Im-Politic: No U.S. Politicians Own China Virus Bragging Rights (& That’s Not a Scandal)

Tags

Biden, budgets, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, China, China virus, coronavirus, Democrats, election 2020, health security, Im-Politic, Joe Biden, public health, Trump

Since the coronavirus’ serious threat to Americans’ health and their economy became clear, a blizzard of charges has accused President Trump of being caught flat-footed by the pandemic. I agree that the President didn’t expect a dangerous plague to break out overseas and swiftly cross America’s borders. I’ve also written that Mr. Trump made a big mistake in cutting funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – but mainly for political reasons. For the amounts of money involved are so small that they couldn’t possibly even move the needle in terms of reining in federal spending and cutting deficits.

In fact, given the tiny sums, the picture looks pretty good when it comes to the latest Trump budget request for the CDC programs that actually deal with coronavirus-type threats. Check out the line items for “Emerging Infectious Diseases” and “Global Disease Detection and Other Programs.” The former is down only marginally from actual spending levels previously agreed to by Congress (including of course its Democrats) and the latter is up significantly.

But more important, the allegations seem to assume that the American political system has been chock full of leaders who can boast the foresight the President lacked, and that the nation’s response would have been much more effective had one of them occupied the Oval Office. Is there any actual evidence for this proposition?

One crucial test is whether well before the virus became front-page news any of the leading recent and current Democratic candidates for President rolled out plans for beefing up American capabilities to respond to pandemics before the virus’ breakout in China. And do you know how many did? None – with the possible exception of former New York City Mayor and media magnate Michael Bloomberg.

That’s based on checking the polcy sections of the websites of former Vice President Joe Biden, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and drop-out Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Drop-outs Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg have taken all the content down from their sites.  But a wide-ranging media survey of their positions reveals no attention paid to pandemics, either.

I describe drop-out Bloomberg as a possible exception because his site did Mr. Trump’s “erratic leadership, go-it-alone approach, and distrust of science” for putting the country “in a vulnerable position should a major public health emergency, such as the novel coronavirus…materialize.” And he outlined what can fairly be called a plan.

Yet it’s not clear when these Bloomberg proposals were unveiled, and there’s no evidence that he was thinking about such matters before COVID 19’s appearance.

The same goes for Warren and Klobuchar, whose plans only dated from late January. Biden published an op-ed detailing his own ideas at about the same time. (See this post for links.)

I don’t believe that any of these politicians (including those with long years of public service) deserve any blame for failing to anticipate the virus threat on a timely basis – and for the same fundamental reason I don’t believe Mr. Trump should be pilloried. Because this kind of pandemic (coming from a country with extensive ties with the U.S. and global economies, like China, as opposed to regions like Central and West Africa, with almost no such ties) really couldn’t be anticipated adequately.

And incidentally, this point is also relevant to the charge made by Biden and others that the President not only cut the budget for the CDC, but for the country’s foreign aid agency, and also dismantled the White House global health security team created during the Obama years.

But anyone honestly believing that a little office somewhere in the Executive Office of the President would have made a meaningful difference in preventing or fighting the virus is guilty of drinking the policy wonk kool-aid claiming that augmenting bureaucratic flow-charts in any way amounts to solving problems – even those that emerge suddenly. As for the foreign aid cuts, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been working on helping prevent the spread of infectious diseases like the coronavirus, but Beijing made clear early on that American government help wasn’t wanted. (Nor was World Health Organization help.)

In other words, life is full of unpleasant surprises and shocks, and from time to time they’re big. Human beings don’t come with perfectly functioning crystal balls in their heads, and learning curves are rarely as steep as we’d like because lessons from experience and history tend to be excruciatingly difficult to draw. Hindsight can be superb, but says nothing about clairvoyance. Governments, moreover, although indispensable in such situations, are often not the most efficient actors, and in crises, they’re often forced to scramble.

That’s not to say that the President may not pay a political price for his coronavirus record, or that Americans don’t have a right to be frustrated with his actions to date, much less that he deserves reelection on any grounds. Indeed,  here’s a great suggestion for the kind of speech Mr. Trump should have made by now, and still should make – which urges him to use the virus crisis as an opportunity both to stimulate the economy and prepare better for future pandemics with major spending and other measures to bolster national health security.

But it is is to warn that none of President Trump’s critics or challengers can legitimately claim to have done better, let alone that they’ll act more effectively when the next black swan – biological or not -flies into our lives.

Im-Politic: The China/Biden Opportunity Sanders Needs to Seize

Tags

Bernie Sanders, China, China virus, coronavirus, Democrats, drugs, election 2020, health security, Im-Politic, Jobs, Joe Biden, manufacturing, Michigan primary, pharmaceuticals, technology, Trade, World Trade Organization, WTO

Since he emerged as a major rival to Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has been criticized for lacking a killer instinct. Specifically, he’s generally declined to attack his competitors as harshly as many supporters and supposed political pros would like. (The articles here and here nicely frame the history.)  

I don’t feel qualified to weigh in on this debate, but with a crucial primary coming up in Michigan tomorrow, it’s clear to me that the progressive standard-bearer could use more of a killer instinct on a big policy issue: former Vice President Joe Biden’s record on China issues.

Sanders has decided to assail Biden on his overall trade record, which makes sense considering the latter’s support for the kind of trade deals and policy decisions (like NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the rush to expand commerce of all kinds with China) that have hammered workers in manufacturing-heavy states like Michigan. 

But his focus is far too narrow, especially considering developments over the last few years and particularly the last few months. For the Democratic Socialist is solely emphasizing the job and wages loss resulting from agreements like the Biden-endorsed deal that supported China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 – which granted Beijing vital legal protection against unilateral American efforts to fight its protectionism and other forms of economic predation. That mattered greatly because many of these Chinese transgressions persisted post-WTO and by all accounts have worsened under the regime of Xi Jinping.

It’s now clear, however, that the China threat is even worse because it’s far broader; that Biden as long-time Senator from Delaware in particular flunked those non-economic policy tests, too; and that the biggest arguably was the WTO vote. So despite signs from polls that Americans generally (though not necessarily in manufacturing centers) aren’t as opposed to pre-Trump trade policies as in the past, the same surveys make clear that all manner of China-related concerns are mounting, and that therefore hitting Biden for supporting measures that have clearly increased Beijing’s wealth, power, and consequent capacities to threaten key U.S. interests in many fields would succeed roaringly.

Indeed, Biden’s stated justification in 2000 for favoring the crucial WTO decision looks especially and dangerously loopy nearly two decades later, when a Chinese cover-up helped the coronavirus become a serious threat to the United States and the rest of the world at large, when American leaders have finally become aware of how the industrial offshoring accelerated by the WTO move has made the nation shockingly dependent on healthcare products from China, and when the PRC’s official press has just published an article all but threatening to plunge the United States into coronavirus hell by blocking the export of the drugs and their chemical ingredients needed to fight the pandemic.

For in 2000, Biden made clear that he mainly supported China’s entry into the trade body – and ending the policy of granting Beijing tariff breaks only on an annual basis and only if its repressive human rights practices improved – in the belief that this new approach would both promote political and economic freedom in China and help “encourage” its “development as a productive, responsible member of the world community.”

Moreover, Biden not only guzzled the kool-aid of claims that WTO entry would foster greater political as well as economic freedoms in China. He argued that such change was exactly what most of China’s leaders intended. These dictators, he argued,

“have consciously undertaken–for their own reasons, not ours–a fundamental transformation of the communist system that so long condemned their great people to isolation, poverty, and misery. They have been forced to acknowledge the failure of communism, and have conceded the irrefutable superiority of an open market economy.”

Biden was right in noting that economic reforms already by then undertaken had greatly improved living standards for enormous numbers of Chinese. But he was completely wrong in believing that “this growing prosperity” would start bringing more democratic reform and a move toward genuinely open markets. Nor did he foresee that because China’s economic progress depended on amassing ever greater trade surpluses in ever more sophisticated products – and especially with the United States, the world’s biggest, most lucrative market – much of the rise in Chinese living standards would come at the expense of American domestic manufacturing and its workforce.

In fact, Biden explicitly scoffed at fears that WTO entry would bring about “the collapse of the American manufacturing economy, as China, a nation with the impact on the world economy about the size of the Netherlands, suddenly becomes our major economic competitor.”

But in light of China’s growing international belligerence particularly under Xi Jinping, it’s disturbing that the then-Senator – supposedly a foreign policy expert – was equally blind to the likelihood that a WTO-fostered “emergence of a prosperous, independent, China on the world stage” would enable China to flout “international norms in the areas of trade, security, and human rights” whenever it chose, rather than strengthen China’s loyalty to that “liberal global order.” 

Sanders and other critics of the WTO decision rightly derided all of these declared convictions. But I’ve yet to hear him spotlight the dangers to America’s global technology leadership and therefore national security (including health security) generated and continually worsened by the richer, stronger China made possible by the policies supported by Biden and the rest of the bipartisan globalist establishment that ran Washington, D.C. – and U.S. China policy – before Donald Trump’s election as President. P.S. A China that achieved its strategic goals could decimate American living standards still further.

This presidential campaign has already featured so many ups and downs, and so many front-runners who have risen and fallen, that Michigan probably won’t be  Sanders’ last chance to mount a broad-brush attack on Biden’s atrocious China record. (Just FYI, as of this afternoon, the polls show Sanders getting thumped.) The continuing coronavirus fallout could create further opportunities for him as well.

What is clear, however, and to large, growing numbers of Americans, is that enabling the rise of China ranks as one of the most potentially calamitous mistakes in American history.  And the sooner Sanders starts exploiting Biden’s role in enabling it (which continued during the do-nothing Obama administration), the better.     

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.”

Following Up: Why Many of America’s Widest Divides Aren’t What You Think

Tags

college-educated, Democrats, education, Following Up, Gallup, healthcare, inequality, minorities, non-college, opportunity, partisanship, polling, polls, race relations, Republicans, whites

“An anxious and divided nation cast its first votes,” the headline in the Washington Post moaned this morning.

As yesterday’s RealityChek post reported, though, some impressive evidence came out last week showing that the nation isn’t all that anxious, or fatally divided in the most general terms, after all. At the same time, diving into that evidence’s internals shows no shortage of divisions – only many of the dividing lines are pretty surprising.  (See the PDF linked at the bottom where it says “View complete question responses and trends.”)

For not only is the most important division by far the partisan split between Democrats and Republicans. It’s a gap that tends to be considerably wider than those between groups where divides in the last few years are supposed to have been especially and worrisomely gaping – between blacks and whites, between rich and poor, between the better educated and the less well educated.

For me, the big takeaway is that when Americans are in political moods, they get carried away by their emotions, with Republicans feeling awfully chipper about the state of the nation, and Democrats correspondingly gloomy. When they’re not preoccupied with politics, Americans seem more level-headed – and their outlooks are sunnier. But the unexpected findings scarcely stop there!

For example, let’s look at the internals of the headline satisfaction finding, which shows Americans’ feelings about the quality of their lives. A lofty 84 percent of all Americans told Gallup that they’re satisfied on this score, and 37 percent said they were “very satisfied.”

Republicans were the most satisfied Americans by a wide margin – an astonishing 96 percent called themselves satisfied, and 60 percent considered themselves “very satisfied.” The least satisfied group? Democrats. Their satisfaction levels were 77 percent satisfied and only 25 percent very satisfied.

But here’s what really grabbed my attention – and should grab yours. Keep in mind that the various groups of respondents overlap considerably (for example, both Democrats and Republicans include the wealthy and the poor, and the college-educated and the high school grads; and the both the wealthy and the poor include those identifying with both political parties).

The Democrats’ satisfaction levels were lower than those for non-whites (79 percent) and for Americans with a high school education or less (84 percent). That doesn’t sound very consistent with the notion that non-whites and those with relatively modest education levels are feeling especially downtrodden lately. But these readings definitely point to special degrees of unhappiness among Democrats. So does the fact that the “very satisfied” results for both these groups (31 percent and 34 percent, respectively) topped those for Democrats as well.

The partisan divide is even bigger, in both absolute and relative terms, for satisfaction levels regarding whether working hard can get a person ahead in America these days. In toto, 72 percent of respondents were satisfied and 43 percent were very satisfied with this situation. Non-whites’ overall satisfaction and very satisfied levels weren’t too far off those figures (71 percent and 37 percent, respectively). And the figures for those holding a high school degree at most were notably higher (77 percent and 51 percent, respectively).

But the Democrats’ results were completely in the dumps (only 47 percent and 19 percent, respectively).

Also interesting – non-whites, and Americans lacking college degrees are all more convinced than the college grads (68 percent) about the payoff of working hard, with respondents with a high school degree or less expressing the highest (77 percent) satisfaction level.

Satisfaction levels are much lower in absolute terms (43 percent overall) over the distribution of income and wealth in America – which should surprise no one. But again, those lacking a high school degree were more satisfied, and by a wide margin (49 percent), while the least satisfied (also by a wide margin) were the Democrats (21 percent).

The least educated were also more satisfied with the current rich-poor gap than college graduates (40 percent). But on this issue, non-white satisfaction levels were lower than the average (38 percent).

Gallup respondents were even less satisfied with the availability of healthcare in the United States, with only 37 percent expressing such views. Yet a familiar pattern emerges from the internals. The biggest gap was between Republicans (53 percent satisfied) and Democrats (27 percent). These also represented the highest and lowest levels of all the groups examined.

In addition, non-whites (41 percent) were more satisfied than whites the overall total (37 percent), and much more satisfied not only than the Democrats but than college grads (31 percent). The same held for Americans without high school diplomas (also 41 percent satisfied).

Finally, let’s look at a particularly explosive issue – race relations. Or at least it’s supposed to be particularly explosive. But according to the Gallup survey, there’s much more dissatisfaction than polarization – except among Democrats and Republicans.

Overall satisfaction levels are low – coming in at 36 percent. But the widest gap by far is between followers of the two parties, with 51 percent of Republican identifiers declaring themselves to be satisfied compared with only 24 percent of their Democratic counterparts. (Actually, Gallup also measured satisfaction levels according to political ideology – liberals, moderates, and conservatives. I’ve left these findings out due to the assumption because these results closely track the political parties’ results – which include independent voters. But according to this gauge, the conservative-liberal gap is somewhat wider, at 52 percent-17 percent.)

Most significantly, this partisan divide is far wider than the racial divide, with 35 percent of whites expressing satisfaction with the state of race relations and 39 percent of nonwhites so stating. Also doubtless significant: The next-least-satisfied group is college graduates, of whom only 28 percent expressed satisfaction. Further, their “very satisfied” levels (3 percent) were by far the lowest along with the Democrats’. And they were only one-third the nine percent “very satisfied” levels of non-whites.

Is the country indeed anxious?  To some extent, sure.  Is it divided?  That’s where the answer gets especially complicated.  And this complex picture indicates that, especially in this presidential campaign year, all Americans should beware of pundits and others bearing sweeping generalizations. 

Im-Politic: Mayor Pander

Tags

2020 elections, African Americans, Democrats, Im-Politic, Pete Buttigieg, race relations, racism

Just as a picture can be worth a thousand words, a simple statement can be worth a thousand (hopefully) clever leads. So I’ll just come right out and say it: A report I just came across about a truly epic effort at pandering by Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is the flat-out side-splittingly funniest thing – and unintentionally most degrading spectacle – I have seen in years and possibly decades.

You know Buttigieg. He’s the mayor of South Bend, Indiana whose career has been a model of office-seeker’s credentials harvesting – Harvard degree, Rhodes Scholarship, McKinsey & Co. consulting stint. It’s all been so calculated that it’s almost legit to wonder if being gay and serving a short tour of duty in Afghanistan has been part of the plan.

Not surprisingly, then, “Mayor Pete” has given the nation its best imitation of an obsequious student politician since Animal House’s Greg Marmalard (perhaps best known for dodging Dean Wormer’s question, “What is the worst fraternity on this campus?” with the classically base-covering, “Well that would be hard to say, sir. They’re each outstanding in their own way.”)

Except the brown-nosing that Buttigieg’s been getting best known for is shameless pandering aimed at neutralizing charges that he’s not sufficiently woke on racial issues. He’s apologized for embodying “white privilege.” He’s apologized for insisting that all lives, and not simply black lives, matter. He’s apologized for allegedly underestimating the obstacles faced by students of color. And he’s sought to take the offensive by alleging that many of the nation’s institutions are afflicted with “structural racism.”

Reasonable people can disagree about the appropriateness of these Buttigieg genuflections and positions. But only a complete stick-in-the-mud would deny that Mayor Pete’s June, 2019 effort to relate to the black community was a display of bad-boy worship (I refuse to dignify it even with a faux academic construct like “cultural appropriation”) as unwittingly humiliating and preposterous as it was hilarious.

The specifics? With his image among African Americans already sorely in need of repair, Buttigieg launched an effort at rehabilitation featuring an appearance on a cable TV show with a significant following in the black community. Since I couldn’t possibly improve on this below account of the segment and its aftermath, I’ll simply present it (along with a priceless photo – complete with Book of Mormon-like attire):

“Buttigieg was on the Showtime late night program Desus and Mero recently, appearing in a scene in which he chugs liquor from a bottle wrapped in a brown paper bag on the streets of the Bronx with the two co-hosts.

“‘Oh my goodness, that is good stuff!’ Buttigieg exclaimed upon taking his first swig of the bottled whiskey.

“‘Keep it low in case the cops go by,’” one of the hosts warned. “They be trippin’ at the end of the month, bro.’”

Unfortunately, though, for Mayor Pete, these ingratiation efforts seem to have gone for naught, and as the crucial Iowa Democratic caucuses approach, he’s facing allegations that his top aides essentially treated its few African American and minority campaign staffers like tokens. Maybe it’s time for him to break out a do-rag?

Im-Politic: A Billionaire Candidate’s Massive Climate Change Blind Spot

Tags

China, climate change, Democratic debate, Democrats, election 2020, Im-Politic, tariffs, Tom Steyer, Trump

It’s now been five days since I first heard it, but I still can hardly believe my ears because this utterance might have been the single dumbest and/or most ignorant combination of positions I’ve ever heard a leading political figure make. It came from Tom Steyer during the Democratic presidential debate last Tuesday night, and even though the California billionaire’s campaign seems to be going nowhere fast as the 2020 campaign nears its primary phase, it deserves to be spotlighted.

The first of the two statements in question? Steyer’s declaration that “On the first day [of his presidency], I would undo Mr. Trump’s [China] tariffs.” The second? “…I would declare a state of emergency on day one on climate.”

Why is this so mind-boggingly idiotic? Because as should be known by anyone who thinks he or she is qualified to be President, not only has China become by far the world’s largest emitter of the greenhouse gases held to be responsible for climate change, but as shown in the left-hand chart below, it started becoming an emitter in a class by itself at the turn of the century – i.e., right about the time when it was admitted into the World Trade Organization (WTO). And the most important effect of WTO admission was greatly complicating the challenge faced by all the world’s economies – including America’s – in using tariffs to curb the growth of China’s subsidy-fueled carbon-belching export-heavy industries. 

We don’t yet have data for 2019, but the chart also shows that the growth of China’s emissions began to slow (though they’re still growing faster than anyone else’s except India’s) as China’s economic growth (which has always been export-heavy) began slowing. Moreover, over the last year, as literally hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods intended for U.S. markets have been hit by President Trump with stiff tariffs, China’s growth hit a 29-year low. Think that’s a coincidence? Think again, as between 2018 and 2019, China’s annual export growth crash dove from 9.9 percent to 0.5 percent in U.S. dollar terms. (The right-hand chart, which measures emissions on a per capital basis, displays similar trends.) 

There’s nothing of course intrinsically wrong with Steyer’s passionate belief in the need to combat climate change. But his utter failure to recognize China’s immense contribution to the danger he sees makes embarrassingly clear – to put the kindest interpretation on the matter – that his knowledge base lags far behind his emotions. To the extent that other high profile climate activists repeatedly let China off the hook as well, they deserve the same criticism. And if this massive blind spot (or delusion) casts big-time doubt on Steyer’s qualifications to be President (which it should), it should have the same effect on all the other climate change resisters who display this shortcoming, too.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: How Post-Soleimani, Trump Schooled the Globalists Again

Tags

America First, Bill Clinton, Bosnia, Colin L. Powell, Democrats, deterrence, globalism, Iran, Madeleine Albright, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Soleimani, Trump

I’d hardly call President Trump a foreign policy mastermind. But since his 2016 presidential campaign started gaining strength, it’s been clear to me that his instincts in the field are exactly what a country like the United States needs, and this conviction has been strengthened considerably by a little remarked-on point he made in his announcement last week of the killing of Iranian military and terrorist commander Qassem Soleimani.

Here’s the remark:

“The fact that we have this great military and equipment…does not mean we have to use it.  We do not want to use it.  American strength, both military and economic, is the best deterrent.”

Sounds pretty obvious, right? But it’s been anything but obvious to America’s globalist foreign policy establishment, and especially to many in its liberal wing – which could very well regain the White House if a Democratic candidate like former Vice President Joe Biden or Indianapolis Mayor Pete Buttigieg wins November’s election. And that would be terrible news, as these establishment globalist liberals’ failure to agree indicates that they might return the nation to the days when it plunged into all sorts of foreign crises that had no potential to bolster American security, and much potential to become costly, bloody quagmires.

My evidence? An absolutely seminal exchange from the early 1990s between then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright (who went on to become Secretary of State) and Colin L. Powell – then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who would also go on to run Foggy Bottom.

During former President Bill Clinton’s first terms, Albright and Powell disagreed sharply on the merits of the United States intervening militarily in the Bosnia war – one of many civil conflicts in the Balkans triggered by the post-Cold War breakup of Yugoslavia. Albright was a leader of the hawks and Powell had long championed a view that the United States should use its armed forces only when genuinely vital national interests were at stake.

During one of their debates, Albright asked Powell a question that was shockingly moronic even by the dismal standards of globalists generally: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

In his memoirs, Powell wrote that Albright’s question almost gave him “an aneurysm.” And it should be screamingly obvious why. Albright, who has studied international affairs her entire adult life, had apparently never heard of, or forgot, the concept of “deterrence.”

Thank goodness she wasn’t in power during one of the Cold War nuclear crises, like that over Cuba in 1962. Can you imagine any of former President John F. Kennedy’s advisers asking “What’s the point of having these superb nuclear weapons if we can’t use them?” And most worrisomely Albright – who remains influential in top Democratic political circles – has been proudly unrepentant.

Even more important, Albright’s position shows that she’s clueless about a fundamental intellectual key to U.S. foreign policy success – understanding that a superpower is defined first and foremost by what it is (i.e, by the assets it can bring to bear regarding overseas challenges and opportunities) not by what it does (how and how energetically it uses those assets). 

That is, for a country as geopolitically secure and economically self-sufficient as the United States, what matters most is focusing on building the strength (in all dimensions, including the power to deter any aggressors) needed to enable it to survive and prosper in a world certain to remain dangerous, rather than working overtime figuring out ways to keep using that strength – especially when there’s no obvious need.   

Now Powell’s a globalist, too – but he clearly comes from the wing that’s at least recognized that national interests (though he and his ilk invariably define them way too broadly) should be driving the use of foreign policy tools, not the availability of those tools (let alone list of uses of American arms and resources that may be desirable to some extent, to some Americans, but are hardly essential – like the Bosnia mess and other humanitarian tragedies in which the Clinton-ites initially engaged the nation).

Trump’s Iran remarks unmistakably associate him with that far wiser Powell approach – including in situations unlikely to go nuclear. They also signal that he gets it on the real nature of a superpower.

So don’t doubt for a minute that the President’s quasi-America First-type foreign policies will continue to be much less coherent and efficiently implemented than is desirable. But don’t doubt for a minute that his (sort of) Powell-like instincts boost the odds that the United States won’t get bogged down in debilitating and unnecessary quagmires.

In other words, everyone hoping for an American foreign policy displaying some kind of post-Iraq War learning curve should remember that, for all Mr. Trump’s faults, the United States can always do much worse in its presidential choices, in fact has done much worse – and could well again.

Im-Politic: An Impeachment Red Herring from House Judiciary

Tags

Constitution, Democrats, executive privilege, House Judiciary Committee, Im-Politic, impeachment, Jerrold Nadler, Mueller Report, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Mueller, Special Counsel, Trump

You know the Shakespearian expression, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”? A wonderful way of describing someone who makes an argument that’s so over-the-top that it undercuts credibility?

I couldn’t help but think of it while reading the new report from the House Judiciary Committee’s Democratic staff on “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment.”

I’m not talking about the substantive credibility of the case for President Trump’s impeachment (and/or removal from office). Instead, I’m talking about the case’s political credibility. Because this new study makes nothing so clear as the belief of the Committee’s majority Democratic members that they haven’t yet convinced enough of the American people that their efforts to oust the President are justified. And no doubt this conclusion applies to numerous others in the party’s House majority and in the Senate.

No one can have any legitimate issue with the Committee releasing such a report. As Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York notes, the full committee staffs put out similar studies in connection with the 1974 impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, and those against President Bill Clinton in 1998. (One important difference: Unlike the previous reports, this new study was the product only of one party’s staff.) And scholarship has of course advanced since then.

But in the process of “Addressing Fallacies About Impeachment,” the Democratic staff created some itself – that impeachment proponents are maintaining that impeachment “is not part of democratic constitutional governance”; that because a presidential election is coming up, a chief executive “is entitled to persist in office after committing ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’”; and that such a President’s voters consider themselves “entitled to expect that their preferred candidate will do so.”

These arguments are transparently fallacious because none of the President’s backers has questioned the legitimacy of impeachment per se, and none believes that, whatever the political calendar, any office holder deserves to keep on serving after committing impeachable offenses.

To use an obvious but instructive example, just ask yourself: If Mr. Trump had committed a crime in public view – e.g., stood “in the middle of Fifth Avenue and [shot] somebody,” as he once suggested during his campaign, in a (typically) hyperbolic efofrt to describe his popularity with his base – does anyone seriously think that even the staunchest Trump-er would respond (if there were no extenuating circumstances, like self-defense) “Nope, nothing impeachable here. Let’s just let him serve out his term.)

(Interestingly, outside the impeachment context, the President’s lawyers have argued that Mr. Trump, or any President, couldn’t be criminally indicted for such an act while in office, but that’s a separate issue from impeachment.)

What Trump supporters are saying is that, after literally years of investigations – by Congress and by a Special Counsel (Robert Mueller) whose integrity no Trump opponent questioned – no conclusive evidence of impeachable transgressions has emerged. And that given the approach of a new election that would give the public a chance to decide the President’s fitness for office (an opportunity that was not available for second-term Presidents Nixon and Clinton), the best course for the country’s sake is moving on from the current proceedings. In other words, they’re making a political and policy argument, not a Constitutional argument.

For example, the Mueller report specifically concluded that “the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election” and, more controversially, regarding obstruction of justice allegations:

“[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

As numerous impeachment backers have pointed out, in his post-report press conference, Mueller did note, in the course of explaining the substantive and Constitutional obstacles to accusing a sitting President of criminal behavior, that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.” And of course that was a reference to impeachment.

But neither Mueller nor his report has stated that Mr. Trump actually has committed an impeachable defense, or explicitly said that enough evidence exists to warrant an impeachment inquiry. The Special Counsel simply observed that, if Congress has enough further problems with the President’s actions, it has a Constitutionally permitted avenue for pursuing these concerns.

It’s true that Congress has not yet had the chance to question under oath current and former administration officials who might be able to provide first-hand evidence of impeachable Presidential wrongdoing, and that the initial obstacle has been Mr. Trump’s refusal to permit them to testify.

That opposition could well stem from the President’s fear of what these figures might say. But it could also stem from legitimate concerns about executive privilege – a President’s recognized right, originating in the separation of powers created by the Constitution, to keep under wraps, including from Congress, internal deliberations of his or her administration.

This privilege is by no means absolute, and such Executive-Legislative branch disputes can be refereed by the courts. But Congress’ Democrats have declined to go this route either to compel such testimony, or free up impeachment-relevant records. In this regard, therefore, they so far have no one to blame for the absence of a “smoking gun” but themselves.

So why are the Judiciary Democrats serving up this red herring? I’m not a mind-reader, but Congress’ Democratic leaders acknowledge that they’re following the polls, and they show plain as day that, since late October, public support for impeachment and removal has fallen steadily – to the point where it’s clearly under 50 percent and still shrinking. And some evidence shows that the numbers are worse for the Democrats on this issue in key presidential election battleground states and Congressional districts crucial to their continued control of the House.

I’m not questioning whether House Judiciary Democrats, or any other Trump opponents, sincerely believe that the President has committed impeachable offenses, or whether they view the evidence as clearcut and even overwhelming. But the new Judiciary report’s baseless charge Trump supporters would oppose impeachment under any circumstances is strong evidence that, in this ultimately political debate, they’re far from making the political case.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Trade War(s) Update

Tags

Argentina, Bloomberg.com, Brazil, business investment, China, CNBC, consumption, currency manipulation, debt, Democrats, digital services tax, election 2020, EU, European Union, export controls, Financial Crisis, France, Huawei, internet, investors, manufacturing, production, steel, steel tariffs, tariffs, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade enforcement, trade war, Trump, Wall Street, Wilbur Ross, Xi JInPing, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The most important takeaway from this post about the current status of U.S. trade policy, especially toward China, is that it may have already been overtaken by events since I began putting these thoughts together yesterday.

What follows is a lightly edited version of talking points I put together for staffers at CNBC in preparation for their interview with me yesterday. I thought this exercise would be useful because these appearances are always so brief (even though this one, unusually, featured me solo), and because sometimes they take unexpected detours from the main subject. .

Before presenting them, however, let’s keep in mind this new Bloomberg piece, which came on the heels of remarks yesterday by President Trump signaling that a trade deal with China may need to await next year’s U.S. Presidential election, and plunged the world’s investors into deep gloom. This morning, however, the news agency reported that considerable progress has been made despite “harsh” rhetoric lately from both countries. It seems pretty thinly sourced to me, and the supposed course of the trade talks seems to change almost daily, but stock indices are up considerably all the same.

Moreover, even leaving that proviso aside, what I wrote to the CNBC folks yesterday seems likely to hold up pretty well. And here it is:

1. The President’s latest comments on the China trade deal – which he says might take till after the presidential election to complete – seriously undermines the claim that he considers a deal crucial to his reelection chances because it’s likely to appease Wall Street and thereby prop up the economy. Of course, given Mr. Trump’s mercurial nature, and negotiating style, this latest statement could also simply amount to him playing “bad cop” for the moment.

2. His relative pessimism about a quick “Phase One” deal also seems to reinforce a suggestion implicitly made yesterday by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross when he listed verification and enforcement concerns as among the obstacles to signing the so-called Phase One deal. I have always argued that such concerns are likely to prevent the conclusion of any kind of trade deal acceptable to US interests. That’s both because of China’s poor record of keeping its commitments, and because the Chinese government is too secretive and too big to monitor effectively even the most promising Chinese pledges to change policies on intellectual property theft, illegal subsidies, discriminatory government procurement, and other so-called structural issues.

3. Recent reports of the United States considering tightening (or expanding) restrictions on tech exports to Chinese entities like Huawei also support my longstanding point that the US and Chinese economies will continue to decouple whatever the fate of the current or other trade talks.

4. In my opinion, the President is absolutely right to play hard-to-get on China trade, because Chinese dictator Xi Jinping is under so much pressure due to his own weakening economy, and because of the still-explosive Hong Kong situation.

5. I’ll be especially interested to learn of the Democratic presidential candidates’ reactions to Mr. Trump’s latest China statement, as well as the announcement of the reimposed steel tariffs on Argentina and Brazil, and the threatened tariffs on French “digital services” [internet] taxes. With the exception of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the candidates’ China policies seem to boil down to “Yes, we need to get tough with China, but tariffs are the worst possible response.” None of them has adequately described an alternative approach. The reactions of Democratic Congress leaders Nancy Pelosi in the House and Charles Schumer will be worth noting, too. The latter has been strongly supportive of the Trump approach in general.

6. The new steel tariffs, as widely noted, are especially interesting because they were justified for currency devaluation reasons, with no mention made of the alleged national security threats originally cited as the rationale. Nonetheless, I don’t believe that they represent a significant change in the Trump approach to metals trade, because the administration has always emphasized the need for the duties to be global in scope – to prevent China from transshipping its overcapacity to the US through third countries, and to prevent third countries to relieve the pressures felt by their steel sectors from Chinese product by ramping up their own exports to the US. Obviously, all else equal, countries with weakening currencies (for whatever reason) will realize big advantages in steel trade, as the prices of their output will fall way below those of competitors’ steel industries.

7. Regarding the tariffs threatened in retaliation for France’s digital services tax, they’re consistent with Trump’s longstanding contention that the US-European Union (EU) trade relationship has been lopsidedly in favor of the Europeans for too long, and that tariff pressure is needed to restore some sustainable balance. In this vein, I don’t take seriously the French claim that the tax isn’t targeting U.S. companies specifically. After all, those firms are the dominant players in the field. Second, senior EU officials have started talking openly about strengthening Europe’s “technological sovereignty” – making sure that the continent eliminates its dependence on non-European entities in the sector (including China’s as well as America’s). The digital tax would certainly further the aim of building up European champions – and if need be, at the expense of US-owned companies.

By the way, this position of mine in no way reflects a view that more taxation and more regulation of these companies isn’t warranted. But it’s my belief that these issues should be handled by the American political system.

Also of note: Trump’s suggestion this morning that the French tax isn’t a big deal, and that negotiations look like a promising way to resolve the disagreement.

Finally, here are two more points I wound up making. First, I expressed agreement that the President’s tariff-centric trade policies have created significant uncertainties in the economy’s trade-heavy manufacturing sector in particular – stalling some of the planned business investment that’s essential for healthy growth. But I also noted that much of this uncertainty surely stems from the on-again-off-again nature of the tariffs’ actual and threatened imposition.

As a result, I argued, uncertainty could be significantly reduced if Mr. Trump made much clearer that, whatever the trade talks’ fate, the days of Washington trying to maximize unfettered bilateral trade and investment are over, and a new era marked by much more caution and many more restrictions (including tighter export controls and investment restrictions, as well as tariffs), is at hand.

Second, at the very end, I contended that President Trump deserves great credit for focusing public attention on the country’s massive trade deficits in general. For notwithstanding the standard economists’ view that they don’t matter, reducing them is essential if Americans want their economy’s growth to become healthy, and more sustainable. For as the last financial crisis should have taught the nation, when consumption exceeds production by too great a margin, debts and consequent economic bubbles get inflated – and tend to burst disastrously.

Glad I Didn’t Say That! Politico Shoots Itself in the Foot on Foreign Meddling

Tags

Democrats, election 2016, election interference, Glad I Didn't Say That!, Mainstream Media, MSM, Politico, Trump, Ukraine

“…acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney told reporters the U.S. aid was withheld at least in part because of a request to have Ukraine investigate unfounded allegations that foreign countries assisted Democrats in the 2016 election.”

–Politico, October 17, 2019

“Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.”

– Politico, January 11, 2017

 

(Sources: “Mulvaney acknowledges Ukraine aid was withheld to boost political probe,” by Quint Forgey, Politico, October 17, 2019, https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/17/mulvaney-confirms-ukraine-aid-2016-probe-050156 and “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire,” by Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern, Ibid., https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446)