How a country, leader impresses Trump

 

Gordon L. Weil

You know it when you see it. 

Donald Trump does.   He sees it in British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.  He does not see it in Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy or former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  When he sees it, his quick take on a leader influences his policy toward that person’s nation.

It’s called gravitas.  That’s a term from ancient Rome.  If a person has it, they are thought to be serious, substantial and dignified.  Their gravitas gains them respect and enhances their ability to lead.  That respect benefits their countries and the aura of leadership gives them the ability to govern effectively.  

Americans seem to place little value on it, preferring to see a president as a pal.  Look at Gerry (Gerald Ford), Jimmy (James Carter), Bill (William Clinton), Al (Albert Gore), and Joe (Joseph Biden). Trump might aspire to gravitas. He may appear as a plain-speaking guy, but he enjoys a big military parade with its multiple salutes.

Carney recently made it clear that a leader with gravitas is essential if a nation wants to be taken seriously by the U.S., China or Russia. “If you are not at the table,” he said, “you’re on the menu.”  See Zelenskyy at the White House.

The effect can be found in the serious trade negotiations between the U.S. and China, the U.K. and Canada, while the rest of the world is in the waiting room.  Its absence can be seen in the way Trump treats Ukraine.

Carney has given Canada a new image, one immune from Trump’s ridiculous and offensive claim that it should be the 51st American state.  With his respected standing, extensive international experience and proximity to the U.S., he has been able to express clearly how Canada and others see the U.S. and to act on his conclusions.

He laid it out recently.  Here is his view, which is a clear statement reflecting the sentiment of leaders of other countries as well.

The U.S. played a “predominant role” in the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  It exercised a “gravitational pull” on Canada.  “Today, that predominance is a thing of the past.”

“Now, the United States is beginning to monetize its hegemony, charging for access to its markets and reducing its relative contribution to our collective security,” he stated. 

A key word for Carney is “reliable.”  You could always count on America, especially as the protector of international rules-based order.  That has changed. Canada now finds itself in an “age of disorder” and feels threatened by “a new imperialism.”

Like a substantial investor, Canada will seek to diversify.  This does not mean abandoning its close relationship with the U.S., which is an asset for both countries.  But by diversifying, Canada can reduce the risk that Washington will set Canadian national policy.  The same formula is true for Britain, France and Germany.

“We’re far too reliant on the United States,” Carney said. “We can no longer send three-quarters of our defense capital spending to America.”  His country is now seeking to form a new relationship with Rearm Europe, a multinational effort to expand non-American military production.

He asserts that “the world’s trade routes, allegiances, energy systems and even intelligence itself are being rewired.”  Canada will seek “a new international set of partnerships” and “deeper alliances with stable democracies.”   The clear implication is that he questions whether the U.S. is a “stable” democracy.

Carney recognizes that his new policy, involving stepped up defense spending, will impose a cost on the country.  He has already shown himself to be more aware of the economic interests of Canadian provinces to promote accelerated growth and a stronger economy beyond what Trudeau’s utopian agenda would have permitted.

His view is increasingly the common view of countries from Estonia to Australia.  Trump’s vision of nations orbiting the U.S., not so much for American domination as for its enrichment, is leading other countries to reassess their relationship with the U.S. and to form “a new international set of partnerships.”

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in today’s crisis points in Europe and the Middle East.  American interests, influenced by its relationships with Russia and Israel, do not align with those of Canada or Europe, which may see themselves as targets.  Trump’s easy claims to Canada or Greenland reveal the gap with countries that have been threatened or invaded.

“When we stand up for territorial integrity, whether it is in Ukraine or West Bank and Gaza, we are standing up for the territorial integrity of the Canadian Arctic,” he said.

Perhaps one positive result of the Trump’s pressure on trade and territory is that Canada and Europe are being forced to accept their own responsibility for a stable and reliable world order.

Trump -- racist or opportunist?

Gordon L. Weil

Terry Moran, an ABC correspondent, recently wrote on his social media site that Stephen Miller, a Trump aide, is a “world class hater.”   What’s worse, he made a similar comment about President Trump.  That got him fired by ABC, which is going to great lengths to placate Trump.  Also, reporters should not express their personal views of people they cover.

Are Trump and his administration racist, sexist, or antisemitic, degrading some groups to favor the preferred club of white men?  In one form or another, this charge has been made against Trump ever since he began running in 2015.

One easy explanation is that Trump himself is not racist, but that he sends signals to biased voters that he sympathizes with them to gain their political support.  His attitude may encourage more open prejudice against Blacks, women, Jews and others.   But Trump usually avoids saying the wrong thing.

With one truly major error.  When he equated virulent, antisemitic rioters in Charlottesville with peaceful demonstrators, (“good people on both sides”), he either unmasked innate racism or carried too far his exploitation of the understated racism of his backers.

It Trump is not a racist, he would rank as an opportunist.  He exploits other people’s prejudice. He attacks anybody, and has his own distinctive style of discrimination when it comes to people he regards as an inferior opponent or a “loser.”   

The signal that he dismisses you comes when he gives you a demeaning nickname.  Clashing over the handling of the L.A. riots, Trump labelled California Gov. Gavin Newsom as “Gov. New Scum.”  Not only is this unacceptable in civil society, but such childish name-calling by a bully is yet another sign of what looks like a fifth-grader’s mentality.

After nationally recognized events revealed institutional racism, official agencies undertook programs to encourage diversity, inclusion and equity.  DEI became a way of ensuring that minorities that had been subject to discrimination would be encouraged to enter the mainstream life of the country.

This awareness of embedded racial discrimination came to be called “woke.” It applied to efforts to ensure and promote open access to equal treatment. 

But it went beyond open access to provide what looked to some like preferential access to jobs and other opportunities.  In such cases, it seemed to focus on their situation above the needs of most average people.  This gave rise to understandable opposition to woke, notably by the president.

Trump quickly exploited the concerns of those who saw woke as favoritism.  He asserts that, by recruiting minorities and women who have historically been the victims of discrimination, government has hired and promoted people of inadequate merit or competence.  If something goes wrong, he can blame it on incompetent DEI recipients.

Using federal funding flows, he punishes non-governmental entities, especially universities, for their DEI policies or alleged antisemitism.  The best way of rejecting DEI is to swiftly remove from positions of power anybody who is the member of a group that may have benefitted from equal access, regardless of their competence.

But even that is not enough.  Not all the history of a country is exemplary.  Slavery and Jim Crow racism in the U.S. is a matter of fact.  The exclusion of women from their rightful place in the professions and public life is also beyond debate.  Yet, Trump’s anti-woke policy demands rewriting history to downplay past injustice, reopening old wounds.

If Trump is not a racist, he has given racism and its supporters aid and comfort and allowed them to become more public without embarrassment.  He has undone decades of progress toward a more equal society and reversed it. If not done out of conviction, it is done for political gain.

He has also tried to distort and exploit discrimination.  The Gaza conflict raised strong opposition to Israel’s extreme measures in its over-retaliation for the horrendous and despicable Hamas attack.  Its actions, including starvation, seem aimed at the ethnic cleansing of the area.

Trump charges people with being antisemitic if they show sympathy for innocent Palestinians, who themselves have lived under Hamas control.  Opposition to Israeli official policy toward innocent Palestinians amounts to antisemitism.  When an incident occurs, he sharply criticizes the anti-Jewish attackers, but shows no sympathy for the Jewish victims.

If we are to believe that the U.S. is better off now resulting from the war against DEI, ask those who have suffered.

Do Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and women feel more comfortable in Trump’s supposedly merit-based society than they did before he returned to office?  

Can universities, heavily punished for the excessive outbursts of a few students, continue to produce world-class research? 

Is the government now more competent and unbiased than before he came to office? 

Where does it end?

  

Trump's personal presidency

 

Gordon L. Weil

I am the state.  In the original, it was “l’Ētat, c’est moi” and is attributed to Louis XIV, the king of France centuries ago.

It could be the motto of Donald Trump, the most personal president in American history. He uses the office, a public trust, as his personal property.  He rules more than he governs.

Elon Musk provides the latest proof of Trump’s personal rule.  The world’s richest man poured hundreds of millions into the Trump campaign, and he helped the president fulfill his promise to cut government spending.  The job was left to Musk, who slashed and burned his way through agency after agency.

He departed the Trump administration with the appreciation of the president ringing in his ears, but immediately savagely attacked Trump’s pet legislation, because it boosts the federal debt, contrary to what Musk thought he had been asked to do.

Trump vented his anger with Musk for opposing his “Big, Beautiful Bill” by immediately threatening to end contracts of Musk’s companies with the federal government, some providing important services. 

Trump claims that he pushed Musk out of the government.  If so, his action echoes the classic words of Frederick the Great, the powerful king of Prussia.  When he tossed out Voltaire, his philosopher in residence, he said, “When you have squeezed the juice from an orange, you throw away the peel.”

The personalization of the presidency by Trump is the hallmark of his second term.  Believing that his second election was a vindication giving him almost royal authority, he is open about his use and abuse of power. 

He has tried to retaliate against law firms whose partners have represented Democrats or others who have opposed him by undermining their ability to do business with the government.  They can get off the hook by providing his personal projects, like his library, with millions of dollars of free legal work.

He fired competent top military personnel without giving any reason.  Perhaps he concluded that a Black general and a female admiral got their jobs thanks to Biden’s DEI without regard to their merit.  His passion to purge what he sees as “woke” appointments is arbitrary and unchecked.

Because he believes that Biden became president thanks to a stolen election, a belief unsupported by any evidence, he does all he can to denigrate Biden’s presidency and make it seem like a terrible mistake.  His call for an investigation of Biden’s mental acuity during his presidency is unprecedented, but part of his effort to discredit his predecessor.

Even his tariff policy reflects his temperament rather than carefully planning.  Presidents may be able to use tariffs to deal with specific countries about specific items in trade.  But they are not supposed to use emergency powers to extend a flat tariff to virtually every country, with the notable exception of Russia, because he dislikes the U.S. trade deficit.

And what’s the basis of a 10 percent tariff?  It has less to do with each country’s trade imbalance with the U.S., if any, than with the fingers on his hands.  And why should tariffs be doubled without any economic justification from one day to the next when Trump is peeved at a country?  This is personal and not serious trade policy.

Then, there’s the presidential plane.  Believing he should have the world’s best executive aircraft and tired of waiting for Boeing, he induced Qatar to give the U.S. a luxury plane it had been unable to sell.  It will cost taxpayers millions to make the plane secure and suitable. 

Somehow, his presidential library is supposed to get the aircraft at the end of his term.  His promise not to use it then is both hollow and unenforceable.

This list skips over his family business dealings with Qatar and other countries that are making him wealthier every day.  And the sales of his crypto coins.  No previous president has ever engaged in private enterprises operating while he is in office and in countries dealing officially with him.  These are the ultimate examples of the personal presidency.  Except one.

The parade. Tens of millions of tax dollars are being spent for a huge military review on June 14, his birthday.  Such armed pomp is unusual for the U.S., but more typical of Russia, China and a few kingdoms.  He wants to keep up with the neighbors, basking in the same glory as his supposed pals Valdimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

The Constitution alone cannot stop him.  It was drafted in the belief that America would always reject one-person rule, just as did King George III.  It may not now be fully up to Trump’s challenge.

Until now, Congress and the voters have tolerated this new view of the presidency.  The Supreme Court encourages it.  There is no substantial opposition to it. 

Where are we headed?

Trump's economic moves hit real people

 

Gordon L. Weil

Since the day Donald Trump became president for the second time, the U.S. has been flooded with disruptive actions, just as he intended.

In reaction, experts and the media have issued dire warnings about the effects, intended or not, of his moves – inflation, immigration, employment, science, commerce and the future economy. Almost all these reactions have focused on the deep and long-lasting national harm his actions will cause.

While Trump’s policies must be taken seriously and the warnings should be heeded, they may seem to be happening at a far higher level than the everyday lives of most Americans.  The best the critics can muster is the observation that the effects will soon find their way down to average people.

If the effects seemed remote or even not likely to happen before they would be erased by renewed prosperity, then Trump can be reassuring and convince people that short-term pain will bring long-term gain.  His message has been that he is so brilliant that people can count on him producing the promised prosperity.

That message is still pending, but it seems increasingly possible that the pain won’t be short term, so the gain is more remote than had been originally implied. The immediate test is whether that situation will have a big enough impact on the 2026 elections to produce a Congress able to rein in Trump or even offer its own policies.

The impacts of his policies are already becoming evident in the daily lives of average citizens.  I take a look here at some of what’s happening in Maine.

The Maine license plate has for decades proclaimed the state as “Vacationland.” Tourism means a lot to the state’s economy, and a lot of the tourists come from eastern Canada.  Canadians feel at home in a familiar culture with appealing beaches and attractions.  But with Trump’s ridiculous but often repeated claim that Canada should become the 51st state, everything has changed.

This absurdity coupled with an overt effort to destroy the Canadian economy to the point that it will seek refuge in the U.S. has amazingly and quickly turned a natural friendship into hostility.  Many Canadians now dislike the U.S. and have cancelled plans to come to Maine this summer.  Maine did not give him all its electoral votes, so he likely doesn’t care about the hit to tourism.

Then, there’s inflation, a big issue for Mainers.  Under former President Biden, as the economy recovered from abnormally low inflation during Covid, inflation took off.  Though it had greatly diminished by the end of Biden’s term, the memory lingered on, and Trump continually reminded voters of it.  Kamala Harris’ response was laughably weak, so Trump scored his point.

Instead of inflation abating, especially for home prices, it began to increase.  Trump’s tariffs were not absorbed by exporters or American retailers, as he had promised.  The free market, favored by him, worked normally, and prices eventually reached consumers.  Walmart and Target prices in Maine rose sharply, as they did elsewhere.  Grocery prices remain high in a state that’s at the end of the supply line.   People noticed.

Housing is especially sensitive.  It is among the top three concerns in the state, along with inflation and immigration. Higher building costs, resulting partly from expected increased Canadian lumber prices, put homes out of reach for potential buyers. The ability of the private sector and government to push tiny homes to ease homelessness was undermined.

That happened in a special way in Maine.  The University of Maine has the world’s largest 3-D printer, and it produced a complete tiny house.  But it needs federal funding to move ahead. Because Trump dislikes Gov. Mills’ insistence on state control of trans athletic policy and the president’s aversion to academic research, the project has begun laying off workers.

Like tourism, a mainstay of the economy is lobster fishing.  Lobsters are a high-cost food whose sales track the health of the national economy.  Trump has managed to create so much uncertainty throughout the economy that consumers are holding back on many purchases and there’s concern about the impact on fishing in coming months.

Every state, every market has seen its own effects of Trump’s policies.  Just as the U.S. cannot be an economic island, neither can any state.  Broad-brush national policies have local effects that should not be ignored, especially by Congress.  Trump’s vision of American industrial greatness comes at immediate cost to the paycheck-to-paycheck population.

Trump’s popularity, though waning, survives because many people like his immigration policy and take comfort in his economic nationalism.  The ultimate judgment may come when Maine fishermen, supermarket shoppers, tourism operators and home buyers vote for their next U.S. senator just 17 months from now.

The Constitution Annoys Trump; judges act independently

 

Gordon L. Weil

For one bright, shining moment last week, the federal court system seemed to get the better of President Trump.

The U.S. Court of International Trade, a regular part of the federal court system, ruled unanimously that Trump’s use of an emergency law to change tariffs across-the-board was not permitted by that law. 

It did not question his judgment about the existence of an emergency; but rather whether his actions were allowed if there were an emergency.  That’s a critical difference.  The president’s judgment is protected by the separation of powers.  But he does not get “unbounded authority” to say what the law is; that’s the role of the courts under the same separation powers.

The Trump administration response differed.  “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” a White House spokesperson said.

This statement reflected the view that winning an election gave Trump the authority to act as he sees fit and not subject to judicial review, considered to be “judicial tyranny.”  The fact that the judges are not elected, while the president is selected by voters, makes all the difference.

Disparaging the judiciary, because it is controlled by unelected judges, misses the point.  The Trump administration may see this presidency as an unusual chance for the exercise of supreme power, unimpeded by either a GOP Congress or an unelected court.  Or, just as likely, they may reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution.

Federal judges were intentionally given life appointments to remove them from the political wars of the day.  “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”  Under “a government of laws, not of men,” all must obey the law.

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton argued that “permanent tenure” in office guarantees the independence of justices, allowing them to ensure that the other branches of government do not violate the Constitution.

Hamilton continued: “This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men … sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which have a tendency … to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.”

In short, the non-elected status of judges is essential to their independence so they can serve a prime function of the government – protecting the people from their government if it goes beyond the limits of the balanced powers “we, the people” authorized.  That may prove inconvenient or annoying to Trump, but that’s exactly what was intended.

Trump is not the only president to try to exceed his authority.  In a recent example, former President Biden used a twisted interpretation of a law intended for a different purpose to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to forgive student loan debt.  He lacked congressional approval. The unelected Supreme Court appropriately overruled the elected president.

Trump took advantage of a growing conservatism to win his 2016 election.  He turned to the Federalist Society, the leading conservative legal organization, for nominees to the federal bench.  These judges overruled abortion rights. Trump had correctly counted on them to produce a decision consistent with his own position.

In his second term, he has learned in one case after another that his appointees, while conservative, are mostly competent jurists, willing to oppose his initiatives.  They may render conservative interpretations of the laws and Constitution.  Trump has come to realize that they are conservatives, but not necessarily Trumpers.  They will not automatically fall in line behind his policies.

Imbued, for the time being, with a sense of unlimited power drawn from his electoral vindication, Trump now attacks the Federalist Society.  He may forget that six of the nine members of the Supreme Court, on which he will ultimately depend to affirm his policies, are members of the Federalist Society.

Whenever Trump receives an unfavorable federal court decision, he often lashes out at the judges, claiming they are corrupt or partisan.  He seeks to undermine public confidence in the judiciary, possibly hoping the judges will retreat to save their reputations.  Some of his backers say the judges should be impeached for denying the demands of the elected president.

Trump also shows a massive disrespect for the court system by pardoning hundreds of serious criminal offenders who were convicted in jury trials.  He sets himself up as a new court of appeals, rewarding political allies and major contributors.

As I have discussed last week and earlier, the Supreme Court may make or break many Trump policies when it takes a closer look at the extent of his presidential power.  The outcome could go either way, but his attacks don’t help him make his case at court.

 

The law versus the president

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump’s initiatives have produced a flood of legal actions, charging him with violating laws and the Constitution.  His challengers ask the courts to make sound legal interpretations in their favor, no matter the political orientation of the judges.

The complainants should be worried.  The Supreme Court may share Trump’s expansive view of the presidency, giving him legislative powers.

A second cause of concern is that the courts appear to have begun tipping the balance of power among the three branches of government in their favor.  The legislative power is rapidly fading, as members of Congress are more concerned with self-preservation than the national interest.

The Supreme Court seems to favor Trump.  Its decision in Trump v. U.S. authorized an almost unchecked presidency. Its recent orders allowing the president to control supposedly independent regulatory agencies highlight the Court majority’s agreement with Trump and support for the concept of the unitary presidency.

Look at its handling of Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship.  Instead of making a clear statement on his tortured interpretation, the Court has hidden behind a procedural question to delay a ruling.  Despite clear language and its own solid precedent, it allows Trump to create uncertainty for millions of people.  Its slow response appears intentional.

Oddly enough, a Maine case may be the best indication of a runaway judiciary that, like the president, denies checks and balances that are essential to the American political system.  Here’s the story.

Years ago, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court decided a case pitting mortgage customers against the banks holding their mortgages.  The case related to the speed and ease with which foreclosures could take place.  The Court decided in favor of the customers.

Last year, a new case appeared in which the banks sought to reverse the earlier decision.  A judge now on the Court is a lawyer who represented the banks in the earlier proceeding.   She received some advice that she need not recuse herself and she didn’t.  Hers became the deciding vote in a 4-3 ruling that favored the banks.  Her former clients won.

The official judicial ethics committee found a conflict of interest.  The committee can take no further action; the decision is up to the Supreme Court.  It has done nothing, at least so far.

The Maine Legislature is considering a bill for a study on how to apply judicial ethics to the Supreme Court.  But the Court informed the legislative committee that even its consideration was unconstitutional, because a study could not lead to legislation.  The Court asserted that it alone has judicial power, and the Legislature cannot act.  Obviously, it would rule that any such action is unconstitutional.

Carry this assertion over to the federal level.  Congress can define court jurisdiction.  If Congress were to rein in the Supreme Court from its broad support of a dominant president, it probably would face a presidential veto, and the Court could rule its law as unconstitutional.  Without any appeal, the only reactions then available would either be adding justices or amending the Constitution.

In one of the wisest political acts of his presidency, Joe Biden vetoed the addition of scores of federal judges, all of whom would have been named by Trump.  Had he accepted that he was a one-term president, he might also have been willing to propose increasing the size of the Supreme Court to restore some balance.  Lincoln and FDR both did.

The president is radically changing the Constitution as it has evolved over the centuries.  Trump appears to believe that, in an emergency he declares, he is not bound by the Constitution, the laws or the courts. His position implies that “democracy” no longer works and should be replaced by a presidency of unlimited power.

Congress, when dominated by the president’s party, is proving to be a docile accomplice.  The U.S. now has achieved the goal that then Speaker Newt Gingrich sought in the 1990’s – parliamentary government in which party discipline translates into unified support of a party’s president and unified opposition to the other party.

The Supreme Court, with its jurisdiction under attack by the Trump administration, could educate the president on what the law is. That’s what the U.S. Court of International Trade did this week, when it overturned almost all of Trump’s tariffs.  However, the Supreme Court looks more likely to join the other branches in transforming the American political system. 

The people hold the power to settle the matter in the 2026 congressional elections.  Does the American voter want to replace constitutional checks and balances by presidential rule?   Can they elect a Congress that recovers its powers and restores the intended balance with the president and the Court? That may be the real choice next year.

 

What the Democrats didn't do

 

Gordon L. Weil

Here’s some news you may have missed this past week.

Though sure to be outvoted by House Republicans, Democrats issued their own comprehensive legislative package, calling it their “Big, Realistic Bill.”  In it, they noted where they have common ground with the GOP on several key aspects of immigration issues.  The bill was backed by all Democrats, while some Republican members said they liked aspects of it.

A group of Democrats announced a new social media outlet called “Truth Now.”  A rotating team of Democratic editors, including some members of Congress, intend, “to keep up a steady flow of proposals, facts and fact-checking.”  Their motto: “There’s nothing as dangerous as fake news.”

Democratic congressional leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries announced that their legislative work left them insufficient time to serve as the principal Democratic spokespersons.  Together with the Democratic National Committee, they will name a single spokesperson to hold daily press briefings for the White House and congressional press corps.

The DNC plans to create “The Democratic Forum,” a summit meeting later this year to include congressional leaders, governors, state party representatives and others to identify and develop unified policy positions for use across the country in next year’s elections.  The DNC chair said that the first step to victory is building unity around a creative set of proposals.

You missed all that, right? 

Of course, that’s because none of it happened. 

Instead, the Democrats chose to stick to the same failed policy they have pursued since 2016 – Trump will self-destruct, and they will be left standing to pursue great policies like those that brought them success under FDR.  They will look for attractive candidates to relentlessly attack Trump policies.

In short, the Democrats expect to win by waiting for Trump to lose, thanks to his obviously divisive policies.  They fail to notice that they are no more popular than Trump and his loyal Republican GOP.  

The Democrats are poor communicators.  During Joe Biden’s term, a week would go by without a word from him, as aging kept him out of the public eye.  Filling the Dems’ vacuum, a relentless Trump issues pronouncements on his own social media, which he has made his main tool for governing.

The Democrats need simple messages that focus on the concerns of most Americans, regardless of party.   Scoring points in congressional hearings doesn’t reach most people out here.  This is not an academic debate. This is politics, and politics today is war.

Democratic leadership should define party policy.  Here are my ideas on the issues they should address simply and directly.

The debt.  Too much and growing.  It could devour the budget.  Who will pay and when?

Taxes. We ask for a lot from government, but don’t pay for it.  With much debt, we must turn to taxes.  A fair system means tax increases, not decreases, for the wealthiest.

Your rights. The Bill of Rights is meant to protect people in the U.S. from the government. If government strips rights from anybody, it comes closer to being able to do the same thing to you.

Budget. All agree that there’s waste and marginal programs.  But today’s slash and burn kills innocent victims.  The Democrats should demand each department meet a spending target by setting priorities.  The president and Congress would have to sign off.  

Less fortunate neighbors.  Our market system inevitably leaves some people behind.  Most Americans are compassionate and want to help the poor and disadvantaged to participate in the economy and lead decent lives.  That’s nothing new.   Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not political playthings; they have become part of the fabric of America.

Immigration.  This great country should be able to control the flow of immigrants, who can gain their freedom and boost our economy.  While illegal immigrants who are criminals should be deported, mass deportation will deprive the country of loyal residents who make real contributions.

Biden.  The Democrats are moving on from the Biden years.  His policies do not always meet the needs of today.  We respect the past, but our eyes are on the future.

Economy.  Inflation was up during the Covid recovery, but it’s no longer high.  We must keep prices stable, while allowing the work force to earn more as it serves a more advanced economy.  That involves issues ranging from where and how long people work to direct aid to improve skills.

Of course, the Democrats disagree with the Republicans on almost all these issues. But they should spend less time attacking the GOP and more on making their own case.

This approach raises risks for future Democratic electoral success.  But their current policy of pure negativity may continue it on the path to failure.  Given the dire situation of American politics, it’s time to take risks.

 

U.S. foreign policy failing

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump set his highest priority foreign policy objectives: reducing or eliminating the U.S. trade deficit, ending the war between Russia and Ukraine and resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza.

He promised early results and took swift action once in office.  He has failed, thus far at least, on all three.

On trade, Trump misused emergency legislation to impose high tariffs to virtually all countries for trade in goods.  “I’m using trade to settle scores and to make peace,” he said.  Settling scores means eliminating unfavorable trade balances, which he claims were intentionally caused by other countries.  After that, Trump’s version of peace would presumably prevail.

He believed he could settle scores painlessly. Foreign suppliers would absorb the impact of the tariffs. They would pay the tariffs, increasing foreign revenues flowing to the U.S. Treasury.  If they raised their prices to cover the tariffs, higher cost American manufacturers could regain market share. 

He did not count on retaliation and resistance from others.   He resisted accepting that end-use customers would pay for the tariffs. He ignored the effect of retaliation on essential American imports. And he did not take account of the impact of his constant tariff changes on corporate investing and consumer confidence.

But retaliation came from China and Canada, both providers of essential imports. Retail prices began to increase.  The stock market sank as tariffs rose.  Partners began to diversify their trade away from the U.S., losing confidence in the reliability of American policy.  The dollar as the world standard wobbled.  Trump backed off.

As for Ukraine, Trump had boasted that he could settle the conflict in a day.  That would have to mean the full and immediate surrender of Ukraine to the Russians, resulting from a cutoff of U.S. support.

Trump thinks little of Ukraine. His first impeachment was caused by his attempt to force Ukraine President Zelenskyy to dig up evidence against Hunter Biden.  He knew nothing of the centuries-old effort by Russia to suppress Ukraine, even going so far as starvation, or of Putin’s failure to keep earlier “peace” agreements.

He believed that Russia would ultimately overpower Ukraine, which should, in effect, surrender to prevent the unnecessary loss of life.  But Ukraine and powerful European allies understood that Putin would not respect a settlement and was trying to relaunch Soviet-style domination. 

With or without the U.S., Ukraine would resist no matter the cost.  When Trump realized he was dealing with two, not one, strong-willed forces, he essentially abandoned his peacemaking, potentially leaving the defense of Ukraine to itself and its European allies.

After the Hamas attack on Israel, Trump fully backed the Israeli response.  But Israel gradually went beyond a proportional response.  It seeks to take over Gaza, the Hamas home base, on the way to complete domination of Palestine.  Trump offered the fantastic prospect of turning the territory into an American seaside resort after expelling the Palestinians.

As the harshness of Israeli actions became apparent, sympathy grew for the target Arab populations.  Critics of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians could find themselves labelled as antisemitic by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Trump’s supporters. 

Netanyahu stepped up his inhumane pressure on Gaza, eventually starving many there.  Israel’s international support faded. Even Trump responded to the starvation and increased both his pressure on Israel and his distance from it.  Some Israelis warned the nation could become an international pariah. 

Trump had bet on Israel, but slowly came to understand the advantages of improved links with Arab states and the disadvantages of giving Netanyahu unconditional support.  His peacemaking on behalf of Israel turned into dealmaking with the Arab nations, with Israel excluded.

Trump’s policies have failed.  Tariffs could not be drastically raised.  Ukraine and Russia would fight on.  Israel would prolong the Gaza War.

Trump may yet turn all this around.

He should roll back his across-the-board effort to “settle scores” and negotiate individual accords with major trading partners.  Top priority should go to Mexico, Canada and, if possible, China. Each accord must be objectively screened for its potential domestic impact, and deficits must be accepted as a fact of life.

On Ukraine, the U.S. should join with Europe to tighten sanctions on Russia and let Putin know that Ukraine will have long-term support until a ceasefire and negotiations without any preconditions take place.

Joining also with the Europeans, the U.S. should make clear that a two-state Israel-Palestine solution must be adopted, no matter how difficult that would be.  The rebuilding of Gaza and its society should begin under a newly elected Palestinian Authority.  The U.S, could be the economic partner of Israel and Arab countries in creating a truly regional economy.

These may seem like unrealistically lofty objectives.   But Trump has the potential to surprise and influence the world by changing course. 

Trump won’t win Nobel Prize

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump works hard at trying to earn the label of peacemaker.  He has his eyes on the Prize -- the Nobel Peace Prize.  He won’t win it.

Though he may charge that the Peace Prize is worthless unless he wins it or that the vote was “stolen,” some factors influencing the award are not aimed at him personally, and he seems not to understand them.  They make it impossible for him to win.

The selection is made by a special Norwegian committee from a list of nominees proposed by hundreds of people worldwide.  The five-member committee is appointed by the Norwegian parliament. To ensure that it cannot be seen as representing the country’s policies, it does not include any public office holders.

Alfred Nobel set idealistic standards for the Peace Prize and the Peace Prize committee continues to honor them.  Its selections often are meant to promote his version of peace and not only as a reward for a winner’s past peacemaking.

For example, the committee saw the award to Barack Obama, soon after he became president, as a sign of its hope for change in the world.  It wanted to encourage what it saw as his commitment to nuclear disarmament and fewer barriers to international cooperation.  It did not link the award to his historic election.

Fifty years ago, I wrote an article asserting that all Nobel Prizes, including the science awards, are political.  They are even more obviously political now. The committees balance regions and countries, favor some rivals over others and have their own leanings.  They often react slowly and follow other awards, especially in the sciences.

Why will Trump fail?

His view of peacemaking seems to consist of getting two sides in a controversy to stop shooting at one another.  He does not necessarily require that they agree on a settlement with lasting effect. 

Nobels don’t go for this minimal result.  The agreement between Egypt and Israel continues, despite calamitous events in the Middle East.  An agreement between Israel and Hamas or between Ukraine and Russia would have to be more than a ceasefire.  Each would involve more than real estate, but would touch on national sovereignty and survival.  That’s not quick or easy to do.

Even if he were lauded for gaining a ceasefire, Nobel Peace Prizes go to the two sides making an agreement, not the mediator who may have shepherded the deal.  George Mitchell got no reward for the Good Friday agreement in Northern Island.  Although he won later for other efforts, Jimmy Carter was not recognized for the Israel-Egypt accord.

The Peace Prize goes more often to people exercising “soft power” than those using “hard power.”  Greater emphasis is placed on negotiations and shared values than on the use of force to reach an agreement. 

The Nobel “art of the deal” involves negotiations and voluntary compromise.  It may entail political risk for the parties and even for the mediator.  By itself, Trump’s coercive Oval Office meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s president, may have torpedoed his chances for the Prize.

Nobody is perfect, so it’s likely that any Prize recipient has defects.  But the committee seeks to draw attention to admirable people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela or George Marshall.  Here, Trump’s personal prejudices, his retaliation against opponents, and his attacks on universities plus his disrespect for the law, all count against him.

While the Nobel Peace Prize Committee recognizes that its awards may be controversial, its choices favor winners likely to gain broad international support.  Trump’s aggressiveness in trade policy and attitudes toward Canada and Greenland, part of Denmark, a fellow Scandinavian nation, do not make him an obvious choice for the Norwegian committee. 

In fairness, his approach could bring positive results, but they would fall far short of Nobel Prize standards.  His hard power approach has recently sent a message to Israel, which continues to destroy Gaza. 

His deal with the Yemini Houthis about the release of an American hostage, his business-oriented trip to Arab countries while skipping Israel, and his negotiations with Iran over a nuclear deal are all moves that could put pressure on Israel.  The outcome of his efforts might replace the attempted Israeli military solution to Middle East relations with regional economic cooperation, just as happened in Europe, though he may miss the similarity.

At the first sign of success, he is likely to assert his claim to the unreachable Prize.  He may not understand why Barack Obama or Al Gore or Jimmy Carter or many unknown people have won the award.  It is this very lack of understanding of the politics of hope that will cost him the Prize.

 

 

 

Clouds over Trump's honeymoon; the Qatar gift

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president, a political honeymoon, were a breeding ground for controversy.

You either believed that anything he did must be right or anything he did must be wrong or went along for the ride, hoping for the best and fearing the worst.  Of course, some people are a bit more selective, usually ending up saying they like what he is doing, but worry about or plainly dislike his methods.

The result was what may be the most glorious presidential honeymoon ever, based on his assertion that his policies had a single objective – the triumph of MAGA.   If he intended to make America better, he deserved his chance. 

While his policies might succeed, each contained elements of its own failure.

On immigration, where he had promised not only to stop illegal entries but also to purge the country of non-naturalized foreigners, he picked low hanging fruit.  If a foreign student could easily be picked up off the street or an immigrant could be nailed at a citizenship interview, their expulsion would add to the numbers he wanted to achieve.

Clearly illegal entrants should be eligible for expulsion when apprehended.  Because they had violated the immigration law, they could be promptly tossed out, he thinks.  The constitutional right to due process, available to virtually all people, should be denied in such cases, his aides assert. They’re wrong; the president is not above the law, however inconvenient.

Tapping on the sentiment that government was both too big and too unresponsive, Trump loosed Elon Musk on it.  Reductions were not done surgically, but by a bulldozer.  The victims included science, foreign aid, public health and the poor.  The savings are relatively small, but grossly inflated for the media, and were done without following legal procedures.

Both immigration and government cuts face a myriad of court challenges.  Trump may count on courts stacked with conservatives to approve his extraordinary assertion of presidential powers.  He may face a constitutional conflict with judges.

On trade, he claimed that huge tariff increases should produce stunning results:  reduced imports, increased U.S. manufacturing and jobs, no price increases and acquiescence by America’s trading partners and allies.  He seems to have been right on imports, but possibly on no other assertion.

To be sure, he will have some wins from his drastic government cuts and his tax reductions and from backing off somewhat on tariffs.  But many of his moves harm constituencies he needed to win, and the question is how they will react in next year’s congressional elections.

However controversial, his ability to act by presidential decree should continue, at least until the Supreme Court limits his discretion.  Whether the Court does so, remains uncertain.

His free pass has been due to the almost total loyalty of congressional Republicans.  They seem to accept his electoral win across the country as a mandate for the kind of presidential power he wields.  They may fear his retaliation or agree with the trend toward authoritarian rule.  To succeed, he must be able to count on the submissiveness of the GOP.

Significantly, he may have to begin worrying about them.  For the first time, they blocked him.  His nominee for U.S. Attorney in D.C. failed because a single GOP senator opposed the appointment and was not overridden by the Majority Leader, who could have allowed a floor vote.

But one key factor may make Trump politically vulnerable.  More than any president before him, perhaps more than all of them together, Trump uses the presidency for personal enrichment.

He proposes to accept a $400 million free airplane from Qatar for use as Air Force One.  He believes he deserves more luxury, and he impatiently awaits Boeing’s delayed American made model.  Later, his administration would transfer the aircraft to his presidential library, so he might continue using it.  In short, Qatar is giving him a personal gift.

The violation of the constitutional ban on accepting such gifts is hard to ignore.  Qatar is buying influence.  He may count on the possibility of no judicial remedy beyond impeachment and conviction.

To make the plane electronically secure would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions.  And what about the duplicate plane that is needed to foil potential attackers and serve as a backup?  Boeing is contracted for two planes.

Add to this other Trump family profit-making activities. The promotion of his bitcoin business could give foreign interests access to him and perhaps a guided White House visit. What’s in it for the U.S.?  Or his sons promoting his businesses in Qatar and other places where he might trade U.S. policy for lucrative favors?

If the Democrats become more adept campaigners than they have been, they could make an issue of this potential corruption.  Even if they like his policies, the GOP might have a hard time justifying Trump’s self-enrichment, and some have already expressed serious concern. 

Meanwhile, public opinion polls reveal that his first 100 days were a political flop, comparing badly with his predecessors’ early showings.  He may be losing political clout, perhaps providing little help to the GOP in next year’s elections.

To paraphrase Churchill, this may not be the end of his presidential honeymoon or even the beginning of the end, but it could be the end of the beginning.

Trump's trade policy fades; tariffs come up short

 

Gordon L. Weil

American exports should be greater than American imports worldwide and for every country.  That’s the essence of President Trump’s tariff policy. 

To the extent that any country has a positive trade balance with the U.S., it is “robbing” the U.S.  To fix the imbalance, the U.S. now imposes tariffs or threatens to use them on imports to make them so expensive that American producers, with higher costs, can compete.

Even taking this policy at its face value, it is a failure.

Trump has squeezed other countries to force them to the negotiating table where they should make concessions to get him to back off the tariffs.  The signs are that he will achieve a lot less than he set out to get.  And neither side may be better off.

Two talks last week revealed that his policy was not working.  Meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump said that the U.S. did not need his country’s exports, asserting that America could be self-sufficient.  Carney, an experienced negotiator, avoided debating the point, but merely noted that Canada is the biggest customer in the world for U.S. exports.

Trump is so focused on the trade balance in goods that he ignored exports and the favorable U.S. balance in services or his country’s reliance on Canadian oil, uranium and other essential goods. He failed to recognize that many products, like automobiles, are truly international, making it impossible to label them as coming from a single source.

After Trump again grandstanded about his desire to make Canada the 51st state and Carney’s understandable rejection, the two sides retired to begin closed, substantive talks going beyond scoring on one another.  In effect, Trump recognized that he needs a deal, which Carney already knew.

The second event was the announcement of a trade deal with the U.K.  Ever since Brexit, the Brits have sought a comprehensive trade arrangement, possibly a free trade deal, with the U.S., to compensate somewhat for losing Europe.  But the U.S. has had a favorable trade balance with Britain, giving it no reason to make a major deal.

That changed.  Trump needed an early trade deal to justify his tariff policy.  British Prime Minister Keir Starmer needed an accord to show the U.K. still has a special relationship with the U.S., and that the Labour Party could bring home a trade deal responding to some of Britain’s hopes.  Both leaders congratulated themselves on making a long sought after deal.

That may have been good politics for each of them, but it wasn’t true.  The deal removed some of the trade measures that Trump had applied to the U.K. without justification, but the Financial Times, a leading British newspaper, noted that it still left the U.K. worse off than it had been before Trump returned to office.

A deal with China really could matter, and both sides need it.  Trump looked anxious in claiming prematurely that talks with Beijing were under way, when at best contacts took place about starting talks.  At last, they have begun.  With China, the president’s tariff policy might produce results, though whether China keeps its promises would remain in doubt.

Overall, the Trump tariff policy is failing.  Originally focused solely on imports of goods, the policy missed the effects on domestic prices, access to essential imports, American exports as other countries retaliated, and the trade-stopping effects of astronomic tariff rates.  He now seems to begin to understand the implications of his one-note trade policy.

But his performance in talks with Carney and Starmer suggests he can’t adjust his demands.  Better qualified negotiators try to save the appearance of his claims, while making realistic arrangements.  One result is that the British deal is not a comprehensive pact, but simply covers specific items, with many details left to be completed.

Not only is his high tariff policy fading into face-saving pacts limited to a few products, but Trump himself seems to be fading.  What should have been said about Joe Biden as his term wore on, seems to be increasingly true for Trump. He restates broad themes, but lacks the energy or grasp of details to go further.  He leaves that to others.

When asked what the Declaration of Independence, posted on his office wall meant to him, he said it was a declaration about “unity and love” when it was about rebellion and anger.  When describing the U.K. trade deal, he read from prepared written remarks, possibly for the first time, showing no sign of understanding the deal.

He continues to ring the chimes for his key policies: mass deportation of illegal immigrants, stopping other countries from “robbing” the U.S., and slashing the federal government.  The question arises if he is capable of making these policies work as they face growing opposition.

 

 

Does Trump support the Constitution?

Gordon L. Weil

About 240 years ago, two major documents were committed to print.  Both were landmarks and both have been the object of interpretation and evolution.  

One is the U.S. Constitution. The other is Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 21, a major classical work.  A recent New York Times commentary offered a compelling analysis of what they have in common.

Both must be taken literally: read the words, play the notes.  But much has changed since they were written.  Tastes have changed, the halls of Congress and concert halls have changed, and, above all, American presidents and orchestra conductors have changed.   Within the limits of what was written, there’s room for different interpretations and styles.

The Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II, the Vietnam War, and Supreme Court rulings have all affected the terms and underlying assumptions of the Constitution.  The relative balance of powers between the state and federal governments and between the president and Congress have evolved.

The original drafters understood that the future interpretations of the Constitution inevitably would have to recognize the effects of changes that they could not envisage.  For them, the essence must be preserved: protecting people from the government as provided in the Bill of Rights, the balance of power and individual liberty.

Originalists, like Justice Clarence Thomas, believe that the terms of the Constitution must be interpreted as they were understood when it was written. They assume that the Framers’ thinking embodied almost godlike wisdom that could endure and could apply unchanged to any later turns of history.

An alternate view, probably held by the Framers themselves, would be that the principles were permanent, but just as the world evolved, so would the “living Constitution.”  The challenge for courts would not only be to recognize change, but how the Framers’ views would have evolved on how it should be applied in the new world.

In interpreting Mozart’s concerto, to play it loud or soft, fast or slow is the conductor’s job.  In American government, the job is shared by the three branches of the government.  Increasingly, however, the president has become the conductor of the music of the Constitution.  But, even if a president may alter the tempo and emphasis, they cannot change the tune.

When a person assumes the presidency, the Constitution prescribes the exact commitment they are taking – to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  The Constitution requires every office holder down to the local elected official to make the same commitment.  It is an American loyalty oath for those exercising the public trust.

This commitment is necessary, because “absolute power corrupts.”   To avoid the public trust expresed in elections becoming the path to authoritarian rule, as happened in Germany in 1933, the commitment both reminds the new officeholder that they are bound by a written code and requires them to publicly acknowledge their acceptance.

When asked if he supported the Constitution, President Trump, a man who proclaims his own unusually good memory, forgot the commitment he undertook only 100 days earlier.  “I don’t know,” he said.  Really?  Or was he merely trying to give himself enough scope to be able the change the constitutional tune.

He finds one key requirement cannot be observed in pursuing his policy of mass deportation of illegal immigrants.  All persons, not only citizens, have the right to due process of law before the government takes action against them.  That means they must be able to answer the government’s charge and have the complaint and their defense judged by a neutral party.

Trump says that providing due process to the millions he wants to eject would be impossible.  He wants the Constitution to give absolute power to him, because he won a presidential election.  If due process for millions is impossible, then Trump’s policy, not the Constitution, must give way.  That’s the meaning of the obligation to protect and defend the founding document.

He counts on his electoral majority to carry the great weight.  Behind this view may be the “two-tier theory” of the law.  As the law applies to ordinary life, in matters from divorce to crime to contracts, nothing changes.  Most people see no change in their lives and will accept the other tier that gives the president powers unchecked by law.

Ultimately, the issue is likely to be determined by the Supreme Court, perhaps within a couple of months.  Trump claims the automatic right to citizenship at birth in the U.S., found in the Fourteenth Amendment, has limits, allowing mass deportation of “birthright” citizens.  In 1898, the Supreme Court said the right was unconditional.  The text and legislative history were clear.

If the Court ends up agreeing with Trump’s new interpretation, the Constitution would no longer protect people from the government of the day.   The music would end. 

Is America 'a house divided against itself'?

 

Gordon L. Weil

The other day, as I was leaving Lowe’s, a store that offers a veteran’s discount that I use, the checkout person called after me, “I love my veterans.”

She didn’t know if I was a Republican or Democrat or where I stood in the great political divide. I simply belong to a group of people who had given up some time and effort to their country. That group of people have a sense of belonging.  It’s real; fellow veterans share it.

A recent essay in the New York Times focuses on belonging as one of the essential benefits of religious affiliation.  The author states: “People need to be in strong communities to flourish, defined as being in a state where all aspects of their lives are good.” 

Another essay, this time in the Washington Post, pays tribute to the practice of ICE personnel saying, “Welcome home,” to citizens returning from travel abroad.  That welcome extends to anybody with a U.S. passport, regardless of their political affiliation or membership in any ethnic group.  The author found no other country where people get that greeting.

The author writes that this greeting is about “what makes America distinctive in the first place.

“America is the rare nation that is built on an idea rather than blood or soil. Our belonging, as Americans, isn’t predetermined by ancestry but secured through a commitment to certain universal principles — freedom, equality and the radical notion that citizens create their own government rather than the other way around.”

The sense of belonging matters to most, if not all, people.

And what matters about belonging is its emphasis on what people share, no matter how much they may differ on issues, even important issues.  Differences, which are inevitable, should not be allowed to go so far that they destroy the common sense of belonging.

But sometimes they do.  Some people use their power, a feature of life that is inevitably temporary, to force others to adhere to their views and demands.  They would simply override that common sense of belonging.

The alternative is not simply to let each person pursue their own beliefs and values.  To libertarians, that may seem to be all right so long as you don’t tread on someone else’s values. Increasingly, people try to impose their personal beliefs on others.  In the end, everybody lives in the same house, so nobody should be allowed to go so far as to destroy the house.  

The problem in modern American politics is the attempt of any one group to dominate. It is embodied in the famous football quote, mistakenly attributed to Vince Lombardi: “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.”

Winning is neither everything nor the only thing.  Not for everybody.

With his prompt acceptance of a Supreme Court decision that he did not win the presidency in 2000, Al Gore placed his belonging to the country ahead of himself.  With his dogged refusal to accept that he did not win the presidency in 2020, Donald Trump placed himself ahead of belonging to the country.

This column may sound like a sermon, but it’s meant as a political observation.  If we continue to act as if implacable divisiveness is inevitable, allowing it to prevent compromise and to overwhelm our common sense of belonging, the U.S. again becomes, as Lincoln saw it, “a house divided against itself.”  He warned that such a house “cannot stand.”