Categories
culture election-2020 government politics society

Will 2020 Re-Write Political Theory?

Political polarization, Anthony Downs, and the median voter theorem

Powered by WPeMatico

Categories
culture election-2020 joe-rogan podcast politics

Joe Rogan Endorses YangMcRaven for 2020

Momentum is growing for the “Dark Horse Duo Plan”

Powered by WPeMatico

Categories
election-2020 government media politics world

Five Times Trump Bucked the Russians

Photo by Jørgen Håland on Unsplash

The overwhelming opposition narrative of President Trump’s first term revolves around Russia. At best, critics say that Russia interfered on Trump’s behalf during the 2016 election. Others say that Trump actively colluded with the Russians. Some Democrats say that Trump remains under Russian control. Several times, however, Trump has actively taken actions counter to Russia’s interests when he could simply have done nothing or made a symbolic effort. The complex truth of the Trump-Russia relationship reflects Trump’s geopolitical philosophy and view of himself as a dealmaker.

The accusations

In 2012, President Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney for citing Russia as America’s major geopolitical threat. A mere four years later, attitudes changed:

  • Some Democrats blame Hilliary Clinton’s loss on Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin is said to have preferred Trump and ordered his henchmen to interfere; Trump disputes that narrative.
  • The Steele dossier accused Trump of various nefarious acts and sparked a years-long investigation by Robert Mueller to evaluate collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Regardless of how one views Mueller’s various prosecutions, the collusion narrative fell apart.
  • At worst, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently stated that the Russians must have something on Trump, “…politically, personally, financially, or whatever it is…” in response to reports that the Russians placed bounties on American soldiers.

The roundup

If President Trump serves Putin, many of the actions he’s taken over the last few years make little sense.

#1 — Attacking Syria, twice

On April 7th, 2017, President Trump directed US forces to launch a missile strike against the Syrian Air Force in response to the reported use of chemical weapons against civilians. Syria is a long-time ally and client state of Russia. Various countries were notified before-had, and Russia might or might not have tipped Syria off to the strike. Reports conflict as to effectiveness.

Why bother in the first place? The president could have made speeches and sent a sharply worded letter. The American people were not clamoring for a military strike against the Syrian regime, and minor economic sanctions could have been hyped as punishing. By attacking a Russian ally, the US reduced Russia’s credibility as a friend and protector.

On April 14th, 2018, barely a year after the previous strike, the United States attacked Syria again. The world suspected the regime used chemical weapons against Douma, an insurgent hotbed. Alongside Britain and France, Trump launched an attack directed at facilities connected to chemical weapons.

The US notified Russia before the strikes, but fixed production facilities are hard to move. Putin referred to the attack as an “act of aggression,” though they made little other response. As with the first Syrian attack, Trump could easily have avoided attacking the Russian client state.

#2 — Selling lethal aid to Ukraine

In December 2017, long Joe Biden announced his run for the presidency and the antics of his son became a political issue, Trump approved lethal military aid to Ukraine. Regardless of pressure from the right, the issue would have been easy to sidestep with “We are conducting an ongoing review…” or “We’ve consulted with our allies and agree not to escalate…” or any number of deflections.

One enterprising writer at The Daily Kos postulated that Putin directed Trump to approve the sale so that Putin could use it as a domestic issue in Russia’s 2018 elections. The explanation seems tortured…could it be satire? When was the last time there was a question about Putin winning an election? Trump could easily have continued Obama’s policy.

#3 — Pushing NATO to increase spending

Throughout his first term, President Trump pushed NATO member countries to increase spending. Sometimes, he threatened to withdraw from NATO, leading to widespread media frothing. In the end, though, his pushing may have influenced NATO to build up.

Recently, Trump announced plans to remove 9,500 of 35,000 troops in Germany because of that country’s notable delinquency as the second-largest economy in NATO behind the US. Of other NATO countries also in the G8, only Italy struggles more, and Italy houses far fewer American troops. France’s spending is under the two percent threshold, but stable and higher than Germany’s. Britain spends above the threshold, and even Canada has made faster progress.

Democrats predictably called the troop withdrawal a “gift to Putin.” Trump reportedly stated:

“…we’re protecting Germany and they’re delinquent. That doesn’t make sense. So I said, we’re going to bring down the count to 25,000 soldiers.”

No scenario exists where increased NATO spending makes Russia happy. Increasing NATO spending wasn’t Putin’s idea, and Trump could withdraw troops from Germany and just call it a budgetary or strategic decision. Perhaps Trump wants spending to increase so that the United States sells more weapons. Perhaps he just doesn’t like that many member countries routinely fail to meet obligations and rely on America’s outsized military spending. Trump could have said nothing and no one would have noticed.

#4 — Building up US troops in Poland

Under President Obama, in the summer of 2016, NATO members agreed to bolster defenses in eastern Europe. There were concerns that Trump might reverse course when he came into office, but Trump continued the policy and even expanded troop strength. Trump is also selling F-35s to Poland and may send even more troops. President Trump has also indicated that some of the troops withdrawn from Germany may move to Poland rather than back to the United States.

Advanced fighter jets and a troop buildup in Poland do not align with Putin’s or Russia’s interests. Perhaps Trump wants the Poles to name a military base after him, or perhaps he wants to sell more weapons. Whatever the reason, this action can’t make Putin happy.

#5 — Calling out Germany’s natural gas dependency

In addition to criticizing low defense spending, Trump sharply criticized western Europe and particularly Germany’s growing dependency on natural gas. Trump began criticizing in 2017 and kept it up in 2018. This ties into Trump’s stance on NATO; it doesn’t make sense to defend countries willfully becoming dependent on their potential adversary.

Trump is also expected to sign bipartisan legislation to block Russia’s opening of a second pipeline to Germany, a pipeline that would bypass Ukraine and deprive it of funds needed to fight the Russian-backed insurgency. Perhaps President Trump simply wants to supply Europe with American natural gas instead. Blocking a petro-oligarchy’s plans to sell carbon is no way to make friends or curry favor.

President Trump’s reality

Trump’s actions and statements confuse politicians and pundits because he sees the world differently. Cold War American foreign policy saw the world as a network of allies and enemies. Clarity ruled the eighties; communism bad, everyone else good.

Instead, Trump sees a landscape of strategic rivals competing for growth, dollars, and dominance, much like in business. Sometimes rivals can do a deal together and both profit. At other times, one undercuts rival companies to diminish them and promote one’s own interests. If a business deal is bad, even with a friend, walk away. Business is business.

So why the confusion? Much of it stems from the fact that Trump says nice things about authoritarians. At various times he said glowing things about Russia’s Putin, China’s Xi, Turkey’s Erdogan, and of course Korea’s Kim. Trump’s number one rule seems to be to avoid personal attacks on anyone that you want to make a deal with. Instead, he buries them in flattery.

Trump praised China and in particular President Xi at the same time he criticized China and the World Health Organization (WHO). John Bolton relates that Trump called Xi China’s greatest leader in 300 years, but Trump also fought a trade war.

President Trump’s photo-ops and nice letters to North Korean leaders haven’t produced results yet, nor are they likely to. Of note, when North Korea acts in belligerent fashion, Trump ups the American bluster as well, deploying carriers or menacing with new military exercises after eliminating old ones. Does Trump love Kim Jong-un? Or does he just want to make a deal? Interestingly, South Korea’s president recently called for another summit, so somebody likes this approach.

This pattern also plays out domestically. As late as early 2019, observers noted Trump had for years avoided personally attacking Nancy Pelosi. He unleashed tough personal smears and slurs on political rivals, but not her. That changed when Trump came to regard her as a personal enemy, and she now faces the brunt of his criticism. Especially after impeachment, he likely views any compromise with Speaker Pelosi as impossible.

If one starts from the known and obvious fact that the Russians hacked American elections so that their plant could do their bidding, Trump’s actions are hard to parse. The paradigm of a business president, on the other hand, provides a framework for analysis. He will be the nicest person in the world as long as a deal is in the offing.

You might also like:

What If The Police Revolt?


Five Times Trump Bucked the Russians was originally published in ILLUMINATION on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Powered by WPeMatico

Categories
election-2020 elections iowa-caucus politics presidential-campaign

Pre-day

A possible alternative to the Iowa Caucuses

Photo by visuals on Unsplash

Few aspects of the country’s culture (along with McDonald’s and Thanksgiving) are as quintessentially American as the Iowa caucuses. Ever since its deft use by Jimmy Carter in the 1976 Democratic primaries, it has established itself as one of the most sought after (if not the most sought after) contest in any presidential race (Kamarck). As an avid reader of American politics and history, I was looking forward to watching this exercise of democracy take place this primary calendar (the first that I was acutely aware of). Thus, one can imagine my disappointment as I checked the school’s computer for the results of the caucus, only to find the words not reporting. After the initial confusion, the extent of the debacle made itself clear.

Despite the sentimentality that has become so affixed to the Iowa caucuses, they need to undergo reform. To be clear, basing such an assessment on the technical difficulties of 2020 is irrational as such obstacles are not unique to the Iowa caucus system, has only happened once, and can be dealt with relatively easily. Instead, the need for reform must stem from the intrinsic deficiencies of such a delegate selection system in the state.

First, as is oft-mentioned, Iowa is notoriously unrepresentative of the nation (to say nothing of the party) demographically. As FiveThirtyEight points out, Iowa ranks 42nd in terms of representativeness of the US Democratic electorate due to its disproportionately high percentage of Whites without degrees (69.5% vs 39.7%) and low Black population (4.7% vs 20.4%) compared to the standard Democrat electorate (Skelley). For a party that prides itself on its own diversity and minority representation, this is a glaring discrepancy between ideals and reality. Even if we assume that there exists the perfect state (which is not the case), the caucus system itself is hardly the best vehicle of selection. One of the main points of contention is the lack of privacy and individualization as such a method lacks any semblance of a secret ballot, which was implemented extensively in the late eighteenth century and has been perceived as essential to any free, democratic society. Also, caucuses limit the people who can voice their electoral preference because, unlike primaries, the timing is inflexible and the process is seen as arduous (as Howard Dean once said, no one wants to “listen to everyone else’s opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world”), thus limiting participants to mostly activists and those with more extreme ideologies compared to both the party and general election electorate (Kamarck).

One possible solution is having a Super Pre-day (I’m not good with names) in which IA, NH, NV, and SC all hold primaries on the same day. Not only do these states roughly represent the main regions of the U.S, but NV and SC also have populations skewed to Hispanics and Blacks, respectively (Montanaro). This allows for a more representative electorate as each state poses its own challenges that generally reflect the playing field in November. With primaries, the aforementioned issues with caucuses (timing, fringe groups, voter turnout, etc.) are resolved. As for the disproportionate amount of momentum generated by winning the hearts of Iowan caucus goers, the media coverage and cash boost is far more justifiable with a strong showing on Super Pre-day due to the challenges it poses.

Is winning Super Pre-day more difficult? Certainly. However, it is not necessarily a bad thing. By making the process of winning the nomination more difficult, better prepared candidates (both for governing and winning) are more likely to be nominated. In the previous system, an unheard-of upstart would become the media’s darling relatively easily. If he or she is truly worth the nomination, then, especially in the age of modern telecommunications, he or she has many opportunities to convince the electorate that they are worth their ballot — instead of spending untold time preparing to eat corn dogs at a state fair.

Works Cited

Kamarck, Elaine. Primary Politics. Brookings Institution Press, 2018. Print.

Montanaro, Domenico. “Voters Of Color Are Set To Have A Bigger Say As Democrats Enter A Crucial Phase.” 18 February 2020. NPR. Internet.

Skelley, Geoffrey. “We Re-Ordered The Entire Democratic Primary Calendar To Better Represent The Party’s Voters.” 7 March 2019. FiveThirtyEight.


Pre-day was originally published in ILLUMINATION on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Powered by WPeMatico

Categories
economics election-2020 ideas politics venezuela

How Socialism Turns into Capitalism

And why I’m neither a socialist nor a capitalist

Powered by WPeMatico

Categories
election-2020 government politi racism san-francisco

Sleepless in San Francisco: What Keeps Nancy Pelosi Awake at Night

Hint: It’s not the pursuit of racial justice

Powered by WPeMatico

Categories
artificial-intelligence election-2020 fake medium writing

Is Medium in on it?

Are AI bots taking over Medium?

Powered by WPeMatico

Categories
culture election-2020 media politics society

Soft ‘Orange Journalism’ at the LA Times

Objectivity is passé

Powered by WPeMatico

Categories
election-2020 life news politics voting

America Desperately Needs Vote By Mail

I’m livid that the safest, most convenient way to vote isn’t our default.

Powered by WPeMatico

Categories
coronavirus election-2020 politics religion society

8 Blessings by Jesus From the Sermon on the Mount

A 2020 Illustration of The Beatitudes

Powered by WPeMatico