Tag Archives: donald trump

Donald Trump, peacemaker?

Leave a reply

This New Yorker article from August 2022 talks about how members of the military defied orders given by Donald Trump. This included defying arguably illegal orders to intervene in domestic affairs, which I would tend to agree the generals deserve credit for. But the article also praises the military for refusing to unwind and withdraw from foreign conflicts and interventions when they were ordered to. I find this disturbing. Consider:

  • Trump ordered a withdrawal from Syria – twice. Military leadership publicly criticized him, and it was not fully carried out either time. The U.S. is still in Syria today.
  • He floated the idea of pulling out of South Korea – described by Robert Gates as an “absolutely crazy notion”. The U.S. is still in South Korea today.
  • He ordered all troops withdrawn from Somalia. The U.S. is still in Somalia today.
  • He reportedly wanted to withdraw from Iraq, Germany, and all of Africa. He tried to go around the usual military channels to get this done, knowing they would try to block him. They found out, and they blocked him. The U.S. is still in Iraq, Germany, and many countries in Africa today.
  • He wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan immediately. The military slow-walked it throughout his presidency. Finally, he ordered a withdrawal, which was delayed several times and ultimately carried out by Biden. Afghanistan is the one country on the list that the U.S. military is not in today (officially at least), and Biden seems to get most of the credit and blame for the way it went down.

I am not claiming that Trump was some great peace maker, but his instinct does appear to have been to bring U.S. troops home from many of our foreign entanglements. The exception was Iran – he assassinated a senior political and military figure inside Iran, and advocated repeatedly for a military attack on the country, perhaps at the urging of the Israeli government.

Another thing disturbed me about the article – the idea that the military are heroes because they supported the peaceful transition of power and refused to participate in a potential coup attempt during the 2020 election. This is like a protection racket. This suggests the military has some constitutional role in the peaceful transition of power, which to my knowledge they do not. It suggests that a peaceful transition of power occurs because they allow it to occur through their beneficence, when they could choose to step in and prevent it at any time they want. This may be an uncomfortable truth. They seem to have a de facto veto power over our strategic engagements, our foreign policy, our national budget, and our election system. They haven’t taken over because of their “professionalism” or sense of “honor” or “duty”. Or just maybe, there is no need or desire to go to the trouble of governing as long as the civilian government continues to pay them off with a quarter of the federal budget or so.

November 2020 in Review

Leave a reply

Only one month to go in this tumultuous year. In current events, the U.S. election was obviously a major historical event, and Covid-19 continued to spiral horribly. But my loyal readers (all 3-10 of you worldwide…) don’t need me to cover current events.

Most frightening and/or depressing story: It seems likely the Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump U.S. foreign wars may just grind on endlessly under Biden. Prove us wrong, Joe! (I give Trump a few points for trying to bring troops home over the objections of the military-industrial complex. But in terms of war and peace, this is completely negated and then some by slippage on nuclear proliferation and weapons on his watch.)

Most hopeful story: The massive investment in Covid-19 vaccine development may have major spillover effects to cures for other diseases. This could even be the big acceleration in biotechnology that seems to have been on the horizon for awhile. These technologies also have potential negative and frivolous applications, of course.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: States representing 196 electoral votes have agreed to support the National Popular Vote Compact, in which they would always award their state’s electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Colorado has now voted to do this twice. Unfortunately, the movement has a tough road to get to 270 votes, because of a few big states that would be giving up a lot of power if they agreed to it.

IT’S OVER! CALL IT, YOU PUSSIES!!!

Leave a reply

Update: I wrote the post below (and the headline above) around 8:30 a.m. on Saturday, November 7, 2020. All the major networks called the race around 11:30 a.m.

That was a public service announcement to the news media of the United States of America as I write this on Saturday, November 7, 2020. I did kind of describe the almost exact scenario that happened in my official election prediction post the other day. The only thing is, that was my “unexpected” scenario.

In the “I told you so” category, here is what I said on January 31: “I think the odds favor Biden, a Democratic House, and a Republican Senate.”

It’s over. But Trump voters are going to have a hard time accepting the result. Before I judge too harshly, I think back to 2000 when I had a hard time accepting the result and tried to talk myself into believing the election had been stolen. I didn’t quite succeed – that election in Florida was essentially a tie, and the Bush vs. Gore case was so technical I don’t think anyone without a law degree can come close to understanding it.

You can find election coverage elsewhere, I think I have it out of my system! I’m sure I’ll have some thoughts about policy going forward. I think Biden will basically spend a year trying to deal with coronavirus, followed by three years of trying to restore the Obama center-right, pro-business, pro-war status quo. Republicans politician will convince their followers that these center-right policies are far-left, and the wheel will turn. It will be interesting to see if Biden runs for re-election in four years, and interesting to see who the Republicans put up. Please, for the love of Christ, not Donald J. Trump! But we will see if it is a more mainstream pro-business, pro-war, dog-whistle Republican, or if there is someone out there able to speak to the Trump base but with a bit more finesse and charisma. That’s a scary thought.

Emergency powers and the fall of Weimar

Leave a reply

Because somebody had to compare Trump’s use of emergency powers to Hitler. That somebody is the Washington Post. The main difference as I see it is that Hitler and his enablers manufactured an actual crisis, while Trump simply claims there is a crisis with no evidence or even marginally coherent logic to back up the claim. One interesting thing mentioned in the article is that West Germany at first refused to put emergency powers in their constitution, but the U.S. and NATO allies insisted they do so and eventually prevailed. They have never been invoked.

The Weimar constitution, like ours, had classically liberal aspects that guaranteed freedom of speech, assembly, religion and the right to private property. Yet born in the context of near-civil war conditions between right and left, it also gave the nationally elected president the power to dissolve the parliament and hold a new election within 60 days. Its Article 48 gave the president the power, “if public security and order” were “seriously disturbed or endangered within the German Reich,” to use the armed forces to restore them or suspend “for a while in whole or in part fundamental rights” guaranteed by the Constitution such as freedom of assembly and speech…

Terrorism, racist legislation and the suppression of opposition political parties all found justification in a supposed state of emergency that allowed an end to democratic institutions. Before March 1933, the invocation of emergency clauses of the Weimar constitution had been normalized. The willingness of parliament to cede authority to the executive eased the path for the transition from authoritarian to totalitarian dictatorship and to lawlessness.

Where the comparison holds is previously unacceptable use of emergency powers becoming normalized, which is how Germany took its first steps down the slippery slope.

Obama’s favorite books of 2018

Leave a reply

In a Facebook post, Barrack Obama claims to have read 29 books this year. That’s impressive, even if there is some skimming involved. I guess the dude is basically retired and he probably also has some help with childcare. Good for him. No word on whether Donald Trump reread his copy of the collected speeches of Adolf Hitler even once this year.

in praise of Richard Nixon

Leave a reply

This post on History News Network makes a case that Richard Nixon looks great if you compare him to Donald Trump.

Richard Nixon did not set out to destroy our foreign policy, and in fact, improved it dramatically with the promotion of détente with the Soviet Union, the overture to the People’s Republic of China, and the nurturing of close ties with America’s allies in NATO. He had a mastery of foreign policy based on great experience from his Vice Presidential years onward for which he is often remembered aside from Watergate. This does not excuse the lengthening of the Vietnam War, or the terrible decisions on foreign policy regarding Chile, Greece, and the issue of the Indo-Pakistan War (which is associated with the creation of the nation of Bangladesh). But Donald Trump has been totally destructive in foreign affairs, alienating our allies in NATO, antagonizing all nations with his protectionist tariff policies, and consorting with authoritarian dictators including Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and the leaders of such other nations, as the Philippines, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Trump has also worsened relations with Iran and Cuba, based upon extremist right wing influences of John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. The Middle East has become much more unstable. The US Foreign Service itself has been badly damaged by the inconsistencies and instability of Donald Trump.

Richard Nixon had many battles and conflicts with the Democratic-controlled Congress during his years in the Presidency, and yet managed to sign into law many signature measures that built upon the accomplishments of the Great Society of his predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson. These included the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the enactment of Affirmative Action in employment and education. Donald Trump, in contrast, has been backtracking, destroying environmental protections, undermining consumer agencies, rolling back labor rights, ignoring scientific advancements, and curtailing civil rights. The Republican Party itself has become a willing participant in the destruction of these major domestic accomplishments of Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon also promoted the concept of welfare reform, including the expansion of the Food Stamp Program, and attempted, though he failed, to advance health care reform. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has wished to destroy the health care plan represented by ObamaCare, stranding millions of people without health care, and offering no alternative, in collusion with a Republican Party far to the Right of what it was in Nixon’s time in the Oval Office. Additionally, Richard Nixon expanded Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and initiated Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the elderly and disabled, all programs now in danger from Trump and the GOP.

Trump has added to the long-term existential risks to our civilization posed by climate change and nuclear weapons. But so far, we’re incredibly lucky he has not been faced with a major global economic or geopolitical crisis. My apologies to people in Puerto Rico and Yemen, among other places, when I say that. These are horrible crises for limited geographic areas and limited numbers of people (millions, in the case of Yemen) and the U.S. administration has blood on its hands. But think about the world-wide suffering caused by the financial crisis of 2008 or the world at the brink of nuclear war in 1962, and now imagine Trump in charge at those moments. Two years down, two to go.

democrats likely to run for President in 2020

Leave a reply

Five Thirty Eight has a list of who they think is currently serious about a run for President in 2020. It’s a long list. I’ve added their ages in parentheses.

  • Lawyer Michael Avenatti (47)
  • South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (36)
  • Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (52)
  • former Vice President Joe Biden (75)
  • New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (49)
  • former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro (44)
  • Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (66)
  • Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (47)
  • New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (51)
  • California Sen. Kamala Harris (53)
  • Former Attorney General Eric Holder (67)
  • former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu (58)
  • Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon (61)
  • former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (55)
  • Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts (39)
  • Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio (45)
  • Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (77)
  • Rep. Eric Swalwell of California (37)
  • businessman and pro-impeachment activist Tom Steyer (61)
  • Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (69)

To break it down a little:

  • 20 candidates
  • by age: 3 in their 30s, 5 in their 40s, 5 in their 50s, 5 in their 60s, 2 in their 70s
  • by gender: 3 women, 17 men
  • by ethnicity: 4 black or Hispanic people, 16 white people (from a very quick scan, and I could easily have missed someone)

I can really only say I am familiar with five of these names: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Eric Holder, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker. At least there is some variety in the list. Maybe the DNC learned a lesson last time – not to put their thumb on the scale and try to force a particular candidate, rather than just letting the primary process play out.

Trump still has a number of challenges between now and when he faces one of these people in two years: criminal prosecution of close associates and possibly even family members or himself, possible impeachment by a majority Democratic House of Representatives, and possible challengers in the Republican Primary. It seems like a lot, but you have to admit Trump is a man who has tended to get his away against the odds and I have learned not to underestimate him.

Noam Chomsky’s take on Trump and Russia

Leave a reply

Noam Chomsky’s take on Trump and Russia is interesting. He is contrarian, as usual. To summarize, he is worried that climate change and nuclear weapons are existential threats to our civilization, and he thinks our political system is failing to deal with these threats regardless of who is nominally in charge.

So, of all Trump’s policies, the one that is the most dangerous and destructive, in fact poses an existential threat, is his policies on climate change, on global warming. That’s really destructive. And we’re facing an imminent threat, not far removed, of enormous damage. The effects are already visible but nothing like what’s going to come. A sea level rise of a couple of feet will be massively destructive. It will make today’s immigration issues look like trivialities. And it’s not that the administration is unaware of this. So, Donald Trump, for example, is perfectly aware of the dangerous effects, in the short term, of global warming. So, for example, recently he applied to the government of Ireland for permission to build a wall to protect his golf course in Ireland from rising sea levels. And Rex Tillerson, who was supposed to be the adult in the room before he was thrown out, as CEO of ExxonMobil, was devoting enormous resources to climate change denial, although he had, sitting on his desk, the reports of ExxonMobil scientists, who, since the ’70s, in fact, were on the forefront of warning of the dire effects of this accelerating phenomenon. I don’t know what word in the language — I can’t find one — that applies to people of that kind, who are willing to sacrifice the literal — the existence of organized human life, not in the distant future, so they can put a few more dollars in highly overstuffed pockets. The word “evil” doesn’t begin to approach it. These are the kinds of issues that should be under discussion. Instead, what’s being — there is a focus on what I believe are marginalia…

And I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which what Trump says, for whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, he’s perfectly right when he says we should have better relations with Russia. Being dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes — Russia shouldn’t refuse to deal with the United States because the US carried out the worst crime of the century in the invasion of Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done. But they shouldn’t refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we shouldn’t refuse to deal with them for whatever infractions they may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just absurd. We have to move towards better — right at the Russian border, there are very extreme tensions, that could blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear war, terminal for the species and life on Earth. We’re very close to that. Now, we could ask why. First of all, we should do things to ameliorate it. Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it’s because NATO expanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation of verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev, mostly under Clinton, partly under first Bush, then Clinton expanded right to the Russian border, expanded further under Obama. The US has offered to bring Ukraine into NATO. That’s the kind of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns. So, yes, there’s tensions at the Russian border — and not, notice, at the Mexican border. Well, those are all issues that should be of primary concern. The fate of — the fate of organized human society, even of the survival of the species, depends on this. How much attention is given to these things as compared with, you know, whether Trump lied about something? I think those seem to me the fundamental criticisms of the media.

Trump wants to invade Venezuela

Leave a reply

According to the AP, Trump has repeatedly pressed his aides to consider invading Venezuela. Any claim that this could be about democracy or human rights simply is not credible. Regional stability? Venezuela’s neighbors seemed aghast at the suggestion. Oil? That must be it, although the former CEO of Exxon was Secretary of State at the time and was also aghast. We’re in year 2 and counting of the Trump presidency with no war – can we make it to the end?