So, the main losers in the EU elections were traditional center-right and center-left parties and far-left parties. The biggest winners were right-wing anti-EU parties, green parties and "liberal" (which I take to mean semi-libertarian) parties. There have been countless analyses on what this means and whether it is encouraging or discouraging.
My own uninformed opinion is that this clear vindicates Daniel Zimblatt, author of Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy and How Democracies Die. Zimblatt's thesis is that the key to the survival of democracy is a strong democratic conservative party -- a conservative party that respects individual rights and the rule of law, that accepts democratic norms and has a vested interest in preserving them. (I mean to write about Zimblatt some day).
Another way of putting it is that Zimblatt agrees with me -- the danger lies on the right. A fair definition of center-right or center-left parties is political parties, to the right or left of center, that respect individual rights, rule of law, and democratic norms, that respect the rights of opponents when they win and step down without protest when they lose. Hard right or left refers to parties that do not.
Zimblatt's hypothesis is that when traditional center-right parties break up, they leave a vacuum that is occupied by hard right parties. When traditional center-left parties break up, they leave a vacuum that is filled by new center-left parties. Thus the breakup of the French center-right leads to Marine LePen; the breakup of the French center-left leads to Emmanuel Macron. The breakup (less far along) of Germany's conservative Christian Democratic Union leads to the rise of the far-right Alternatives for Germany. The breakup of Germany's Social Democrats is leading to the rise of the Greens. In Britain the Conservative Party is shrinking and the Brexit Party is rising. Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn's attempts to turn the Labour Party into a hard left party is leading it to break up with widespread defections to the Liberal Democratic Party.
And in EU elections, center-right parties are shrinking and being displaced by anti-EU parties. Center-left parties are shrinking and being replaced by liberal and green parties. The pattern is clear.
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
What Makes Liz Cheney's Remarks Revealling
Since the ascension of William Barr to Attorney General, Republicans have dropped all pretense of wanting to limit executive power and declared themselves in favor of an absolute and unaccountable executive. Specifically, a President who may order the investigation of his political opponents any time he wants.
Of course, arguing that the President can order investigations of political rivals at will is a bit awkward, given that up till now Republicans have denounced the Obama Administration for investigating Trump, making clear that it is a serious abuse of power for the President to investigate political rivals. After all, if Trump has absolute and unaccountable power to order investigation of his political rivals, then why doesn't Obama?
Of course, the real answer is obvious. Republican Presidents are legitimate and may order the investigation of any Democrat who presumes to threaten their grip on power. Democrats, by contrast, are usurpers who have no such authority. But, of course, it is not politically acceptable to come right out and say that, so Republican ties themselves into knots to make unconvincing distinctions.
But a few are starting to say the quiet parts out loud. One such Republican is Liz Cheney, who called the investigation not merely an abuse of power but a "coup" against a duly elected President.
Given that Trump had not even been elected when the investigation began, how he be a duly elected President, and how could investigating him be a coup? The only even remotely plausible answer is that as soon as he secured the Republican nomination, he became the duly elected President. The election itself was a mere formality to choose him, and Obama was a mere usurper to be tolerated until the duly elected President assumed power the next January 20.
Stay tuned.
Of course, arguing that the President can order investigations of political rivals at will is a bit awkward, given that up till now Republicans have denounced the Obama Administration for investigating Trump, making clear that it is a serious abuse of power for the President to investigate political rivals. After all, if Trump has absolute and unaccountable power to order investigation of his political rivals, then why doesn't Obama?
Of course, the real answer is obvious. Republican Presidents are legitimate and may order the investigation of any Democrat who presumes to threaten their grip on power. Democrats, by contrast, are usurpers who have no such authority. But, of course, it is not politically acceptable to come right out and say that, so Republican ties themselves into knots to make unconvincing distinctions.
But a few are starting to say the quiet parts out loud. One such Republican is Liz Cheney, who called the investigation not merely an abuse of power but a "coup" against a duly elected President.
Given that Trump had not even been elected when the investigation began, how he be a duly elected President, and how could investigating him be a coup? The only even remotely plausible answer is that as soon as he secured the Republican nomination, he became the duly elected President. The election itself was a mere formality to choose him, and Obama was a mere usurper to be tolerated until the duly elected President assumed power the next January 20.
Stay tuned.
Another Warning to Republicans
On the one hand, Republicans could use a warning here. Look guys, I want to warn them, be careful before you declare the President to be an elective dictator who can only be held accountable at elections every four years. After all, what if the office falls to a DEMOCRAT again some day.
The honest answer, I suppose, is to say don't worry. We're taking measure to ensure that never happens again.
But are you sure that's what you want?
After all, Democratic Presidents serve a useful function. They allow Republicans to freak out about deficits and demand massive, MASSIVE spending cuts as the only way to avoid bankruptcy. Those are some pretty major deficits we are running right now, with all the tax cuts you have made. Presumably you really do want to freak out about them and call for massive spending cuts. But that will hardly do so long as Republicans hold the White House. For that you need a Democratic President and you can go back into the debt apocalypse mode again.
Or maybe you are prepared to allow major deficits indefinitely rather than endure a Democrat in the White House. But consider, eventually there will be a limit to these deficits. We don't know when it will come, but sooner or later debt service will start eating up so much of the budget that it really will crowd out everything else and then we will have an actual fiscal crisis on our hands. Hurray! I mean that is the real purpose, after all, isn't it, to starve the beast? And that at long last you can roll back the New Deal because you will have no choice.
But -- trust me on this one -- you really, REALLY want a Democrat in the White House when the beast starts seriously starving. The reason you have not been able to roll back the New Deal so far is that doing so is HIGHLY UNPOPULAR. Whoever, rolls back the New Deal is going to pay a steep electoral price for it, possibly for the next generation. Now maybe you're OK with that. Maybe you figure that once you have bankrupted the federal government, it will be safe to entrust it to Democrats because they won't be able to actually do anything.
But assuming you want to hold onto power, you are really going to want to have a Democrat in charge when the fiscal crisis finally hits. Then you can roll back the New Deal AND let the Dems take the blame.
The honest answer, I suppose, is to say don't worry. We're taking measure to ensure that never happens again.
But are you sure that's what you want?
After all, Democratic Presidents serve a useful function. They allow Republicans to freak out about deficits and demand massive, MASSIVE spending cuts as the only way to avoid bankruptcy. Those are some pretty major deficits we are running right now, with all the tax cuts you have made. Presumably you really do want to freak out about them and call for massive spending cuts. But that will hardly do so long as Republicans hold the White House. For that you need a Democratic President and you can go back into the debt apocalypse mode again.
Or maybe you are prepared to allow major deficits indefinitely rather than endure a Democrat in the White House. But consider, eventually there will be a limit to these deficits. We don't know when it will come, but sooner or later debt service will start eating up so much of the budget that it really will crowd out everything else and then we will have an actual fiscal crisis on our hands. Hurray! I mean that is the real purpose, after all, isn't it, to starve the beast? And that at long last you can roll back the New Deal because you will have no choice.
But -- trust me on this one -- you really, REALLY want a Democrat in the White House when the beast starts seriously starving. The reason you have not been able to roll back the New Deal so far is that doing so is HIGHLY UNPOPULAR. Whoever, rolls back the New Deal is going to pay a steep electoral price for it, possibly for the next generation. Now maybe you're OK with that. Maybe you figure that once you have bankrupted the federal government, it will be safe to entrust it to Democrats because they won't be able to actually do anything.
But assuming you want to hold onto power, you are really going to want to have a Democrat in charge when the fiscal crisis finally hits. Then you can roll back the New Deal AND let the Dems take the blame.
Monday, May 27, 2019
Don't Ever Let Republicans Say They Fear an Out-of-Control Executive Again
To be fair, I think there was a time when Republicans/conservatives/economic royalists were critics of executive power. In the time from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Lyndon B. Johnson, there was a long string of both Democratic Presidents and expansion of the federal government. During that time I do not doubt that Republicans distrusted executive power and were champions of legislative supremacy.
And let us also say that their criticism of ever-expanding executive power had some legitimacy. Executive power was expanding much faster than rules to govern it, and there were some very serious abuses. And Republicans had a point when they argued that Democrats only became conscious of the dangers when the executive branch fell into the hands of a Republican. But still, with all deductions for hypocrisy, the executive really was too powerful and too subject to the whims of one man. And so it happened that it was a Democratic Congress that passed legislation to reign in the executive over the veto of a Republican President (Nixon).
Reagan and the senior Bush were generally champions of executive power, though not normally in a really overbearing manner. On the other hand, it was under the Reagan Administration that the Iran/Contra scandal occurred -- basically, an attempt to create a parallel, unofficial intelligence network outside of Congress's control. The attempt ultimately failed under the glare of publicity, but Bush, Senior pardoned the offenders.
Under the Clinton Administration, Republicans finally captured Congress, but they passed legislation giving the President unilateral authority to cut spending. Partly, this was an old reflex that assumed that Republicans held the executive and Democrats the legislature, and that Clinton was a bizarre anomaly. Partly it was an assumption that all spending cuts are good. But there was still no sign of a fear of an overbearing executive.
Under the Bush, Junior Administration, Bush's legal advisers came up with a "unitary executive" theory which said (in effect) that the President could do anything he wanted, even if a statute or treaty forbade it, so long as he said "national security" first.
And then Obama was elected President. And suddenly Republicans started freaking out about an out-of-control executive. Somehow they managed to erase the whole "unitary executive" theory and claim that conservatives had always opposed executive power.
Yeah, I know. They only intended the unitary executive to have absolute authority in exercising government's daddy functions. Obama was exercising mommy functions, and the minute government exercises any mommy functions whatever, liberty is lost.
And, more seriously, Obama was attempting to do administratively what he could not get past a Republican Congress. There is legitimate grounds for concern there. I would also say that in the case of Obamacare, which had passed Congress, and which the executive was merely tweaking, executive action was a lot more justified than to create who initiatives that could not pass Congress.
And I suppose we should give some Republicans credit for not immediately switching back the minute a Republican was in office again. Some Republicans did, indeed, express concern that Trump was going against their "longstanding" fears of an out-of-control executive. The claim that such fears were longstanding was ludicrous, but I suppose we should be glad that there was at least a little lag between the inauguration of a Republican and the party flip-flopping on the issue.
Well, now William Barr is Attorney General and is arguing (in effect) that the President's power is absolute and unaccountable, answerable only at four-year elections. And he has been saying that at least since he advised the senior Bush to pardon the Iran/Contra offenders. And all talk of a "traditional" conservative fear of an out-of-control executive is gone.
But make no mistake, next time a Democrat is elected President, those fears will be back, right on cue. This time, let's not let the Republicans get away with it.
And let us also say that their criticism of ever-expanding executive power had some legitimacy. Executive power was expanding much faster than rules to govern it, and there were some very serious abuses. And Republicans had a point when they argued that Democrats only became conscious of the dangers when the executive branch fell into the hands of a Republican. But still, with all deductions for hypocrisy, the executive really was too powerful and too subject to the whims of one man. And so it happened that it was a Democratic Congress that passed legislation to reign in the executive over the veto of a Republican President (Nixon).
Reagan and the senior Bush were generally champions of executive power, though not normally in a really overbearing manner. On the other hand, it was under the Reagan Administration that the Iran/Contra scandal occurred -- basically, an attempt to create a parallel, unofficial intelligence network outside of Congress's control. The attempt ultimately failed under the glare of publicity, but Bush, Senior pardoned the offenders.
Under the Clinton Administration, Republicans finally captured Congress, but they passed legislation giving the President unilateral authority to cut spending. Partly, this was an old reflex that assumed that Republicans held the executive and Democrats the legislature, and that Clinton was a bizarre anomaly. Partly it was an assumption that all spending cuts are good. But there was still no sign of a fear of an overbearing executive.
Under the Bush, Junior Administration, Bush's legal advisers came up with a "unitary executive" theory which said (in effect) that the President could do anything he wanted, even if a statute or treaty forbade it, so long as he said "national security" first.
And then Obama was elected President. And suddenly Republicans started freaking out about an out-of-control executive. Somehow they managed to erase the whole "unitary executive" theory and claim that conservatives had always opposed executive power.
Yeah, I know. They only intended the unitary executive to have absolute authority in exercising government's daddy functions. Obama was exercising mommy functions, and the minute government exercises any mommy functions whatever, liberty is lost.
And, more seriously, Obama was attempting to do administratively what he could not get past a Republican Congress. There is legitimate grounds for concern there. I would also say that in the case of Obamacare, which had passed Congress, and which the executive was merely tweaking, executive action was a lot more justified than to create who initiatives that could not pass Congress.
And I suppose we should give some Republicans credit for not immediately switching back the minute a Republican was in office again. Some Republicans did, indeed, express concern that Trump was going against their "longstanding" fears of an out-of-control executive. The claim that such fears were longstanding was ludicrous, but I suppose we should be glad that there was at least a little lag between the inauguration of a Republican and the party flip-flopping on the issue.
Well, now William Barr is Attorney General and is arguing (in effect) that the President's power is absolute and unaccountable, answerable only at four-year elections. And he has been saying that at least since he advised the senior Bush to pardon the Iran/Contra offenders. And all talk of a "traditional" conservative fear of an out-of-control executive is gone.
But make no mistake, next time a Democrat is elected President, those fears will be back, right on cue. This time, let's not let the Republicans get away with it.
Iran's Options
So, its economy being strangled, and building a nuclear bomb impossible without starting a war, what options does Iran have? Naturally, the Trump Administration is offering two -- capitulation or revolution. But looking from the Iranian perspective, these are things to avoid. What else is there?
I have read various suggestions such as an escalation in terrorist attacks, sabotage of rival countries' oil productions, or closing the Straits of Hormuz. But I have never heard anyone yet propose what seems the most obvious option -- a mutual defense treaty with Russia.
Granted, it is not clear that an alliance of this type would make any sense. It has worked in the case of Cuba, with a Russian subsidy propping up the Cuban economy, but just of that subsidy has taken the form of cheap oil. Since Russia and Iran are both oil exporters, an oil subsidy would be worthless. And I confess to not knowing enough about the two countries' respective economies to know how much of a subsidy would be needed and whether Russia can afford it. But given Iran's desperate situation, I imagine they will take whatever subsidy they can get.
The most obvious advantage to Iran from such an alliance is that it would eliminate the risk of war. To start a war with Iran would be to start a war with Russia, and Russia has nukes. So Iran would be safe from direct attack and receive some sort of subsidy, however inadequate. It also seems a safe assumption that the Russians would encourage Iran's "malign activities" such as occupying Syria and subsidizing Hamas and Hezbollah and, indeed, provide a subsidy.
Of course, there would be disadvantages. It seems a safe assumption that one condition of such an alliance would be giving up any nuclear ambitions. The last thing the Russians would want would be for a potentially obstreperous ally to get its own nuclear weapons and become even more independent-minded. And the Iranians would have to renounce any really aggressive and provocative behavior like interfering with oil shipments or closing the Straits. But I don't think Iranians would consider that to be all that great a sacrifice. Interfering with oil shipments or closing the Straits of Hormuz would be a sort of Sampson-and-the-pillars tactic, a mutually assured destruction that ceases to be necessary with a Russian alliance.
And what of Iran's rivals? Well, they would have to deal with a more deeply-entrenched Iranian government, one they can no longer remove or start a war with, and one that will continue its "malign activities" more or less unchanged. But they will have the assurance that Iran will not get a nuke and not do anything too crazy.
I wonder if they will consider it worthwhile.
I have read various suggestions such as an escalation in terrorist attacks, sabotage of rival countries' oil productions, or closing the Straits of Hormuz. But I have never heard anyone yet propose what seems the most obvious option -- a mutual defense treaty with Russia.
Granted, it is not clear that an alliance of this type would make any sense. It has worked in the case of Cuba, with a Russian subsidy propping up the Cuban economy, but just of that subsidy has taken the form of cheap oil. Since Russia and Iran are both oil exporters, an oil subsidy would be worthless. And I confess to not knowing enough about the two countries' respective economies to know how much of a subsidy would be needed and whether Russia can afford it. But given Iran's desperate situation, I imagine they will take whatever subsidy they can get.
The most obvious advantage to Iran from such an alliance is that it would eliminate the risk of war. To start a war with Iran would be to start a war with Russia, and Russia has nukes. So Iran would be safe from direct attack and receive some sort of subsidy, however inadequate. It also seems a safe assumption that the Russians would encourage Iran's "malign activities" such as occupying Syria and subsidizing Hamas and Hezbollah and, indeed, provide a subsidy.
Of course, there would be disadvantages. It seems a safe assumption that one condition of such an alliance would be giving up any nuclear ambitions. The last thing the Russians would want would be for a potentially obstreperous ally to get its own nuclear weapons and become even more independent-minded. And the Iranians would have to renounce any really aggressive and provocative behavior like interfering with oil shipments or closing the Straits. But I don't think Iranians would consider that to be all that great a sacrifice. Interfering with oil shipments or closing the Straits of Hormuz would be a sort of Sampson-and-the-pillars tactic, a mutually assured destruction that ceases to be necessary with a Russian alliance.
And what of Iran's rivals? Well, they would have to deal with a more deeply-entrenched Iranian government, one they can no longer remove or start a war with, and one that will continue its "malign activities" more or less unchanged. But they will have the assurance that Iran will not get a nuke and not do anything too crazy.
I wonder if they will consider it worthwhile.
A Further Thought
It should also be noted that even as Trumpsters denounce Obama's Iran deal as appeasement and a hopeless sellout that must be renounced they are benefiting from it.
At the time the deal was entered, Iran had an estimated breakout time to make a nuclear weapon of three months. That does not mean they were automatically going to have nuclear weapons in three months if the deal had not been entered. The Iranians had been at three months' breakout time for a long time. It meant that any time they decided to quit dithering and actually build a nuclear bomb, they had the capacity to do it in three months, without necessarily attracting attention or being caught.
The nuclear deal required the Iranians to shut down nearly three-quarters of their centrifuges, to close their plutonium reprocessing plant, to ship over 90% of their uranium stockpile out of the country, to limit uranium enrichment to 3.75%, well below weapons grade, and to submit to intrusive inspections to ensure that all these terms were kept. In return, they got sanctions relief. There was much questioning at the time whether it would be possible to restore the sanctions if the Iranians broke the agreement.
Well, we appear to have the answer now. Donald Trump has, indeed, restored sanctions and made them harsher than ever by threatening secondary sanctions against anyone who trades with Iran. So obviously it was possible to restore the sanctions. But the Iranians have kept to their terms of the agreement. Why?
I think there can be little doubt as to why. The agreement was carefully set up to ensure that Iran would not benefit from breaking the agreement. To do so would mean kicking out inspectors. It would mean building new centrifuges, or a new plutonium processing plant. These things would attract immediate attention and cause alarm. They would unmistakably signal to the international community that Iran was, indeed, pursuing nuclear weapons. But such actions would be futile. Iran's nuclear stock has been so depleted that it would take a year to build enough highly enriched to build nuclear weapons. That would be more than enough time for Iran's enemies to start a war and, regardless of how it went for other countries, it would be a disaster for Iran.
In other words, if the Trump Administration had imposed such harsh sanctions in the absence of the nuclear deal, Iran would probably have responded by building a nuclear bomb. Thanks to the agreement, that avenue has been cut off.
And naturally no Iran hawk ever acknowledges as much.
At the time the deal was entered, Iran had an estimated breakout time to make a nuclear weapon of three months. That does not mean they were automatically going to have nuclear weapons in three months if the deal had not been entered. The Iranians had been at three months' breakout time for a long time. It meant that any time they decided to quit dithering and actually build a nuclear bomb, they had the capacity to do it in three months, without necessarily attracting attention or being caught.
The nuclear deal required the Iranians to shut down nearly three-quarters of their centrifuges, to close their plutonium reprocessing plant, to ship over 90% of their uranium stockpile out of the country, to limit uranium enrichment to 3.75%, well below weapons grade, and to submit to intrusive inspections to ensure that all these terms were kept. In return, they got sanctions relief. There was much questioning at the time whether it would be possible to restore the sanctions if the Iranians broke the agreement.
Well, we appear to have the answer now. Donald Trump has, indeed, restored sanctions and made them harsher than ever by threatening secondary sanctions against anyone who trades with Iran. So obviously it was possible to restore the sanctions. But the Iranians have kept to their terms of the agreement. Why?
I think there can be little doubt as to why. The agreement was carefully set up to ensure that Iran would not benefit from breaking the agreement. To do so would mean kicking out inspectors. It would mean building new centrifuges, or a new plutonium processing plant. These things would attract immediate attention and cause alarm. They would unmistakably signal to the international community that Iran was, indeed, pursuing nuclear weapons. But such actions would be futile. Iran's nuclear stock has been so depleted that it would take a year to build enough highly enriched to build nuclear weapons. That would be more than enough time for Iran's enemies to start a war and, regardless of how it went for other countries, it would be a disaster for Iran.
In other words, if the Trump Administration had imposed such harsh sanctions in the absence of the nuclear deal, Iran would probably have responded by building a nuclear bomb. Thanks to the agreement, that avenue has been cut off.
And naturally no Iran hawk ever acknowledges as much.
At Least I Know What the Hawks Want Now
I have complained many times before about not understanding hawks' views on the Iran nuclear deal. They made hysterical warnings about the dangers of Iran getting a nuclear bomb and then, when John Kerry came up with an actual framework to prevent such a development, hysterically denounced the framework as surrender and demanded that we not place restrictions on Iran's bomb making capacities. All the while insisting that the didn't want to start a war.
What did they want?
Well, watching events unfold in Iran and North Korea, I am at least seeing what super-hawks think should be the proper approach to diplomacy with a hostile country:
(1) Draw up your wish list
(2) Declare every item on the list to be non-negotiable.
(3) Refuse any negotiations until the other country has implemented every item on our wish list.
(4) Assure the other country that just as soon as they have implemented our wish list, we are ready to sit down and negotiate whether they get anything in return.
Admittedly, Donald Trump did not follow this proper sequence with North Korea, leading to hysterical outcry from the usual suspects that he was engaged in "appeasement" and should never have agreed to a summit until the other side surrendered. But no bother Pompeo and Bolton made sure that nothing would come of it -- made clear that a gradual climb-down with concession traded for concession was not in the cards, and that only when North Korea scrapped all nuclear weapons, all nuclear programs, and all missiles of any kind would there be any relaxation of sanctions.
The approach to Iran has been similar except that in addition to scrapping all nuclear enrichment and all missiles, the Iranians must also withdraw all troops from Syria, stop backing factions in Iraq, cease all support for Hezbollah, Hamas or the Houthis and generally cease being a "threat" to its neighbors.
In other words, never negotiate until the other side surrenders unconditionally, and on all issues.
It also shows what even supporters of the agreement with Iran mean when they say it is not "perfect." They mean that Iran did not surrender unconditionally and get nothing in return. If that is your standard of an acceptable agreement, you are effectively saying that diplomacy should have no part our our toolkit.
What did they want?
Well, watching events unfold in Iran and North Korea, I am at least seeing what super-hawks think should be the proper approach to diplomacy with a hostile country:
(1) Draw up your wish list
(2) Declare every item on the list to be non-negotiable.
(3) Refuse any negotiations until the other country has implemented every item on our wish list.
(4) Assure the other country that just as soon as they have implemented our wish list, we are ready to sit down and negotiate whether they get anything in return.
Admittedly, Donald Trump did not follow this proper sequence with North Korea, leading to hysterical outcry from the usual suspects that he was engaged in "appeasement" and should never have agreed to a summit until the other side surrendered. But no bother Pompeo and Bolton made sure that nothing would come of it -- made clear that a gradual climb-down with concession traded for concession was not in the cards, and that only when North Korea scrapped all nuclear weapons, all nuclear programs, and all missiles of any kind would there be any relaxation of sanctions.
The approach to Iran has been similar except that in addition to scrapping all nuclear enrichment and all missiles, the Iranians must also withdraw all troops from Syria, stop backing factions in Iraq, cease all support for Hezbollah, Hamas or the Houthis and generally cease being a "threat" to its neighbors.
In other words, never negotiate until the other side surrenders unconditionally, and on all issues.
It also shows what even supporters of the agreement with Iran mean when they say it is not "perfect." They mean that Iran did not surrender unconditionally and get nothing in return. If that is your standard of an acceptable agreement, you are effectively saying that diplomacy should have no part our our toolkit.
Thursday, May 9, 2019
I Think I Get It
OK, I think I have figured out how Republicans have managed to square the circle of being outraged that the Justice Department investigated Donald Trump while he was running for President, while having the Justice Department investigate whoever runs against him.
It is simple. Criminal investigations are fine because they are public knowledge and investigation of past conduct. Counter intelligence investigations, by contrast, are secret and prospective and are therefore a big no-no.
Of course, given that counter intelligence investigations are secret, there is really no way of knowing whether the Trump Administration is launching one at any time against its opponents.
It is simple. Criminal investigations are fine because they are public knowledge and investigation of past conduct. Counter intelligence investigations, by contrast, are secret and prospective and are therefore a big no-no.
Of course, given that counter intelligence investigations are secret, there is really no way of knowing whether the Trump Administration is launching one at any time against its opponents.
Thursday, May 2, 2019
Donald Trump Has Not Lost His Fondness for Wood Chippers
Apparently Donald Trump has not altogether lost his affinity for diving headfirst into a wood chipper. I thought his letter to the Fifth Circuit Court announcing that the Administration now favors repeal of the entirety of Obamacare might be as impulsive and transient as some of his tweets. But now the Administration has officially filed a brief calling for the repeal of the whole thing. No one expect the argument to actually prevail. But the Administration is now locked into standing out in public and arguing for stripping 20 million people of their health insurance. Who knows, this might even go to the Supreme Court and force the Administration to argue for stripping 20 million people of their health insurance in front of the whole nation.
Fortunately, he is almost certain to lose.
Pass the popcorn.
Fortunately, he is almost certain to lose.
Pass the popcorn.
Yet Another Exercise in Projection
With their uproar over the Trump investigation Republicans in general and Donald Trump in particular seemed to be creating a new standard in politics. Running for President should immunize a candidate from investigation. But since that standard obviously was not applied to Hillary Clinton, they offered a slightly modified standard. Members of the opposition party running for President should be immune from investigation.
There is an obvious problem with setting up such a standard. Implausible though it may seem right now, sooner or later the Democrats will actually choose a candidate who will run for President in 2020. It seems a safe assumption that whoever the candidate is, the Trump Administration will want to investigate him/her. Are Republicans sure that they want to set a standard barring them from investigating their political opponents?
And we now seem to have the answer. Joe Biden is emerging (for now) as the Democratic front runner. And, predictably enough, the Trump Administration is attempting to open an investigation. Presumably Republicans are not (yet) brazen enough to argue that Republicans are our rightful rulers and therefore should be immune from investigation, but Democrats are illegitimate usurpers and therefore should always be investigated if they seek to usurp office.
So I wonder what excuse they will find.
How Donald Trump Differs from a Generic Republican
While Donald Trump resembles ordinary Republicans in some respects, in other respects he really is different.
Consider:
Donald Trump believes that there was serious criminality in the Obama Administration, despite the lack of any supporting evidence. Doubtless many ordinary Republicans agree.*
Donald Trump believes that lack of evidence is the result of Attorney General Eric Holder successfully covering up Obama's crimes. Again, many Republicans appear to agree.
The difference is that ordinary Republicans see Holder's alleged stone walling as an outrage. Trump sees it as exactly what an Attorney General is supposed to do.
Ordinary Republicans' firm commitment to alternative facts is troubling. But Donald Trump's viewpoint is even worse. It shows that he has absolutely no concept of the rule of law and sees the Attorney General and the Justice Department, not at law enforcement, but as the President's private fixers.**
____________________________________________
*I realize many Republicans will say there is plenty of evidence of criminality by the Obama Administration. So far as I can tell, it consists of three main things. First, allegations that the Obama IRS targeted conservative organizations for tax audits. That has since been proven false. The IRS targeted any organization with a political sounding name, liberal or conservative, to see if its claim for non-profit status was legitimate. Though a bit heavy-handed, it was not discriminatory. Second, the Obama Administration was blamed for Operation Fast and Furious. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), in an attempt to crack down on gun smuggling to Mexican drug cartels, knowingly allowed illegal sales to take place in hopes of tracing them. A Drug Enforcement Agent was killed by one such gun. This appears to have been a local operation, not involving any political appointees, and beginning before the Obama Administration. I was also rather unclear what the Republicans were really angry about, that that ATF allowed illegal gun smuggling to occur, or that it attempted to crack down on anything involving guns at all. Finally, Republicans are up in arms that the Obama Administration investigated the Trump campaign during the election.
**On the other hand, one might also say that simply means that Trump is more honest and less hypocritical than most Republicans. He wants the Attorney General to be his private fixer, but he will concede a Democratic President the same privilege. Republicans are outraged by a Democratic Attorney General's imagined cover-up of a Democratic President's crimes. Somehow, though, I doubt they will show the same outrage when the shoe is on the other foot.
Consider:
Donald Trump believes that there was serious criminality in the Obama Administration, despite the lack of any supporting evidence. Doubtless many ordinary Republicans agree.*
Donald Trump believes that lack of evidence is the result of Attorney General Eric Holder successfully covering up Obama's crimes. Again, many Republicans appear to agree.
The difference is that ordinary Republicans see Holder's alleged stone walling as an outrage. Trump sees it as exactly what an Attorney General is supposed to do.
Ordinary Republicans' firm commitment to alternative facts is troubling. But Donald Trump's viewpoint is even worse. It shows that he has absolutely no concept of the rule of law and sees the Attorney General and the Justice Department, not at law enforcement, but as the President's private fixers.**
____________________________________________
*I realize many Republicans will say there is plenty of evidence of criminality by the Obama Administration. So far as I can tell, it consists of three main things. First, allegations that the Obama IRS targeted conservative organizations for tax audits. That has since been proven false. The IRS targeted any organization with a political sounding name, liberal or conservative, to see if its claim for non-profit status was legitimate. Though a bit heavy-handed, it was not discriminatory. Second, the Obama Administration was blamed for Operation Fast and Furious. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), in an attempt to crack down on gun smuggling to Mexican drug cartels, knowingly allowed illegal sales to take place in hopes of tracing them. A Drug Enforcement Agent was killed by one such gun. This appears to have been a local operation, not involving any political appointees, and beginning before the Obama Administration. I was also rather unclear what the Republicans were really angry about, that that ATF allowed illegal gun smuggling to occur, or that it attempted to crack down on anything involving guns at all. Finally, Republicans are up in arms that the Obama Administration investigated the Trump campaign during the election.
**On the other hand, one might also say that simply means that Trump is more honest and less hypocritical than most Republicans. He wants the Attorney General to be his private fixer, but he will concede a Democratic President the same privilege. Republicans are outraged by a Democratic Attorney General's imagined cover-up of a Democratic President's crimes. Somehow, though, I doubt they will show the same outrage when the shoe is on the other foot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)