Bellwether election coming up -- One May race could tell it all

Bellwether election coming up

One May race could tell it all

 

Gordon L. Weil

Is he a good Republican?  

Reject Obamacare?  Check.   Close Department of Education?  Check.  Loosen gun control? Check.  Claim global warming is pseudoscience?  Check.  Balance the budget? Check.

That’s Thomas Massie, the Republican House member from Kentucky’s Fourth District.  He’s an 84 percent backer of President Trump, while Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins, classified as a moderate, backs him 96 percent.  That makes him a despised rebel.

Trump backs a well-financed candidate challenging Massie in the May 19 primary.  The president now defines what it means to be a Republican and will tolerate no independence.  If successful, Massie’s rival could help end the president’s political heartburn.

The race comes down to Massie versus Trump.  It will be a test of Trump’s popularity among Republicans and if the traditional budget-balancing party, the classic conservative GOP, still exists and can make a comeback.  The district is solid red, so its vote will take the pulse of Republican support.

Massie, like Kentucky U.S. Senator Rand Paul, is a libertarian.  Like Paul, he is true to his beliefs and is closely aligned with deep conservatism.   Government should do less, a lot less, and sharply cut the mounting national debt.  If that means no aid to Israel, no Iran war, little foreign involvement, that’s all right.  Just not with Trump.

The primary represents a test for Trump of his own choosing.  He demands and usually gets total loyalty from GOP House members.  In the first year of his second term, Trump appeared to enjoy unlimited and complete power.  Massie’s opposition has mostly been annoying, though he led in getting some of the Epstein papers made public.  Most House Republicans treat him as a pariah.

But the corruptive force of Trump’s power is challenging his hold on the party and the country.

Part of Trump’s 2024 electoral success depended on his making inroads into traditional Democratic constituencies.  Some of his actions have harmed the interests of social and ethnic groups, which split to support him.  Their disappointment may now emerge as a barometer of his standing.  At the same time, Democrats who did not vote in 2024 may also rejoin their party.

His purification of the Republican Party by discrediting and defeating traditionalists pushes away potential supporters.   They have sustained his policies, but will they begin to respond to voter concerns and become more independent of Trump’s threats as the campaigns progress?  He should have cause for concern.

His failure to tame inflation, a major factor in his victory, affects middle-class voters who backed him because of his cost-cutting promises.

His attack on the pope and his self-portrayal as Jesus has aroused open opposition among religious conservatives.

His obvious discrimination against Blacks and women, beginning with the dismissal of the Chair of the Joint Chiefs, a Black, and the head of the Navy, a woman, has offended some in these large constituencies and may lead to increased opposition.

His abuse of the law by demanding the prosecution of his political opponents, going back to the 2020 elections, creates discomfort.

His indifference to Ukraine accompanied by his inexplicable Russian sympathies, his attempt to take Greenland from Denmark, an ally, and, contrary to his promise, his launching the Iran war without consulting Congress or American allies have all faced strong opposition.

His trade policy and his absurd desire to make Canada the 51st state has imposed new costs on American consumers and manufacturers.

His family’s unprecedented and open enrichment by benefitting from his policies and foreign friendships displeases people.

Taken together, these concerns have raised questions even among his core backers that he is losing mental acuity and focusing almost entirely on his personal reputation and legacy.  The prospects for the next two and a-half years are not positive.

If the Massie election reveals GOP disaffection from Trump, it could help elect traditional Republican backers elsewhere, enabling them to gain more influence.  In Congress, that could loosen Trump’s virtually total control and promote compromise.  Trump could be forced to deal with his skeptics and opposition.

Conventional wisdom is that the Democrats should hammer affordability and back away from more controversial issues favored by progressives.  Yet it’s possible that any Democratic vote, moderate or progressive, helps the party, because it is united in its opposition to Trump.

Increasingly, Trump is making himself into the 2026 campaign issue, above even immigration, taxation or Iran.  If Massie wins the Kentucky primary convincingly, that could signal a strong rejection of his MAGA politics.

Looming over this scene is the specter of Hungary’s landslide defeat of right-wing Premier Viktor Orban, who indulged in the same style of governing as Trump.  It would be an almost impossible stretch for the Democrats to gain two-thirds control of Congress as did Orban’s opposition, but they could put the brakes on Trump.

  

Trump is above the law

Trump is above the law

Enforcement is elusive

 

Gordon L. Weil

He broke international law!  He violated the Constitution!

Angered and frustrated by his actions, some of President Trump’s critics and political opponents utter these words.

So what? 

Nothing changes, largely because Trump firmly believes that he is smarter than his opponents and acts within the sweeping immunity the Supreme Court gave him two years ago.  His 2024 election victory makes him an all-powerful president.    

“Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior.  It is a fundamental aspect of any civilized society, providing the framework within which individuals and entities operate,” says a widely recognized definition.

Trump has said, “I don’t need international law.”  When asked what he would rely upon, he answered, “my own morality, my own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”  Does international law apply?  “It depends on what your [my] definition of international law is.”  

These days, charges fly that Trump violates international law when he threatens Iran, writing, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”  It is easy to claim that threat violates international law, but where’s the enforcement?  While international courts exist, the U.S. has not accepted them for most matters.

International law is a collection of formal agreements and widely accepted customs that are meant to “regulate behavior” among nations.  The formal agreements, usually in the form of treaties, obligate the countries that have ratified them.  The customs are determined by their long-term use by a great many nations.

The obvious enforcement mechanism is self-interest.  For example, if a nation does not want foreign vessels within 12 miles of its shores, its boats will not venture that close to the shores of other countries.  Behind that rule is the possibility a coastal state will sink foreign vessels within the limit, an undesirable choice because of its potentially disastrous consequences.

That rule may take the form of a treaty, as it has. The U.S. has not ratified that treaty, but most major countries have.  Not the U.S., which, like China, may ignore it.

In the U.S., a government of laws is replaced by the will of a single person.  The form of government becomes elective authoritarian.

His warnings about leaving NATO become credible.  His threat to erase Iran’s civilization is credible.  Quitting an alliance or exercising coercion, both banned by treaties ratified by the U.S., is not lawful, but he believes he can do it.

If he pursues this belief, the international order fails, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned.  Allies will not support the U.S.  Ultimately, other countries could undertake economic retaliation and refuse to enter other agreements with the U.S.  He provides an incentive for other countries to use the system for their own relations, eventually isolating the U.S.

Trump believes that the U.S., with the foremost military and largest economy, can dictate its terms to the world.  But new trade agreements being reached among other countries and refusals by historic allies to fully back the U.S. in Iran are signs American power is weakening.

Ratified treaties are part of American law that should not be violated, as are the laws enacted by Congress. Yet Trump has often overridden “the supreme law of the land” without suffering any consequences in the U.S.  He can ignore the law in favor of his own “morality,” because his compliant party controls Congress and like-thinkers sit in the Supreme Court majority.

In the absence of court disapproval and congressional independence, he faces only two formal enforcement tools against unlimited power.

Two-thirds of both houses can suspend the president upon the recommendation of the vice president and a cabinet majority. Two-thirds of the Senate can remove the president from office after impeachment by a House majority.  These are drastic and disruptive procedures, unlikely to be used.  Still, Trump fears a third impeachment, which is possible. 

A congressional majority that will exercise control over presidential actions would reflect a national popular sentiment that Trump’s discretion must be limited.  Yet it is extremely unlikely that enough new senators would be elected to provide the two-thirds needed to overcome a presidential veto. 

But either house could reject presidential proposals, including for spending on military operations.  And an opposition majority could deal with the president, approving presidential initiatives in return for concessions or modifications.  This is governing through compromise, just what voters supposedly prefer and as the Framers of the Constitution intended.

In the final analysis, unchecked presidential power has become likely and easy.  Enforcement of the law to force presidential compliance is complex and difficult.  The problem is not about policy, but about process.  The solution comes in electing presidents willing and wise enough to submit to the constitutional process. 

America against itself

 

America against itself

Can the experiment work?

 

Gordon L. Weil

The November congressional elections are widely seen as a referendum on President Trump. 

Will a divided country approve his presidency or try to restrain his actions during his last two years in office.   The choice may turn out to be about the kind of government Americans now want.

In his first Inaugural Address, George Washington said that “the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

The age of reason had led to the creation of a republican form of government with power ultimately in the hands of the people.  Breaking with centuries of royal rule, the American system was an “experiment.” 

Ancient thinkers had argued that government by the people would fail.  It could be subverted by a public whose interests and values turned elsewhere, poor leadership, decadence and foreign enemies.

But Americans gradually gained confidence that the experiment could succeed, though two events – the Civil War and the Great Depression – forced restarts in the process.  For almost a century, American history has moved slowly toward making the experiment successful and the model for the world.

In the past 33 years, five presidents have each produced an historic achievement that was evidence of the nation’s continual, if unsteady, progress.

President Bill Clinton led the nation into a period of domestic prosperity and Pax Americana, the maintenance of global peace under its influence, to a post World War II high point. 

President George W. Bush undertook educational reform, expanded Medicare by adding prescription coverage, and made the U.S. the world’s leader in fighting AIDS, a disease that threatened millions.

President Barack Obama symbolized equality and led the creation of a national health insurance program – the Affordable Care Act – that opened medical care to millions who previously could gain only emergency room attention. 

President Donald Trump, faced with a stunning worldwide pandemic, took swift and bold action to encourage the rapid development of Covid vaccines, providing both reassurance and recovery to millions. 

President Joe Biden developed a massive public works program to reverse the downward course of the economy resulting from the Covid pandemic and initiated the largest U.S. effort ever to slow environmental degradation.

None of these presidents was immune from controversy or error, but the system worked to produce progress.

Despite this halting progress, an increasing number of people have come to believe that the government was not working for them.  The representative form of government did not yield an economy in which they could prosper or health care that provided adequate protection.  They see a government responsive to special interests and not to them.

Faith in the American experiment faltered.  Perhaps a strong leader, brushing aside the checks and balances inherent in that experiment, might be better able to produce results.  Donald Trump promised that he could, and a majority of voters accepted those promises.

In the first year of his second term, Trump reversed or drastically reduced virtually all the major accomplishments of recent presidents.  Their aspirations and the normal processes of the America government were replaced by the will of a single person, relying on a single election victory.  The institutions of the federal government yielded to authoritarian innovation.

Democrats, opposing this change, seek to recover their role, presumably believing that they can restore confidence in the American system, because Trump is an aberration, benefitting from frustration that their party can overcome. 

Liberals are convinced their analysis is correct, and the country will come to its senses and return to constitutional traditions.  They fail to understand that MAGA believers are similarly convinced that their view is correct, have written off the experiment and prefer authoritarian rule.

Neither side shows confidence that they represent a strong majority of the people.  The Democrats are split between moderates who believe the country can be put back on track and progressives who want to move the track.  Failure to reconcile this major difference could undermine their chances of regaining power.

The Republican Party is dead, replaced by MAGA partisans, Republicans in name only, who reject the party’s traditional positions on the environment, the economy and public spending.  This GOP tinkers with voter access, trying to cling to office. 

It would be reasonable to conclude that “it must get worse, before it gets better.”  At that point, the people would decide if the experiment can be pursued or if the country reverts to authoritarianism, the historic default.  The alternative to both is chaos.

By imposing his values, cancelling programs, closing agencies, and taking the nation to war, Trump makes his case for ending the experiment.   He may force voters to make their choice on the ballot in November.

Trump threatens total war against Iran

 

Trump threatens total war against Iran

Risks a major conflict

Gordon L. Weil

The U.S. threat to bomb Iran’s electric power plants is an expression of “total war” – a conflict waged against civilian populations.

Total war includes operations going beyond military targets and aimed at harming or killing civilians who are not combatants. Its goal is to turn people against their own government, making them into allies, however unwilling.  They are expected to force their leaders to surrender, bringing people relief from their danger and suffering. 

History up to today is full of examples of the resort to total war.

In 2022, Russia attacked Ukraine.  Russia obviously wanted to turn Ukraine into its satellite, based on Putin’s belief that Ukrainians are really Russians.  He expected an easy victory with the population welcoming Russian control.

Total war can produce an opposite result from what was intended.  Instead of promptly surrendering, Ukrainians revealed a fierce commitment to their country’s political and cultural independence from Russia.  They would pay for their new-found patriotism by having their homes and power plants destroyed. 

Restrained by its American and European backers, Ukraine cannot respond in kind.  But its popular support produces strong resistance, imposing a high cost on Russia.   Russia’s total war strategy may be beyond what it can afford, and it looks likely to fail.

The 2024 Hamas terrorist attack on Israeli civilians was clearly intended to reveal the price Israel would be forced to pay for its Palestine policy.   Innocent civilians were killed, and Hamas took hostages, a move out of the Middle Ages.   If it had more than sheer terrorism as a goal, it might have expected fearful Israelis to pressure their government to alter its policy.

Instead, the country unified by attempting to eliminate Hamas.  No room was left for negotiations.  But Israel, too, resorted to total war.  Without offering evidence, it alleged that civilian institutions, including hospitals, were Hamas bases.  Its attacks were aimed at turning civilians against Hamas, which exercised absolute administrative and military control.

Ultimately, Israel shifted to the all-out destruction of Gaza.  Its actions went far beyond punishing Gaza and extended to an assault on innocent Palestinians there, presumably because they had accepted Hamas domination.  Total punishment was the product of total war.

Last week, Israel extended its total war strategy to Lebanon.  By evacuating hundreds of thousands from the south and bombing Beirut, it seemed to be trying to get the Lebanese to turn against Hezbollah and expel it.   To achieve this objective, it invaded a country with which it is not at war.

In the Iran war, both the U.S. and Israel have said they want regime change.  Based on previous anti-government demonstrations, they seem to believe that they can create the conditions for a successful uprising by attacking civilian life.    UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk reports that aerial attacks increasingly focus on areas in Iran that are densely populated. 

Iran has closed the essential oil supply route at the Straits of Hormuz.  To retaliate, Trump would engage in total war.  The principal victims of an American attack on electric supply would be civilians and institutions like schools and hospitals that depend on reliable power.   Iran would retaliate against civilian installations in Middle East countries aligned with the U.S.

Total war is not traditionally a part of American policy.  In World War II, the U.S. would not engage in British-style area bombing at night, clearly designed to demoralize and harm civilians, but instead used precision daylight bombing of military targets.

Contrary to this American policy, the U.S. would now resort to total war. Even more worrisome, with Israel, it would extend this war over a wide area with the risk that its scope could not be fully limited.   This is how regional conflicts can become major wars.

Trump once criticized Ukraine President Zelenskyy, claiming that he had started the war with Russia, because he refused to turn over land Putin demanded.  He said, “Listen, when you start a war, you got to know that you can win the war, right?”

Attacking Iran, Trump said, "What we did in Venezuela, I think, is … the perfect scenario."  Iran could be a quick victory, producing a government acceptable to the U.S.  Then, he discovered his belief in a short war and easy victory was overly optimistic.

Instead of returning to negotiations, Trump escalates the war.  His frustration has led him to the brink of total war and to the possible unpopular and dangerous deployment of American ground troops.

As the war deepens, so do economic problems in the U.S. and elsewhere, and political concerns grow among his own backers.  He needlessly alienates European allies by criticizing their insufficient support, when they might have helped give him cover in backing off the war.

Whatever the embarrassment, Trump needs to quickly find a way out.  Total war must be off the table.

Trump’s mythical mandate for war

 

Trump’s mythical mandate for war

‘Unprecedented’ victory?

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump justifies his broad assertion of authority to wage war against Iran or abolish entire agencies of government by his election victory claim that “America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate.”

He sees his supposedly crushing victory as authorization by the American people of his exercise of extraordinary powers.  Or he knows that his win was not particularly unusual, but believes that he can spin the result by boldly asserting a false claim.   Then, it’s carpe diem – seize the day – and make the most of your opportunity without much thought for the future.

That explains the Iran war.  He thought he could win quickly and did not worry about the long-running economic crisis that his war could create

Karoline Leavitt, his highly promotional press secretary, touted that, “the American people gave President Trump an overwhelming mandate.”

That he could live off his self-proclaimed mandate came from the acquiescence of intimidated congressional Republicans.  “We have taken back control of the Senate. Wow, that’s great,” he proclaimed post-election.

In short, his presidential actions, ignoring historic constitutional practices, are justified by the “unprecedented,” “powerful” and “overwhelming” mandate he received.  

Something is “unprecedented,” when there is no previous example of it.  Implied in his claim was that his victory was by the largest margin ever and that he swept his party into unusually taking control of both houses of Congress.    

What are the facts about the mandate that is the basis of his power?

● Margin of victory.  In 2024, Trump’s popular vote margin was the smallest since 1968.  In the 13 elections over the 52 years beginning with the 1972 contest, no margin of victory in the popular vote had been as narrow as his in 2024.

● Congressional coattails.  A presidential winner being accompanied by the congressional victory of his own party has happened six times since the 1980 election of President Carter, including Trump’s own 2016 election.  Only one of the six retained his party’s congressional majority in the following mid-terms: Carter in 1982.   So, the Senate win was virtually routine.

● The Trump world interprets his 2024 election as an act of the “American people”.   His win did not produce an “overwhelming” or “unprecedented” result, and it was hardly the voice of the American people?  Here’s the data.

            Citizen population aged 18 and older      236 million

            Registered voters                                     174 million     73.6% of total 18+ population

            Voters                                                        154 million    63.7% of registered voters

            Voted for Trump                                          77 million     49.8% of voters

Among all citizens 18 and over, Trump received 32.6% support.

● Number of votes.   Trump did not achieve the greatest number of popular votes for president; Joe Biden did in 2020. 

● Electoral vote.  Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Obama (twice) had bigger electoral vote margins.

The claim that Trump won unprecedented, overwhelming support from the American people is false.  He clearly won the election, but he has used his appraisal of the result as authority for the virtually unlimited use of presidential powers, as he understands them. 

Further, the voters who supported him count as the American people; everybody else is not.  He says he “hates” those who did not support him and misuses his power to go after them.

His four-year mandate misrepresents the political will of a plurality of voters, expressed through an election on a single day.   Their political act, misrepresented by him, can only be reversed or confirmed through political action.

One alternative would be impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.   Trump fears impeachment for a third time, which indeed would be unprecedented. 

He strives to retain control of the House, though his methods involve unusual mid-census redistricting and an ongoing effort to reduce the electorate by false claims of fraud.   He must win in the House to prevent impeachment.  This may be a tough challenge given his unpopularity in the polls.   

If impeached, he is unlikely to be convicted in the Senate.  That would require the votes of 67 senators, and that could only result from a huge landslide defeat for the Republicans.  GOP senators would be unlikely to break ranks.   It’s inconceivable that there would be enough Democrats and Independents next year to produce the majority needed to convict.

Still, the alternative could come at the ballot box in November.  The congressional elections emerge more as a referendum on Trump than as a routine collection of partisan, local contests.  The Democrats could take control of the House (likely) and perhaps also the Senate (increasingly possible).

Seats can flip if voters want to impose limits on Trump’s powers and to shift Washington’s focus to affordability issues.  Or they could confirm that they want more authoritarian rule.  Either way, Trump might then learn the true extent of his mandate. 

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. 

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.

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. 

 

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.

 

Trump's truths face the facts

Gordon L. Weil

“Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.”

This quote is attributed to many people and liberally advanced as an obvious truth.  But it is not; it is not a fact.

President Trump asserts that he is entitled to his own facts.  He can make a verifiably false assertion as fact, while a contrary, evidenced-based statement is “fake news.” 

Many people in the U.S. and elsewhere defer to him, because he is the powerful president of the most powerful country.  Opposition to his version of truth is overcome by intimidation and the accompanying appeasement.  Trump gains an aura of invincibility when others must accept his version of the truth.

The Washington Post fact checker found 30,573 times when Trump advanced his untruth as a truth during his first term.  He seems not to have slowed down.  In fact, his opinion-as-fact has been working even better than it did the first time around.

Trump backers have taken over the Republican Party.  Politicians in office before Trump arrived are given the choice between aligning themselves with his policies, facing defeat by one his backers in a party primary or retiring.  Loyal Trump backers can expect to keep their seats and hope for appointment by him to higher office.

In his first administration, Trump named competent people to top positions.  But he found they were not sufficiently loyal, relying on their own expertise and experience.   When they refused to follow orders that contradicted practice and sound policy, he fired them.  There was much turnover in that term.

For his second term, he sought loyalty above competence.  It is obvious that he did not want any more frequent turnover.  He has found people whose ambition led them to abandon their own past versions of the truth in favor of his.  The most obvious examples are Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

At the same time, he found cheerleaders, grateful for high office and pleased to support whatever his version of the truth might be, even embellishing it.  Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noam would blatantly lie about the killings of American citizens to justify the actions of personnel of her agency enforcing Trump’s immigration sweeps.

Attorney General Pam Bondi obediently seeks dubious prosecutions of Trump’s opponents and critics, mostly pursuing Democrats. 

Dealing with other countries, Trump could easily exploit America’s superior military and economic power.  Many nations depend on the U.S. for their defense or their export market and appease the president.  They fall in line behind his actions based on his version of the facts, though he often abruptly shifts course.

He has claimed that Greenland’s waters are being patrolled by Russian and Chinese vessels, though there is no evidence of their presence.  He asserts that only U.S. ownership of the island would offer adequate Arctic protection, although over 10,000 American troops had been withdrawn from Greenland without his sending any replacements.

Trump’s peace policy also included invading Venezuela, bombing Iran and sinking boats on the high seas.  He imposed arbitrary and excessive tariffs on world trade for political, not economic, purposes.  Because he went largely unopposed, he deemed his actions acceptable and appropriate.

Finally, he began to face pushback.  Bystander videos of the Minneapolis shootings of immigration enforcement opponents showed that Noam had manufactured false charges about them.  Resistance grew to the killing of people who posed no lethal threat.  He then promised to “de-escalate a little bit.”

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney forcefully declared his country’s dissent from Trump trade and invasion policies.  Carney’s Davos speech galvanized world opinion.  Trump warned the Prime Minister that Canada is a U.S. dependent.  Then he phoned Carney to hold a civil discussion of mutual concerns.

Still, his sycophants’ lying remained unrelenting.  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promptly bragged that Carney had backed off his Davos positions.  He attempted to transform Trump’s call into a political win, not expecting a Carney response. But the Prime Minister immediately confirmed that he had stood his ground with Trump.  Bessent had lied.

Trump’s popularity with American voters, to say nothing of foreign leaders, is declining.  While polls are not entirely accurate and they do not forecast future sentiment, they indicate a trend away from Trump.  Republicans remain strongly loyal, yet some are beginning to put daylight between themselves and the president.

His high opinion of himself may lead Trump to create his own truth.  Much of his political power depends on other people’s willingness to accept his truth.  In Minneapolis, irrefutable evidence overcame self-serving falsehood.   In Davos, his potential retaliation became less menacing than his existing international behavior.

Trump’s truth is failing.  Evidence and nerve are beginning to emerge. What are the consequences for him and the U.S. if his mystique melts?

The Rape of Greenland

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides three words associated with the verb “to rape” – violate, assault, force.

President Trump has launched an assault on Denmark’s Greenland, intending to violate Danish sovereignty and Greenland’s autonomy, using force if necessary.  While his proposal may lack the sexual connotation of rape, it is the political equivalent. 

Denmark and Greenland are not submitting to Trump’s unwanted advances, and their friends are coming to their aid.

There are eight Arctic nations:  U.S., Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia.  The first seven have joined others in NATO, mainly to defend against the eighth.  The NATO 7 are rightly concerned about Russia’s expected attempt to control the Arctic Sea, seeking military domination and economic exploitation of the area.

Trump sees Greenland, Denmark’s sparsely populated semi-autonomous territory, as a target for Russia and perhaps even China.  He imagines, without evidence, that their vessels are now circling an almost defenseless island.  He focuses exclusively on the threat to the U.S, ignoring the other six NATO allies.

The irony is that Greenland has become accessible to Russia because the Arctic ice is melting as global warming increases.  Trump claims that global warming (a.k.a. climate change) is a “hoax.” 

The NATO 7 agree that the region’s defense must be sharply increased.   While the Russian economy, far smaller than California’s, is obviously strapped by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, his ambition seems limitless.  Over time, Russia is likely to exploit its Arctic location to threaten NATO members.

The situation calls for joint planning and action by NATO.  The alliance needs a coordinated strategy for protecting their territories from the north and to then quickly create necessary military installations.   These facilities should provide for both on-site defense and leverage to put pressure on Russia.

But NATO has been slow to act, perhaps reflecting the weakness of its new Secretary-General. It has recently begun moving, obviously in reaction to Trump’s claims.  He believes that the alliance is meaningless and heavily depends on the U.S.   That means he can go it alone without regard to his alliance partners.

The U.S. has had military facilities in Greenland since World War II.  Though its operations are at a single location, it formerly had bases across the island and retains the right to bring them back to life.  Denmark would approve under the terms of a 1951 agreement, and the U.S. would control the defense of Greenland.

Given the American desire to diversify the sources of so-called “rare earths” and other minerals away from China, Greenland offers attractive alternatives.  Greenlanders say they would welcome U.S. investment to develop its increasingly valuable resources.

But that’s not enough for Trump.  He demands that the U.S. must become the sovereign owner of Greenland, even if it must be wrenched away from Denmark and opposed by Greenland, which prefers its relationship with Denmark, giving it the right to move toward independence.

In a New York Times interview, Trump was asked about his demand for ownership when the U.S. already had all he wanted.  Why?  “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty,” he said. 

“Psychologically important to you or to the United States?” he was asked.

“Psychologically important for me.  Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far, I’ve been right about everything,” he replied.

Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio vigorously pursue the acquisition of Greenland, because it is “psychologically important” to President Trump.  He counts on a loyal Republican Congress backing him, because he has “been right about everything.”

After a high-level meeting in Washington last week, the Greenlandic Foreign Minister addressed the media in her own language.  She highlighted the existence of her non-American culture.  That matters.

As an American territory, Greenland would lose its autonomy and be subject to a federal executive agency.  Its culture could be ignored and its majority non-white population might encounter discrimination.  The fate of the Greenlanders seems not to matter to Trump, though it is of prime importance.

There may be a reason beyond national security that whets Trump’s appetite for Greenland.  Though it is smaller than it appears on most maps, its acquisition would be the largest addition to American territory ever.  It would be larger than the Louisiana Purchase.

In the Nineteenth Century, the U.S. pursued its “Manifest Destiny” to obtain what became the continental 48 states.  To “Make America Great Again,” Trump could renew that policy, just as he seeks to revive the Monroe Doctrine.  He may hope to burnish his legacy by adding Greenland.

But his hope may be in vain.  How many people remember President James Monroe or James K. Polk, the president who fulfilled Manifest Destiny?