Wring Out the Old
Many, perhaps most, readers may prefer to think of 2018 as eminently forgettable and have little wish to revisit its high and low points. Yet the history of 2018 tells a fair amount about how we arrived at where we are today and where we may be headed. With that in mind, a reprise of some of the blogs of 2018 will possibly be of interest. (It did run a bit long, so browsing is OK.)
Blog No. 167 Donald Trump and the Silence of the Lambs (January 15, 2018)
Nothing that Trump said or did seemed to stir the ovine Republicans on Capitol Hill to criticism:
As nearly everyone on the planet knows by now, when President Trump met with legislative leaders last Thursday to discuss immigration, he referred to immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as immigrants from “shithole countries.” He singled out Haiti specifically, saying “Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out.” And lest anyone miss the point, he asked for more immigrants from Norway.
Reactions to President Trump’s vulgar and insulting term were swift and unequivocal around the globe—except among Republicans on Capitol Hill. For twenty-four hours, it was difficult to extract any comment from an elected Republican. Speaker Paul Ryan was among the bravest, offering the relatively tepid observation that Trump’s comments were “very unfortunate, unhelpful.” By Saturday, a few more Republicans had crept from the shadows, and an article in the Saturday New York Times tabulated the results of a survey of “Republicans in the House leadership, the Senate and other lawmakers who attended the meeting.” According to the Times, some nineteen Republicans had expressed criticism of the President in varying degrees, four made some comment but offered neither criticism or support of the President, and thirty-three silent lambs had nothing to say at all. Most notable among the latter was Ryan’s counterpart in the Senate, Majority Leader and head of the flock, Mitch McConnell. Apart from the Capitol Hill Republicans, Governor Kasich was notable in calling for Trump to issue an apology to the countries in question.
12/31 Comment: For the remainder of 2018, Capitol Hill Republicans showed little appetite for standing up to the President, with one notable exception—refusing to join Trump in turning a blind eye to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi by the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman.
Blog No. 168 Shutdown: What Happened and What Now? (January 25, 2018)
Blame for the January, 2018 Shutdown could be shared by both parties:
Shutdowns are a bad idea that should be expunged from the playbooks of both parties. Shutdowns cause hardship to individuals in and out of the government, and if they continue for any length of time, they are costly to the economy. Moreover, shutdowns hardly ever achieve any positive result in terms of politics or policy. They may feel good for a while, and tickle the appetites of the political base, but those “benefits” are inevitably short-lived. Finally, shutdowns contribute significantly to the loss of confidence in the government by the American public and in countries around the world.
12/31 Comment: The shutdown currently in effect demonstrates that the parties learned few lessons from prior shutdowns. If a compromise is not reached soon, both parties will be damaged and deserve to be.
Guest Blog by John Broesamle. How the History of American Immigration Policy Led to Washington’s Impasse Now (February 12, 2018)
John Broesamle offered an illuminating look at the politics of several past immigration laws beginning in 1924, and a realistic but hopeful view of the deadlock that continues today:
Few subjects seem less amenable to reasonable dialogue right now than immigration reform. For the Democratic left as much as the Trump base, it is a dividing line symbolized by The Wall. The two sides even disagree over language: Is the proper term “chain migration” or “family reunification”? “Dreamers” or “illegals”?
Recalling a 1988 proposal crafted by Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Edward Kennedy, Broesamle noted that their proposal had not been successful but concluded:
Still, it reminds us that people of differing views, but goodwill and an ability to compromise, may yet be able to locate a way out of the great immigration impasse.
12/31 Comment: One thing that might help Congressional negotiators who struggle with immigration issues in 2019 would be to read and appreciate the history that Broesamle outlined.
Blog No. 172 Chaos, DACA, Guns and Trade (March 8, 2018)
Chaos in the Trump White House in March involved staff departures (Hope Hicks, Rob Porter, Gary Cohn), flip-flops on DACA and gun control under pressure from Trump’s base, and ill-conceived tariffs reportedly “born out of anger over other simmering issues”:
The blog quoted Michael Gerson in the Washington Post:
On issues from immigration to gun control, the president has made seemingly random and contradictory interventions that reveal his ignorance about the basics of important policy debates. The man who believes in “the power of strength” exhibits a level of competence that would be embarrassing in high school student government.
12/31 Comment: If there was chaos in the Trump White House in March, it only signaled what we would observe in the ensuing months with firings or resignations (e.g.. Sessions, Mattis and Kelly) and the impulsive announcement of ill-thought out policies (e.g. orders to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan).
Blog No. 174 Stand With the Kids (March 20, 2018)
Even the tragic shooting at the Stoneman Douglas school in Parkland, Florida failed to change the posture of the Republican Party:
Resistance to gun control, and operating as if a wholly-owned subsidiary or the NRA, has not always been a cornerstone of the Republican Party. Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush all favored one form of gun control or another. Notably, President Reagan joined Presidents Ford and Carter in 1994 in supporting the ban on assault weapons that would expire ten years later. By 2013, when RINOcracy began, the NRA was firmly in command, and support of gun control was one of the signature heresies we announced at the outset. It remains one today, and readers are urged to honor and support the Stoneman Douglas survivors in their quest for a rational gun policy.
12/31 Comment: After a brief show of strong support for gun control in a televised meeting with Congressional leaders, Trump was quickly brought to heel by the NRA and has remained there ever since.
Blog No. 181 Mueller and Trump: The Realities (June 11, 2018)
Enforcing a subpoena against Trump would be more difficult than many suppose; successful impeachment, requiring conviction by the Senate, would involve a steep political climb:
At the present time, conviction by the Senate following a vote of impeachment by the House is unlikely as matter of fundamental politics. Despite Trump’s frequently embarrassing behavior, and his failure to accomplish many of his campaign promises, his base has remained doggedly loyal and that base is one that he largely shares with Republicans in the Senate. Moreover, his overall approval rating, although still relatively low, has been edging upward. Hence it is not surprising that very few Senators, other than those who are leaving office, have been willing to take on Trump over anything.
* * * *
In a court of law, Trump would be unlikely to prevail on his lawyers’ claim that a president cannot obstruct justice by firing the head of the FBI or otherwise interfering with an investigation, but among Senate Republicans that theory may well find adherents. Similarly, in a court of law a case of perjury or obstruction of justice can be successfully prosecuted without proof of an underlying crime. (Just ask Scooter Libby.) In the Senate, however, a very different dynamic is likely apply. Put another way, the Senate would almost certainly fail to convict Trump of obstruction in the absence of convincing evidence of criminal activity that he was seeking to cover up.
12/31 Comment: What Mueller will do and when remains an intriguing question as we begin 2019. Until we know more, speculation will have to suffice for analysis. Those who expect Mueller to produce a road map to impeachment may be disappointed.
Blog No. 183 The Border Mess: Malice Met Incompetence, But What Now? (June 26, 2018)
There are thorny problems involved in detaining the children of illegal immigrants, determining eligibility for asylum, and addressing root causes with aid to Central American countries. But Trump’s clumsy approach is a prisoner of his political instincts and his hostile view of immigrants:
Donald Trump’s antipathy toward illegal immigrants crossing our Southern border was expressed in the notorious comments he made to initiate his presidential campaign; ever since then it has been reflected in assorted tweets, remarks and speeches. From referring to Mexicans as rapists and murderers, Trump has “progressed” to blaming illegal immigrants for a non-existent crime wave, and claiming that Democrats are the sponsors of a vicious Central American criminal gang, MS-13. For example, in a June 19 tweet:
Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!
Trump’s reckless talk appears to come in part from his own personal prejudices and in part from a cynical calculation of what plays well with his base. In the hours before issuing the Executive Order ending (or appearing to end) the ill-conceived family separation policy, Trump was reported to have told aides that family separation was the best deterrent to illegal immigration and that “my people love it.” Political calculation is also evident in Trump’s urging that it is up to Congress to fix the problem yet insisting that any legislative “fix” be part of a bill that would meet his other immigration objectives of building the Trump Wall and reducing legal immigration.
12/31 Comment: “What now?” remains the question. Presidential bluster and the political posturing indulged in by both parties over the Wall, make no contribution to solving our real immigration problems.
Blog No. 184 Donald Trump Has Stepped Down…As Leader of the Free World (and Neville Chamberlain Redux) (July 3, 2018)
Anticipating a scheduled meeting with European leaders, it was clear that Donald Trump had no claim to the title “Leader of the Free World.” And remarks by John Bolton foreshadowed the withdrawal from Syria that Trump would announce precipitously a few months later. Returning from a trip to Moscow, John Bolton was interviewed on Face the Nation and implied a possibility of cooperating with Russia in Syria:
The possible “deal” hinted at by Bolton had been outlined three days before by a David Ignatius piece in the Washington Post, “Is Trump handing Putin a victory in Syria?” According to Ignatius, the “deal,” would “preserve power for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in exchange for Russian pledges to restrain Iranian influence.” As Ignatius explained:
Checking Iranian power has become the only major Trump administration goal in Syria, now that the Islamic State is nearly vanquished. President Trump appears ready to embrace a policy that will validate Assad, an authoritarian leader who has gassed his own people, and abandon a Syrian opposition that was partly trained and supplied by the United States.
Any Russian “pledges” to restrain Iran would be no more bankable than Kim Jong-un’s dubious promises to give up his nuclear arsenal. Indeed, British and European allies are skeptical that Russia has the capacity to expel Iran from areas they dominate. Moreover, a deal to preserve Assad would be seen as a betrayal by our former allies in the Syrian opposition, one of whom warned Ignatius that the betrayal might lead to future jihadist uprisings. From Trump’s perspective, however, any sort of deal may give him a fig leaf to cover the withdrawal of American troops from Syria as he plainly wishes.
12/31 Comment: The relations between the United States and its one-time allies, European and otherwise, remain uncomfortable. The precipitous orders for troop withdrawal in Syria and Afghanistan are only the latest evidence of Trump’s unpredictability and America’s growing unreliability. As for Syria, we are now withdrawing without even a fig leaf.
Blog No. 186 Helsinki: The Donald Meets Vlad the Impaler (July 18, 2018)
The highlight of our wayward President’s appalling performance in Helsinki came at the press conference after his meeting with Vladimir Putin. He offered this response to a question about Russian interference in the 2016 election:
My people came to me, Dan Coats, came to me and some others they said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia.
I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be. But I really do want to see the server but I have, I have confidence in both parties.
Moments later he added that “President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”
After a firestorm of criticism, Trump tried to walk back his comment:
On Tuesday, Trump sought to stem the tide of criticism that his press conference had provoked among Republicans as well as Democrats. He read a statement that had clearly been prepared and force-fed to him by an anguished staff, and that showed all the conviction of recitals by hostages or prisoners of war. The escape route from his comments the day before probably deserves at least a small niche in the annals of creative writing: Trump explained that “In a key sentence in my remarks I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t.’ The sentence should have been: ‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia,’ Sort of a double negative.” The proffered explanation gets high marks for imagination, but is hardly persuasive when the sentence is read in context and even less so when viewed on the video where Trump clearly placed emphasis on “would.”
12/31 Comment: Putin’s hold over Trump remains as mysterious—and alarming—as ever.
Guest Blog Why I Am Still a Republican, by Sandy Treadwell (July 23, 2018)
Sandy Treadwell, a former Secretary of State in New York, former Chairman of the Republican Party in New York and former member of the Republican National Committee, explained the plight of Republicans in exile:
I am pro choice. I know that global warming has placed the earth in peril. I believe that the sale of assault weapons should be banned. I do not believe in the death penalty. I am for gay marriage. Doug Parker, the author of this excellent blog, describes himself as a Republican in exile. He has my company in the wilderness.
When I was Chairman of the Republican Party in New York State, I was proud that our Party was inclusive. While we believe in individual freedom, less-rather-than-more government and a strong national defense, we welcomed different viewpoints on social issues into our “big tent.” But that was before the Tea Party went about purging centrists from our elected ranks. Before evangelicals swelled our numbers. Before our Party veered to the hard right. When Fox News was mainly a curiosity. Back then moderates like me were welcome. And back then a fellow New Yorker named Trump was a pro-choice Democrat. Now he is a Republican president who is taking my Party through a cracked, warped looking glass. We are daily witnessing a new tea party presided over by a mad hatter with orange hair. He doesn’t read. He doesn’t prepare. He doesn’t consult. His only interest is self-interest.
12/31 Comment: While moderate Republicans may be an endangered species on Capitol Hill, there are other voices in the land that give reason for hope. One example is the Niskanen Center and their recent paper, “Public Policy for an Age of Extremes.”
Blog No. 197 The Brexit Shipwreck: Are There Lifeboats? (November 19, 2018)
If the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, particularly under a “hard Brexit,” the economic damage to both the UK and the EU will be significant and may even extend across the Atlantic:
The polarization of political opinion in the United States has been the subject of endless comment and analysis, particularly in the aftermath of the unexpected election of Donald Trump in 2016. Preoccupied with our own problems, many have been aware of, but not paid a great deal of attention to, a parallel polarization in the United Kingdom. That polarization was also revealed by an unexpected event in 2016: a referendum mandating a UK exit from the European Union or, in the popular portmanteau, Brexit. But as Brexit is now approaching a crisis, it is beginning to draw increasing coverage in American media. It is worth considering not only from the standpoint of concern for our oldest and closest ally and the impact on Europe, but for the potential harm to our own economy.
12/31 Comment: The prospects for a satisfactory (least damaging) resolution of the Brexit problem seem as elusive today as they did in November, and the deadline of March 29 is looming. It is possible that Prime Minister Theresa May will ask for and receive an extension, but even then the way forward is unclear.
Ring in the New
It would be foolhardy in the extreme to make any predictions of what 2019 may bring, so perhaps it is sufficient to indulge in expressing a few hopes.
The Shutdown. I hope that both President Trump and Democrats will suppress their appetites for scoring political victories at least enough to reach a reasonable compromise, sooner rather than later.
The Mueller Probe and Impeachment. I hope that the Attorney General (Acting or Permanent as the case may be) does not attempt to prevent Mueller’s report from being furnished to Congress and made public. I hope that Democrats and Republicans alike read the report thoughtfully and not through purely partisan lenses. I hope that Democrats in the House will not proceed with impeachment unless there is evidence that would make a conviction by the Senate reasonably possible.
Abortion. I hope that the Supreme Court does not overrule or eviscerate Roe v. Wade (as modified in 1992 by Planned Parenthood v. Casey).
Climate Change. I hope that more Republicans will accept the science of climate change and work with Democrats to find practical approaches, possibly including a carbon tax.
Gun Control. I hope that more Republicans will reject the patronage of the NRA and work toward sensible gun control measures including expanded background checks and banning semi-automatic assault style weapons and large capacity magazines.
Immigration. I hope that, against all odds, the parties might reach a compromise that, even at the cost of some funding for Trump’s Wall, protects the DACA children and gives them a path to citizenship and takes a humane approach to asylum seekers.
NAFTA. I hope that Democrats will support the revised NAFTA treaty (aka USMCA) and not reject it simply because it was negotiated by the Trump administration.
Democrats. I hope that the Democrats’ search for a nominee for 2020 produces one or more candidates with centrist instincts, a generosity of spirit and a vision for the future, and one who could defeat Trump.
Republicans. I hope that John Kasich and others will keep alive the idea that the Republican Party does not have to be the party of Trump and, if feasible, prepare to mount a primary challenge.
Brexit. I hope that the United Kingdom can find a way out of the dangerous muddle they’re in, possibly through a second referendum.
China and Trade. I hope Trump and Xi Jinping find a way to avoid a trade war.
North Korea. I hope that North Korea actually does take steps to dismantle its nuclear arsenal but that, even if it doesn’t, Trump does not feel sufficiently betrayed and angered to launch a preemptive attack.
Russia. I hope that Trump’s floundering does not embolden Putin to make aggressive moves in Ukraine, the Baltics or elsewhere.
Syria. I hope that ISIS does not have a resurgence and that Turkey is not allowed to decimate the Kurds, our abandoned allies in Syria.
Yemen. I hope for a prompt end to this terrible war, which has created a huge humanitarian crisis.
Those who make predictions at the beginning of a year often return a year later to report how they did. I am not sure that I will have the courage a year from now to report on how my hopes fared, but as our President is wont to say, we’ll see what happens.
Happy New Year to all!
I share most of your hopes. But the Democrats should not vote for a Wall to placate Trump. Furthermore, his impeachment is both “inevitable” and necessary. Gross incompetence in office and attempted subversion of democratic institutions compel fierce resistance.
Happy New Year.
Doug: you presented a sobering overview of 2018 and an inspiring list of hopes for 2019. I would add one more item to the list of hopes: that enough competent and independent patriots risk their reputations by agreeing to serve in the Trump administration. I fear the results if Trump manages to pack his cabinet entirely with lackeys and fawning courtiers.
Thanks, Randy. I’ll endorse that hope but with one reservation: I do not think that competent and independent patriot should join the administration unless they find themselves in substantial agreement with the values and vision of the President. I do not think they should join with the expectation of changing either or becoming part of a “Deep State” covert insurgency.
As I should have written in the blog, I invite other readers to submit other hopes. The more perspectives we can share, the better.
I share each and every one of those hopes, Doug, to the letter. Quite remarkable, considering the modest gulf between our political philosophies. May I offer brief commentaries on a couple of them…
Carbon tax is an essential component of dealing with climate change. It will be important to disclose (and advocate) just what it is the feds should do with all those massive revenues it would generate. I believe they should be divided roughly three ways: one-third to a half committed to deficit reduction, one-sixth to one-third for the cost of other programs to save the planet and one-third returned as transfer payments to those citizens (not companies) most impacted and least able to afford the cost of the tax.
A re-referendum is the only viable option for Brexit. No form of actual Brexit can possibly be achieved without erecting unacceptable and hugely provocative re-barriers in Ireland. And the EU shouldn’t mind, since the goal of disincenting other member nations from trying to escape would amply demonstrated.
And lastly, I agree with you as a practical and political (and anti-polarization) matter that it would be best if the House votes for Impeachment only if there is a reasonable prospect of getting the 20 GOP votes needed for conviction in the Senate. But if there really is clear evidence of criminal conduct and disgracefully widespread corruption throughout the administration and family business, and yet the bulk of the Senate GOP remains unreachable, consider the precedent as a matter of principle and values. What a dreadful standard we would be setting for future administrations and Congresses, as to what conduct truly constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors.” If the case is strong enough, I think we have to go for it and pray enough principled, patriotic Republican Senators can be found. If we are forced to do so (by our consciences), of course, it would help if we communicated a tone of “more in sadness than in anger (or partisanship),” if that be possible in this angry, polarized world.
Happy New Year, all!
Comments are closed.