Drone revolution: great powers waning

Drone revolution: great powers waning

Europe resists U.S.

 

Gordon L. Weil

Domination of world affairs by the great powers is waning.

A great power might be defined as a country that can influence other countries, wherever they are located, but cannot be dominated by any other nation.  Great Britain was once such a power as was the Soviet Union.  More than a century ago, the U.S. succeeded Britain and more recently so has China, occupying the USSR’s slot.

Conventional wisdom says the world will be subject to the dictates of the United States and China.   Russia, once thought to be a member of the great power elite, has weakened and become dependent on China.

The U.S. and China have the two largest economies and armed forces.  They have vast territories, and many nations may depend on their protection.   It looks like they will be rivals for ultimate control and will engage in competition, if not outright conflict, for years to come.  But do they now meet the definition of a great power? 

President Trump translates America First into both pre-eminent domination and the expectation of ready acceptance by Europe, Latin America and others.  But countries resist and are aided by technology that empowers smaller states to evade or deny great power domination.

The drone revolution has changed the nature of war and the role of great powers.  Medium-state brains in the lab beat great power boots on the ground.

Ukraine may be the leader in undermining the notion of great power status.  At first, Washington believed that Russia, which it saw as a great power, could easily overrun its weak neighbor.  Last year, Trump, thinking in great power terms, said that Russia had all the cards, while Ukraine had none. 

Ukraine lost an estimated 99 percent of U.S. support last year.  It developed its own attack drones, that have effectively blunted Russian advances.    A Ukrainian drone costs about $50,000 or less as opposed to a comparable U.S. Patriot missile costing $2 million.  Some drones are reused.

Last August, Ukraine offered to assist the U.S. with its drones, but was dismissed as a client state, seeking attention.   Last week, the U.S. asked for Ukraine’s help with drones.  So much for not having any cards; the great power needed the smaller nation.

Trump has also alienated allies.  He wants Europe’s military to help in his war against Iran, though he had not consulted them in advance.  While they help to the extent it serves their interests, they have declined some of his demands.

Greenland rankles with them.  When Trump raised the possibility of a military takeover there, Europe resisted.  It has been revealed that Denmark, France and Germany sent troops there to blow up its airfields to block a U.S. invasion.

Europe supposedly avoids a deeper break with the U.S. because of American troops there and its nuclear umbrella.  But does Europe really depend on American protection and, if so, from what country?   Russia is the historic NATO threat, but it cannot even defeat Ukraine.  Its ace card is nuclear arms, but France and the U.K. have them as well.  That can affect U.S. power.

Trump called the Europeans “cowards” for not backing his war, but they have found the courage to resist him.  America’s influence as a great power declines.

Ukraine also indirectly reduced China’s clout.  Its major goal is to take Taiwan.  To achieve this goal, it would have to invade the island, more difficult than Russia attempted with neighboring Ukraine.  Having potential access to Ukraine’s drones may allow Taiwan to force a change in China’s calculations and, at the same time, make it less dependent on the U.S. for protection. 

Middle powers have an increased ability to affect world affairs.   Technology levels the field.  AI is increasingly available, adding to the ability to tamper with foreign government software.  The size of ground forces may matter less than the ability to deliver hits through remote technology.  Last week, drones flew unchecked over the residences of key cabinet secretaries. 

More nations can develop their own nuclear weapons.  The EU has announced an aggressive effort to promote regional energy resources, renewables and nuclear.  These moves reduce the power of the world’s giants.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney warned that if a country is not at the table, it is on the menu.  When Trump attacked Iran, expecting Europe to play a supporting role, that’s what happened.  Though it had no influence on his strategy, Europe must pay the higher price of oil and deploy its air forces to support the U.S.

In his second term, Trump has lost other nations’ trust, which depends on reliability and cooperation.   They now seek increased self-reliance, and are forming new inter-regional relationships to escape U.S. influence.

Whatever the beliefs about a coming bipolar world, many countries, especially the middle powers, want to ensure it won’t happen. 

Trump’s war thwarts ‘drill, baby, drill’, boosts renewables

 

Trump’s war thwarts ‘drill, baby, drill’

He boosts renewables

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump is unintentionally remaking energy policy.

Not reckoning with the huge energy impacts from his Iran War, perhaps because he had no thought it would last long, he has brought deep and likely permanent changes to America’s energy economy and possibly the world’s.  He missed Iran’s ability to quickly use its key position as an oil exporter in retaliation for the U.S.-Israel attacks.

He learned that Iran could limit or prevent oil exports through the narrow Strait of Hormuz, causing a large reduction in the amount of oil available in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.   Iran’s move was the major unintended consequence of the war.

The president’s answer was to see Hormuz as a naval blockade that could be overcome by naval force.  Deploy an armada of warships and minesweepers and the major naval powers could quickly end the blockade. 

He did not reckon with Iran’s decision to allow tankers destined for countries not aligned with the U.S. to pass through the Strait.  Now did he count on the effectives of Iran’s small speedboats to harass and damage larger vessels to the point they would not seek passage.

More significantly, he learned that European and other allies would not respond to his request for their help.  He seemed to believe that NATO Article 5 meant they should support the U.S.  But NATO is a defensive alliance, designed to aid member countries that have been attacked. But the Iran conflict is a war of choice, and NATO members have declined to aid its instigator.

Desperate for more oil, Trump eased oil market limits placed on Russia.  He placed a new burden on European allies.  His move will give Russia more to spend on its Ukraine war, and Europe, as Ukraine’s prime backer, would have to spend more to keep pace.

The effectiveness of Iran’s response has been shown by the record drawdown of the international community’s petroleum reserves.  Intended to help when national supplies were reduced by wars and similar interruptions, the reserve has become an instrument of war.   And the drawdown left major countries less well defended and more vulnerable.

The Iran war has gone on longer than Trump had anticipated.  The longer it goes, the longer it will take to restore a quasi-normal petroleum market.  Like Trump’s tariffs, it will encourage the creation of new trading relationships that could continue even after the war ends.  The object lesson of the Iran war is for nations to reduce energy risk.

More U.S. oil production won’t help.   As the world petroleum prices increase, oil companies boost their prices and profits, though their own costs don’t increase.  It happened immediately, and their initial gain has been estimated at $63 billion.  It would be more with a longer war.

Trump’s greatest accomplishment from the Iran war may be his inadvertent assistance to the development of renewable energy.   He has long scorned solar and wind power as being by-products of “woke” environmental policies.   Yet he is creating the conditions that will make renewables more attractive.

Perhaps the principal complaint against renewables is their cost.  They require new investment in facilities and in electric transmission lines.  The new facilities add to the already substantial investment by fossil fuel generators, nuclear power and transmission companies.

Add to the cost the perception that, while oil and natural gas can flow continuously to existing power plants as needed, the availability of wind and solar power depends on the weather.  It is less reliable and must be backed up.

If oil supplies are cut and the price of oil almost doubles, the economics of renewables improve radically.  The cost of redundancy to improve reliability and the development of large-scale power storage becomes more competitive.  In fact, with the price of oil over $100 a barrel, that point may have been reached.

As the Straits of Hormuz blockage demonstrates, geography and politics matter.  A significant share of world oil is jeopardized by a conflict remote from the markets that need that oil, making obvious the case for siting generation closer to markets.  Power supply from domestic renewables is more secure than supply originating abroad or subject to foreign cost-setting.

Wind power from Maine at known costs can become more economically attractive in New England than natural gas, even from U.S. suppliers, subject to world market prices.  Along the same lines, increased nuclear generation and the rebirth of hydropower are now attractive alternatives. 

While the federal government has long subsidized and supported fossil fuels, Trump has given renewables a boost.

Energy prices will increase, as they have, and remain higher.   Reducing pressure on family budgets could overcome environmental concerns about hydro and nuclear, while recognizing the new economic competitiveness of renewables.  

It’s a trade-off where affordability trumps “drill, baby, drill.”

‘Guilt by association’ becomes political weapon

 

‘Guilt by association’ becomes political weapon

Applied to Muslims, Democrats

 

Gordon L. Weil

Last week, a man destructively drove his car into a Jewish synagogue in Michigan.  A guard there killed him.

The man was an American who had immigrated from Lebanon, though much of his family remained there.  Some of them had been killed by an Israeli bomb attack, part of its extensive aerial campaign against Hezbollah, the terrorist group operating there.

The Michigan attack was likely the man’s response to his family’s loss of life.  He acted against an American Jewish religious site, though the bombing had been carried out by Israel, the Jewish state in the Middle East.   Attempting to punish one Jewish community for the actions of another would be a case of guilt by association.

Guilt by association occurs when “an individual is guilty of a crime simply because of his association with the person who actually committed it.”   It is based on an assumption without evidence.

The assumption in this case was that American Jews support Israel’s actions.   In fact, some do and some don’t, so it is incorrect to assume that all Jews agree with Israel simply because they are Jews.

Quite properly, the governor of Michigan quickly condemned the attack.  But she went further, proclaiming that it was an act of antisemitism.   She assumed that the man hated Jews because they were Jewish and acted against them in expressing his sentiment. 

She, too, engaged in guilt by association, ascribing the action to a motivation she assumed rather than the more obvious possibility that the man, not having been known for antisemitism, had not disliked Jews but associated them as members of the same group that had killed members of his family.

Guilt by association has become increasingly frequent in the U.S.  Entire groups are regularly held responsible for the actions of individual members of the group.

Nowhere is that more evident than in attitudes toward Muslims.  The Al Qaeda terrorists who conducted the 9/11 attacks were Muslims.  There are about two billion Muslims in the world, most of them not connected to the Middle East terrorists.  Yet some Americans, reacting to the religious zeal of militant groups, have become strongly opposed to Muslims.

The reaction has gone so far as members of Congress proposing that Muslims should be denied legal entry to the U.S. and, even if legally in the country, should be deported.  Proposals go so far as suggesting that naturalized citizens who are Muslims should be stripped of their citizenship and deported.  This is surely acting out guilt by association.

President Trump asserts that Somali immigrants are “garbage” and says, “We don’t want them in our country.”  In a Minnesota scandal, an organization run by Somalis fraudulently recovered funds meant for food programs.  That action did not involve most of the 260,000 Somalis in the U.S. or impugn their character.

Thanks to guilt by association and a dislike of their country of origin (among what he calls “shithole” countries), Trump wants them removed.  He backed the ICE armed and masked invasion of Minnesota, where the principal casualties were two U.S. citizens, neither of them of Somali origin.

Similarly, Trump says he “hates” Democrats.  Though  he is president of the government of all the people, he treats his opponents as the enemy, implying they are a “socialist” threat to the country.   Because Communists consider themselves socialists, the implication is that Democrats are associated with a traditional American enemy.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent aligned with the Democrats, labels himself as a democratic socialist.  It’s a short step from his affiliation to intentionally confusing the Democrats with socialism, with its barely hidden implications.  The opposition party can be made into a subversive force, which must be defeated.

If you believe GOP allegations that Democrats are socialists, then it becomes possible for voters to abandon them and become unquestionably loyal, conservative Republicans.  One recent report shows that is happening in Maine municipalities, though the cause is not known.  Guilt by association with Bernie’s label is a possibility.

On a much more minor scale, the Epstein documents reveal the names of many people, though none of them has been charged with supporting his illegal actions.  Just having known him is a cause for public scorn and possible retaliation.  Guilt by association has become so common a standard that it can be self-righteously applied to some previously well-regarded individuals.

“Judge not lest ye be judged” is a biblical maxim.  It is obviously tempting to assign guilt to others from a safe or dominant position in society.  But guilt by association clearly has no limits, and anyone may one day find themselves the unwarranted target of those who oppose them.

Not only can it be personally risky, but guilt by association can be a major contributor to the national divisiveness that people say they oppose.

 

Trump yields to impulse, causes war

Trump yields to impulse, causes war

Expected patriotic reaction

Gordon L. Weil

The spreading effects of the U.S.-Israel war against Iran reveal both President Trump’s impulse and the reflexive reaction to it.

Trump became committed to the attack thanks to the false confidence he gained from his easy success in toppling Venezuela’s president and to unrelenting pressure from Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, who argued that Iran was ripe to end Ayatollah Khamenei’s theocratic rule and its regional terrorism.

By deploying a U.S. Navy armada to the region, Trump prepared to deliver a quick and devastating blow to Iran.  Not only could the anti-American regime be toppled, but the liberated people of Iran could install a more democratic government.

Enjoying almost unlimited power in the U.S., Trump would be able single-handedly to bring peace to the Middle East.  The Middle East would hail his efforts.   By deploying the American power at his disposal as commander in chief, he could gain a quick and positive outcome, bringing himself great credit.

It’s no secret that Trump covets the Nobel Peace Prize.  He defines peace as the absence of war, so that if he can halt battlefield deaths, he should qualify.  The creation of conditions to bring lasting peace, while desirable, is not essential to the achievement.   However, the Nobel Committee is unlikely to award the Prize to a person who bombed his way to it.

Acceding to Israel’s sense of urgency ended the prospects of a negotiated settlement with Iran, though its representatives said that an agreement was at hand.   While a negotiated peace might achieve immediate objectives, especially on Iran’s nuclear development, it would not bring regime change.  Better to destroy its theocracy now than to settle with it.

Trump’s impulse to build on Venezuela fed on itself.  Lacking any military experience, he is obviously impressed by the vast power at his disposal without understanding the limits of purely armed power, especially in relying exclusively on aerial attacks.  He favored air power, because he sought to avoid the political risks resulting from the direct deployment of ground troops.

But his simple impulse caused Trump to ignore the potential effects of his action within and beyond the borders of Iran.  If the U.S. prevailed quickly, there would be few downsides to his brief war.  But the war now drags on, and Trump makes no clear decision on what it will take to end it.  Israel keeps pushing for its continuation.

Impulse ignored inflation.  Endangering the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran can control, the war has driven up the price of oil.  Americans pay more at the gas pump and in the price of many goods.  Strategic petroleum reserves must be drawn down to deal with effects of an artificial emergency.  Improving affordability and reversing inflation are lost. Promises, promises.

Impulse ignored Iran’s ability to extend the war across the Middle East, resulting in deaths of U.S. service personnel, while blindsiding and harming the economies of friendly countries.   Iran was stronger than he thought and pursued a strategy that could deny American victory.

Impulse ignored the need for the help and support of European allies which had only recently been told that they did nothing for the U.S. and weren’t important to American interests.  They had stiffened their backs when he sought to grab Greenland.

Impulse ignored faltering trust and confidence in the U.S., boosting the power of China and Russia.  The Iran war has created opportunities for them with no offsetting American gains.

Trump claimed Iran posed a threat to the U.S.  If an Iranian attack might happen at any moment, instant action, without considering unintended consequences, might be justified.  No evidence was offered that this threat was imminent, requiring an immediate preemptive strike. 

By proclaiming an Iranian threat, the president asked Americans to “rally round the flag.”  The country will support the president when meeting a real threat or attack.  President G.W. Bush’s popularity had soared when he responded to the 9/11 attacks.  Trump might transcend current political issues by issuing his alarm.

The American reflex is to drop partisanship in favor of patriotism when faced with aggression.  Members of Congress feel they must show their loyalty to the country and to the commander in chief.  Their reflex can unify the nation behind its leader.  Their conformity matters, and presidents count on it.

Many Republicans reflexively backed Trump, while Democrats fumbled over a clear reaction, calling for more information and investigations.  That sounds like action, but produces nothing.

The U.S. finds itself in a costly war of questionable necessity.  If skepticism and doubts about the war keep growing, Trump may be held to account by the voters.  Worry about electoral blowback could end the war, but its effects would linger.

Perhaps the answer is TACO – Trump always chickens out.   His overheated impulse could give way to cold reality, repackaged as victory.

 

 

 

Congress caves on Iran

 Congress caves on Iran

Gordon L. Weil

Maine Sen. Susan Collins demonstrated last week how she maintains her reputation as a Republican moderate.  Her statements are evidence of the decline of Congress.

As President Trump geared up for the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, Collins cautioned that war should only be a “last resort.”  This remark was constructive, because Iran’s representatives still held out the hope of a negotiated settlement on their nuclear development.  But, like the rest of Congress and America’s allies, Collins did not know that Trump had already decided on war. 

War came, and questions were promptly raised about the absence of congressional authorization.  The War Powers Resolution, intended to limit a president’s ability to take the U.S. to war, might be used to put on the brakes.  Under that Resolution, the president is required to brief Congress within 48 hours and needs congressional authorization to continue the war beyond 60 days.

Collins opposed mandating an earlier end of the Iran war.  Her stated rationale was that Trump had provided the required briefing and therefore could legally proceed.  Collins and all Republican senators but one refused to deauthorize the action.

The impression left by Collins was that Trump had acted legally, so no further action was needed.  What happened to her “last resort?”   The GOP attitude ignored the purpose of the 48-hour notice.  Congress does not have to wait 60 days to halt the war.  By their action, the GOP senators and later the House approved the war.

Their action recalled the congressional vote supporting President G.W. Bush’s Iraq War. Members don’t want to look weak after the president has proclaimed that he acted to protect Americans.  In the Iraq case, the supposed threat from “weapons of mass destruction” did not exist.  In the Iran case, Trump has offered nothing more about a threat than his opinion.

After Iraq, some senators and representatives regretted having gone along with the vote.  Similarly, after the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, members expressed regret about having authorized the Vietnam War, relying on false reports about an alleged attack on a U.S. submarine.

The past votes were not as openly partisan as was the Iran vote, which took on the character of an expression of GOP support for the MAGA president.  It did not appear to be an individually considered decision about sending U.S. armed forces into combat with the attendant loss of life by citizens of the U.S. and other nations.

It’s now argued that the world has changed since the Constitution was written, and Congress would move too slowly to declare war in modern times.  It is sensible to leave the decision on war to the president, some analysts say, because presidents control foreign affairs and serve as commander-in-chief.

The prime power left to Congress is to enact legislation to block funding for a war, though it would have to withstand a presidential veto.  That would make it almost certain to fail.

As with the earlier authorizations, senators and representatives may yet have to justify their votes.  They may apologize, as have some of their predecessors.  But, when the vote was taken, there seemed to be no thought of their personal accountability to the voters.

Congress cannot “make” war.  A legislative body cannot control military action, beyond authorizing it or not.  But making war is distinct from “declaring” war, which is an essential function of an elected legislature. 

The issue is particularly complicated because the Constitution makes the president, the chief civil official, also the chief military officer.   What worked for George Washington did not work for many of his successors. 

Congress must make the policy decision committing the country on a course that will cost the lives of Americans and others.  While generals must inevitably issue orders resulting in the death of some of their troops, their actions must be authorized by agencies responsible to the people in whose name they act.

In the U.S., the responsible agency is Congress and not the lone chief executive.  The president may order actions costing lives, but they should have congressional authorization.  The power over life and death is too great an authority to accord to a single person, one who may never again face voter scrutiny.

The current War Powers Resolution does not work well.  The Resolution applies after the fact, which is too late.  Going through the motions of following it allowed Sen. Collins to abandon her moderate “last resort” statement for GOP partisanship.

If Congress values its authority and believes the constitutional war power needs updating, it should adopt a Resolution that its funding approval for any future war requires it receiving advance notice, except in case of a direct attack on the U.S. 

Without some role for Congress, the president’s surprise attack on an adversary is also a surprise attack on his own country.

This means war! U.S. starts Middle East conflict

 

Gordon L. Weil

Here’s the classic dictionary definition of war.  “War is a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between political units.”

The U.S. and Israel, its ally, attacked Iran, a nation state, and Iran counterattacked. This met the definition of war, and the conflict quickly spread to other countries in the Middle East.

The war is probably not “legal” under the Constitution or international law.  So what?  Its legality may be a matter of debate, U.S. politics or international law – none of it enforceable.  But it is taking place, legal or not.  To harp on its illegality is impractical self-righteousness.

The U.S. was not attacked, so President Trump launched a preemptive war.  Get them before they get you.  To merit war, the threat must have been imminent, despite Trump having recently claimed that the U.S. had “obliterated” the Iranian nuclear capability. 

Israel may have forced Trump to act by its own intention to strike militarily, which could bring Iranian attacks on U.S. forces, but the president has a hard case to make that Iran directly threatened the U.S.

For good reason, the U.S. and Europe, to say nothing of Israel, have worried about Iran’s nuclear development.  If Iran’s intentions were not aggressive, it surely let its threatening rhetoric get beyond what was acceptable.  If war came, Iran seems to have strategized that it could create chaos throughout the region.  It would not prevail, but it could keep the U.S. from winning.

Iran bothers Trump.  Contrast it with North Korea, Russia’s troops-on-the-ground ally in the Ukraine war.  It is openly aggressive and, like Iran, has medium-range missiles.  But Trump was willing to travel to meet with its leader and even to say he loved America’s avowed enemy.  He has launched no preemptive war there.  In Asia, there is no oil and no Israel, but there is China.

Trump apparently believed that he could bomb Iran into submission quickly.  Israel would eliminate the Supreme Leader, just as the U.S. had toppled the Venezuelan president, making it possible to gain Iran’s submission.  As a result of his assumption, he did not pay sufficient attention to Iran’s ability to launch a missile response and extend the war.

He admitted that he was “surprised” by Iran’s response.  His statement was a direct admission of the failure of American intelligence or of his having ignored the CIA, consistent with his past low regard for its reliability regarding Russia.

The war quickly involved about a dozen countries, led to the deaths of American service personnel and the possibility of more, caused the closure of an essential waterway for oil exports to Japan and left many Americans and others under fire across the Middle East.  The price of oil immediately increased and financial markets, his favorite indicator, suffered losses.

In a nation preoccupied by affordability, Trump undertook a war sure to drive up prices.  Perhaps he recognized that he could not win the pocketbook argument, but it might be explained away by a war that people could be made to believe was necessary.  And Epstein could be forgotten.

In preparing to launch the war, the U.S. had repositioned major naval assets in the area.  This stripped the South China Sea of forces impeding Chinese control and endangered Taiwan.  The Venezuela blockade was almost forgotten.

It looks like what may have been impulsive and poorly planned actions had been undertaken without adequate consideration of their broader implications.  Solo policy making, without the benefit of congressional input, the views of experienced, long-time allies, reliable intelligence and defined goals, results in high human cost and a possibly prolonged impact.

For about a century, the United States has been the leading world power.  World War II made it both the principal instrument of victory and the potential guarantor of world peace.  Cognizant of its great power, but changing its role, Trump chose to deploy its armed forces in the hope of quick military results, preferable to difficult, long and complex negotiations.

As a candidate, Trump promised to keep the country out of war.  Many voters saw armed conflict as a waste of American lives for pointless results, and they supported him.  His America First had the merit of leaving foreign wars to others, while focusing on domestic economic growth.  Then, he abandoned this key promise.

He turned the Department of Defense into the Department of War.  While deterrence kept America out of war and influenced other nations to negotiate, having vast U.S. military power under his exclusive command was too tempting.  The models of Putin and Netanyahu, unchecked in their ambitions, were appealing.

The prize of victory that he thought he could gain quickly was better than the Nobel Peace Prize that he might never gain.

Is a November election landslide possible?

 

Gordon Weil

November’s congressional elections may follow a predictable script.

But there could be another scenario, turning an expected squeaker into a landslide.

According to conventional thinking, the elections are contests for a few seats that could tip the balance to the Democrats, giving them a good chance of winning the House and the possibility of a Senate victory.

This thinking inevitably focuses on relatively few elections in scattered swing states or districts.  The Republicans, heavily committed to backing their leader, focus on holding their slim but effective congressional majorities.  The Democrats count on declining presidential popularity to hand them enough seats to gain control.

The elections are clearly about Trump.  His impact factors into virtually every primary and general election.  Strategists assume the status quo will generally survive in most contests with Trump’s political fate determined in marginal seats. 

For Trump, the elections are personal.  He worries that a Democratic House majority will impeach him for a third time.  A man who likes to set “never before in history” records, he doesn’t want this one.

His strategy calls for countering the usual mid-term election losses of an incumbent president’s party.  He believes that erecting obstacles to voting will reduce the number of likely Democratic voters, especially the poor and minorities.  He also pushes for redistricting to tilt political demographics his way and prepares to claim fraud, if the GOP loses.

He punishes Democratic states by cutting funding and launching ICE invasions, creating incentives for them to flip to his side.   Though he has alienated some voting groups, he may write them off as being concentrated in states where he wouldn’t win in any case.  He plays to the prejudices of voters who could protect his majority. 

But there is an alternative scenario.  Suppose his falling poll ratings indicate a widespread national rejection of Trump’s style and substance.  The sagging approval ratings for his presidential performance and almost all his key policies suggest this possibility.  While he could hold his MAGA core, he might face outright nationwide opposition.  

Trump has openly offended women, Blacks, Hispanics and other groups.  His anti-minority beliefs have brought the exclusion of female and Black military leaders, the erasing of American history about slavery and racial discrimination, arrests of people because of the color of their skin, killing Americans and ignoring the Constitution. 

Voters, alarmed by his narrow national policies and bellicose foreign gambits, might now turn out in large enough numbers to transform a campaign for swing seats into an opposition landslide, burying his efforts to tamper with the electorate. 

The split between progressive and moderate Democrats could matter less than their common opposition to Trump.  Still, an upsurge in support for progressives could be a sign of motivated opposition to MAGA.  And if conservative Republicans can win while opposing Trump, that could also weaken his control.

While this is far from assured, indicators could forecast the final outcome.  Take Maine’s June 9 Democratic Senate primary to pick an opponent to GOP Sen. Susan Collins’ sixth term bid.   

Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer anointed Gov. Janes Mills as most likely to be able to unseat Collins.   Mills is a moderate, but would be the oldest first-year senator in American history.  Normally, she would have a lock on the nomination.

But progressive Graham Platner, a Sanders-endorsed oyster farmer, is popular.  While his life story raises questions, polls indicate he is popular and could defeat both Mills in the primary and Collins in the general.   The latest poll, though of uncertain accuracy, surprisingly shows that about one-fifth of Maine voters are socialists.

Normally, Mills would seem a good fit for Maine.  Platner’s showing could represent the signal that a strong response to Trump is popular.  Interestingly, the Trump-oriented candidate in the Maine GOP governor’s primary currently trails, despite massive early spending.

Another marker may be the May 19 GOP House primary in Kentucky’s 4th congressional district.  Incumbent Thomas Massie, a strong conservative, is Trump’s most notable GOP House critic.  The president recruited a MAGA loyalist to oppose Massie.

A Massie win could encourage other House GOP candidates to put some space between themselves and Trump.  If Massie loses, Trump will have reasserted virtually absolute domination over the Republicans.  Massie has been highly popular, so this race has significant potential to turn into a Trump referendum.

Look also at the Texas GOP Senate primary on Tuesday, March 3, where the winner could face a tough general election.  In the Democratic race, a progressive faces a moderate.  A progressive win could be a sign that Democrats see Trump as vulnerable nationally not just in swing elections.

Possibly relevant postscript:  Last week in a UK special parliamentary election, the Greens (progressive) won, defeating Reform (MAGA, having pushed traditional Conservatives aside), with Labour (Democrats) third.  This was a Labour district.

 

Trump plays games with Congress

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump’s State of the Union Address took on many characteristics of the schoolkid’s game of checkers.

In that game, if your piece reaches the other side of the board, the piece is “kinged.”   Trump wants himself or his policies to be kinged.  Each of his proposals or actions is a piece that could go all the way to become a king. 

While he extols the success of some of his policies, none has moved even halfway across the board, because they all lack majority approval.  His claims for historic success don’t match the record. 

“Our nation is back: bigger, better, richer and stronger than ever before,” he asserted.  But the Wall Street Journal reported: “Polls find that Americans are unhappy with Trump’s handling of the economy.”  It noted that “last month, voters gave the president low marks when asked if he cares about ‘people like you’….” 

The Address was the latest version of the Trump campaign speech.  According to him, everything positive was his doing; everything negative was the Democrats’ fault.  Many voters may want less partisanship, but compromise was not part of Trump’s message, any more than concern for average people.  Trump’s a salesman, who seeks to convince people of his product’s merits.

He made his case was by selling America First nationalism as patriotism.  The U.S. Men’s Ice Hockey Team, the Olympic champions, allowed themselves to be put on display.  Republican legislators chanted, “USA, USA!”

But an American victory on Olympic ice only momentarily overshadowed ICE killings of Americans.  Trump has controlled illegal immigration, but at the cost of his policy being severely degraded by the crude abuses of individual rights by hastily trained ICE agents.  He has had to retreat, hoping to calm public ire.

Still, he tried to embarrass the Democrats.   “If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens. Not illegal aliens,” he said.  Many Democrats remained seated.  The Constitution assures equal treatment to all, not only citizens.  And Americans in Minneapolis weren’t protected.

While polls are not as accurate as often claimed, they can identify trends.  On average, polls show about 60 percent of people are dissatisfied with Trump.  Given the history of the president’s party usually losing House seats in mid-term elections, that could well mean that next year’s Address will find him introduced by a Democratic House Speaker.

Seated before him were four Supreme Court justices, just after the Court had rejected his use of tariffs.  In his ruling, the Chief Justice was thought to have signaled that the courts are set to be less compliant to Trump than Congress.  

But Trump loves tariffs.  Though they are not working, he suggests that they can produce enough income to replace the income tax.   This is pure fantasy.  What is real is that they are fueling some inflation.

On all other issues, voters rate Trump negatively.  His tax reform has increased the deficit but not helped average people.  He seems to believe that tariff revenues will solve spending problems, but he overpromises.  Meanwhile, people have a tough time making ends meet.  A soaring stock market may work for the wealthy, but not for most voters.

The Democratic policy is based on the hope that Trump will defeat himself.   The party lacks a coherent alternative and a single, charismatic spokesperson.  Presidential candidate posturing and the phony rivalry between progressives and moderates who can work together for a common goal are both blocking a positive policy.

The party’s response to Trump’s Address showed that a unifying and forceful alternative is possible.  It came from newly elected Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger.  Coming after the lengthiest State of the Union Address ever, it may have only been viewed by Democratic loyalists.  Her theme was affordability.  It is worth watching.

As usual, Trump confidently asserted verifiable untruths, often misstating the country’s economic conditions as he found them and as they stand today.  “In his speech tonight, the president did what he always does: he lied,” Spanberger said.  Trump’s problem is that people are increasingly aware of the gap between his claims and the truth.

There’s a long way to go between the State of the Union Address and November’s congressional elections.  Now it’s clear he faces increasingly skeptical federal courts and risks the end of GOP control of Congress.

Trump cannot afford to lose GOP support, because the Democrats and non-aligned voters say they strongly oppose him.  Republicans cheered his words and appear to remain loyal, but defections by only a relative few could swing the elections.

He may become a lame duck after the elections.   It could begin even sooner if some congressional Republicans increasingly see their abject loyalty to him as a political disadvantage. 

 

Tariffs failing as Court cracks down

Gordon L. Weil

The big news was that the Supreme Court ruled that most of President Trump’s tariffs were levied illegally.   He so badly wants them to work, that he is trying again in a more limited way, but Congress could limit or stop him.

The real news is that the tariffs aren’t working to achieve his objectives.  In fact, they are hurting American consumers and the economy.  Nothing shows this more clearly that the desperate defense put up by Kevin Hassett, director of the government’s National Economic Council.

Trump had favored him to take over Fed leadership, but was forced to look elsewhere.  Hassett, an extreme Trump loyalist, embodied the notion that the president can control the independent Fed.  His obvious risk to Fed independence was more than Republicans and Democrats could accept. 

Last week, Hassett proved their judgment correct.  He wildly and incorrectly defended Trump’s tariffs in the face of evidence they weren’t producing promised results.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York published a report showing that over the course of 2025, Trump’s tariff increases had mostly hit American consumers and businesses, amounting to a tax increase.  Hassett attacked the report, deriding it as not being worthy of an introductory economics class.

When import tariffs are increased, somebody pays them.  Trump believed that foreign producers would swallow the cost, enabling them to maintain their market share.  He saw their increased burden as punishment for underselling U.S. producers.  If they opted to pass their costs on to American purchasers, higher-cost U.S. production would become competitive.

The report showed that nearly 90 percent of the Trump tariff cost had been passed on to Americans, leaving only a small impact on foreign producers.   After attacking the study, Hassett then admitted the tariffs had caused “a slight increase” in U.S. prices.

But Hassett stuck with Trump’s optimistic view.  Even admitting that tariffs caused price increases, he argued that the benefits outweighed those costs.  After all, imports would be reduced, and American manufacturing would gain and add good-paying factory jobs.  Well-paid workers would be able to pay the higher prices of American products.

Hassett and, by implication, Trump were wrong on all counts.  Not only was the country spared his misguided Fed leadership, but Congress could come to understand that one of the key pillars of the president’s policies simply does not work.

Imports grew as companies stockpiled goods before the tariffs went into effect.  Then, they could be reduced while the resulting import goods were sold off and would stay down as U.S. production picked up.

Not so.  As reported by the New York Times, “U.S. imports grew last year, and the trade deficit in goods hit a record high …, as Mr. Trump’s policies scrambled trade but did not halt it.”   In fact, the deficit in goods, the object of trade battles, swamped the improved U.S. exports of services, not much affected by the tariffs.  Trump pays little attention to services.

Did the added tariff protection increase American manufacturing as Trump and his man Hassett predicted?  Not according to the manufacturers.  Their index showed that factory activity contracted during 2025.  Only in one month under Trump was there any growth.

What about manufacturing employment, which should produce more well-paid workers if the tariff policy works?  The manufacturers employment index fell by more than 10 percent, and the Times reported over 80,000 fewer workers.  The result was less employment in slimmed-down manufacturers.

The president is banking on Trumpenomics beginning to produce positive results before the November elections.  It’s likely that his biggest economic issue is affordability, a word he sometimes has difficulty saying.   That problem will only dissolve if consumer prices moderate.  Not all their levels are caused by tariffs, but tariffs give no sign of helping.

The truth has always been that most countries are not staging economic assaults on the U.S.  To the degree that the Chinese state economy has exploited American demand for cheap goods, Trump’s tariff policy has cut trade with China.   But it has simply moved to other low-cost countries like India, Mexico and Vietnam.

Trump likes to give the impression that the U.S. can be self-sufficient and is doing other countries a favor to trade with them.  Maybe it can do without French champagne, but it can’t do without Canadian electricity.

He continually claims the U.S. economy is booming, though the national economy slowed last year.  It is working well for the top 10 percent, relatively little affected by tariffs.  They also drive a climbing stock market, whose performance appears to be a prime Trump indicator of national prosperity.

He tries to jawbone average people into believing their economy is great and getting better.  He depends on the effect of tariffs to make his case, but Trumpenomics is not working.  The voters may provide a better economic index in November. 

Trump overreaches, replacing leadership with threats

 

Gordon L. Weil

It all boils down to “common good” versus “liberty” – the community interest against individual interests.

In his farewell New York Times column, David Brooks suggested that the growth of individual freedom has become an end in itself, undermining the sense of a national community.

President Trump did not invent this development, but he took advantage of it and nourished it. He could hate his political opponents, making compromise impossible. 

Last week, at the Munich Security Conference, the same thinking was starkly applied to the world community.

The U.S. favors nationalism for itself and advocates it for others.  It promotes the same selfish concept of compromise abroad as at home:  we will treat you decently if you agree to follow our demands, which are admittedly made in our own best interests.

After World War II, the U.S., as the world’s greatest power, became the center of the political system based on agreed rules.  The so-called “rules-based order” was meant to place agreed limits on the behavior of nations in their relations with one another.  From an American viewpoint, it could serve to keep the U.S. out of other people’s wars.

The U.S. backed international organizations that were meant to enforce the rules and create conditions favorable to them.  The prime example was the United Nations, created under American auspices.  It also supported the European Union that could bind France and Germany into a relationship making it impossible for them again to war against one another.

On the domestic level, the Democrats and Republicans might differ, but they could find compromises that met the public’s interest in stable and reliable government.  Both parties respected the understandings that had grown up around the constitutional system.

On the international level, the rules-based system expanded and cooperation grew.  American security was served both by its help to others and their dependence on it for the maintenance of the system.

Nationalism was regarded as a threat to peace and should be replaced by joint action.  This concept faced serious challenges as nations and individuals began to enjoy the benefits of the rules-based order and prosperity.  It was something like the person who stops taking their medication because they think themselves cured, only to relapse.

The UN quickly faltered as the Soviet Union rejected its influence.  The EU had proclaimed supranationalism as its goal, with nations conceding powers to a central agency.   But nationalism began to grow again, keeping Europe half-finished.  In the extreme case of Hungary, the challenge is boldly asserted.

Trump’s America First policy means that U.S. power, used to enforce the rules-based order, would be deployed to seek American advantage wherever it could be obtained even by force or the threat of force.  The U.S. would pay only lip-service to UN reform and scorn the EU in the hope that their national interests would return its members to American subservience.

A year ago, Vice President JD Vance had taken an aggressive and threatening tone in addressing the Munich conference.  His approach did not work.  This year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent the same message but sugar-coated it with meaningless and faintly racist assurances of common outlook.  His approach did not work.

Trump had overreached, replacing leadership with menace.  He became an overt fellow traveler of Russian President Putin, Europe’s obvious adversary.  He threatened the independence of Canada, America’s neighbor and closest ally.  He attacked the EU.  He freely invaded Venezuela and bombed Iran.

But the ultimate issue that told the world that Trump’s America could not be trusted was his demand to be given or to take Greenland, part of the Kingdom of Denmark.  That country has been a committed American ally and was willing to accept a major U.S. role in Greenland.  But Trump’s cold aggression gave Europe a permanent chill.   Rubio could not warm it up.

The results may not be his desired world of small nations leaving its future to the US, China and Russia.  Europe has been given the incentive to find common ground on building a common defense under a common policy and in building a more efficient and less bureaucratic EU.

Similarly, on the national level, Trump has also overreached.  He has lost his popularity on all major issues but most notably on immigration, his hallmark.  He mistakenly believed that opposition to excessive immigration meant that most Americans wanted to expel immigrants who would undermine white political domination.  His approach did not work.

At home, Trump could turn to seeking practical solutions instead of pursing his personal agenda.  If he doesn’t, after 2028, they could begin taking his name off buildings.

Cooperation and compromise have become dirty words for authoritarians, nationalists and the MAGA movement.  They fail to understand that nations and individuals can freely decide on acting together to pursue common interests.

The best Ameriann president -- wealthy, famous

 

Gordon L.Weil

One president changed everything.

Among the wealthiest people in the country, he had come to the presidency after having achieved a national reputation and gained broad name recognition.  He owned profitable economic entities and even said he did not want to keep his presidential salary.

He was elected with a clear majority of both the popular vote and the electoral vote.  He was his own political party.   He was so popular that many supporters asked him to serve a third term as president.  He was widely honored, and many public places carried his name.

He believed in a strong presidency.  His Supreme Court appointees would back his views on the powers of the presidency.  He respected the powers of the Congress, but he sought to draw clear lines between the executive and legislative branches, defining the checks and balances between the two.

He understood that his presidency gave him the opportunity to overhaul the federal government from what he regarded as institutional weakness that had left it unable to deal with issues of the day.  He believed he had been given a special responsibility for this task, setting the government  on a new course.

He asserted his exclusive right to control foreign policy and there would be no doubt about his full authority as commander in chief.  He also sought to ensure that the states would not prevent the federal government from carrying out what he saw as its broad responsibilities.  He issued executive orders and vetoes.

Though not an elegant writer, he used the media to convey his views widely.  He wanted to communicate directly with the people without being filtered by others.

Though some might see this as a description of Donald Trump, it applies to another president. His name was George Washington.

The description above might fit Trump, but there’s one big difference.  Washington’s approach to governing was centered on his commitment to creating and leading institutions that served public needs and hopes.  Trump’s agenda is purely personal, and his approach reflects his will to impose his own beliefs and values on the country.

This week the U.S. celebrates his birthday.  The holiday remains officially “Washington’s Birthday,” though commerce has turned it into Presidents Day.  Each year on the occasion, I write about the person whom I consider to be the greatest American president. 

Washington’s most comprehensive statement on the federal government came in his Farewell Address, issued when he announced he would not seek a third term.  In effect, his statement was his political will to his country.   Viewed today, some of it is outdated, while public policy must now address some situations that he did not contemplate.

Much of the Address is devoted to an attack on the emerging political parties.  While he invited debate and wanted to learn from it, he argued that political parties would exist for their own purposes, sacrificing the national interest.  In modern terms, he opposed both parties and partisanship.

On parties, he wrote: “They are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government….” 

On partisanship, he noted: “It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection.” 

Though he favored a strong president, he insisted on the separation of powers.  He warned those entrusted with governing “to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism.”

Not only did he discuss the federal government, but he confronted a practical political issue.  He declared, “there must be Revenue—that to have Revenue there must be taxes—that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient & unpleasant.”  In his view, government must gain public acceptance of taxes to meet public needs, not merely cut them.

Often seen as only a two-dimensional historic figure, he was a man of great political skill and foresight.  King George III, his adversary, was reported to have said that he could be “the greatest man in the world” for declining a third term.

His Address showed his foresight and was directed to other citizens, people he regarded as his equals.  He would soon return to their ranks.  He wrote that he had tried to avoid making mistakes, but he was modestly aware of “the inferiority of my qualifications.”  This self-awareness is missed today.

 

Exposure of Epstein elete could cost their tax breaks

Gordon L. Weil

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

And Jeffrey Epstein was somebody you ought to know.  He was well connected.

He liked young girls and exploited them sexually for his own pleasure and for his friends’ enjoyment.  It was no secret, and he used access to the young women to attract business and personal contacts.

His collection of friends and contacts was his biggest asset.  The more he had, the more he seemed to get. Now, many of these people face negative, public scrutiny for their association with a convicted pedophile.

The Epstein affair has now risen to become a major international scandal.  It has implicated men who enjoyed the luxury and sex that Epstein provided.  Some either gave him or received inside economic and political information that could make them money or increase their standing.  He subsidized or stole from others.

He readily joined the elite world populated by the rich and famous.  People associated with others like themselves form social circles, some of which overlap.  Taken together these circles form the elite, with its members enjoying the company of one another, luxury, access to income and, for some, sex.

In recent years, much attention has been focused on the gap between the wealthiest and everybody else.  The rich, benefitting from tax breaks and their network of contacts have grown even more wealthy.  They own so much of the economy that they fuel the growth in the consumer and stock markets.

Claims by Presidents Biden and Trump that the economy is thriving are based on the stunning performance of a relatively few people while the vast majority struggle with affordability.  Billionaires like Trump fail to understand the problems of average wage earners, because the lives of average people are so far from their own experience.

The circles around Epstein might have gone unnoticed, except for his illegal use and trade in young women.   He may have thought himself immunized from punishment because of his elite status.   He was formally charged in 2005 with child prostitution, though he got off lightly.

Even after his arrest and conviction, he was allowed to serve his short sentence mainly in his own business office and that may have convinced his elite that he had achieved a special, elevated status making him worth continuing to cultivate.  People of wealth and intelligence could have chosen to research his case and walk away.  Few did.

Some who took part in Epstein-sponsored sex opened themselves to his blackmail or control.   Others could claim, possibly correctly, that they had done nothing illegal or that they were ignorant of some aspects of his life.  They might gain financially from information or contacts he provided without being aware of how he gained his insights.   The elite fed on its myths.

While he may have been a savvy investor, his great influence probably came from gaining the confidence of people who paid him handsomely for his advice.   He had complete control of one billionaire’s financial affairs, from which he derived hundreds of millions.  He was caught stealing from the man and had to repay a substantial sum.  But he barely lost a step.

By the time he faced new sex trafficking charges in 2019, members of his elite no longer wanted to be closely associated with him and risk of being implicated in his unseemly affairs.  While many probably were not involved in illegal actions, his famous “friends” nonetheless argued that they hardly knew Epstein.

As the Epstein investigation papers were pulled into the public, they showed that the claims of arms-length contact were false.  The problem for some of the most prominent was less their association with Epstein than their lies about it, including falsely suggesting only limited contact with him.   Their coverups became their main problem, not Epstein himself.

There was an historic precedent showing that such lying extracts a high price.  President Richard Nixon’s downfall resulted more from his lies about Watergate than from the actual break-in and related campaign activity.  Much damaging information might never have emerged if he had told the truth promptly; he might even have survived in office.  His lesson was not learned.

For example, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick lied when he said he had not met Epstein after 2005.  While there’s no evidence that Lutnick did anything illegal, he knowingly misinformed investigators about a later visit to Epstein’s private island.

The wealth gap may survive until average people force politicians to reduce favoritism in government tax and other policies.  The character of the economic and social elite has been revealed by the Epstein affair, and this revelation may ultimately contribute more to bringing reform than attacks by progressives, no matter how well-intentioned. 

With increasing popular concern about Epstein’s billionaire friend in the White House, the timing couldn’t be better.