The Dems' success in the next election will depend on how they frame the impeachment proceedings. If they frame it as an effort to remove him from office they will loose. They will they will loose because the GOP will circle the wagons, the Senate will vote along party lines and Trump will feel and proclaim loudly that he is innocent, that he has been vindicated, and the Dems attempted coup has been foiled by his strategic genius. That message will sell well in the red states.
If on the other hand the Dems frame it against the backdrop that the Senate will never remove him from office, they gain several advantages. First they put GOP senators on the spot since if they do vote along party lines they will confirm the Dems' narrative that they are more concerned with holding on to power than with justice, national security, corruption, abuse of power and the good of the country. It also allows the Dems to set expectations properly; that the trump will remain in office but that his misdeeds will be laid bear for all to see; with that more modest objective, the focus can shift from Trump's removal to his abuse of public office which will help swing votes either not vote to reelect him or event vote for his Democratic rival.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Tough Break
If you voted for Trump, it must be really hard to come to terms with the fact that he is quite evidently off his rocker. His deranged tweet storms, his inability to deal with reality that leads him to create his own fictional world in which his all actions are "perfect" and he is "a stable genius", all are signs of someone who, were he not in the White House would lead most people to view him with pity and otherwise ignore his self-indulgent outbursts. But for the foreseeable future he remains a burden we all have to deal with in one way or another.
Family ties
The legitimacy of the newly initiated impeachment inquiry depends on your take on Hunter Biden.
If you think that because no criminal charges were brought, that while Biden Jr.'s actions were unseemly and arguably improper, nothing criminal took place. But of course that's a difficult position for Democrats who are up in arms about improper behavior which did not involve criminal culpability (see the Meuller Report).
On the other hand, if you believe that he and/or his father engaged in criminal wrong doing then Trump's attempt to shed light on it seems legitimate. Of course, threatening to withdraw financial life support from a country to do this is at the very least egregiously heavy handed, but sausage making is not a pretty sight. Republicans will argue that the only reason charges weren't filed was because no one was looking hard enough. That in turn was because Biden Sr. was VP and helped oust Ukraine's chief prosecutor. (The fact that almost every European country was also calling for his ouster doesn't make it into their narrative). And on which side of that divide Republican senators fall will determine the fate the country's 45th president.
If there is one common theme to both these narratives and one the Dems need to get out ahead of it's the appearance of corruption, whether its Biden Sr.'s children, or Trump's. Governing and public service is not an adjunct to the family business; it is a sacred trust; leveraging ones family's position of power an influence for financial gain, while not strictly (in the sense defined by the supreme court) corrupt, sure as heck looks pretty darn close. And its the kind of sleaze that helps fuel distrust of powerful office holders and contributed to the populist surge that helped put Trump (with assistance from Putin) into the White House.
As painful as it may be, Democrats need to distance themselves from Joe Biden if for no other reason than to signal that they will no longer tolerate the kind of turning a blind eye that apparently went on when he was advised that his son's activities looks unseemly.
If you think that because no criminal charges were brought, that while Biden Jr.'s actions were unseemly and arguably improper, nothing criminal took place. But of course that's a difficult position for Democrats who are up in arms about improper behavior which did not involve criminal culpability (see the Meuller Report).
On the other hand, if you believe that he and/or his father engaged in criminal wrong doing then Trump's attempt to shed light on it seems legitimate. Of course, threatening to withdraw financial life support from a country to do this is at the very least egregiously heavy handed, but sausage making is not a pretty sight. Republicans will argue that the only reason charges weren't filed was because no one was looking hard enough. That in turn was because Biden Sr. was VP and helped oust Ukraine's chief prosecutor. (The fact that almost every European country was also calling for his ouster doesn't make it into their narrative). And on which side of that divide Republican senators fall will determine the fate the country's 45th president.
If there is one common theme to both these narratives and one the Dems need to get out ahead of it's the appearance of corruption, whether its Biden Sr.'s children, or Trump's. Governing and public service is not an adjunct to the family business; it is a sacred trust; leveraging ones family's position of power an influence for financial gain, while not strictly (in the sense defined by the supreme court) corrupt, sure as heck looks pretty darn close. And its the kind of sleaze that helps fuel distrust of powerful office holders and contributed to the populist surge that helped put Trump (with assistance from Putin) into the White House.
As painful as it may be, Democrats need to distance themselves from Joe Biden if for no other reason than to signal that they will no longer tolerate the kind of turning a blind eye that apparently went on when he was advised that his son's activities looks unseemly.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
The waters you swim In
Upstanding people and some legal pundits keep pointing out that there is no explicit quid pro quo in Trump's conversation with Ukraine's newly elected president. Frankly, only the naivest of fools should expect there to be. Donald Trump may be a sleazy operator who from time to time crosses the line between what's legal and what isn't but he not so stupid as to go on record making an explicit ask.
His experience in real estate has taught him that you can threaten and bully implicitly as effectively, or more so, than by making a threat explicit. Simply hinting may be more effective than stating consequences baldly, leaving it to the bullied party to imagine what those consequences might be. The gift of two wrapped fish is not an exchange of favors but it sends a clearly understood message to those who swim in those kinds of dangerous waters.
Perhaps that's why he feels more comfortable interacting with despots than with democratically elected leaders of liberal democracies; despots have gotten to the top often by a similar exercise of power using implied threats. They understand one another better. They speak the same language of the under-world. It is a language of power, not of rationality.
What those involved in drawing up articles of impeachment need to look for then, is not a smoking gun, but a pattern of actions that might seem like ignorant mistakes in isolation but taken together display one or more underlying narratives; of self-dealing, of encouraging aids to break the law, and of mingling the personal with service to the country.
What has frustrated Democrats so far is they were sure time and again that there would be a smoking gun, political or legal. Yet nothing has stuck politically, and legally no single incident seems to rise to a level that makes impeachment a sure thing. They will need to carefully build a case based on circumstantial evidences; and while it might not convince (or frighten) enough GOP Senators, it might provide an important backdrop to the 2020 election.
His experience in real estate has taught him that you can threaten and bully implicitly as effectively, or more so, than by making a threat explicit. Simply hinting may be more effective than stating consequences baldly, leaving it to the bullied party to imagine what those consequences might be. The gift of two wrapped fish is not an exchange of favors but it sends a clearly understood message to those who swim in those kinds of dangerous waters.
Perhaps that's why he feels more comfortable interacting with despots than with democratically elected leaders of liberal democracies; despots have gotten to the top often by a similar exercise of power using implied threats. They understand one another better. They speak the same language of the under-world. It is a language of power, not of rationality.
What those involved in drawing up articles of impeachment need to look for then, is not a smoking gun, but a pattern of actions that might seem like ignorant mistakes in isolation but taken together display one or more underlying narratives; of self-dealing, of encouraging aids to break the law, and of mingling the personal with service to the country.
What has frustrated Democrats so far is they were sure time and again that there would be a smoking gun, political or legal. Yet nothing has stuck politically, and legally no single incident seems to rise to a level that makes impeachment a sure thing. They will need to carefully build a case based on circumstantial evidences; and while it might not convince (or frighten) enough GOP Senators, it might provide an important backdrop to the 2020 election.
Tumultuous times
That was quite a week! First Boris Johnson received a stunning rebuke from the British Supreme Court which ruled unanimously that the prorogation of Parliament was unconstitutional. Parliament reconvenes today (Wednesday).
Then, the straw that finally broke the camel's back dropped in the US. While the tally of Trump's shady, highly questionable activities, is long and well known, it was his blatant attempt to collect information to smear a political opponent that was what appeared to push those who were on the fence over the edge, and led Nancy Pelosi to initiate impeachment proceedings.
Both are events or extraordinary historical importance. I have lived though only two impeachments and never seen the British government overruled by the courts.
Somewhat overlooked but arguably as significant was the Senate's decision to require that the as yet unnamed whistle-blower testify before Congress. A unanimous decision from a body that has, to the best of my recollection, always voted along party lines when the President's decision were called into question speaks volumes as to the seriousness of the allegation.
And it was only last Friday that Greta Thunberg, a 16 year old activist, railed against the inaction of world leaders, at the UN General Assembly no less, warning that her generation (and history) would never forgive them if they failed to rise to the challenge.
We are living in interesting times.
Then, the straw that finally broke the camel's back dropped in the US. While the tally of Trump's shady, highly questionable activities, is long and well known, it was his blatant attempt to collect information to smear a political opponent that was what appeared to push those who were on the fence over the edge, and led Nancy Pelosi to initiate impeachment proceedings.
Both are events or extraordinary historical importance. I have lived though only two impeachments and never seen the British government overruled by the courts.
Somewhat overlooked but arguably as significant was the Senate's decision to require that the as yet unnamed whistle-blower testify before Congress. A unanimous decision from a body that has, to the best of my recollection, always voted along party lines when the President's decision were called into question speaks volumes as to the seriousness of the allegation.
And it was only last Friday that Greta Thunberg, a 16 year old activist, railed against the inaction of world leaders, at the UN General Assembly no less, warning that her generation (and history) would never forgive them if they failed to rise to the challenge.
We are living in interesting times.
Thursday, September 5, 2019
End run
When Congress refuses to approve spending for the wall...
1. Declare a national security emergency
2. Wait 9 months (so clearly a national security emergency)
3. Under the powers granted to the executive for such emergencies, move funds from projects Congress has sanctioned (like day care centers for military families) to pay for the wall, which it has not.
5. Complain that congress won't fund needed projects (like day care centers for military families).
Since Trump voters a) wont know much of what actually happened and b) believe his every word, hey presto, an end run and score one for the home team.
1. Declare a national security emergency
2. Wait 9 months (so clearly a national security emergency)
3. Under the powers granted to the executive for such emergencies, move funds from projects Congress has sanctioned (like day care centers for military families) to pay for the wall, which it has not.
5. Complain that congress won't fund needed projects (like day care centers for military families).
Since Trump voters a) wont know much of what actually happened and b) believe his every word, hey presto, an end run and score one for the home team.
Sunday, September 1, 2019
"Disruptive diplomacy" (aka reality TV)
In his article on Macron's failed initiative to restart talk about the JCPOA by having Trump meet with Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, David Ignatius suggested that the gambit failed because Zarif wasn't sufficiently senior (and 'underling' - only Hassan Rohani or better still Ali Khamenei would have been important enough people ) and because Zarif wan't bearing gifts of concession.
All of which make perfect sense, but there's another contributing factor Ignatius overlooked: it wasn't a disruption Trump himself orchestrated. He'd look like he was being manipulated instead of him doing the manipulating. That would have made him a supporting actor in Macron's drama which would never do.
All of which make perfect sense, but there's another contributing factor Ignatius overlooked: it wasn't a disruption Trump himself orchestrated. He'd look like he was being manipulated instead of him doing the manipulating. That would have made him a supporting actor in Macron's drama which would never do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)