The big mistake: one of the strange ways to make policy today

 

Gordon L. Weil

The news overflows with events caused by unrelated and unusual sources: a mistake, harassment, bullying and appeasement, and drinking your own bathwater.

The big mistake

The talks aimed at bringing an end to the Gaza War became possible, because of one man’s mistake.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has held onto power by promising to eliminate Hamas.  Israel has reduced threats from Iran and its proxies, replacing it as the dominant Middle East power.  Arab states, who had lined up with Israel against Iran, are now nervous.

Israel has successfully killed Arab leaders in neighboring countries, crippling Israel’s enemies.  Netanyahu sought to force Hamas to quit by killing its leaders in Qatar, who were invited there to negotiate indirectly with Israel.  His intelligence advisors opposed the plan, but he persisted and launched an attack.  The U.S. was not informed.

President Trump, Israel’s most stalwart backer, was shocked.  That single Netanyahu mistake caused a shift in U.S. policy.  Trump would no longer give Israel unstinting support in its Gaza policy.  He forced Netanyahu to call the Emir of Qatar from the Oval Office and apologize.  Trump pressed Netanyahu to end the Gaza War.

The Israeli leader also saw the U.K., France, Canada and others turn their backs on him.  He could not remain blind to his country’s increasing isolation and the loss of its special place in the world.

External Hamas leaders that Israel tried to kill, not those in Gaza, decided it was time to seek a ceasefire.  That way they could end what was a losing game.

Harassment as a tactic

Trump may believe that he won in 2020.  He discredits the Biden administration, and openly “hates” and seeks revenge against Democrats. If he finds they did anything against his interests, he is out to get them.

It does not matter if they are not guilty of any offense.  By bringing the force of government on them, he tries to sully their reputations and deplete their funds as they defend themselves.  The charges may be inconsequential and lack evidence and amount to little more than harassment.

He replaced experienced prosecutors with his own lawyer to get a flimsy indictment against former FBI Director James Comey.  Comey’s move to get the case tossed may be based on Trump’s open effort at retaliation.  If that succeeds or he is easily acquitted, Trump’s reputation might suffer more than Comey’s.  

Appeasement

Trump’s ego and self-esteem are legendary.  He believes in his own superiority and expects others to agree.  Flattery that might embarrass others nourishes him.

His sudden actions on tariffs have forced other countries to seek relief from losing U.S. markets.  Many have acceded to his demands and others have resorted to lavishing praise on him.

By acting rapidly and forcing other countries to make offers to him to gain relief, he puts “America First,” avoiding true negotiations.  When bullied by him, countries may try appeasement, with the hope of preventing something worse.   History shows that appeasement doesn’t work, though bullying might.

Except maybe not with Canada. Trump demonstrates a profound ignorance and lack of political sensitivity when he speaks of the “51st State.”  Canada plays its own role in North America and the world.  The U.S. and Canada need one another.  But Canadians now move away.  They will not appease, and the U.S. may pay the price.

Appeasement is now occurring in domestic politics.  Nobody favors the government shutdown, but the Democrats will accept Trump’s decision by hammering the loss of medical care by millions.  Surprisingly, Maine’s Sen. Angus King has rejected the Democratic position because he fears that Trump will do something even more harmful during the shutdown.  

Trump frequently backs down when he faces resistance.  He has not yet acted on the threats King feared.  If the threats work, it will partly result from the Democrats’ weakness.

Drinking your own bathwater

Failing to answer Democrats’ oversight questions, Attorney-General Pam Bondi attacked a senator for supporting Trump’s first impeachment.  Her focus is inward-looking, emphasizing Trump’s past grievances. She will not deal with current concerns, instead taking refuge in old complaints.  That’s called drinking your own bathwater.

What’s true of Bondi and other officials, it’s also true of Trump himself.  From the election campaign until his recent remarks to top generals and admirals, he delivers the same speech, loaded with self-praise and loathing for Biden.  It is riddled with factual errors, stated as if they were widely accepted.

His administration aims at enhancing Trump’s reputation, not America’s.  He has failed to note that most of the 2025 Nobel science winners are based at campuses of the University of California.  He wants the Nobel Peace Prize; he rewards his country’s scientific achievements by cutting university budgets.

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.