Im-Politic: Why It Sure Looks Like Fauci Lied

Tags

Anthony S. Fauci, Biden administration, CCP Virus, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Congress, coronavirus, COVID 19, EcoHealth Alliance, gain-of-function research, Im-Politic, Medium.com, MERS, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Nature, NIAID, Nicholas Wade, NIH, perjury, Rand Paul, SARS, Shi Zheng-li, Washington Post, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Wuhan virus

Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul wants the Justice Department to investigate whether President Biden’s top medical adviser, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, committed the crime of lying to Congress when he claimed that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in which he’s a senior official “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)” in China.

And if I was Fauci, who is also the long-time director of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, I would be lawyering up. For if the Biden Justice Department is a truly non-political law enforcement agency, Fauci is going to have a heck of a time proving both that his statement (which he’s made in testimony at least twice) wasn’t a deliberately told falsehood. (See here and here for these instances.)  

Before I explain why, it’s important to specify what Paul’s charge is not about. It’s not about whether the grants given by Fauci’s agency to the WIV funded any research that went into actually creating the CCP Virus specifically. Therefore, contrary to Fauci’s statement (found in the Washington Post report linked above), it’s not about whether he bears any responsibility for causing this pandemic.

Nor is Paul’s charge about whether these U.S. government agencies financed such research in defiance of a three-year pause on such activity mandated by the Obama administration in October, 2014.

Nor – and this is crucial – does Paul’s charge have anything to do with the controversy among virologists about defining gain-of-function research.

As I explained in this post, these kinds of questions are all important, and should be looked into.

But what Paul is claiming is that Fauci lied in contending that NIAD and NIH never funded activity that is defined explicitly by the U.S. government. That matters because as a federal official, Fauci presumably is required to use this definition as his definition. And whereas in the above-linked May 30 post, I wasn’t convinced of Fauci’s guilt, the evidence demonstrating that NIAD and NIH funded work that matches now looks pretty cut and dry to me – especially since Paul last week gave Fauci a chance to climb down from his claim, and since new evidence has emerged.

Let’s start with that definition of gain-of-function: According to the announcement of the gain-of-function pause, new funding would be suspended

“for gain-of-function research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route. The research funding pause would not apply to characterization or testing of naturally occurring influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses, unless the tests are reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity.”

Now for the two pieces of evidence that should have Fauci awfully worried.

The first consists of an article published in 2015 in the journal Nature by a team of U.S., Swiss, and Chinese scientists (the latter from the WIV), which examined the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations.”

The authors went on to explain that, using reverse genetics, they “generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.” A chimeric virus, according to this definition, is one “made by inserting the genetic material of one virus into the genome of another, safe surrogate, and these introduced sequences are passed on when the virus replicates.”

The article is important because it lists among funders for this project the two NIH branches – one of which is Fauci’s NIAID. Moreover, it specifies that

“Experiments with the full-length and chimeric SHC014 recombinant viruses were initiated and performed before the GOF research funding pause and have since been reviewed and approved for continued study by the NIH.”

Talk about a smoking gun! The authors obviously made this statement to preempt charges that either they or the NIH violated the pause. But just as obviously, they were concerned about it to begin with because they themselves considered the work to be “GOF” (gain-of-function).

And why wouldn’t they? The purpose of using reverse genetics to create a virus that doesn’t exist in nature was to examine “the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations” because such naturally occuring pathogens had demonstrated the ability of “cross-species transmission” that could affect humans.

They created the new virus precisely in order to mimick the kind of natural mutation that could theoretically take place in the original virus to find out whether such a mutated pathogen could infect human respiratory systems. And they discovered that some of them could.

Even more important: so evidently did Fauci. On Saturday, February 1, 2020 – during the very earliest stages of the virus’ spread in the United States, Fauci sent the following email message to aide Hugh Auchincloss:

“It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on. I have a conference call at 7:45 AM with [Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex] Azar. It will likely be over at 8:45 AM. Read this paper as well as the email that I will forward to you know. You will have tasks today that must be done.”

The paper was the 2015 Nature article. Auchincloss’ response began:

“The paper you sent me says the experiments were performed before the gain of function pause but have since been reviewed and approved by NIH.”

He continued, “Not sure what means since Emily is sure that no Coronavirus work has gone through the P3 framework.” And then somewhat oddly, he concluded, “She will try to determine if we have any distant ties to this work abroad.”

Emily is Emily Erbelding, who heads much of NIAID’s international research program. The P3 framework is a system created by the Health and Human Services Department to guide “funding decisions on individual proposed research that is reasonably anticipated to create, transfer, or use enhanced PPPs [potential pandemic pathogens].

That last sentence is odd because the Nature article clearly credited NIAID as a funder.

In any event, though, what’s most important is that Auchincloss’ main concern seemed to have been whether any NIAID gain-of-function funding was approved during the pause (which he notes the authors denied). He doesn’t seem to dispute that the experiments qualified as GOF.

Fauci’s main concerns are less clear. Did he understand the broader possibility that NIAD may have helped create the virus? Not strictly according to his phrasing. But his words plainly connote major concern about something. Moreover, there’s no public record shere or anywhere else of him denying that the grant financed GOF work until Paul raised it in May.

Yet this Nature article-related evidence doesn’t exhaust the list of concerns Fauci should have. In his excellent May examination on Medium.com of the debate over the virus’ origins, former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade describes in detail NIAID grants in 2018 and 2019 that he contends clearly funded research that falls under the official definition of GOF.

In his words, the grants were intended to enable WIV virologist Shi Zheng-li

“create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. Her plan was to take genes that coded for spike proteins possessing a variety of measured affinities for human cells, ranging from high to low. She would insert these spike genes one by one into the backbone of a number of viral genomes …creating a series of chimeric viruses. These chimeric viruses would then be tested for their ability to attack human cell cultures…and humanized mice….And this information would help predict the likelihood of ‘spillover,’ the jump of a coronavirus from bats to people.”

These grants appear to have been compliant with U.S. government policy when they were approved, since the funding pause was lifted at the end of 2017. But again, that isn’t what Paul believes may be a crime on Fauci’s part. The alleged crime has to do with Fauci’s claim that neither NIH nor NIAID ever funded GOF experiments in Wuhan at any time.

The most detailed defense of Fauci has come from the NIH sub-contracter through which its funds were funneled to the WIV – a non-profit called the EcoHealth Alliance. But they don’t even come close to letting Fauci off the hook.

For example, Alliance spokesman Robert Kessler told the Washington Post that

”the EcoHealth funding was not related to the experiments, but the collection of samples. The NIH grant includes language that some say suggests gain-of-function research; NIH says that is a misinterpretation.”

But of course, collecting the samples was integral to the project. And since NIH is in the dock here, its claim of misinterpretation proves nothing.

Moreover, even Kessler didn’t seem satisfied with this argument, as he went on to contend that “As described in the paper, all but two of the viruses cultured in the lab failed to even replicate.” Not only does this mean that two of them did. His claim recalls notoriously spurious claims on the order of “Sure, I stole the money. But I didn’t steal very much.”

As for Kessler’s insistence that “GoF was never the goal here,” the authors’ own reference to abiding by U.S. government GOF guidelines shows that this was exactly the goal.

Finally, as indicated by my reference to the (legitimate) scientific debate over defining GOF, Kessler may have been right when he told the Post that “gain of function research is the specific process of altering human viruses in order to increase their ability (the titular gain of function) either to spread amongst populations, to infect people, or to cause more severe illness.”

But this position has nothing to do with the charge against Fauci, since the U.S. government definition that should have been controlling his decisions never limited its scope to “altering human viruses.” And in fact, how could it? The origins of the MERS and SARS viruses it mentions still haven’t been pinned down. But according to the NIH itself, research suggests they both “originated in bats.” And of course, the authors of the 2017 Nature paper agree, since they described called their work investigating whether viruses found in non-human mammals could mutate to infect humans.

In the U.S. criminal justice system, you’re innocent until proven guilty.  So legally speaking, Fauci deserves the benefit of the doubt.  Also, evidence might be uncovered absolving him of Paul’s charge.  But the existing evidence looks so compelling, a perjury charge is so serious, and Fauci’s role in CCP Virus-fighting policy remains so important, that Paul’s planned investigation request looks entirely reasonable. 

Moreover, Fauci himself should welcome the probe, for if conducted properly, it could lift this cloud over his head once and for all.  Opposing an investigation, by the same token, can only fuel suspicions that he has something to hide.       

 

Im-Politic: 2016’s Real Trump Effect

Tags

2016 election, Chris Christie, CNBC, Donald Trump, economy, Fox Business, Fox News, Im-Politic, Immigration, Iowa Caucus, Jeb Bush, Jobs, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Obamacare, Rand Paul, Republican debates, Republicans, Ted Cruz, wages

I have no idea who’s going to win tonight’s Iowa presidential caucuses in either party, but I feel confident in making one prediction: If and when Republican front runner Donald Trump either drops out at some point on the primary trail, or gets denied the delegate count needed to win the nomination either before or during the convention, most serious talk in the Republican race about the economy’s biggest problems will come to an abrupt halt.

Right now, given Trump’s strong showings in the latest Iowa polls, and even better performances in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and other surveys, such speculation seems besides the point. But I can’t dismiss out of hand one possible result unfolding tonight: A Trump defeat, or relatively poor second-place showing, could – as many commentators have suggested – puncture the aura of invincibility that’s been created by a combination of his unexpectedly broad appeal and his brash personality. In other words, a disappointing showing tonight could turn this “winner” into a hype-dependent “loser” in the public eye.

And as I’ve written, even – or especially – if Trump survives Iowa in good shape, the Republican establishment he’s run against could start consolidating behind a single champion as the more “conventional” hopefuls drop out. This candidate might start winning near-majorities in the polls while Trump remains stuck in the 30s or at best low 40s.

If and when the campaign becomes Trump-less, most signs indicate that the Republican campaign will give the shortest possible shrift to the pocketbook issues that matter most to the public. The most compelling evidence so far? The last Republican debate, on October 28 in Iowa, was Trump-less (by his choice). And judging from the proceedings, you’d never know that the United States has spent more than six years crawling out of an historically deep recession at an historically slow rate, and that living standards for the typical family have been stagnating literally for decades.

Economic subjects weren’t completely ignored. But throughout the two-hour event, they were a clear afterthought. There were zero questions on jobs and wages, and when the Fox News panelists did touch on the economy, it was for two main purposes. They either wanted to draw the candidates out on philosophical questions, like the ideal size and role of government, that Trump’s rise in particular suggest have become marginal even to committed “movement” conservatives. Or they sought to plumb the candidates’ views on the Iowa-specific issue of ethanol subsidies.

Of course, immigration figured prominently that evening. But the candidates almost exclusively focused on its national security aspects, not its potential to either strengthen or weaken American growth or employment.

Exceptions to these patterns did pop up. Though the topics were completely ignored by the Fox interrogators, Governors Chris Christie and John Kasich touted their job growth records in New Jersey and Ohio, respectively, as did Jeb Bush for his years in the statehouse in Florida. Texas Senator Ted Cruz did promise to end welfare payments to illegal immigrants, while Florida Senator Marco Rubio mentioned the need to ensure that immigrant flows contain more skilled and educated newcomers ready to contribute economically upon their arrival, and fewer immigrants whose only entry qualifications were family connections to existing legal residents. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul used his closing statement to warn of the dangers of the national debt. And Cruz answered the single question about Obamacare in impressive detail – in the process calling it the nation’s “biggest job-killer.”

But that paragraph pretty well sums it up.

It’s entirely possible that the Fox panel neglected the economy because its members thought Iowa is prospering, and that therefore the issue hasn’t resonated. (Here’s why they’re wrong.) So maybe when the primaries move into states with more obvious troubles, this focus will shift – for all the networks. In principle, Fox might also have concluded that the Fox Business debate in Milwaukee in November covered the economy adequately (along with the October CNBC debate in Colorado, which wildly veered into numerous other areas as well).

It’s also revealing, however, that unlike Trump, few of the other Republican contenders consistently take the opportunity to pivot to economic issues when asked other questions. Perhaps they believe the economy has been superseded by terrorism and related national security issues? Could they be holding their economic fire for the general election? Are they convinced that the economy simply is no longer bad enough to harp on? That last possibility has me particularly intrigued, since it strikes me as so stunningly wrong. But by the same token, it could be just the latest evidence that the Republican party’s mainstream power brokers really are out of touch with the national mood.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Signs that Obama is Getting It on Islam and Terrorism

Tags

gun control, Iraq, ISIS, Islam, Middle East, Muslims, No-Fly List, Obama, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Pakistan, profiling, radical Islam, Rand Paul, refugees, Republicans, Sunnis, Syria, terrorism

President Obama’s prime-time address on terrorism last night shows that he’s deeply conflicted about the role played by Islam in fostering these attacks. Which is good news, and not only because it’s a complicated issue. It’s good news because, as the president’s critics have been insisting, “words matter” in America’s efforts to counter this threat. That’s true whether you believe, like me, that the key to success versus ISIS and similar groups is securing the nation’s borders because they are eminently controllable. And it’s true whether you believe, like Mr. Obama and almost everyone else (including his critics), that the key is some form of improved intervention in the Middle East.

His most recent presidential statement on the terror threat shows that the president is still trafficking in the largely straw man argument that “We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam” and that “ISIL does not speak for Islam.” Of course, relatively few Americans believe that an entire religion and all of its adherents should be stigmatized.

More encouragingly, however, the president also specified that a refusal to condemn all Muslims and their faith “does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse.” Moreover, it’s consistent with remarks he made in his otherwise petulant press conference following the G20 economic summit in Turkey last month. They’re worth quoting in full:

“…I do think that Muslims around the world — religious leaders, political leaders, ordinary people — have to ask very serious questions about how did these extremist ideologies take root, even if it’s only affecting a very small fraction of the population. It is real and it is dangerous. And it has built up over time, and with social media it has now accelerated.

“And so I think, on the one hand, non-Muslims cannot stereotype, but I also think the Muslim community has to think about how we make sure that children are not being infected with this twisted notion that somehow they can kill innocent people and that that is justified by religion. And to some degree, that is something that has to come from within the Muslim community itself. And I think there have been times where there has not been enough pushback against extremism. There’s been pushback — there are some who say, well, we don’t believe in violence, but are not as willing to challenge some of the extremist thoughts or rationales for why Muslims feel oppressed. And I think those ideas have to be challenged.”

So however reluctant he is to cast matters this way, the president has accused the world’s Muslim community of failing to counter extremist variants of Islam vigorously enough. And other than fear for their own lives (which would be understandable, if not praiseworthy) what else could explain this unwillingness, especially on the part of Muslim clerics and Muslim theocratic governments, than their conviction that the religious pitches being made by ISIS and similar groups contain important elements that they find neither entirely alien nor entirely repellent?

As just implied, acknowledging that Islam in particular, as opposed to violent extremism as such, presents special problems in the fight against terror means that America’s current anti-ISIS campaign will need at least one major change of emphasis. After all, today’s strategy relies heavily on the belief that the Sunni Arab world (including those theocracies) will (eventually) contribute the bulk of the ground forces needed to defeat ISIS militarily. If many of these putative allies, and the populations they rule, have mixed feelings about what the terrorists stand for, then something dramatic will need to be done to convince them that their stakes in the fight warrant assuming major commitments and risks. The only other option is to send into the fray enough U.S. ground troops to accomplish the mission, a step that even most of Mr. Obama’s hawkish critics are reluctant to endorse. (This explains much of their enthusiasm for the Sunni option).

Of course, a more realistic take on Islam’s responsibility for ISIS-style terrorism would involve recognizing how fatally it undermines the case for the Sunni option and other interventionist-centered approaches, and strengthens that for a borders-focused anti-ISIS strategy. But the importance of acknowledging Islam-related problems doesn’t stop there. Most important, it also militates for concentrating restrictions on entry into the United States on the Muslim world, or at least certain parts of it.

Which countries justify the most concern is legitimately debatable. But certainly it’s hard to understand why any American not affiliated with a legitimate international aid organization or the U.S. government should want to or be able travel to Syria nowadays (and come back), and similar questions need to be raised about Iraq and Pakistan (though commerce with those countries so far is much more extensive). Another possibility: tighter curbs on travel to theocracies.

Interestingly, the President and Congressional Republicans reportedly will both back legislation containing some such country-specific restrictions on travel – though not on refugees. Even Kentucky Republican Senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul, a libertarian stalwart, recently introduced a bill that would suspend the resettlement of refugees from 34 “high-risk” countries – mainly from the Muslim world.

And as I tweeted yesterday, it’s not too difficult to imagine a compromise that handles the refugee – and a related – matter: Mr. Obama and his party agree to suspending the admission of Middle East refugees until vetting and screening procedures have been acceptably tightened, in exchange for Republicans agreeing to bar anyone on a government No-Fly List from legally buying a gun once the process of creating these lists gets more precise.

No doubt these decisions and proposals will be greeted with cries of “profiling!” from both political fringes. But the country’s reasonable middle has clearly been roused and the above are signs that it is pulling a critical mass of Democrats and Republicans toward a common sense consensus on domestic security. As Winston Churchill reportedly said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else.”

Im-Politic: Why Trump’s Debate Victory over CNBC Really Matters

Tags

2016 elections, Ben Carson, CNBC, diplomacy, Donald Trump, fast track, Im-Politic, multinational corporations, offshoring, presidential debates, Rand Paul, Republicans, Ted Cruz, Trade

No, this isn’t an endorsement, but the way Donald Trump handled the dispute over its planned presidential debate format between CNBC on the one hand, and several Republican candidates including him on the other, shows precisely why he could well transform U.S. trade policy – and possibly American foreign policy – dramatically for the better if elected.

Along with Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul, Trump protested CNBC’s original plans for two hours of actual debating time, plus up to 16 minutes of commercials, with no opening or closing statements by the contenders. The four protesting candidates wanted the event’s total time capped at two hours, and insisted that opening and closing statements be included in that total.

As these disagreements indicate, the gulf between CNBC and the four Republican hopefuls wasn’t terribly wide. But what’s important about this story is how and why these candidates – and especially Trump – prevailed even though the rest of the much more numerous Republican field apparently was fine with CNBC’s intentions.

Essentially, the four dissenters recognized that they had decisive leverage. (Their absence – especially Trump’s – could cost the cable network valuable ratings.) They threw around their weight. And they won. And when it comes to trade policy (and many other international challenges and opportunities facing the United States) that’s exactly what U.S. leaders from both parties have consistently failed to do for decades, even though the United States typically holds all the main cards.

This is especially true in trade policy, because the United States has long served as the market-of-last resort for a world full of major and minor trade powers alike that desperately depend on ever higher exports for adequate growth. But Washington’s failure to wield its relative power and leverage effectively arguably has undercut important American objectives in the national security sphere, too – for example, in persuading free-riding allies to bear a greater share of the West’s common defense burden.

I single Trump out because none of his three comrades in arms in this tussle has made trade policy a centerpiece of their campaigns. In fact, Texas Senator Ted Cruz and his Kentucky counterpart Rand Paul have been strong supporters of the substance of America’s current trade strategy, though both opposed (for procedural and political reasons) the recent (successful) attempt in Congress to award fast track negotiating authority to President Obama. Moreover, unlike Trump, neither Carson nor Cruz nor Paul has touted deal-making and bargaining as among their strongest suits. 

At the same time, Trump’s victory over CNBC underscores how incomplete his attacks on American trade diplomacy have been. For Washington has signed deficit-fueling and deals and reached similarly counterproductive trade policy decisions (like long coddling China’s currency manipulation) not mainly because U.S. officials can’t size up a situation accurately – a charge consistent with Trump’s claim that they’re incompetent and lack elementary street smarts.

Instead, they repeatedly fail at trade bargaining tables to advance and defend the interests of the American economy as a whole primarily because they haven’t considered that their job. They view themselves as agents of offshoring-happy multinational corporations, whose campaign contributions have ensured that their trade priorities prevail even when success comes at the expense of America’s productive sectors.

That’s why, as I keep arguing, Trump’s trade policy rhetoric should mainly demonize these U.S. corporate special interests, not foreign governments. (And why it’s encouraging that he’s shown signs of making this pivot.) At the same time, since the United States no longer dominates the world stage as in the early post-World War II decades, accurately assessing power balances and recognizing when compromises are needed has also become an important ingredient for diplomatic, and presidential, success.

So Trump should promise that he’s independent enough to be working for Main Street (because he doesn’t need that special interest money), that he’s tough enough to press clear advantages hard, and that he’s smart enough to “know when to fold ’em.” What other candidates can credibly make this combination of claims?

Im-Politic: What the Debate & its Fallout are Showing About Trump

Tags

2016 elections, Carly Fiorina, chattering class, Chris Christie, conservatives, debate, Donald Trump. Jeb Bush, Fox News, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, independents, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, Megyn Kelly, Mitt Romney, Obama, Rand Paul, Republicans, Rick Perry, Roger Stone, Ted Cruz

Three days after the event, I’m still struggling to get my analytical arms around that first Republican “front-runners’” presidential debate. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it took many more days and even weeks to gauge the effects. In part of course the problem is the so-called Summer of Trump, and the inherent difficulty in analyzing phenomena. But there’s also the matter of assessing the mood of those large numbers of Republicans, Republican leaners, independents, and others who clearly at various times have been drawn to Donald Trump’s campaign. Trump’s refusal to rule out a third party run in the fall elections is another huge complicating factor, as it’s bound to give pause to anyone determined to prevent a Democrat from winning the White House in 2016.

And let’s not forget the upteen other Republican candidates – including former Hewlett Packard boss Carly Fiorina and her supposedly breakout performance at a prior event for those GOP hopefuls considered the also-rans at this stage of the campaign, at least according to the polls. There were some of the questions from the Fox News moderators, which I found downright weird – and I’m not even talking solely or even mainly about Megyn Kelly asking Trump about his derogatory comments toward women, an exchange which of course then exploded into an even bigger uproar. Finally, since it’s still just so darned early in the cycle, making any predictions can be hazardous for any observer’s health.

Since Trump has dominated the Republican campaign so far, let’s start (and, for today, end) there. The place to begin is right at the beginning, with Fox News’ Bret Baier asking the front-runners (and Trump of course in particular) to promise to back the party’s nominee whoever it might be. Trump has explained his refusal in tactical terms – focusing on the importance of leverage – and has indicated that he could change his mind. But after eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency, and the still strong possibility that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic race to succeed him, there can’t be any doubt that this wasn’t the answer many Republican primary voters – the chunk of the electorate Trump needs to win first – wanted to hear. Certainly the reaction of the boisterous crowd in Cleveland last Thursday night was decidedly mixed.

Concerns about Trump’s 2016 plans, moreover, are sure to reinforce Republican primary voters’ worries about his allegiance to conservative positions on issues like health care, taxation, and abortion. The GOP base isn’t thrilled with his campaign contributions to Democrats, either. Trump has responses: He’s “evolved” on the above, and other, subjects. He mastered the existing campaign finance system. Will these answers be convincing? Forecasting is further complicated by Mitt Romney’s experience in 2012. On the one hand, he won the Republican nomination despite charges that he was insufficiently conservative and a repeated “flip-flopper.” On the other hand, much of the Republican base now argues that, for these reasons, his nomination stuck the party with a loser.

Curiously, though, the rest of the Republican field is divided enough over some specific issues to render suspicious some of the silent pledges of party loyalty made last week. For example, would New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (who was consigned to the also-ran event) endorse Kentucky Senator Rand Paul as long as the latter opposes using more electronic snooping by intelligence and law enforcement agencies to fight terrorism? And given his strong stated belief that such measures grossly violate Constitutional protections against privacy, would Paul endorse those two if they stuck to their guns?

In addition, would any of the sitting Senators seeking the Republican nomination support their Texas counterpart Ted Cruz if he doesn’t apologize for calling their Senate leader Mitch McConnell a liar? Finally, would Jeb Bush or Graham or Rick Perry – all if whom have blasted Trump, the latter two in especially angry terms – really support Trump if he prevails? As the GOP field undergoes its inevitable winnowing, some of these questions are sure to come up.

Like everyone else, I’m still waiting to see the first major polls’ verdict, but I suspect that his attacks on Megyn Kelly will ultimately damage his campaign. The main reasons, though, have nothing to do with Kelly. Yes, she’s popular with conservatives. But my sense right now is that current Trump supporters and others receptive to his pitch and personality not only have no special feelings about Kelly, but probably started lumping her in with the rest of a media/chattering class that they despise because she asked precisely what they view as the kind of “gotcha” question now dominating journalism.

The worst damage could well come from two other sources. First, his exchange with Kelly and his follow-ups so far have added up to a major lost opportunity. Trump’s first instinct – to brush off the charges of women-hating with a joke about Rosie O’Donnell – was the right one. When Kelly persisted and pointed to insults directed at other women, he should have reminded her that he savages lots of men, too, and that he’s sure he’s stepped over the line in the past – especially in his role as an entertainer – just like all human beings have.

More important, he should have gone on the offensive by taking her to task for focusing on relative trivia rather than leading off with a question about a major issue voters care about – like jobs or national security. And even though Trump has now had several days to fine tune his “Megyn Kelly” message, he still hasn’t gone after her where her performance was most vulnerable. It’s still early in the 2016 campaign, but it’s far from too early for Trump to recognize that the longer he bogs himself down in personal – and trivial – feuds, and fails to deliver truly telling blows, the likelier he’ll start coming off as a simple, and increasingly uninteresting, crank.

Second, Trump’s trashing of Kelly suggests that, as many so-called political insiders believe, he’s got a big staffing problem. More specifically, he doesn’t seem to be working with anyone willing or able to tell him when he’s messed up. If Trump keeps surrounding himself only with Yes-Men, bet on him to suffer the same fate of other non-traditional office seekers. Like Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan, he’ll fail to make the transition – not from phenom to “conventional politician,” but from phenom to “candidate with staying power.”

In this vein, the departure (or firing?) of longtime Republican operative (and Trump adviser) Roger Stone from Trump’s team could be a big turning point. And even though I think Americans so far owe Trump a debt of gratitude for highlighting policy catastrophes in areas like trade and immigration, a Trump collapse for this management-related reason would be good for the country – because that modus operandi is a formula for disaster for any leader.

A final (for now) Trump observation: The longer the debate lasted, the less his presence seemed to dominate. In part that was a function of the crowded stage, and the need to give other candidates their rightful shares of the floor. In part that was a function of too many superficial questions that prevented Trump from drawing sharp policy distinctions with his fellow contenders.

But in part it stemmed from the same kind of weakness he showed in dealing with Megyn Kelly. Just as Trump failed to use that opportunity to make a larger point that would have resonated both with his followers and beyond their ranks, he failed to seize on any chance to use this immense platform to speak directly to Republican voters, and to all the other viewers, and connect with them anew in ways that his more conventional counterparts clearly haven’t.

It’s true that Trump faced format and other obstacles in meeting this challenge. But it’s also true that the real superstars of American politics use the slightest pretext to create these openings. That’s easier to do for politicians who understand that their highest priority isn’t subjugating their rivals – or beating down reporters – but reaching the electorate. In other words, most of the biggest political winners need enough ego to treat their rivals, in effect, as nuisances, but not so much as to obscure the centrality of the audience. And at this point, it’s difficult to imagine Donald Trump realizing that, in this most crucial of ways, his campaign isn’t all about him.

Im-Politic: Where We Stand So Far with Trade and the 2016 White House Race

Tags

2016 elections, Bernie Sanders, Carly Fiorina, Democrats, fast track, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, manufacturing, Martin O'Malley, Mike Huckabee, Populism, Rand Paul, Republicans, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Tea Party, TPA, TPP, Trade, Trade Promotion Authority, Trans-Pacific Partnership

“Something” is definitely going on with the politics of international trade in the United States these days – I just wish I knew exactly what it is. But in the last few weeks, as the national and Congressional debates over President Obama’s trade agenda have heated up, any number of apparently conflicting and potentially important developments in this area have broken into the news.

The chief inconsistency seems to involve presidential candidates in both parties on the one hand, and some new poll results on the other.

If you were just following the 2016 presidential campaign so far, you’d think that support for new trade deals like the president’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has become absolutely toxic. Among Democrats, declared candidate Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is dead-set against them, as is former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, whose announcement is imminent. Front-runner Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has a mixed trade policy record, but even though she pushed the Pacific Rim trade agreement as Mr. Obama’s Secretary of State, she’s evidently so wary of alienating voters that she refuses to take a stand either way now.

Opposition to new trade agreements is just as pronounced – and in many ways much more startling – among many Republican contenders and hopefuls. The GOP’s Congressional leadership has become a bulwark of the president’s hopes for fast-tracking such deals through Congress and thus greatly enhancing their chances of approval. But lots of the current Republican field is marching to a much different tune.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee was a trade policy skeptic when he last ran in 2008, and still is.  Rick Perry has no such history. In fact, he was last seen as governor of Texas welcoming with open arms investments in his state by Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications manufacturer that’s viewed as a likely threat to U.S. national security by the executive branch and the Congress. But despite supporting TPP, he’s expressed major reservations about its transparency and about entrusting it to Mr. Obama.   

And then there are the cases of Carly Fiorina and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. The former, when she ran Hewlett Packard, defended her record of sending jobs and production to China with the (widely blasted) statement that “There is no job that is America’s God-given right anymore.” More revealing, she accused trade policy critics of naively seeking to “build walls around America” and “running away from the reality of the global economy.” Now she says she’s “very uncomfortable” with TPP.

Paul, of course, has been a darling of libertarians, but voted against fast tracking trade deals like the TPP through Congress. (Paul’s father, former Texas Congressman and presidential contender Ron, opposed many such agreements also, generally due to fears regarding American sovereignty and Constitution-related fast track concerns.)

The most interesting conversion, however, might be that of former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. As I’ve written, when he last sought the GOP nomination four years ago, Santorum was the only Republican who spoke seriously about the importance of strengthening American manufacturing. But he also upbraided his rival Mitt Romney for risking a “trade war” with China by supporting currency-related sanctions and generally during his years in both the House and Senate was a reliable “Aye” vote for new trade deals.

But this time around, Santorum is showing signs of recognizing that credibly championing manufacturing isn’t possible without opposing the trade policies that have done so much to weaken its production and employment levels – along with its innovation capacity.

I can imagine that many readers will respond by noting that many Republicans are so hostile to President Obama that they would naturally oppose enhancing his authority in any way – and doubly so since there’s such widespread anger regarding his other alleged unconstitutional power grabs. But Fiorina for one has also hit America’s poor record of monitoring and enforcing trade deal provisions against cheating-minded governments and noted that one of the most notorious – China – could be added to the TPP without any Congressional input. In addition, as I’ve previously noted, opposition to current trade deals has dovetailed with other major elements of Tea Party platforms and the movement’s values since its birth.

Yet despite the trade skepticism throughout the field in Campaign 2016 so far, polls keep showing that Americans have become more receptive to new agreements. Typical is one just released by the Pew Foundation. It finds that 58 percent of U.S. adults “say free trade agreements with other countries have been a good thing for the U.S., while 33% say they have been a bad thing.” Moreover, according to Pew, this level of support is ten percentage points higher than in 2011.

In what will be heartening news to GOP presidential trade skeptics, only 53 percent of avowed Republicans view trade deals so favorably – a majority, but a much lower share than for either Democrats or independents. Of course, by the same token, the results raise questions about the Democratic hopefuls’ so-far unanimous opposition to new agreements absent major changes.

Since primary voters – which comes from each party’s hard-core base – are more partisan and ideologically fervent than the electorate as a whole, it’s likely that for that reason alone, attacking current trade policies will remain a big feature of Election 2016’s first half, and that few candidates will send much time defending them. That’s essentially what labor unions and environmental groups want to hear from Democrats, and what movement conservatives want to hear from Republicans.

But the Pew findings themselves are odd in several respects that makes their political interpretation less obvious for the general election. For instance, the poll reported both substantial and growing overall agreement that free trade agreements have benefited the nation, and less impressive (43 percent) but still growing overall agreement that such trade deals have helped their personal finances. Yet it also shows that by 34 percent to 31 percent, the public believes that these deals have slowed rather than sped up economic growth. By 46 percent to 17 percent, respondents said that they have fostered job loss instead of job creation. And by 46 percent to 11 percent, that they have reduced rather than increased wages. Also noteworthy (especially given the personal finance result above), nearly as many Americans (30 percent) blamed free trade agreements for raising consumer prices as credited them with lowering them (36 percent).

I can think of many possible explanations for these apparently paradoxical results. All polls suffer from the tendency of respondents to tell researchers what they think the latter want to hear as opposed to what they actually believe. Further, Main Street Americans can’t be expected to understand fully how trade policy effects the economy, in part because the Mainstream Media does such a lousy reporting job on this front. At the same time, a case can also be made that the Pew survey underscores consumption’s dominant role in both the U.S. economy overall and on Americans’ economic priority scales. Why else would they be so keen on the agreements, while believing that they depress growth, employment, and wages? Unless most Americans don’t believe that trade deals really affect them much personally at all? Or that they themselves are reaping the benefits while largely escaping the costs?

So it’s anything but clear how trade issues will affect the next presidential election on net. But if they stay in the spotlight, as seems distinctly possible given that the TPP itself is still being negotiated, that itself would be a big change.