Misguided attack on Powell puts dollar in danger

 

Gordon L. Weil

Trump administration agencies often fall in line with the president’s wishes, even without a specific request from him.   He can then claim that he was unaware of their moves.   This is happening now.

Trump doesn’t like Fed chair Jerome Powell.  The president wants low interest rates and believes that, as chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Powell can lower interest rates.   He can’t.  Besides, the Fed leader believes that rates deal with economic conditions and not politics. Trump wants Powell out as soon as possible.

Facing the November congressional elections, Trump seeks a booming economy, which he believes would result from lower interest rates.  The sooner, the better.  The problem for him is that the Fed has not found sound economic reasons to slash rates.  Lower rates could cause inflation, which would harm average people.

In his arsenal of tools to dislodge Powell, Trump might consider legal action.  But Powell has given him no grounds to go to court and, even if he does, Trump would not necessarily get the lower rates he seeks.

The U.S. Attorney in D.C., a former Trump supporter on Fox, has used a grand jury to issue subpoenas that could lead to a Powell indictment.  The simple opening of a judicial proceeding could give Trump a pretext to try to remove him from the Fed Board “for cause.”

The issue hardly passes the straight-face test.  Powell is being investigated for testifying falsely before Congress about the renewal of the Fed’s headquarters.  Like many other capital projects, it has been subject to cost overruns.   The U.S. Attorney charged that the Fed failed to provide her office with full information when requested.

Powell had testified that the buildings had not been “seriously” renewed for many years.  A GOP committee member pointed to some work done decades ago to charge him with lying.  Beyond that, the Republicans focused on some ornate elements of the original plan, which Powell explained had been dropped as shown on the revised plans sent to Congress.

Despite Powell’s detailed written submissions, the investigation seems to be focused on the deleted improvements.  The U.S. Attorney says it’s her job to make sure that taxpayers’ money is carefully spent.

If the case is pursued, it would extend past the end in May of Powell’s term as chair.  A grand jury might not indict him, given the trivial charges and absence of evidence.   The purpose of the investigation may be less about punishing him than harassment, possibly inducing him to quit.  But he can remain a Fed governor, after his term as chair ends.

Trump and his Justice Department are obviously wrong on Powell.

First, there’s no substance to the charge. The Fed has made building plans available as they are modified, so the U.S. Attorney’s charge about not getting all the documents may assume the existence of unseen documents and be a fishing expedition.  If she has what she wants and Powell did not lie, the investigation should go away.  Harassment accomplished.

Second, no taxpayer money is involved.  The Fed is not funded with tax dollars, but makes money through market operations to support its monetary policy decisions.  Its funding comes from banks across the country.  When the Fed earns more than its costs, it makes payments to the Treasury.  Its only effect for the taxpayers is a net benefit.

Third, Powell as Fed chair does not make interest rates decisions.  They are made by a 12-member committee composed of the seven Fed Board governors and five heads of regional Federal Reserve banks, who are not presidential appointees.  When the committee sets rates, each member votes independently.   Powell seeks broad agreement, but he does not dictate.

Fourth, the impact of rate decisions is mostly limited to the near-term.  The rates, charged by the Fed for funds borrowed by banks, can adjust the money supply several times a year.  The Fed does not set mortgage or credit card rates.  Trump also believes lowering short-term rates will reduce interest on the high federal debt, which is mostly long-term.  Fed actions have little effect.

Beyond putting pressure on Powell to quit, Trump has also tried to fire Lisa Cook, a Fed governor who disagrees with him on rates.  A Trump ally has charged her with cheating on a personal mortgage application.  The mere allegation should not support dismissal “for cause.”   She has taken her case to the Supreme Court and remains on the Board.

The U.S. dollar is regarded as the standard of the world, thanks largely to the Fed maintaining its value based on its independent view of economic conditions, just as Congress intended.  A strong dollar protects the American economy, boosts U.S. economic power and ensures international stability. 

But the dollar is now seriously threatened by Trump’s misguided bid for Fed control.

Pushback on Trump's power

Gordon L. Weil

When President Trump was asked about any limits on his powers in world affairs, he replied, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

His view that he makes his own rules also applies to his authority in domestic affairs.  He has ignored the Constitution and laws.  His first year in office has shown his remarkable ability to do almost whatever he wanted without anybody being able to limit his moves.

In international affairs, American military and economic power discourage other nations from opposing him.  Most countries have accepted his unilateral actions, but he faced unexpected opposition.  China and Canada pushed back on his tariff policy, concluding that appeasement would not work.  Opposing his claim to Greenland, Europe has strongly backed Denmark.

In domestic affairs, Trump intimidated House and Senate GOP majorities by threatening to support primary challengers to disloyal Republicans.  His strategy worked, allowing him to get his way politically.  The thin red line held.  The Democrats could do nothing more than flail.  When he overrode Congress, the Supreme Court usually approved.

Signs are now emerging that his absolute power is limited.

His standing in public opinion polls has slipped.  A majority of the public is dissatisfied in all policy areas and in his overall performance.   Buoyed by good 2025 election results, the Democrats have begun to hope those sentiments would bring 2026 election victories, gaining them a congressional check on his actions.

Recently, his virtually total hold on congressional Republicans has begun to weaken.   House GOP representatives openly charge they are ignored.  A few Republicans have decided not to seek reelection. 

One probable reason for these signs of diminished loyalty is despair over Congress having lost most of its powers.  It is often bypassed or taken for granted.  And, some of his most loyal backers worry openly that he is abandoning basic MAGA isolationist commitments by sending American forces into conflicts involving Iran, Syria, Yemen and Venezuela.

MAGA loyalty verges on being a political cult, where anything Trump decides is deemed to be necessary and appropriate.  But its is now being challenged by some of its most loyal followers.   They align increasingly with traditional, conservative Republicans, who are not Trump backers.

The Democrats gained from resisting cuts to the Affordable Care Act, even though the result was a government shutdown.  Millions of Americans were placed in jeopardy by the GOP policy and are suffering from the end of the subsidies.  They are forced to pay budget-breaking premiums or lose coverage altogether.   

Some Republicans sought to adopt a short extension, allowing time for dealing with ACA reform, but the House was kept out of session, making any negotiations impossible.  Some members faced constituent anger.   They found that Trump & Co. put this government cost-cutting ahead of real human needs. 

This month, the dam broke.  Overcoming the obstinacy from GOP legislative leaders who followed Trump’s wishes, eleven House Republicans joined the Democrats in voting to extend the ACA subsidies.  The political reality of voter discontent pushed them to break ranks.  This was a major split with the president.

Previously, Congress had passed two bills unanimously.  One would bring a fresh water conduit to a part of Colorado. The other aided the Miccosukee Indian tribe in Florida and enhanced the environment.  Trump vetoed both bills.

He demands that the Democratic governor of Colorado pardon an MAGA-oriented election clerk convicted by a jury of tampering with voting machines, but the governor refuses.  Thus, the veto.   The tribe opposes the nearby Alligator Alcatraz for immigrants, which he favors.  Thus, the veto. 

It takes two-thirds of the House to override a veto and, in both cases, some Republicans lined up with Democrats.  But the result fell short of the required number as most GOP House members flipped their position to support the president.  Still, the defections showed that Trump’s absolute control is slipping.

The third event came after the Venezuela incursion.  The Senate voted that taking further Trump action there could be subject to a congressional override.  Though the resolution won’t become law and would not be used if it passed, five GOP senators were willing to break with a furious president. 

Maine Sen. Susan Collins was one of the five, and Trump said she should never again be elected to office.   Does he want her to face a MAGA primary challenger?  Does he want his loyalists to sit out the election?   Either way, he could be helping the Democrats pick up the seat. 

All this pushback happened in the one week of the new year.  For the first time in his second term, he was seriously and repeatedly challenged by his own party members.  He was not forced to change any policy, but he has now faced open GOP congressional concern with his being left to rule, checked only by his own “morality.”  

Trump seeks 'sphere of influence'

 

Gordon L. Weil

Make America Great Again assumes that the country had a golden past.

President Trump wants to recover it.  

The world’s major powers once dominated regions and other countries that fell within their so-called “sphere of influence.”   In those areas, the major power, its influence usually determined by the size of its economy and its military, called the shots.  That was their golden age.

Now, Trump seems to accept the world being divided among three great powers, each with its sphere of influence.  China, Russia and the U.S. would dominate.  The American sphere would encompass the entire Western Hemisphere, from Alaska’s Aleutian Islands to Greenland and from the Arctic to the Antarctic.

The U.S. area would be run under the newly created “Donroe Doctrine.”   President James Monroe warned of the use of American power to prevent further European colonization of Latin America.  Trump would extend his doctrine to allow U.S. power to be deployed throughout the hemisphere in the pursuit of economic and military advantage.

By understanding this policy, Trump’s moves on Venezuela, Greenland and Canada are explained.  The policy is unconstrained to the point that he can aspire to have his northern neighbors be absorbed by the U.S.  His minions imply that the country has the power to take what it wants.

In the case of Venezuela, America soldiers were deployed into the country, seized people and transported them to an American courtroom.  In the wake of this incursion, Trump made clear his intention to control Venezuela policy, and particularly its oil industry.

In fact, it worked so well that President Trump believes he has the “option” of using military force to seize Greenland, a sparsely populated Danish territory, and make it part of the U.S.  That might violate the law, but that wouldn’t matter. 

Who would enforce the law and either stop Trump or punish him and the U.S.?  Neither Venezuela nor Denmark has the power to block him.  What about the UN or Congress?

The UN Security Council met urgently to discuss the Venezuela situation, but no vote was taken on the American action.   If there had been a vote, the UN Charter might have provided a way to deny the U.S. its Council vote and hence, its veto.

It took no action because China and Russia, whose representatives spoke harshly about the U.S., don’t want an open conflict that could flare into real war.  Other Council members are either intimidated by the U.S. or dependent on it or both.

Trump used his status as commander-in-chief of the military to move into Venezuela.  He considers his military command gives him virtually unlimited authority to act.  With Congress having ceded many of its powers to the president, it does not employ the power of the purse.  It does not claim its right to declare war.  Impeachment alone would not deter him.  

The Supreme Court has usually endorsed his expansive view of the presidency.  It would normally leave a judgment up to Congress.  And some issues, like the kidnapping of the self-anointed president and his wife and their special status might fall outside of the scope of the case.

Trump’s asserts national security concerns, but he lacks evidence.   In Venezuela, he repeatedly has shown that his prime interest is oil.  In Greenland, he wants access for military bases and to minerals.

Trump’s actions are consistent with traditional American policy.  While people may find notions of democracy and neutrality in the country’s founding documents, the U.S. has long practiced “gunboat diplomacy” – the pursuit by force of American foreign policy objectives relating to smaller nations, especially in this hemisphere.

His sphere of influence policy encounters opposition in Europe, but countries there still decline to make the economic sacrifices needed to build their own defense, and he pays little attention to them.  To him, the EU is a threat to the U.S.

If there are downsides, they could come from the long-term consequences of his actions.  Trump looks for short-term results that would ensure he gets the credit.  Whatever his successes, animosity and even enmity has grown in neighboring countries in the hemisphere.  They could turn toward America’s rivals.

More desirable but less likely would be the recovery of Congress and the restoration of institutional checks on the president.  The legislative branch has abdicated its responsibilities, putting the institution itself in jeopardy.   Its integrity is threatened by members pushing partisanship ahead of preserving Congress. 

The UN’s leading members have given up on it.  The UN Charter is a treaty under international law, but is routinely ignored.  It might still be made to work instead allowing it to recede further as an irrelevant anachronism.

But everybody keeps their heads down.   That leaves Trump, violating laws and treaties, to remake the world as he wishes.

“Woke” may be here to stay, but Trump tries to roll back history

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump opposes “woke.” 

The dictionary says that “woke” is a word coined by African Americans to make themselves and others aware of social injustice and the need to deal with it.  Trump disagrees with that goal.

Diversity, equality and inclusion – DEI - recognizes that institutions have discriminated against women and non-whites.  He believes DEI now reserves job slots for them as unjustified compensation.

People who see themselves as displaced by DEI question the entire effort, claiming it rewards identity and not merit.  Rather than assuring that DEI should provide equal opportunity without setting aside preferential slots, they argue that DEI simply must go.  Trump agrees and leads the movement to stamp it out.  

But the notion of “woke” does not stop there for him.    It is obviously his view that the term “woke” is the same as “politically correct.”  That term embodies liberal positions that are justified and politically popular, but are not accepted by those whose vested interests may be affected.

For almost a century, in their responses to the Great Depression and the Second World War, the United States and Europe turned toward policies using the government to provide social and financial support to minorities and less fortunate people.  Environmental concerns and international cooperation to reduce conflict became parts of this evolution.

At its core Trump’s concept of “Make America Great Again” focuses on a return to values and practices that existed a century ago.  They are inaccurately labeled as “socialism,” because of the increased role of government. 

The practices and standards adopted in democracies, even including the opening of political participation to women and minorities, are thought to be the “woke” work of elites seeking control and are targeted for removal.

An automatic assumption is that leadership positions occupied by women or Blacks were attained by DEI and not by merit.  Upon taking office, Trump fired the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Black, and the heads of the Navy and Coast Guard, both women.  The new military chief, a white man, seems to have been selected based on his nickname, “Raising Kaine.”

When it comes to race and the nation’s struggles for equality, Trump minimizes slavery and the historic political and economic bias against Black people.  Elemental truths of American history are minimized or erased if they might provide a basis for policies to ensure equal opportunity.  Racial supremacists have emerged in fervent support of Trump’s effort.

As a result, the war on “woke” extends to changing exhibits at national parks and museums to minimize mentions of slavery and racism.  It penalizes academic institutions for offering places to members of groups who had previously been denied access.   It suppresses voting by members of minority groups who are denied representation.

But it goes much further.   Policies that are aimed at environmental improvement, especially air quality, are rejected.  The use of polluting coal for power generation and heating was being phased out until Trump’s undertook to keep it in business.  

Mileage standards for cars are weakened, and support for renewable energy is eliminated. Wind power is opposed by presidential whim.

Quitting the Paris agreement on environmental goals, the U.S. has isolated itself from the body of world opinion trying to reduce global warming.  Trump calls climate change a “hoax.”   Just as he has tried to rewrite American history, he attempts, by this unsubstantiated claim, to repeal scientific findings and the real experience of billions of people.

His war on the conventional wisdom of the world goes even further.  Disillusioned by the shortcomings of the United Nations, he prefers to weaken its ability to resolve conflicts.  Instead of trying to make it work, he lauds his own attempts to force peace settlements by using American political and military power.

His attitude toward the U.N. reflects his disdain for international cooperation.  He has made clear that the U.S., the essential pillar of the Western alliance, is uncomfortable with its commitment to NATO.  Though from a different starting point, he is becoming the ally of Russia’s Putin in promoting its decline.

He goes even further in aligning himself with Putin by opposing the EU.   Though formed with U.S. support to make new European wars impossible, Trump ignores that history and is only able to see European unification in trade terms, as a plot against the U.S.  Neither Trump nor Putin wants a strong rival in Europe, so, in essence, the EU becomes “woke.”

Rejecting history may appeal to MAGA supporters who believe they have lost influence and power.  But Trump’s efforts to repeal progress are likely to fail, because change is inevitable, even if he dislikes it.  As shown by the growing political opposition to his ending healthcare subsidies, most people are becoming accustomed to being “woke.”

Is Trump becoming desperate? Outllook for 2026

Gordon L. Weil

Running under the surface of all politics these days is next year’s battle for congressional control.  It will amount to a report card on President Trump, and it could set the terms for his administration’s final years and the 2028 presidential elections.

Trump knows that.   This week he made a televised address that sounded like a campaign speech.  He asked voters to withhold their judgment on his promises until they see the results next year.  Meanwhile, without the required congressional approval, he may make transition payments to taxpayers, beginning with a bonus to military personnel.

That he is desperate to turn around his falling poll ratings was evident from his false claims and extravagant promises.   For example, no reduction in drug prices could exceed 100 percent, but he promised more – “even 600 percent.”  His speech contained none of the bipartisan appeal of a traditional presidential address; it was pure Trump campaigning.

Can he hold onto the congressional control that gives him the ability to do almost anything he wants?   The 2026 elections hold the answer.

The Republican majority now hold a narrow and fluctuating majority in the House and a 53-47 majority in the Senate.  

The party of an incumbent president usually loses seats in midterm elections.   Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, only Bill Clinton and the second George Bush picked up seats.  Unlike Trump, they both enjoyed high popularity at the time. 

The Democrats should flip the House.   Trump believes GOP gerrymandering can produce new Republican seats to offset Democratic gains.  The Democrats have reacted by trying to redistrict in states they control.

Even if he is right, a GOP House majority might no longer give him unlimited power.   MAGA loyalists dislike his changing positions on releasing the Epstein files, and his foreign moves.  The obviously limited role allowed House GOP women is also beginning to cause problems.  MAGA members have begun to defy Speaker Mike Johnson, on whom he relies.  

The Senate is not subject to redistricting.  The GOP may now feel safe, but history shows that, like the House, Senate midterm races are influenced by the president’s popularity.  

The election results yield several possible scenarios.

The third term scenario.  Republicans retain control of both houses and act as if Trumpism would roll on in 2028.  Fearful of his ability to defeat them in primaries, GOP members continue to allow him broad powers.

The lame duck scenario.  No matter which party controls one or both houses, Trump’s influence fades.  Members look forward to no longer having him at the top of the ticket, and being forced to run on their own records.

The Democrats would try to create issues for 2028, as they have with healthcare assistance.     If they control the House, they would have an enhanced forum to make their case.

Stalemate scenario.  If the Democrats win the House, they will be able to block at least some of the president’s proposals.  If Trump holds fast to his treatment of the Democrats as “the enemy,” the government could be deadlocked.   The 2028 presidential campaign becomes the sole focus.

If the Democrats win the Senate, it could mean political war.  They could block Trump’s nominees to the courts and executive agencies.  While his veto would limit their chances to dictate their own policies, his power would be substantially reduced.  His eyes on the Prize, he would concentrate on foreign affairs, where congressional power is limited.

Compromise scenario.  If the Democrats were to control either or both houses, Trump could decide to try to make deals with them, in line with political tradition.   His concern with his legacy is greater than his commitment to GOP conservatism.  He wants to be seen positively and hailed for great achievements, so compromise could yield more for him than conflict.

That could explain his surprisingly friendly encounter with Zohran Mamdani, the newly elected New York city mayor.  He was friendly to Mamdani, making many MAGA backers nervous.    Just as an aging President Biden faded from the scene, Trump could compensate for his aging by being less combative.

The Democrats’ burden would then face the choice of either cooperating, which the polls say people want, or seeking partisan redlines as a way of striking a clear contrast with Trump and undermining 2028 Trumpism. 

The media focus is now on gerrymandering and the contest to redraw House maps, but the real 2026 contest may be about whether Trump has retained enough popularity to carry on.   Or is the electorate returning to more traditional GOP conservatism and regaining some confidence in the Democrats?  

Mere opposition to Trump is not enough as the Democratic platform.  While they may not achieve total unity, the Democrats need better leadership and to offer practical alternatives with bipartisan appeal if they want to stage a comeback next year.  

  

Ukraine, Europe oppose US plan aiding Russia

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump’s view is that Ukraine has lost the war with Russia and ought to surrender or lose U.S. support, making its ultimate defeat even worse.

Ukraine’s view is that, while it will negotiate for peace, it will never give up.

In his desire for a rapid end to hostilities, even if it only yields a tenuous ceasefire, Trump is obviously unaware of both international law and Europe’s history with Russia aggression.  A ceasefire is a starting point in negotiations, but Trump has little interest in the details of the deal.  For him, a ceasefire is peace.

A basic definition in international law applies to the U.S. proposals.  There are certain rules that have been generally accepted by almost all countries, often in treaties, that are the real body of international law.  Beyond that, the term is often thrown around carelessly.

Part of the generally agreed rules are the four conditions that define a nation-state. 

1.  It must have sovereignty, able to defend itself and make decisions for itself.

2.  It must have territory, defined by borders accepted by other nation-states.

3.  It must have a population that shares in values, whether ethnic or civic or both.

4.  It must have a government, capable of making decisions for the nation-state.

Trump, who rewrites American constitutional understandings and the world’s trade rules, believes he can strip a nation of characteristics that will result in its disappearance as a state.  Ukraine, which meets these international standards, is threatened. 

On this point Europe (except for Hungary) splits with the U.S.  Many countries there, having lost their nationhood to Nazi Germany in World War II and believing its outcome ruled such threats illegal for good, have opposed Trump’s proposals for a Russia-Ukraine agreement.

Trump’s original 28-point proposal included several points that would undermine Ukraine’s status as a nation-state.  Ukraine would voluntarily turn over to Russia some national territory still under its control, cede the territory seized by Russia, refrain from seeking NATO membership, cap the size of its armed forces, and hold national elections within 100 days.

These proposals would remove sovereign powers from Ukraine.  Because Russia would make no parallel commitments, it could readily overpower Ukraine to make it a satellite.  While the U.S. might pledge to defend Ukraine, its waffling on its NATO mutual defense commitment could worry Kyiv.  Russia would gain the buffer it wants with NATO and could expand its influence.

Trump also implied that, in addition to staying out of NATO, Ukraine’s joining the EU could be questioned.  He also proposed that Russia be invited back into the G-7 group.  The Europeans responded that these are matters for NATO, the EU and G-7, not for an agreement between Ukraine and Russia (or Trump and Putin).

No peace agreement will return Crimea and other Russian occupied parts of the country to Ukraine control.  But Ukraine looks to international law for an answer, likely unknown to Trump.  It’s about recognition.

Together with other countries, Ukraine could recognize the de facto control (control in-fact) by Russia of occupied territory, but refuse to recognize de jure control (control by right) of it.  In that way, it could avoid taking constitutional action required to cede territory, while accepting current reality and keeping the door open for a later resolution.

As U.S.-Ukraine negotiations were under way, Sweden announced that it would never recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea and other territory.   The statement made clear that Trump could not sweep away Ukraine’s status as a nation-state, because other countries would not go along.

Trump reportedly thought that Ukraine was slowly losing territory to Russia.  He also believed that the Zelinskyy government was weakened by corruption.   Both developments would force the Ukraine president to give way to Russian demands.  He missed the degree of Ukraine’s commitment to its status as a nation-state.

A member of the Ukraine parliamentary opposition dismissed this belief.  “His problems don’t impact our ability to conduct the talks, even if the American side may mistakenly think so.”  A German observer commented that, if Zelenskyy accepted the Russo-American proposal, “he would not be president anymore when he comes home.”

A Ukraine official in the negotiations offered a veiled analogy to Trump’s hard push for a deal and for the Nobel Peace Prize: “We were not sitting in the Netflix headquarters writing scripts that will be Oscar-nominated.”  Trump mistakenly sought acclaim like he received for his multi-point Gaza plan.

Putin wants to turn Ukraine into a satellite, relenting only if the price becomes too high or the U.S. gets tough. Trump wants an end to armed conflict regardless of what would follow and ignoring Ukraine’s future as a nation-state.

If Trump succeeds, Putin would have won his war.   And Trump would have reshaped the law of nations.

Democrats need uniy, not purity

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Democrats sense their chance to retake control of the federal government and put a lid on MAGA.  But they run the risk of getting in their own way.

They see their wins in Virginia, New Jersey and New York City as signs the voters are turning away from President Trump and toward them.  Pundits pile onto this snap judgment, possibly engaging in wishful thinking. 

There’s still a long way until November 2026, and we know nothing about intervening events.  Also, notwithstanding its recent victories, the Democratic Party struggles to find its identity and a leader.

Perhaps the Dems biggest problem is that it is engaged in a family feud about what it needs to win next year.   Of course, they agree or hope that opposing Trump might be enough to return them to power.   But, beyond that, the Dems are split on their identity.

Moderates seek a revival of traditional Democratic social welfare policies that could respond to the economic worries of middle- and lower-income people.  They want the restoration and even the expansion of health and food support programs.  Government stimulus spending is possible.  At the same time, they would downplay attention to controversial social issues.

This approach would restore more than it would innovate.  At best, it could extend New Deal-style policies, but it might not amount to real change.  It could represent an attempt to link working people with rising minorities under an activist government.  It would undoubtedly unravel Trump policies.

Progressive Democrats, while not opposing the moderates’ policies, assert that they do not go far enough to meet the popular demand for change.  It is not enough to reanimate the Affordable Care Act or pour government dollars into promoting economic activity.  They see the government being widely regarded as a failure, pursuing policies that do not promote progress.

They would go well beyond the ACA to universal health care, though they avoid government -run socialized medicine as in the U.K.  Federal housing and food assistance would move toward eliminating poverty.  They want to restore environmental regulation. And they favor measures to allow equal opportunity for all people in society who face discrimination.

The moderates worry that progressive policies have limited appeal to the electorate, and progressives complain that moderates ignore increasing demands for major change.  Each sees the other as either being too narrow or too unrealistic to regain the support of a winning, popular majority.

This kind of split in the Democratic Party is nothing new.  It’s almost business as usual.

After World War II, moderate President Harry Truman battled progressives led by Henry Wallace.   They differed on policy toward the Soviet Union with Truman taking a hard line and Wallace believing that partnership was possible.  Truman prevailed.

In 1980, moderate Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter defeated liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy for the nomination.  Twelve years later, moderate Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton overcame the drive of progressive California Gov. Jerry Brown.  In 2006, Sen. Barack Obama, seen as a liberal, had to defeat Hilary Cinton, perhaps seen as more moderate.

The split did not prevent Democrats on either side from winning elections when they achieved enough party unity to defeat divided or dispirited GOP opposition.   That’s what the Dems hope for in the 2028 presidential election.   They work to send strong, advance signals by winning next year’s congressional contests.

Each side now believes that Trump will sink himself, and they offer the better alternative.  But there is a better model in their party’s history than seeking to prevail over other Dems.  It was the coalition put together by Franklin D. Roosevelt in winning his first two terms as president.

Roosevelt faced Democratic divisions far deeper than the party does today.  The most obvious divide existed between Dixie Democrats, southerners who supported segregation, and northern Black constituencies, which demanded greater access.  Political tradition and expediency kept them in the same party.

FDR needed the support of all congressional Democrats to deal with the Depression and its economic dislocation.  He identified the issues shared by all their constituents, no matter their views on race.  Improving economic conditions for everybody unified the Dems.   Beyond the necessary core programs, their divide survived.

Today’s Democrats could try to create a unifying platform focusing on their common understanding of broad national priorities.  In a huge nation, it is futile to believe that, beyond their shared core interests, all Dems are likely to see party policy the same way. 

If winning is what matters most, the Democrats need to turn their core agreements into their national platform and not require total unity.  Compromise is essential, and it’s needed now, as is a unifying national leader.

Otherwise, the Dems might end up echoing statesman Henry Clay’s famous declaration: “I would rather be right than be president.”  Despite numerous tries, he never was president. 

MAGA melts; promises can't be kept

 

Gordon L. Weil

MAGA may be failing when it comes to some of President Trump’s key policies.

Like many candidates for executive office, he made promises with broad political appeal, but which ignored and encountered harsh reality – from political to economic to legal – that made keeping them impossible.

After making bold and popular promises, Trump last week backtracked on commitments relating to tariffs, immigration and military action. 

With global free trade becoming increasingly unworkable, Trump imposed a new system depending on a multitude of bilateral arrangements.  He levied across-the-board tariffs on almost all countries.  He acted swiftly in the belief that other countries would flock to make trade concessions so that he would lower tariffs aimed at them.

Economists warned that the tariff burden would fall mainly on American consumers as their cost was passed on by importers.  He denied that tariffs caused inflation and even denied that prices were rising.   Unhappy consumers saw prices on groceries increase, whatever he might claim.

No obvious effort was made to equate the dollar value of trade concessions made by others with the cost imposed by new tariffs.  Instead, Trump lowered tariffs in return for promises of massive new investment in the U.S., though it is doubtful that tracking foreign investment commitments is possible.  In the short-term, domestic manufacturing benefitted little from tariff protection.

Finally, Trump came to realize that his tariffs were driving up prices for individual consumers.  Last week, he ordered tariffs lifted on foods for which U.S. production was insufficient to meet demand, pushing prices up.  More tariff cuts on non-food items are said to be coming.

“Wait. If lowering tariffs lowers prices, what does raising tariffs do to prices?” Erica York, a vice president at the Tax Foundation, asked.  It may be called a matter of “affordability,” but that’s really inflation.

In the end, some relatively low tariffs may survive, but the policy itself is in trouble.  Even more troublesome is the possibility that the Supreme Court, usually supportive of his expanded use of power, could overturn many of his tariffs because they are illegal or even unconstitutional.  Such a decision could lead to undermining his assertion of unlimited power.

He floated the idea of returning some of the tariff revenue to American taxpayers.  This may have been an attempt to encourage the Court not to see tariffs as taxes.  It probably won’t work, leaving him in violation of his MAGA promise to not raise taxes.

On immigration, Trump promised what amounted to the complete elimination from the U.S. of undocumented or illegal immigrants, starting with the most criminal.  Dating from his first presidential campaign, that promise was the MAGA cornerstone.

He made clear he was trying to deport as many as possible, even if they were not criminals.  In fact, law-abiding, productive residents were the easiest to target, which concerned some people who had supported his policy.  He even reduced legal immigration. 

His anti-immigration policy had been the binding force among his supporters.  Last week, that changed. 

Trump said that the U.S. lacks people with “certain talents,’ who should be admitted so they can train Americans.  Some loyal Trumpers disagreed with that and with his willingness to admit 600,000 Chinese students.  Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the ultimate Trump backer, dissented, so Trump called her “wacky” and ceased supporting her.

When asked if his policy would displease MAGA backers, he asserted that he alone had invented MAGA.   That statement implied they must follow his lead.  However, because he had adopted policies espoused originally by others, that leadership is now in question.

He recognized that the U.S. cannot go it alone, especially in technical areas.  He may come to realize that the economic growth he wants depends on a growing population resulting from legal immigration.   Because of issues related to the immigrants’ ethnicity, he may encounter even more MAGA opposition.

After his first term, Trump prided himself on having kept the U.S. out of armed conflict.  That struck a contrast with the Democrats, pleasing his backers.  The bombing run he ordered on Iran began to raise doubts, though he excused it by noting that no American lives were lost.

Last week, he strayed even further from his commitment.  He stationed a huge American aircraft carrier, the world’s largest warship, in the Caribbean Sea as an obvious threat to Venezuela.  It might have been better placed in the South China Sea to face down Chinese marine aggression than to confront a relatively minor portion of the drug trade.

Trump risked restoring America’s role as the “world’s policeman,” a policy completely contrary both to his claim to being a peacemaker and his policy of keeping the U.S. out of foreign conflicts.  America First now seems to allow for the use of American military power abroad.

MAGA is melting.

 

 

 

Trump's ego undermines his policies

 

Gordon L. Weil

Imagine a president who wanted to add to the national territory, sought to reform banking, and staged a bold fight on tariffs.  He won the presidency but without winning a popular majority.

Donald Trump?  This describes him well, though he has not yet succeeded on any of his goals.

But it isn’t Trump.  You may well have never heard of this president.  He was James K. Polk, the eleventh president.  Unlike Trump, he pledged to serve only one term, and he did.  Also, unlike Trump, he achieved all his goals. 

Most importantly, he served without displaying outsized ego or self-promotion, resulting in his historical anonymity.  But he changed the nation.  If you want to make America great again, Polk’s presidency is part of the past that Trump would restore.

Anyone who aspires today to the American presidency must have a big ego.  The task and the responsibility are so great that a person with a normal view of their limits would not have enough self-regard to carry them through a campaign much less the presidency.  But Trump’s view of himself surpasses any of his predecessors.

Trump’s ego is the hallmark of his administration.  He makes extravagant claims about his memory, his knowledge of science, his wealth, and his ability to use power effectively.  He sees his supposed success in real estate as proof of his extraordinary ability to make deals among nations.

He seeks to burnish his status by adding vast territory to the United States (Greenland, Canada, though the Panama Canal seems to have been dropped), and returning the banking system to the banks, and making the U.S. economically independent.  He would by himself turn the tide of American history.

With no embarrassment he has made clear that his political style relies rely on threats to his GOP friends and foreign allies, and depend heavily on flattery.  Foreign leaders quickly found that unbounded praise is an essential tool in inducing him to alter his policies.  They also never tire of admitting their dependence on the U.S. with the resulting need to stay on his good side.

Nowhere is this more obvious than his attempt to collect nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize from the leaders of other nations.  He may believe that a rush of high-level nominations will enhance his chances.  It looks like gaining endorsements for one’s candidacy during a political campaign. 

Trump appears to consider the praise and support he actively cultivates as a sign that others recognize his outstanding qualities and accomplishments.   His ego allows him to miss their obvious flattery, not representing their sincere beliefs, but as a necessary tool of their own foreign policies.  He is not widely regarded as the “very stable genius” that he claims to be.

Nominating him for the Peace Prize amounts to merely promising to write to the Norwegian Nobel Committee.  Nominations remain secret for 50 years.   Sinking small vessels on the high seas, threatening to use force against Venezuela and Nigeria or sending the military to repress domestic free speech will deny him the Prize, no matter what else he does.

The ultimate expression of his ego may have been slapping an added 10 percent tariff on Canadian imports, because he disliked a television ad.  Tariffs are taxes and are supposedly based on economic considerations not presidential whim.

Much of the world sees through his personal management of American policy.  The country is increasingly held responsible for having elected him twice.  Because such a choice may be possible in the future, many countries grow wary of a close, long-term relationship with the U.S. 

Trump uses the powers of his office, enhanced by the backing of the Supreme Court and the GOP Congress, to serve his ego more than the national interest.  This may reshape the U.S. and its effect can extend well into the future.  He may not achieve his goals, but he is making his mark.

And the anonymous Polk?  In the four years of his presidency, he almost doubled the size of the country through the controversial Mexican War and astute diplomacy with Great Britain.

He also created an independent national treasury, arguing the U.S. could manage its own financial affairs, not the banks.  This led eventually to the Federal Reserve, the public-private arrangement setting monetary policy that Trump would now topple.

And Polk changed national tariff policy.  He lowered tariffs so they would cover the cost of government but not overly protect domestic industry, thus reducing prices.  This policy worked for 20 years.

Trump’s excessive focus on himself – his ego gratification – gets in the way of stable and sound public policy, conservative or not.  It offends many whose support he needs.

Displaying little ego, Polk acted for what he saw as the public good.  A contrast with today.

Trump on trade: good idea, bad execution

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump got something right.  But he is handling it all wrong.  It’s about tariffs and trade.

He understood that world trade no longer obeyed the rules that grew up after World War II and that the U.S. suffered from its clinging to the past.  Single-handedly, he decided to end the old order.

After the war, a new trade system was created.  It was called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or simply GATT, and it fostered rounds of multinational trade negotiations.

The idea was that countries could gain improved access to foreign markets and to imports they needed and wanted.  Rather than benefiting from one-on-one deals with other countries, they could derive a net gain from a package of multinational deals.

The GATT system works reasonably well.  A so-called “rules based” system, it relied on all participants having the same commitment to the process and operating through market systems.  Dominated by the U.S. and Europe, it included countries that accounted for most world trade.

As other major players appeared, GATT was replaced by the World Trade Organization.  It accepted emerging countries where the government might still control markets, but which were supposed to evolve into open market economies.

The biggest new participant was China, a supposedly emerging economy.  President Bill Clinton supported its membership in the belief that its WTO participation would move it to the market system.  But with other state-run economies, China began to distort the rules-based system. 

President Kennedy once said of trade that “a rising tide lifts all boats.”  While that might have been true of GATT, it became increasingly evident that some big boats ignored the rules of navigation.  The U.S. and Europe continued to act as if the old rules were still observed.  Trump saw they were outmoded, and the U.S. was becoming a net loser.

Because consumers favor low prices without regard to the reasons for it, the U.S. trade deficits deepened.  Not only did that transfer economic power to China and other low-wage countries, but it cost the U.S. jobs, especially in manufacturing, a loss only partially offset by the growth of the service economy.

Trump promptly stepped outside the structure of rules-based world trade and destroyed it.  A compliant Congress allowed him to set tariffs that it was supposed to control.  Whether he acted legally without congressional approval is now before the Supreme Court.

Instead of using U.S. power to leverage other countries to negotiate a new system, Trump immediately raised tariffs on virtually all other countries (except for Russia).   In one stroke, multilateral deal making in trade was replaced by America First.  Existing trade patterns were abruptly toppled.

Trump’s approach was not exactly the art of the deal.  He simply sharply raised tariffs and expected other countries to come to him with offers to accept more U.S. products and to increase their investment in the U.S.  If he liked the offers, he lowered their tariffs.  The situation became more like an auction than a negotiation.  Flattering Trump personally also helped deals.

Most countries complied.   They could get tariffs lowered, though they remained well above their pre-Trump levels, if they made offers to open their own markets and boost their investment in the U.S.  But friendly relations or even alliances are suffering.   

America has reduced both its trade deficit and its partnerships with others.  Reduced trade means prices are rising in the U.S. and elsewhere, slowing economic growth.  The rest of the world has begun developing new trade relationships to protect against arbitrary U.S. policies.   But that change will take time.

One country has refused to go along with bidding to induce Trump to lower tariffs.   Though Canada is dependent on the U.S., Prime Minister Mark Carney believes the U.S. relies on some of its key exports and must eventually negotiate a deal. 

Canadians understand their country’s dependence on the U.S. won’t disappear quickly, but it moves to diversify its trade on the way to long-term independence.  It is developing its domestic market, long oriented to the U.S., and draws closer to Europe.

Beyond trade differences, Trump has crossed a red line.  He repeatedly asserts that Canada should become the 51st state.  He ignores the direct effect of his remarks on future relations with it and as a signal for other countries to reduce their dependence on the U.S.

Last week, a new book entitled “Elbows Up” appeared in Canada.  It is anti-American. The term refers to a quasi-illegal jab given to an opposing player while battling for a hockey puck.  Launched by Carney, a former hockey goalie, it’s a motto that all Canadians understand.

The U.S.-Canada clash symbolizes the change Trump has caused. World trade will be reformed, as certainly was needed.   But, thanks to his methods, America’s leadership is beginning to wane.   

Trump shows his worry about Supreme Court tariff case

 

Gordon L. Weil

Unlike almost all other countries, Canada has refused to make concessions to President Trump that would induce him to lower tariffs.  While he has taken actions on policies not yet in effect or to match a U.S. concession, Prime Minister Mark Carney insists in negotiations.

But trade talks are making no progress.  Instead of wasting time courting Trump, Canada is working hard on finding alternate markets and on increasing domestic trade.  But it attempts to keep talks going in the hope that the U.S. will realize its dependence on its major trading partner and ally.

Then, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, whose province is deeply involved in the joint American-Canadian auto manufacturing arrangement, vented his frustration with the talks.  As a Canadian Conservative, he had liked Trump’s return to office.  But the president’s tariff policy almost immediately turned him around.

Ford launched a one-minute television ad featuring long-ago remarks against tariffs by then President Ronald Reagan.  Trump immediately blew, impulsively cancelling what seemed to be the almost mythical trade talks with Canada.  Then, he added a new 10 percent tariff.  Out of this ad and Trump’s visceral reaction came a flood of misdirection.

First, was Reagan for or against tariffs?   He was a free trader who had just raised tariffs on Japan in retaliation for its protectionism.  While making this protective move, he sought to maintain his reputation as a free trader.  The statements Ford used were not out of context with Reagan’s entire remarks, but they were out of context with the complete circumstances of the times.

Trump claimed that Reagan “loved” tariffs, which also took his remarks out of context.  The former president tried to make clear that he did not like tariffs and their effects, but sometimes increasing them was necessary.  He did not use them like Trump’s broad-brush approach.

Second, Ford’s ad opportunistically took advantage of the fleeting moment when Americans would pay much attention to Canada, thanks to the opening of the World Series between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Los Angeles Dodgers.  It was an outburst of patriotic support for his province, home of the Blue Jays, and an outlet for his anger over Trump’s auto protectionism.

Third, Ford was seeking to put pressure on Carney.  They are not natural allies.  Besides, Ford’s Ontario has demands that differ somewhat from Carney’s Canada.   Canadian provinces often find themselves at odds with federal policy.  Ford could be seeking a deal that would benefit Ontario, but possibly at the expense of other provinces.

Carney obviously did not like Ford treading on his authority over foreign and trade policy.  He got Ford to withdraw the ad, but only after the first two games, both played in Toronto.  Ford wanted to keep exploiting the inevitable explosion of Canadian nationalism at the games, but he does not speak for Canada.  Carney showed Trump that he had no responsibility for the ad.

Fourth, Trump’s instant reaction scarcely hides the reluctance of the U.S. to arrive at a negotiated deal with Canada rather than simply forcing it to make concessions.  Trump apparently believes that delay weakens Canada and improves his own position.   He ignores the deep anger north of the border about his suggestion that Canada should become the 51st American state.

Fifth, perhaps the most important aspect of the ad flare-up is that it revealed what is truly worrying Trump – the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling unravelling most of his tariff policy.  Two federal courts have already ruled that most Trump tariffs are not allowed.  The case is now before the Supreme Court.

Congress permits the president to alter tariffs in a national emergency, but his current declaration does not meet the standard set by Congress in giving the president its power to set tariffs.  His complete control over tariffs would be unconstitutional.  And, it is hardly a national emergency when tariff talks with Canada are ostensibly ended because of a critical television ad.

Trump charges that Ontario’s Ford is trying to influence the Court’s decision.  But Ford only wants a trade deal on autos.   And it’s an insult to the Court that it, like Trump, would be influenced by a Canadian television ad.

Trump’s reaction could go beyond trade policy and increase his worries.  If the Supreme Court affirms the ruling of the lower court specializing in trade matters, it would be the first serious limit it has imposed on his powers.  If it supports him, the ruling would cement its backing for his virtually absolute power.

He believes that court actions can be influenced by his political pressure.  Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, led by judges he has appointed, have favored him.  By creating an improbable pretext for Ford’s ad, he may want to be seen as a victim, worthy of more judicial deference.

Nobel sends a message, going beyond 2025 Peace Price

 

Gordon L. Weil

This is not a column about “I told you so” and my forecast that President Trump would not win the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize,

It is a column about “They told you so.”

The Prize Committee announcement of Maria Corina Machado, a Venezuelan, was a brilliant display of meanings and messages aimed at everybody from Trump to all of us.

In selecting Machado, the Nobel Committee sent three messages. 

First, it favors recognizing people who have made personal sacrifices on behalf of the rights of others. 

Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for decades.  Andrej Sakharov was sent into internal Russian exile.  Carl von Ossietsky, a German journalist who revealed that the Nazis were breaking arms agreements, died in their prison.  Martin Luther King, Jr.  Maria Corina Machado.

Machado lives in hiding from the Venezuelan regime.  Her political movement saw its national election victory stolen.  She fights on.  The Nobel Committee is not sure she will be in Oslo to receive the award or how she is being protected.

The second message is that Venezuela is under authoritarian rule, which impoverishes its people. In this view, it shares Trump’s outlook and his desire to see a new government there. The Committee made it difficult for Trump to criticize the decision.

The third message is that individual action matters.  National figures have been recognized, but a single person, taking risks and showing courage, can awaken others to action.  The Prize recognizes and encourages individuals who try to change the course of history toward peace.  Many winners were unknown before their selection, which turned a spotlight on their causes.

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee laid out its focus clearly.  It said: “Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence…. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarisation.”

Without democracy, it argues, there cannot be lasting peace.  The Committee’s concerns apply to the United States today and to other countries increasingly made to feel more comfortable in sliding into autocratic rule, following the American lead.

Trump will most likely hope that a successful deal for the future of Gaza will earn him next year’s Prize, and he is sure to promote himself for it.  The world should be served well if there is such a deal.  But it is premature now to conclude that a deal, even if reached, will be fulfilled by Hamas or Israel.  Much may depend on the role of Arab states.

Trump and his backers compartmentalize, stressing his efforts for peace, while setting aside his hostility toward others.  He has transformed world trade, not through negotiations, but by sheer force.  He has bombed Iran.  He sinks boats on the high seas.  He has created a War Department, imbued with the “warrior ethos.”  He covets other countries.  He “hates” his opponents.

While no Peace Prize winner was a perfect person, their character pervaded their lives and their words.  Trump asks the Nobel Committee to segregate his peacemaking from the rest of his actions.  But this is not the Best Actor at the Oscars, awarded no matter whatever else the star has done.  The winner here must be seen as a laudable model.

What is the Committee’s message for the rest of us?  Individual action on behalf of democracy and peace matters.

If we care about the course of our country, each person needs to decide what they can do as an individual to preserve and promote democracy and peace.  Handwringing and sloganeering are not actions. 

The Nobel Committee said: “Democracy depends on people who refuse to stay silent, who dare to step forward despite grave risk, and who remind us that freedom must never be taken for granted, but must always be defended….”

Why Trump won't win Nobel Peace Prize

Gordon L. Weil

1. The Nobel Peace Prize award will be announced on Friday, October 10.  Nominations closed January 31, 2025 for this year; Trump had been president only 11 days.  The Nobel Committee can add names after that date but with hundreds of nominations made, that’s unlikely.  Who was nominated is not known for 50 years.  The Committee is composed of five Norwegians, as Alfred Nobel had decided.  An idealist, he wanted the awards to go to peacemakers and those who created conditions of peace.

2. Mediators seldom win.  Presidents Carter (Egypt-Israel) and Clinton (Jordan-Israel and Eritrea-Ethiopia) plus Sen. Mitchell (Northern Ireland), all successful mediators, did not win, though some of the parties on each side, settling their conflict, did.  Carter won for his later efforts.  President Theodore Roosevelt won for mediating the end of the Russo-Japanese War.

3. Warriors don’t win if they use force or power.  Bombing Iran or using promised U.S. tariff cuts to induce agreement is probably not peacemaking.  

4. The U.S. has been the sole vote in the 15-member UN Security Council against decisions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.  Israel has been condemned by the UN and others for its actions there, resulting in the deaths of many Palestinians, aid workers and journalists.  With its veto in support of Israel, the U.S. under Trump has blocked calls for a ceasefire.

5. Trump has relabeled the U.S. Department of Defense as the Department of War.  That is clearly not what Alfred Nobel had in mind.

6. Trump claims to have ended seven wars.  In the case of India-Pakistan, the issues are far from resolved, and India rejects his claim.  In another case, he does not seem to know what countries were involved.  Others, even if true, were relatively minor or not armed conflicts.  Quality, not quantity, counts.

7. Promoting oneself publicly does not work. The Nobel Committee wants to appear independent, not pressured.  By the same token, it is supposed to be insulated from Norwegian politics, which Trump tried to leverage.  Nobel Prizes may have political overtones, but they are usually not the result of public campaigns.

8. Trump may feel that if Obama received one quickly, so should he. The Nobel citation for Obama was based on his being the first American president to endorse disarmament (not because of his race).   To the Committee, the statement was historic.  Like other anticipatory Nobel Prizes, this one did not yield the desired result.  Vietnam turned out so badly so quickly that Kissinger wanted to give his Prize back.

9. The Nobel Committee received many nominations of organizations doing peace-promoting work.  While it may not honor an organization it has already recognized, like the International Committee of the Red Cross (actually, a Swiss organization), it could look to Africa, Asia, Latin America or Oceania to award its seal of approval.  It might avoid picking an aid organization involved in Gaza, unless it wanted to make a strong statement.  If it selected a laudable organization anywhere, the choice could lessen the chance of Trump claiming to be more qualified than another individual who won the Prize.

10. Maybe next year.