challenge. And somewhat surprisingly, I sense that Sanders would need to overcome bigger obstacles than Trump. I’ll discuss The Donald today and the Vermont Senator very soon.

Trump, who began surging in Republican presidential polls as soon as he declared his candidacy, has stayed near the top precisely by pounding two issues bound to prompt vitriol from the national press corps and chattering classes even if he had zero personal quirks: job- and wage-killing trade and immigration policies. He’ll never become a media darling (though if he remains a major factor in the race, watch much of the always bandwagoning press corps start to identify his supposedly hidden virtues). But he could well expand his base and his acceptability ratings by picking his targets more intelligently and more accurately.

In particular, this means that rather than focusing all of his blame for trade and immigration policy failures on foreign governments (or on allegedly clueless American negotiators), he should target the main problem – domestic corporate lobbies that profit hugely from the cheap labor flood provided by so-called free trade and amnesty-friendly immigration approaches.

Are foreign governments blameless? Nope. Certainly China, Japan, and indeed most other major foreign economies have long pursued predatory trade strategies at the expense of America’s workers, its entire productive economy, and global financial stability. And Mexico has undoubtedly long been enabling emigration to the United States as a safety salve that’s kept it floating just above failed-state status.

But when it comes to the overwhelmingly third world-oriented thrust of American trade diplomacy since the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) pursuit began in the late 1980s, the leading culprits by far have been U.S. multinational corporations. These firms have become enamored with the idea of boosting profits by producing in very low-cost, virtually unregulated developing countries and selling much of that output in the very high price American market. And they know that trade deals are key to the resulting offshoring by virtually guaranteeing that the U.S. market will stay open to their foreign output even if the economy grows too weak to absorb them painlessly.    

The immigration story is more complicated, since much of the Open Borders pressure has come from an alliance of Democratic Party politicians seeking huge new constituencies for their Big Government programs and labor unions seeking huge new pools of dues-paying recruits. But certainly while stumping for Republican primary votes, the corporate cheap labor lobby should be targeted for many of his immigration slings and arrows. And if Trump somehow makes it into the general election, he could attract lots of independents and even some of organized labor’s socially and culturally conservative, and economically stressed, rank and file with this genuinely populist message.

In fact, Trump could throw his media and chattering class detractor for a total loop – and excite big chunks of the electorate across the spectrum even more – by turning his very wealth into a political asset. Like the Roosevelts before him, he could conspicuously turn on his fellow one percenters and rail against “economic royalists” and “malefactors of great wealth.”

And he could (legitimately) maintain conservative/free market bona fides by noting that urging strengthening the productive sectors of the American economy and therefore the earnings power of the nation’s workers amounts to a growth recipe that doesn’t require either (a) more government spending; or (b) tax cuts that simply aren’t affordable given still-towering budget deficits and a national debt that will grow further once further demographic changes trigger more entitlement spending.

So what’s the obstacle? I’m betting that the main one will be Trump’s own personality. Like so many other tycoons, he clearly attributes nearly all of his business success to his personal genius. And like many tycoons who enter politics, he no doubt believes that those matchless business skills easily translate into politics and policy. One likely result: He won’t be eager to take or even solicit advice from others.

Surely more important for the longer run, for related reasons, I’m confident that, once he’s defeated, Trump will display no interest in the hard, unglamorous, day-to-day work of turning his ideas and appeal into a more enduring movement that could help end the gridlock that’s paralyzed Washington for so long. 

I have no first-hand evidence for these suppositions. But I do have some second-hand evidence from a slightly different context. After Ross Perot’s remarkable performance in the 1992 presidential election, he agreed to debate then-Vice President Al Gore on NAFTA on Larry King’s cable talk show. I was a minor participant in an informal team that tried offering substantive material and rhetorical tips to Perot. He obviously didn’t get smoked because or even mainly because he ignored us. But his stubborn belief in his own media skills and mastery of the subject sure didn’t help. And when he ran for president again in 1996, he made many of the exact same mistakes. 

For the record, I haven’t approached the Trump “campaign” in any way, and haven’t been approached by his operatives. (I did try offering advice in a previous political year, but made no headway.) I might send some thoughts on election issues to presidential candidates from time to time, but if I do, I’ll send them to the entire field in both parties, see who (if anyone) responds, and hold a dialogue with them as long as they’re interested. And I’ll report publicly on whatever new experiment in political guru-ing I conduct, just to make clear that I’m not playing any favorites. If I ever get to that point, however, you’ll get the word right away.

Meanwhile, whatever difficulties may prevent Trump from fully capitalizing on the potential to create an enduring populist force in American politics, I’ll shortly explain why they’re probably less impressive than those faced by Sanders – which mainly seem to me not personal but ideological.