The View from Right Field

Might It Have Been Possible to Oppose Donald Trump Without the Fury?

As we enter the last year of either Donald Trump’s presidency or President Trump’s first term, it seems like an appropriate time to look back on the last three years.  First, in looking at my posts about President Trump, I see I started out complaining a lot about what he did and his style of doing it.  Just look at some of the titles of my posts in his first nine months:

• “Donald Trump at Seven Weeks. This Is Not Working.”
• “Donald Trump Meets Angela Merkel. Things Keep Getting Worse.”
• “Donald Trump: Will the Embarrassment Ever End?”
• “@realDonaldTrump: Such a Small, Small Man”¹

But eventually, I got tired.  It wasn’t making a difference (obviously), and I was saying the same thing over and over again.  I got bored writing it.  I can only imagine how bored people got reading it.

A Few Thoughts on Impeachment – And Process

It’s hard to come up with things to write about with impeachment sucking all of the oxygen out of the news.  So, let me make a few comments on impeachment and the impeachment process.  Before I start, though, let me note, as readers of this blog know, I did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016 (I actually decided that in 2015), and I will not vote for him in 2020.  To my comments:

1. So far, President Trump has not done anything that has surprised me all that much.  Appalled me, yes.  Surprised me, no.

Donald Trump and Impeachment. When – and How – Is It Going to End?

A few thoughts:

1. It shouldn’t be too big of a problem for the pro-impeachment forces to get the House of Representatives to impeach Donald Trump.  It only takes a majority, and there are 235 Democrats in the House compared to 197 Republicans.  (There are two vacancies and one independent.)  The Democrats can almost certainly pass an impeachment resolution if the House leadership wants to.

2. The Senate is a different story.  Because it takes a 2/3 vote to convict in the Senate, the pro-impeachment forces need to get 20 Republicans senators to vote to convict President Trump (assuming all 47 Democrats vote to convict).  In this regard, I think it is safe to say that President Trump has not built up much personal loyalty among Republican senators.  The key for them, instead, will be (i) the facts and (ii) how their pro-Trump constituents feel about impeachment.  If President Trump loses any significant portion of his base and/or those who  voted for him in 2016 because the alternative was worse, he could be in trouble.

How’s a Person Who Cares About Foreign Policy Supposed to Vote Next November?

As I have written before, foreign policy may be the most important issue for me in November 2020 and it’s hard to know what to do.  Donald Trump is unacceptable.  The list of reasons why would go on for a long time, so I’ll just list one of the most recent: he apparently needed John Bolton to stop him from inviting Taliban leaders to Camp David just before the anniversary of 9/11.  But I had decided I wouldn’t vote for President Trump long before that, so while it is appalling, it doesn’t affect my decision.

The question is whether any of the Democrats are just barely acceptable.  Joe Biden is supposedly the most moderate, but former Defense Secretary¹ Robert Gates, who I respect, said of former Vice President Biden, in 2014: “I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”²  In other words, just because you are “moderate” doesn’t mean you can’t still be wrong.³

I Am So Tired of @realDonaldTrump

In the middle of his snit yesterday over trade and tariffs with China, President Trump tweeted, in part:

“Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing your companies HOME and making your products in the USA.” (Here and here)

I just don’t know what to say.  Maybe Xi Jinping and Kim Jung Un, people President Trump calls his friends, can order their companies to do this.  But, President Trump, you can’t do this.  We are a free country, and you can’t order people or companies around like some Communist dictator.  And saying things like this is stupid. 

Foreign Policy: Are Presidents Trump and Obama All That Different?

Wilbur Ross, Donald Trump’s Secretary of Commerce said, last Wednesday, that Hong Kong was an internal matter for Hong Kong and added: “What are we going to do – invade Hong Kong?”  In response, Edward Luce, of the Financial Times, commented: “In a few words, Mr Ross captured the degeneration of US foreign policy.”¹  Which may be true, but it didn’t start January 20, 2017.

Secretary Ross’s choice, invasion or doing nothing, sounds suspiciously like the phony choices Barack Obama used to justify his do-nothing, or at least, do-as-little-as-possible, approach to foreign policy.  For example, when Russia invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, and fomented a war in eastern Ukraine in 2014, President Obama asked: “Do people actually think that somehow us sending some additional arms into Ukraine could potentially deter the Russian Army?”  In fact, the Trump administration, even though President Trump is supposedly in the pocket of Vladimir Putin, has sent the kinds of defensive weapons that President Obama refused to send.  And it has seemed to help.

President Trump’s Foreign Policy Claims Are Often Bizarre, But It’s Not the First Time We’ve Seen That

The foreign policy follies (and worse) of Donald Trump are so bad, it sometimes makes us forget bizarre positions that prior administrations have taken.  For example, in 2011, when the United States was involved in the bombing of Libya (because, inter alia, Moammar Gaddafi was threatening to massacre Libyan civilians), the question of the War Powers Act arose.  The War Powers Act was passed over President Nixon’s veto in 1973.  It provided that presidents are to get Congress’s approval or authorization within 60 days¹ after they send troops into hostilities.

The Obama administration, however, did not want to seek Congressional approval of our operations in Libya.  But it also did not want to say, as other presidents have said, that the War Powers Act was an unconstitutional limit on the President’s power.² So, the State Department legal advisor, a politically appointed position, came up with the theory that the War Powers Act did not apply to the bombing of Libya because we were not engaged in “hostilities” since the other side could not effectively shoot back at us.  (See here and here,)

The 2019 Political World - In Two Cartoons

The one on the left is from Tuesday's Financial Times.  The one on the right is from today's Wall Street Journal.

Does President Trump’s Hard Line Go Away in Person?

An article in The Washington Post this morning, with the headline “Trump’s hard line approach appears to soften in meetings with world leaders,” starts out:

“President Trump entered his meeting with President Xi Jinping over the weekend promising to take a tough approach on trade negotiations and pressure his Chinese counterpart into a sweeping deal.

But the meeting did not produce an agreement – and Trump’s stance seemed to only soften as he announced he was relaxing limits on Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei and delaying new tariffs on Chinese goods in hopes of restarting trade talks with Beijing.”

Republican Versus Trumpian

Back in the middle of May, Janan Ganesh, a columnist for the Financial Times, said, per the headline of his column, “Trump needs more Trumpians in the White House.”  According to Mr. Ganesh:

“Between them, [national security advisor John] Bolton and [acting White House chief of staff Mick] Mulvaney stand for the kind of Republicanism that Mr Trump was meant to have slain in 2016. …

Mike Pompeo could be the secretary of state in a Republican government of yesteryear.  Treasury secretary Steven Munchin could have served any recent Grand Old Party president.  It is much harder to name members of this administration who are truly in President Trump’s distinct image.