Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts

G20 Preview: Damned If I Know

One media outlet was looking for my take on what to expect from this G20 meeting in Germany.  My quick answer: I have no idea.  Usually, these things are semi scripted so you know what agreements are likely to be endorsed.  But in the Age of Trump, the US does no homework, it does not set the agenda, and it does not follow an agenda.  For Trump's meeting with Putin, there is no agenda.  His aides have said that it will be up to whatever Trump wants to talk about at the time the meeting starts.

So, no, not easy to make predictions.  I will say that one basic dynamic is key to understand: Trump does not see America's partners as friends or as, well, partners, but as competitors.  When he met with South Korea's President in the shadow of North Korea's missile tests, he pushed on trade deficits.  When Trump sees Merkel, he mostly focuses on Germany's trade surplus (and his misogyny).  Don't expect much cooperation or new initiatives. 

The thing to watch is how the others work around Trump. Do they confront, which seems to be Merkel's plan?  Do they pander or try to assuage Trump?  That would be Trudeau's preference.  What will the 19 do?  Will they allow China to dominate? 

Who will defend the international order?  Not Trump.  What is the best way to do that?  No idea, but I am guessing that Trudeau may have the right idea.

Anyhow, this is going to be a train wreck, which means we don't know where the derailed cars will land.  And yes, the Uncertainty Engine is operating in high gear.


Read More

If this isn't classic Trump, I don't know what is

,

As reported by the New York Times:
The regal emblem, used at President Trump’s golf courses across the United States, sports three lions and two chevrons on a shield, below a gloved hand gripping an arrow...

The British are known to take matters of heraldry seriously, and Mr. Trump’s American coat of arms belongs to another family. It was granted by British authorities in 1939 to Joseph Edward Davies, the third husband of Marjorie Merriweather Post, the socialite who built the Mar-a-Lago resort that is now Mr. Trump’s cherished getaway...

In the United States, the Trump Organization took Mr. Davies’s coat of arms for its own, making one small adjustment — replacing the word “Integritas,” Latin for integrity, with “Trump.”...

“It couldn’t be a clearer-cut case, actually,” said Clive Cheesman, one of the college’s heralds, who oversee coats of arms, their design and their use.

“A coat of arms that was originally granted to Joseph Edward Davies in 1939 by the English heraldic authority ended up being used 10 or 15 years ago by the Trump Organization as part of its branding for its golf clubs,” said Mr. Cheesman, a lawyer by training.
More on the kerfuffle at the link.

With a tip of the blogging hat to the elves at QI for alerting me to this interesting item.
Read More

I agree with Donald Trump


I agree with Donald Trump (sometimes).  There... I've said it.

A couple readers of this blog have castigated me for relentlessly criticizing/mocking Donald Trump, but I don't blindly hate him.  Sometimes I even agree with him, as for example this Tweet he issued in August of 2014. 

Found at the TrumpcriticizesTrump subreddit.
Read More

Can't tolerate punches from cartoon kittens

A 17-year-old girl in California created a website "where users click on Donald Trump’s face to punch him with tiny kitten paws."
But what was meant as nothing more than a jokey website for coding practice has turned into a legal nightmare. Now Lucy is facing the wrath of the big man himself.

Three weeks after the site went live, Lucy was served a cease and desist letter from Trump’s general counsel stationed in Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in NYC.

The letter, confirmed by the Observer, reads exactly as you’d expect a Trump C&D would. It begins touting him as a “well-known businessman” and television star and boasts, “As I’m sure you’re aware, the Trump name is internationally known and famous.”

Guided by a family lawyer, Lucy changed the name of the site to KittenFeed.com
Read More

DeepEnd Research: Analysis of Trump's secret server story

,

 We posted our take on the Trump's server story. If you have any feedback or corrections, send me an email (see my blog profile on Contagio or DeepEnd Research)

Analysis of Trump's secret server story...



Read More

Suspicion at the White House



It could be Trump, Bannon or Gorka.  So very disappointing if it were Gorka.  But still worth this:

Read More

Next Step: Look for Plumbers

This administration seems even more obsessed with leaks than previous ones (the Obama administration was more concerned than it should have been but not quite like this), what with various members holding meetings about leaks ... which then leak.

I get it--it is awkward and painful to have much of what you do released to the media.  But the sooner one realizes the two major rules of leaking, the sooner one can actually focus on the business of government.

Rule 1: Princess Leia was right ( we know it since she says this line in a British accent):



Rule 2: If one has less to hide, if one does not do stupid or morally repugnant stuff, there is both less a chance that someone will leak and less of a chance the media will play it up bigly. 

Leaks are the price of doing business--all governments leak, all administrations hate it, but if you want to be in the big chair at the big desk (oh, that's Bannon), then suck it up. 

Update: Rule 3: If you treat your people well, and make them feel included in decision-making, they are less likely to leak. 

I should have realized this early but two bits of social media reminded me of this--tweets about how Trump reacts to bad news by kicking down (abusing staff) and a Pod Save America podcast with Nicole Wallace who talked about why GWB didn't have too many leaks.

I will probably add more as this administration continues to face big league leaking.




Read More

Sweden Vs. USA

Sometimes I post a tweet here just that I have it for future reference:

Read More

Hysterical? Moi?

I have now been accused of being hysterical* a couple of times in two days.  First time in my life that I can recall.  Why?  Because Trump is freaking me out.  Now, the question is am I unreasonably freaked out and thus suffering from hysteria or am I reasonably freaked out and suffering from too good of an understanding of the risks and dangers of today?  I, of course, vote for the latter.

Let me explain.  Yesterday, at the Ottawa Conference on Defence and Security, there was a panel on US-Canadian relations, which was all about Trump.  One of the panelists insisted that Trump might be the normal one and the establishment might be out of touch.  That didn't go over well with me.  In my question which was actually a comment, I contested this, starting by saying that I left sorry for the speaker since he was speaking exactly when Trump was press conferencing in a most, um, hysterical way.  After I had my say, a second panelist suggested I was being hysterical.  I had to get out of my seat to respond to that.

What is my case for reasonably being concerned about the dangers Trump poses?
  • His National Security Adviser turned out to have ties to Russia.  Oops.  And this is the third, THE THIRD, of his advisers being fired, with two of them, Flynn and Mantafort, being tied to Russia. 
  • Trump has been exceptionally critical of the judicial system, the one branch that is checking and balancing. 
  • The whole Taiwan thing... which now has China convinced that Trump is a paper tiger--which is not good.
  • Trump's contempt for NATO
  • Jeff Sessions: how come he is too racist to be a federal judge in 1986 and just racist enough to be Attorney General?
  • The immigration ban--both in substance and in process.
  • Trump empowering an avowed Leninist who seeks to bring down the existing order and thinks that war with China is both inevitable and desirable.  This would be Steve Bannon, white supremacist.
  • His attacks on the media, complemented by Kushner's meeting with Time Warner people about problematic CNN folks (Ann Navarro, Van Jones). The latest:
 Media preview

And it is not just me--GOP folks too.

 So, who's hysterical? Me or this guy?







*  Hysterical is, of course, gendered as it tends to be applied to women, as if women freak out and men don't.  The nice thing here is that the term is being applied to men--me, Donnie Trump, etc.
Read More

US Customs and Border Protection

I have no words:
Media preview
Read More

The National Insecurity Council


Folks are upset that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not going to be a permanent member.  I am not so chuffed about that as he will be in meetings whenever the military is being discussed.  If not, his voice will be heard via the SecDef, who will share far more in common with the Chairman than the usually SecDef (both being Marines and all that).

Last night, amid the news that the Trump Administration was malevolently screwing with people's lives to play up Islamophobia came the news about the new National Security Council.  It is the right of any president to shuffle some of the seats, but Trump's moves are deeply disturbing.


Media previewThat the DCI--head of the CIA--is also a guest member rather than regular attendee is, of course, disturbing because you want intel to drive policy--you want the best picture of reality before you make decisions.  Well, unless you are the Trump team, where you don't really care about reality.  I used to argue that the Bush Administration (GWB) didn't care about the second or third order effects--that invading Iraq might lead to a stronger Iran and more recruitment for the terrorists, but that the Bushies didn't care about that because they just cared about getting Hussein.  Well, the Trump folks do not even care about the first order effects.  They want to make noise, but don't really care about the direct impacts.  After all, if they did, then perhaps the list of countries in the banning order might have included those that actually have sent terrorists to kill Americans in the US.  But Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan were excluded.  Ooops.

No, the truly disturbing although not surprising move was to put Steve Bannon on the NSC as a permanent member, making him symbolically equal with the Secretaries of Defense and State.  Of course, they are not equal, as Bannon is far more powerful in this administration.  He is the one drawing up executive orders and not staffing them.  He is imposing his will, as we can tell from the team of arsonists in the cabinet and the White House.  And this is awful, since Bannon has said that he would like to burn everything down.  This is not a guy you want influencing decisions about war and peace, and yet here we are.

I don't know what Rasputin-like skills he has to get into Trump's head, but can we please drop any pretence that Jared Kushner is a force for moderation?  I argued last summer that Bannon's ascendancy raised big questions about Kushner's influence since Kushner is Jewish, and Bannon is a Nazi.  Usually, Jews don't get along with Nazis.  And no, this is not hyperbole.  Anyhow, the cabinet choices and the past 48 hours have made it abundantly clear that Bannon is driving this trainwreck of an administration.  People didn't vote for this, and the press could have spent a wee bit more time making people aware of Bannon and his influence.  So, yeah, we can be shocked that this is the darkest timeline, but perhaps we should stop being so surprised.

This is what we got, and Bannon is not going to go away anytime soon.  The GOP in Congress are not making noises with a few notable exceptions.  The status quo will remain.  The only real question is whether SecDHS Kelly or SecDef Mattis will continue to be complicit.  My guess is that they will be, just as Mattis smiled as Trump signed this awful executive order.  The good news is that the more they screw up, by not vetting stuff, the easier they make it on the lawyers and the courts.  And, yes, the majority of Americans are against this regime, and that does mean something.
Read More

The Arsonists

The common feature of most Trump appointees is that their assignment seems to be to burn down the agencies for which they are responsible. The latest?  The new US Ambassador to the European Union seems to want the EU to go the way of the Soviet Union.  The influence of Steve Bannon over all of this, including authorship of the various executive orders, is apparent.

So, I am now using "Arsonist" as shorthand for Trump appointees.  They want to burn American institutions down. They want to burn the international order down,  I was asked on the radio about whether a shakeup might be a good thing.  Only if you hate international peace and prosperity.  So, if you see me refer to Arsonist online, this is what I mean.





Read More

The Darkest Timeline

,
I was asked whether I can/should be reassuring people about Trump, and my answer was essentially "hells no!"  I spent last summer and fall reassuring people that Trump would not win.  I, of course, was very wrong. One reason why I was wrong is that I thought that a Trump presidency was so obviously, so predictably going to be a multidimensional disaster that enough responsible Republicans would vote for Hillary Clinton.

My recent move was to deny that I was surprised by whatever Trump was doing--that he long ago entered the Tyson zone so anything could happen and shouldn't shock us.  I would say that I was not surprised but appalled by the latest moves.  Well, four or so days into the Trump Administration, and I have to drop that stance.  Why? Because my imagination is simply not that good.  Trump keeps on making moves that are even worse than I could have imagined.  The latest?  Putting into a key immigration post the guy who ran FAIR, which is anything but, an anti-immigration group.  It is kind of like putting the KKK in charge of Civil Rights.  Oh wait, Trump kind of did that by putting pal of the KKK, Jeff Sessions as Attorney General.

It is simply bad and going to get worse for pretty much everyone.  The question is becoming: is this temporary or permanent?  With Trump playing up mythical voter fraud, i.e., #voterfraudfraud, plus Sessions as AG, I worry a great deal about whether the rules will be changed to prevent the Democrats from winning.  That is imaginable.  What else is on the table?  Protectionist trade wars are already in play.  Defaulting on the debt?  Sure. Why not?  We already know that NATO's future is up for grabs.

So, sure, let's be enheartened by the activism of the past weekend and the energy going forward.  But let's not kid ourselves.  With the GOP not blocking Trump's pro-Russia appointment (Tillerson at State) and getting the most extreme policies they have preferred, with the Democrats facing difficult decisions about which things to block (hint: Sessions, ACA repeal, next SCOTUS choice, cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), with the media being overwhelmed by the Distributed Denial of Service attack that is the Trump Administration (where to focus?), and with the domination of Steve Bannon in the White House, I have realized that:
My imagination is simply not dark enough.
 It is going to get worse.  While we must resist and find glimmers of hope (rebellions are built on hope), we have to be realistic.  Yes, non-violent resistance can work, but it takes time, and there is, alas, no inevitability to victory.  We can keep saying that this is going to last only four years, but with Trump's willingness to break rules and norms, we cannot even be assured of that.

We must avoid resting our hopes of fragile reeds. Foreigners kept telling me that campaign promises are one thing, but governing is another.  Oops, broken reed.  The GOP will impeach Trump eventually.  Oops, broken reed.  Trump is just going to delegate, and his son-in-law is pretty reasonable.  Oops, broken reed.  No, we must put our hopes and plans on more solid foundations--that mobilization can work at the local level, that there are actually some limits to federal power, that the courts (in the short term) are still pretty reasonable, that the media is realizing that these are not normal times (NYT and Jake Tapper calling out voterfraudfraud for what it is), and that the government is full of people who may find ways to resist.

Again, I don't want to be too pessimistic, but the time for cautious optimism is past, and the time to prepare for the worst is here.


Read More

Engaging Trump's America Strategically

Spending two weeks in Japan before Trump's inauguration has produced the same question over and over: what is Japan to do?  Of course, Canadians and Germans and everyone else has the same question.  Here are some ideas, based on what we know about the US and about Trump.
  1. If you need US support, pander like hell to his ego.  Prime Minister Abe flew to NY immediately after the election and met with Trump.  He apparently made a very good impression.  
  2. Do as much business with the US at lower levels of government.  All allies and most other countries have webs of relationships with the US government and private actors.  Try to handle most business with the civil servants who are sticking around and not the crazy folks at the top.  Not everyone can do that, but if you can (Canada), do it.
  3. If you are in East Asia, present yourself as a steadfast ally against China.  Note that Trump's first engagements were South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.  While folks in this region are right to be concerned that Trump may overplay things and trigger a war, being seen as a friend against China is likely to get that country off of Trump's blacklist.  
    1. Of course, this logic poses problems for those in East Europe, since Trump's love for Putin has huge consequences.  And siding with Putin is, for many, either impossible or downright stupid.  But Turkey, despite its Muslim-ness, is now working with Russia, which might put it on Trump's good side.  Hungary, with its authoritarian regime, has been leaning to Russia.  There are some others that fit this.  Finland might consider returning to the glory days of Finlandization.  Indeed, folks might want to consult the Finns for their expertise.
  4. Pay to play.  Whether Trump is in it to enrich himself or it is just one of many competing priorities, there is no doubt he believes in pay for play.  While this is problematic for countries with high anti-corruption standards, it is a possible tactic and one that has to be considered. If Ivanka and Eric and Don Jr. come a-calling, meet with them and take them seriously.  Certainly don't object if they show up at meetings even if it is inappropriate.  This goes back to the pandering thing.

Is this too cynical?  Maybe.  But the future is bleak, and much of the world will be dodging, ducking, dividing, dipping and dodging.  We sure could use Patches O'Houlihan right about now.






Read More

New Strangest Question

Having been in this business for over twenty years, I have received some strange questions.  After a presentation today at the International University of Japan in Niigata on the Uncertainty Machine that is Trump, I was asked: how could Trump's term end abruptly? 

Oh my.  I pondered the possibilites:
  • Impeachment?  Nope.
  • Coup?  No, despite my general concern, the US military is not going to remove Trump.  They might not follow unlawful orders, but coup? No.
  • 25h amendment?   Almost certainly not, since Trump is picking most folks who are loyal to him, but it is possible.  Unlikely but not impossible.
  • That option involving failure by the Secret Service.  Not likely as they protected an African-American president successfully for eight years.  An orange one should be easier.
I was left with one possibility that is not unlikely:

Trump is overweight, eats poorly, and is going to be under great stress, so heart attack or stroke.

So, no, I told the student, don't bet too much on these fragile reeds.  Resist instead.
Read More

When Conflicts of Interest Are Not In Conflict

Folks, Trump does not have a conflict of interest.  Sure, he is discussing with foreign leaders his business interests, but the key is this:
A conflict of interest requires there to be two sets of interests.  Trump only cares about himself, not the national interest.  Ta da, no conflict.
Seriously, has Trump ever been interested in anything besides himself?  Has he had an other-regarding moment?  Yes, what Trump is doing is profoundly wrong, Constitution-wrong given the specific discussion of this stuff (only took 225 years for this to become super-relevant).  But we should not be surprised.  Appalled?  Yes. 

Does it matter?  The Trump resistance will need to demonstrate to the public that Trump is actually hurting Americans when he violates the norms/rules/laws AND we need to put pressure on him via the constituents in the districts of Republican and "centrist" Democrats.  If the House/Senate folks feel no pressure, then they will not defend the Republic.

Just don't expect Trump to change his behavior--only if it costs him something.  Because he has always been inappropriate, he has always tried to do what he wants, regardless of the rules/laws/definition of decency. 
Read More

Grading on a Curve?

Dan Drezner does a nice job of explaining grading on a curve and how it applies to the election, but I don't think it was clear enough.  What needs to be clear?

When one speaks of a normal curve or distribution, one is usually thinking of a relatively standard bell curve:
From http://www.hrwale.com/how-to-create-a-bell-curve-chart/
The essential assumption for grading (and for other stuff) is that there are some people who are better at the task than most, and that some people are worse than most.  One can set the curve--how one moves up or down the grade scale, so that the center is a C (the good old days that most people don't really miss) or a B or whatever. 

The thing about grading on a curve is that there is still a distribution with some high, some medium and some low.  Grading on a curve does turn a mediocre grade into a somewhat less mediocre grade.  With a sharp policy wonk like Hillary Clinton in the race, Trump will never get an A as she sets the top of the curve.  The real question is where does curving really put Trump?  And my problem with his analogy is this: no matter how much curving is done in a typical class, an F student who does not attend class, does not do the reading, does not complete assignments, fails the tests, and occasionally punches the teacher does not get curved up to a B or B+ or a C-.  They stay an F.  Because a hyper-low performer sets the bottom of the curve just as a hyper high performer sets the top. 

So, the press really has been doing something to keep Trump in a state of false equivalence with Clinton, but this pedantic prof says: it ain't curving the grade.  It is something else alright, but a student at the bottom of the class remains there, curve or no curve. 




Read More

What is American nationalism?

,
The racists who are prominent today, calling themselves the alt-right, also call themselves nationalists.  They think this legitimizes themselves.  "I am just a nationalist, defending my nation."  There is something to this, but it is, of course, mostly ignorant bullshit.  Huh?

The politics of any country is in part a competition about defining who the "us" is and what it means to be "us".  And each nationalism has many threads or ideas, and groups will compete to highlight certain threads and ideas at the expense of others.  The white supremacists want to emphasize race as the defining character of American nationalism--whites are American and no one else really is. 

While whites have dominated the US, its nationalism has long been considered to be civil and not ethnic.  Not focused on race but on the ideas contained within the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and all that.  Which has led parties to compete to define certain elements of those documents as being more or less important relative to others.  Is freedom about the pursuit of happiness or is it about equal protection?  While minorities may complain that this civic nationalism glossed over white supremacy, many minorities leaders embrace the elements of civic nationalism that promise better outcomes for their groups.  What made Martin Luther King so very powerful was his invoking of the civic nationalism and calling white Americans to live by it.

The white supremacists who call themselves nationalists have a crappy understanding of history which undermines their claims.  How can you be an American nationalist and be nostalgic about the Confederacy.  The Confederacy aimed to destroy the Union and was very much treason.  So, how can American nationalists venerate traitors?  By focusing on ethnic ties--being white.  But this nostalgia creates incoherence, which is fine for these folks because logic, facts, coherence are all irrelevant to them.  Indeed, being ignorant is a point of pride with these folks. 

Anyhow, getting back to the white supremacists, they call themselves nationalists, thinking this sounds good.  However, the postcold war world has generally considered the nationalists to be problems--that these are the folks who spawn conflict.  When they call themselves American nationalists, it only resonates among themselves and not any further.  It sounds strange to the rest of America.  Alt right?  It might sound a bit better than Nazi or White Supremacist, but that is not saying much.  The more people hear what Breitbart has on its site, the more disgusted they will be.  Because intolerance of everything is actually un-American.  The white supremacists will lose the contest to define American nationalism because the United States is actually a pretty successful place with a bunch of flaws, but a place where Latinos, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, immigrants, LGBT, Jews, and others can thrive.  And their thriving really pisses off the alt right. 

By calling Trump out as a racist and highlighting the alt right racists, Hillary may be giving them the press they want.  But the exposure to the light will lead to political outcomes that they don't want--more years of Democrats, more years of empowered minorities, more problems for a Republican party that has to choose whether to get votes from Real America or lose national elections again and again. 
Read More