The View from Right Field

Does this Really Disqualify Joe Biden?

Joe Biden is thinking about running for president.  In fact, he recently just about announced, apparently by mistake, that he is running for president.  But, as he has been getting ready to announce, he has been hit with a number of complaints from women about the somewhat weird things he has done in the past.  One woman, who I think was a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2016, said the former Vice President came up and smelled her hair and kissed her on the back of the head.  Other women have said similar things.  Clearly, former Vice President Biden hasn’t had a good understanding of personal space and the things you should and should not do.  But, so far, the complaints have been about things he did in public, things that were a little creepy and not what people do today, but that’s about it.

Still, it appears a fair number of people, in theory on his side of the political spectrum, think these things should disqualify Joe Biden from running for president. 

Happy Birthday, NATO

NATO has a birthday coming up.  On April 4, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will turn 70.  The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949.  Its first twelve members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  Greece and Turkey joined in 1952, and West Germany in 1955.  Post-Franco Spain joined in 1982.  With the fall of the Berlin Wall, countries in eastern Europe rushed to join, thirteen more so far, with North Macedonia being the thirtieth soon.

There will be a number of articles on NATO’s anniversary in the next few days.  The Economist has already published a lengthy piece on “NATO at 70” in its March 16 issue.  Ivo Daalder, former ambassador to NATO and now president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. wrote an excellent article in last Friday’s Chicago Tribune.  While these articles cover the subject of NATO and its future better than I can, I would like to add a few thoughts to the birthday celebration for what has been best defensive military alliance in history, thoughts related to its future.

Concerns about NATO’s future have increased, especially among the foreign policy elite, since Donald Trump was elected president 2016.  President Trump, after all, said NATO was obsolete while on the campaign trail in 2016,¹ and he has been pretty obnoxious since then about the failure of many NATO countries to increase up their defense spending in line with commitments they have made in 2014 to get their defense spending up to 2% of GDP by 2024.

A Few Comments on Where We Are Going With Our Defense Policy

An article in last week’s Economist, “Bringing out the big guns,” described the shift in direction that is taking place in the U.S. military as it “prepares for life after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”  Some of the changes are good and necessary.  Others are more questionable.  Let me quote some sections from the article and then comment on them.

“In January 2018 the Trump administration published its National Defence Strategy (NDS).  Officials lamented that nearly two decades of whack-a-mole against insurgents and jihadists had eroded the country’s military edge, resulting in exhausted and under-trained units armed for the wrong enemy.  So the NDS decreed that America would henceforth focus on ‘long-term, strategic competition between nations’ – namely, China and Russia.”

If the military was “exhausted and under-trained,” it was because it wasn’t big enough and was not given enough money for the task(s) it was being asked to do under the George W. Bush and Obama administrations.  It is understandable that the military can be stretched for some period of time.  Emergencies happen and the military has to respond.  But to be stretched for almost two decades is a choice – a choice to not properly fund the military.  And to continually ask the people in the military to do more than they should have to do because you don’t want to spend more money on defense is wrong.

What’s Going to Happen In Venezuela?

Venezuela is starving.  Literally.  Aid is on its borders, but President Nicholas Maduro is refusing to let it in because the aid has been organized by opposition leader Juan Guaido (and countries supporting him).  Already, at least four people have been killed and hundreds injured, reportedly by Venezuelan security forces, including militia. 

What happens next?  Obviously, nobody knows, but 2019 is the 30th anniversary of two possible outcomes.  The first is Tiananmen Square.  In 1989, people in China were starting to demonstrate for more rights and liberties.  The protests reached a peak in Tiananmen Square in Beijing in early June.  The Army faced off with the protesters.  The Army won because it was willing to shoot the protesters until they disbanded and left.  Deng Xiaoping was willing to put his economic reforms on hold to maintain political power.

When Principles Are a Club, Instead of Principles

In contemplating the mess that is Virginia politics, it is perhaps most instructive to see how the calls for Governor Ralph Northam to resign have subsided as it became possible that the result of his resignation wouldn’t be just another Democrat as governor but a Republican.¹  In the meantime, at least from this distance, Virginia Republicans appear to be keeping fairly quiet because (i) they are checking their own yearbooks, (ii) they realize that, when the other side is shooting themselves in the foot, the best thing is to get out of the way, or (iii) they remember what the Senate Democrats did to Brett Kavanaugh and they aren’t going to do the same (probably the least likely alternative).

In any case, maybe a few people are beginning to realize that we should pick our principles based on what is right and fair as opposed to either what we can beat the other side on the head with or what we have to do to protect our own people.  In this regard, consider the following from Megan McArdle on what can happen when you care more about protecting your own side:

Margaret Chase Smith: The First Woman to Run for a Major Party Presidential Nomination

When Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif) announced her bid for the Democratic nomination for president last month, newspapers starting looking for other women and African-Americans who have run for president.  The problem is they just can’t seem to get even simple things like this right.

For example, yesterday, the print edition of the Chicago Tribune had an article¹ saying that, in January of 1972, Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D-NY) became the first woman and first African-American to run for the presidential nomination of a major party.  The latter may be true, but the former most definitely is not. 

Because, in 1964, eight years before Rep. Chisholm’s run, Republican Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine ran for the Republican presidential nomination.  Senator Smith announced her candidacy on January 27, 1964.  She competed in every primary that year, even winning 25% of the vote in Illinois.

Are We Bugging Out of Afghanistan?

According to news reports, United States and Taliban negotiators have agreed on two key points of a settlement in Afghanistan: (i) the United States will withdraw its forces from Afghanistan; and (ii) the Taliban will ensure that no international terrorist attacks are made from Afghanistan.  U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad told local media in Afghanistan said that the U.S. and the Taliban had agreed in principle on two important points, and Taliban sources said what the points were.  Still to come, though, are the details on these two points, as well as agreements on two other issues the United States has raised: (iii) direct negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government; and (iv) a comprehensive ceasefire, neither of which the Taliban has been willing to agree to. 

Predictably, observers such as David Rohde at The New Yorker were excited.  Mr. Rohde said:

“The news sparked surprise – and applause – from American diplomats who have tried and failed to negotiate with the Taliban in the past.  ‘I think this is the beginning of a credible process for the first time in ten years,’ Dan Feldman, who served as the Obama Administration’s Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told me.

When the Nixons Joined the Eisenhowers - for Life

Today is the 50th wedding anniversary of Julie and David Eisenhower.  The grandson of a President marrying the daughter of a President (President-elect, at that point).  They were married on December 22, 1968, at Marble Collegiate Church in New York City, the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale presiding.  The Richard Nixon Foundation has a special on-line exhibit on the courtship and wedding of Julie and David Eisenhower here.

Instead of More Politicians Like George H.W. Bush, We Need More People Like George H.W. Bush

On Tuesday, the Chicago Tribune had an editorial entitled “Humility and civility: More pols, please, like George H.W. Bush.”  The editorial concluded:

“If enough politicians and others in the public sphere would take a lesson from the former president’s honorable conduct, Americans would have more respect for their governments – and for each other.”

While I agree that our politicians should take a decency lesson from George H.W. Bush, it would be even better if all of us took a lesson from former President Bush.  If we would act honorably.  If we would have more respect for those who disagree with us.  If we would post on social media, only things that we are willing to say to somebody in person.

If we want our politicians to be more decent and more honorable (which is something to keep in mind when we go to the polls), the first thing we need is to be more decent and more honorable ourselves.

George H.W. Bush, RIP

I have written a lot about George Herbert Walker Bush over the years, and while I am saddened by his passing, I am sure that he, and his family, are glad he is with Barbara once again.  Our longest presidential marriage is an example for us all.  As was his sense of duty, honor, and decency, something that is too often missing in politics today.

But George H.W. Bush was more than a good man.  He was a good president.  Many of the obituaries talk about how President Bush went back on his pledge at the 1988 Republican Convention: “Read my lips, no new taxes.”  What they didn’t mention is why President Bush felt he needed to agree to a tax increase in the fall of 1990.  In October of 1990, there was a short government shutdown over the Columbus Day weekend.  By then, however, and following on President Bush’s statement of August of 1990 that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait “will not stand,” U.S. troops were already beginning to deploy to the Middle East.  President Bush explained his decision to agree to a tax increase in order to avoid a further government shutdown as follows: “When push came to shove and our troops were moving overseas, we needed a fully functioning government.  I simply had to hammer out a compromise to keep the government open ….”¹  This is obviously an approach to government, and responsibility, that not many people in Washington, at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, seem to have today.