theamericanconservative--2020-04-14--What Price Victory, in the Coronavirus War?

The decisions we take in this coronavirus crisis are defining us as a nation and a people .
The same day the number of U.S. dead from the coronavirus disease hit the 15,000 mark , we also crossed the 15 million mark on the number of Americans we threw out of work to slow its spread and “ bend the curve.
” For each American lost to the pandemic , 1,000 Americans have lost their jobs because of conscious and deliberate decisions of the president and 50 governors .
Some 60,000 citizens , we are told , will likely be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepared to accept 60 million unemployed to “ mitigate ” those losses ?
What price victory in this good and necessary war to kill the virus ?
Is it unseemly or coldhearted to ask ?
At what point do we “ declare victory and get out , ” as one senator told us to do in Vietnam , rather than continue to sustain the U.S. war dead , even if that meant South Vietnam would fall to our common enemies ?
Economists at J.P. Morgan are forecasting that the U.S. gross domestic product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and unemployment will reach 20 % of the labor force this month .
These are numbers not seen since the Great Depression .
What does this deliberate decision to shut down the country and carpet-bomb our own economy , upon which we all depend , tell us about what we Americans value ?
Consider .
In a nation one-tenth as populous as ours today , Abe Lincoln sent more than 600,000 men and boys , North and South , to their deaths rather than let seven Deep South states secede and depart in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans to the virus appears to be leveling off , one-third of the way to that 60,000 figure , the other losses from the social and economic devastation we have invited upon ourselves have just begun to mount and will continue far longer .
How many millions of sick and elderly have we sent into solitary confinement ?
How many families have we forced into a daily struggle for the means to put food on the table and get medicine from the pharmacy ?
When the decisions come from President Donald Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and encourage Americans to go back to work , will the nation respond ?
Will movie theaters and malls all reopen ?
Will shuttered hotels and motels fill up again ?
Will professional teams — the NFL , MLB , NBA or NHL — play again to the crowds they knew ?
Will public , private and parochial schools , charter and high schools , colleges and universities , all open again to the same-sized classes ?
To save Americans from contracting a virus that may kill 1-3 % of those infected , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By courting a depression — a certain consequence of having a nation of 328 million mandatorily sheltering in place and socially distancing — we are telling the world the price we will pay to help save the lives of the thousands who might otherwise contract the virus and die .
Yet this decision raises related questions of life and death .
Can a nation that will accept a depression that destroys the livelihoods of millions of its citizens be credible when it warns another great power that it is willing to fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would die — over who rules the Baltic states or who controls the South China Sea ?
Would a nation so unwilling to accept 60,000 dead in a pandemic it would induce a depression to cut the casualties , engage in a nuclear exchange with Russia over Estonia ?
The longer the shutdown continues , the broader , deeper and more enduring the losses the country will sustain .
We Americans already live in a nation and world atop a mountain of debt .
Student loan debt .
Mortgage debt .
Consumer debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and state debt .
A national debt of $ 22 trillion now soaring into the stratosphere .
Then there is the sovereign debt of the Third World and of nations like Argentina and Italy .
If we bring the U.S. and world economy down , who pays that debt ?
Or is that a ridiculous question ?
The decisions we are taking today , hurling scores of thousands of small businesses and millions of citizens toward bankruptcy , could start a rockslide of loan defaults that will start tumbling the banks as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus crisis are defining us as a nation and a people .
They are telling the world what we Americans will sacrifice and what and whom we will seek to save at all costs .
They will tell us who and what is expendable and who and what is not .
They will establish a hierarchy of values that may not correlate exactly with what we Americans publicly profess .
Our decisions may tell us who we truly are .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a President and Divided America Forever .

The same day the number of U.S. dead from the coronavirus disease hit the 15,000 mark, we also crossed the 15 million mark on the number of Americans we threw out of work to slow its spread and “bend the curve.”
For each American lost to the pandemic, 1,000 Americans have lost their jobs because of conscious and deliberate decisions of the president and 50 governors.
Some 60,000 citizens, we are told, will likely be lost in this pandemic. Are we prepared to accept 60 million unemployed to “mitigate” those losses?
What price victory in this good and necessary war to kill the virus? Is it unseemly or coldhearted to ask?
At what point do we “declare victory and get out,” as one senator told us to do in Vietnam, rather than continue to sustain the U.S. war dead, even if that meant South Vietnam would fall to our common enemies?
Economists at J.P. Morgan are forecasting that the U.S. gross domestic product will fall by 40% this spring and unemployment will reach 20% of the labor force this month.
These are numbers not seen since the Great Depression. What does this deliberate decision to shut down the country and carpet-bomb our own economy, upon which we all depend, tell us about what we Americans value? Consider. In a nation one-tenth as populous as ours today, Abe Lincoln sent more than 600,000 men and boys, North and South, to their deaths rather than let seven Deep South states secede and depart in peace. While the daily loss of Americans to the virus appears to be leveling off, one-third of the way to that 60,000 figure, the other losses from the social and economic devastation we have invited upon ourselves have just begun to mount and will continue far longer. How many millions of sick and elderly have we sent into solitary confinement? How many families have we forced into a daily struggle for the means to put food on the table and get medicine from the pharmacy? When the decisions come from President Donald Trump and the governors to open up the economy and encourage Americans to go back to work, will the nation respond? Will movie theaters and malls all reopen? Will shuttered hotels and motels fill up again? Will professional teams — the NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL — play again to the crowds they knew? Will public, private and parochial schools, charter and high schools, colleges and universities, all open again to the same-sized classes? Will conventions, concerts, rallies and recitals begin anew? To save Americans from contracting a virus that may kill 1-3% of those infected, we have put America on a ventilator. By courting a depression — a certain consequence of having a nation of 328 million mandatorily sheltering in place and socially distancing — we are telling the world the price we will pay to help save the lives of the thousands who might otherwise contract the virus and die. Yet this decision raises related questions of life and death. Can a nation that will accept a depression that destroys the livelihoods of millions of its citizens be credible when it warns another great power that it is willing to fight a nuclear war — in which millions would die — over who rules the Baltic states or who controls the South China Sea? Would a nation so unwilling to accept 60,000 dead in a pandemic it would induce a depression to cut the casualties, engage in a nuclear exchange with Russia over Estonia? The longer the shutdown continues, the broader, deeper and more enduring the losses the country will sustain. We Americans already live in a nation and world atop a mountain of debt. Student loan debt. Mortgage debt. Consumer debt. Corporate debt. Municipal, county and state debt. A national debt of $22 trillion now soaring into the stratosphere. Then there is the sovereign debt of the Third World and of nations like Argentina and Italy. If we bring the U.S. and world economy down, who pays that debt? Or is that a ridiculous question? The decisions we are taking today, hurling scores of thousands of small businesses and millions of citizens toward bankruptcy, could start a rockslide of loan defaults that will start tumbling the banks as well. The decisions we take in this coronavirus crisis are defining us as a nation and a people. They are telling the world what we Americans will sacrifice and what and whom we will seek to save at all costs. They will tell us who and what is expendable and who and what is not. They will establish a hierarchy of values that may not correlate exactly with what we Americans publicly profess. Our decisions may tell us who we truly are. Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.


theamericanconservative--2020-04-14--Is Putin Laying a Petroleum Trap for Trump?

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump during the recent summit in Helsinki .
( Office of the Russian Presisdent/Kremin.ru ) The G20 met in virtual session on April 10 , ostensibly to address the crippling one-two punch brought on by the economic impact of coronavirus and the simultaneous collapse of the price of oil resulting from Russia and Saudi Arabia flooding an already depressed market .
In the end , the world ’ s leading oil producers finalized an agreement on sweeping oil production cuts , building on a previous agreement between Russia and Saudi Arabia to stop their price war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for this breakthrough , however , citing the role it played in helping bring Mexico to closure .
But the U.S. contribution was , and is , illusory—President Trump is in no position to promise cuts in U.S. oil production , and as such remains unable to meaningfully contribute to the global oil production reduction scheme .
Void of any substantive final agreement , global energy markets will continue to suffer as production far outstrips demand .
For U.S. oil producers , who have already seen a 2.5-3 million barrel per day decrease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catastrophic , driving many into bankruptcy and helping push the U.S. economy into a tailspin that will lead to a depression potentially worse than that of the 1930 ’ s .
Trump ’ s only recourse may be to turn to Russia for help in offsetting needed U.S. oil production quotas , which appears to have been the Russian plan all along .
On Monday March 30 , President Trump spoke on the phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin .
The suppressed price of oil , and Russia ’ s role in facilitating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil production , thereby triggering a price war with Saudi Arabia , was the dominant topic .
A Kremlin read-out of the call noted that “ opinions on the current state of global oil markets were exchanged .
It was agreed there would be Russo-American consultations about this through the ministers of energy.
” During the call , Trump mentioned America ’ s need for life-saving medical supplies , including ventilators and personal protective equipment .
Putin asked if Russia could be of assistance , and Trump said yes .
The decision to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. ) into the country , however , directly contradicted guidance that had been issued by the U.S. State Department a full week before Trump ’ s phone call with Putin .
On March 22 , the State Department sent out an internal email to all U.S. Embassies with guidance on how to proceed with seeking out critical support .
“ Depending on critical needs , the United States could seek to purchase many of these items in the hundreds of millions with purchases of higher end equipment such as ventilators in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stated .
The email noted that the request applies to all countries “ minus Moscow , ” indicating the United States would not ask Russia for support .
While the two leaders , according to the White House , “ agreed to work closely together through the G20 to drive the international campaign to defeat the virus and reinvigorate the global economy , ” the March 30 phone call apparently did not directly touch upon U.S. sanctions on Russia .
In fact , Trump told Fox News prior to the leaders ’ exchangethat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
He did not say how he might respond if Putin did .
Trump ’ s confidence in a Putin sanction request most likely stemmed from a statement made by the Russian President to a virtual meeting of G20 leaders on March 22 , where he noted that “ ideally we should introduce a…joint moratorium on restrictions on essential goods as well as on financial transactions for their purchase.
” Putin ’ s comments were more pointed toward the lifting of sanctions for humanitarian purposes on nations like Iran and Venezuela , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose : “ These matters should be freed of any politics.
” Russia has been operating under U.S. and European sanctions following its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its role in the Ukraine crisis .
But the sanctions that have angered Russia the most—and which have contributed to Russia ’ s price war with Saudi Arabia targeting U.S. oil producers—were those levied against NordStream 2 , the Russian pipeline intended to supply Germany , and Europe , with natural gas .
Trump signed a bill authorizing these sanctions in December 2019 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of asking Trump outright to lift sanctions , Putin got Trump to help underscore Russia ’ s position that sanctions were an unnecessary impediment to relations between the U.S. and Russia during the coronavirus pandemic .
In agreeing to allow the Russian AN-124 aircraft to deliver medical supplies to the U.S. , Trump unwittingly played into a carefully laid bit of Russian propaganda .
Among the aid Russia delivered were boxes of Aventa-M ventilators , produced by the Ural Instrument Engineering Plant ( UPZ ) .
UPZ is a subsidiary of Concern Radio-Electronic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with its parent holding company ROSTEC , has been under U.S. sanctions since 2014 .
According to the State Department , which payed for 50 percent of the equipment on the flight , the sanctions do not apply to the purchase of medical equipment .
But by purchasing critical medical equipment from sanctioned companies , the State Department simultaneously violated its own guidance against buying Russian equipment while underscoring Putin ’ s point—sanctions should be waived for humanitarian purposes .
But Putin ’ s trap had one more twist .
According to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was paid for by the U.S. State Department , and the other half by the Russian Direct Investment Fund ( RDIF ) , a Russian sovereign wealth fund which , like ROSTEC , was placed on the U.S. lending blacklist in 2014 following Russia ’ s intervention in Crimea .
The arrival of an airplane full of critical medical equipment ostensibly paid in part by a sanctioned Russian sovereign wealth fund provided a window of opportunity for Kirill Dmitriev , the CEO of RDIF , to gain access to the U.S. mainstream media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 5 , Dmitriev published an OpEd on the CNBC web page titled “ The US and Russia should work together to defeat the coronavirus.
” Dmitriev likened the current global struggle against the coronavirus pandemic to the fight against Nazi Germany .
“ During World War II , American and Russian soldiers fought side by side against a common enemy , ” he wrote .
“ We achieved victory together .
Just as our grandfathers stood shoulder to shoulder to defend our values and secure peace for future generations , now our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win the war against the coronavirus.
” But Dmitriev ’ s true target was oil , and by extension , sanctions .
“ In times like this , ” he noted , “ new approaches to explore close collaboration between the U.S. , Russia and other countries are needed to stabilize energy and other markets , to coordinate policy responses and to revitalize economic activity .
For example , Russia proposed to jointly undertake significant oil output cuts with the U.S. , Saudi Arabia and other countries to stabilize markets and secure employment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. to lift sanctions was a big ask , something Dmitriev acknowledged .
“ To change the views on Russia in an election year may be an insurmountable challenge .
But so it also seemed in 1941 , when the U.S. and the Soviet Union put behind the differences of the past to fight the common enemy.
” While the “ common enemy ” referred to by Dmitriev was clearly the coronavirus pandemic , he could also have been speaking about Senator Ted Cruz , and others of his ilk , who led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The current oil crisis has hit Texas particularly hard .
In an indication of things to come , Whiting Petroleum , a major player in the shale oil industry , filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection .
Whiting specialized in North Dakota fracking , which required oil prices of $ 60 per barrel to be economically viable .
The current price of sub- $ 25 doomed the company .
Texas fracking is slightly cheaper , with a profitability margin of around $ 49 .
With oil prices depressed , Texas companies are feeling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ verge of collapse .
Trump agreed to participate in the G20 meeting because of the promise of a Russian-Saudi production cut ; on this , Putin delivered .
But the Russians made any final agreement contingent upon Trump agreeing to significant reduction in U.S. oil production .
This was never a possibility—whereas both Russia and Saudi Arabia have national oil companies whose operations are a matter of national policy , the U.S. oil industry is privately owned in its entirety , and dependent on supply and demand equations derived from a free market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting resulted in collective cuts of close to 10 million barrels a day , the drop in demand for oil brought on by the coronavirus pandemic has created a glut in which the world produces some 27.4 million barrels per day in excess of global needs .
The bottom line is the G20 cuts won ’ t solve the problem of too much oil , and without additional cuts , the bottom will continue to fall out of the oil market , dooming U.S. producers .
Trump can not turn on or off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia knows only too well .
When Trump attempted to gain credit for a 2.5-million-barrel reduction in production brought on by bankruptcy , Russia refused to allow it .
Likewise , when Trump promised cuts in oil production to help Mexico meet G20 targets , it was a promise the American president is unable to deliver on .
In getting the U.S. to agree to attend a G20 summit on oil production , the Russians lured the U.S. into a policy trap from which there is no escape .
Void of any final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inevitably collapse .
Trump claims that the G20 virtual summit came up with cuts totaling up to 20 million barrels per day , without explaining how he came up with this number .
This number is fictional ; the U.S. production crisis is not .
Trump ’ s only hope is for a further softening of the Russian position on production .
But this will not come without a price , and that price will be the lifting of energy-sector sanctions targeting Russia .
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implementing arms control treaties , in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm , and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD .
He is the author of several books , including his forthcoming , Scorpion King : America ’ s Embrace of Nuclear Weapons From FDR to Trump ( 2020 ) .

The G20 met in virtual session on April 10, ostensibly to address the crippling one-two punch brought on by the economic impact of coronavirus and the simultaneous collapse of the price of oil resulting from Russia and Saudi Arabia flooding an already depressed market.
In the end, the world’s leading oil producers finalized an agreement on sweeping oil production cuts, building on a previous agreement between Russia and Saudi Arabia to stop their price war. The United States is taking credit for this breakthrough, however, citing the role it played in helping bring Mexico to closure.
But the U.S. contribution was, and is, illusory—President Trump is in no position to promise cuts in U.S. oil production, and as such remains unable to meaningfully contribute to the global oil production reduction scheme. Void of any substantive final agreement, global energy markets will continue to suffer as production far outstrips demand. For U.S. oil producers, who have already seen a 2.5-3 million barrel per day decrease in production, the results will be catastrophic, driving many into bankruptcy and helping push the U.S. economy into a tailspin that will lead to a depression potentially worse than that of the 1930’s.
Trump’s only recourse may be to turn to Russia for help in offsetting needed U.S. oil production quotas, which appears to have been the Russian plan all along.
On Monday March 30, President Trump spoke on the phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The suppressed price of oil, and Russia’s role in facilitating that vis-à-vis its refusal to cut its oil production, thereby triggering a price war with Saudi Arabia, was the dominant topic. A Kremlin read-out of the call noted that “opinions on the current state of global oil markets were exchanged. It was agreed there would be Russo-American consultations about this through the ministers of energy.”
During the call, Trump mentioned America’s need for life-saving medical supplies, including ventilators and personal protective equipment. Putin asked if Russia could be of assistance, and Trump said yes.
The decision to allow Russian aid (purchased by the U.S.) into the country, however, directly contradicted guidance that had been issued by the U.S. State Department a full week before Trump’s phone call with Putin. On March 22, the State Department sent out an internal email to all U.S. Embassies with guidance on how to proceed with seeking out critical support. “Depending on critical needs, the United States could seek to purchase many of these items in the hundreds of millions with purchases of higher end equipment such as ventilators in the hundreds of thousands,” the email stated. The email noted that the request applies to all countries “minus Moscow,” indicating the United States would not ask Russia for support.
While the two leaders, according to the White House, “agreed to work closely together through the G20 to drive the international campaign to defeat the virus and reinvigorate the global economy,” the March 30 phone call apparently did not directly touch upon U.S. sanctions on Russia. In fact, Trump told Fox News prior to the leaders’ exchange that he fully expected Putin to bring it up. He did not say how he might respond if Putin did.
Trump’s confidence in a Putin sanction request most likely stemmed from a statement made by the Russian President to a virtual meeting of G20 leaders on March 22, where he noted that “ideally we should introduce a…joint moratorium on restrictions on essential goods as well as on financial transactions for their purchase.” Putin’s comments were more pointed toward the lifting of sanctions for humanitarian purposes on nations like Iran and Venezuela, but his conclusion hinted at a larger purpose: “These matters should be freed of any politics.”
Russia has been operating under U.S. and European sanctions following its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its role in the Ukraine crisis. But the sanctions that have angered Russia the most—and which have contributed to Russia’s price war with Saudi Arabia targeting U.S. oil producers—were those levied against NordStream 2, the Russian pipeline intended to supply Germany, and Europe, with natural gas. Trump signed a bill authorizing these sanctions in December 2019. Russia immediately condemned this action.
Instead of asking Trump outright to lift sanctions, Putin got Trump to help underscore Russia’s position that sanctions were an unnecessary impediment to relations between the U.S. and Russia during the coronavirus pandemic. In agreeing to allow the Russian AN-124 aircraft to deliver medical supplies to the U.S., Trump unwittingly played into a carefully laid bit of Russian propaganda.
Among the aid Russia delivered were boxes of Aventa-M ventilators, produced by the Ural Instrument Engineering Plant (UPZ). UPZ is a subsidiary of Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies (KRET) which, along with its parent holding company ROSTEC, has been under U.S. sanctions since 2014. According to the State Department, which payed for 50 percent of the equipment on the flight, the sanctions do not apply to the purchase of medical equipment. But by purchasing critical medical equipment from sanctioned companies, the State Department simultaneously violated its own guidance against buying Russian equipment while underscoring Putin’s point—sanctions should be waived for humanitarian purposes.
But Putin’s trap had one more twist. According to the Russians, half of the aid shipment was paid for by the U.S. State Department, and the other half by the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), a Russian sovereign wealth fund which, like ROSTEC, was placed on the U.S. lending blacklist in 2014 following Russia’s intervention in Crimea. The arrival of an airplane full of critical medical equipment ostensibly paid in part by a sanctioned Russian sovereign wealth fund provided a window of opportunity for Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of RDIF, to gain access to the U.S. mainstream media to push the Russian line.
On April 5, Dmitriev published an OpEd on the CNBC web page titled “The US and Russia should work together to defeat the coronavirus.” Dmitriev likened the current global struggle against the coronavirus pandemic to the fight against Nazi Germany. “During World War II, American and Russian soldiers fought side by side against a common enemy,” he wrote. “We achieved victory together. Just as our grandfathers stood shoulder to shoulder to defend our values and secure peace for future generations, now our countries must show unity and leadership to win the war against the coronavirus.”
But Dmitriev’s true target was oil, and by extension, sanctions. “In times like this,” he noted, “new approaches to explore close collaboration between the U.S., Russia and other countries are needed to stabilize energy and other markets, to coordinate policy responses and to revitalize economic activity. For example, Russia proposed to jointly undertake significant oil output cuts with the U.S., Saudi Arabia and other countries to stabilize markets and secure employment in the oil industry.”
Getting the U.S. to lift sanctions was a big ask, something Dmitriev acknowledged. “To change the views on Russia in an election year may be an insurmountable challenge. But so it also seemed in 1941, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union put behind the differences of the past to fight the common enemy.”
While the “common enemy” referred to by Dmitriev was clearly the coronavirus pandemic, he could also have been speaking about Senator Ted Cruz, and others of his ilk, who led the charge to sanction NordStream 2. The current oil crisis has hit Texas particularly hard. In an indication of things to come, Whiting Petroleum, a major player in the shale oil industry, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Whiting specialized in North Dakota fracking, which required oil prices of $60 per barrel to be economically viable. The current price of sub-$25 doomed the company. Texas fracking is slightly cheaper, with a profitability margin of around $49. With oil prices depressed, Texas companies are feeling the pinch, and are on the verge of collapse.
Trump agreed to participate in the G20 meeting because of the promise of a Russian-Saudi production cut; on this, Putin delivered. But the Russians made any final agreement contingent upon Trump agreeing to significant reduction in U.S. oil production. This was never a possibility—whereas both Russia and Saudi Arabia have national oil companies whose operations are a matter of national policy, the U.S. oil industry is privately owned in its entirety, and dependent on supply and demand equations derived from a free market to determine profitability.
While the G20 meeting resulted in collective cuts of close to 10 million barrels a day, the drop in demand for oil brought on by the coronavirus pandemic has created a glut in which the world produces some 27.4 million barrels per day in excess of global needs. The bottom line is the G20 cuts won’t solve the problem of too much oil, and without additional cuts, the bottom will continue to fall out of the oil market, dooming U.S. producers.
Trump cannot turn on or off the U.S. oil-producing spigot, a fact Russia knows only too well. When Trump attempted to gain credit for a 2.5-million-barrel reduction in production brought on by bankruptcy, Russia refused to allow it. Likewise, when Trump promised cuts in oil production to help Mexico meet G20 targets, it was a promise the American president is unable to deliver on. In getting the U.S. to agree to attend a G20 summit on oil production, the Russians lured the U.S. into a policy trap from which there is no escape.
Void of any final agreement, the U.S. oil industry will inevitably collapse. Trump claims that the G20 virtual summit came up with cuts totaling up to 20 million barrels per day, without explaining how he came up with this number. This number is fictional; the U.S. production crisis is not. Trump’s only hope is for a further softening of the Russian position on production. But this will not come without a price, and that price will be the lifting of energy-sector sanctions targeting Russia.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books, including his forthcoming, Scorpion King: America’s Embrace of Nuclear Weapons From FDR to Trump (2020).


theamericanconservative--2020-04-13--Front Page NYT: ‘Nationalism is Jeopardizing’ COVID Fight

Mainstream media makes no effort to conceal its free-trade , globalist , liberal biases , even if it means throwing in with China .
There ’ s no longer anything unusual about journalism marked by a failure to distinguish between fact and opinion , by blind worship of globalism and free trade , and by neglect of the special interest funding behind establishment think tankers masquerading as scholarly truth-seekers .
And of course , the ritualistic Trump Derangement Syndrome .
Much rarer is a liberal media article guilty of all these sins , which is why the New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies by governments around the world are crippling the global fight against the CCP Virus deserves as many rotten tomatoes as can be thrown .
Its headline is the slanted , “ Why Nationalism is Jeopardizing the Virus Fight , ” but it ’ s presented as a straight news article , rather than appearing on the paper ’ s Opinion page .
Sure , there ’ s no doubt that countries around the world have been husbanding many of the healthcare goods that can strengthen public safety–like drugs , medical devices , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s supposed to be some readily available alternative ?
Or one conceivable in the policy-relevant future ?
The article ’ s very first stage-setting paragraph describes “ leaders of many of the world ’ s largest economies ” as being “ in the thrall of unabashedly nationalist principles , undermining collective efforts to tame the novel coronavirus.
” Why would anyone trying to report objectively use a phrase like “ in the thrall ” ?
It means “ slave ” or “ captive , ” and inevitably conveys an impression of thoughtlessness .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ being displayed as “ unabashed ” – i.e.
, unembarrassed or unashamed ?
Is it beyond doubt that nationalist leaders should be embarrassed and ashamed by these points of view ?
And what exactly are those collective efforts being undermined ?
The only developments mentioned that even come close are the Trump administration ’ s overall efforts to slash scientific cooperation with China , and its reduction of U.S. health authorities ’ presence in China .
But evidence abounds that see-no-evil pre-Trump American science and tech collaboration and exchange programs were a one-way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowhow crucial both for defense and for national competitiveness .
None of that made its way into the Times .
Besides , when the CCP Virus broke out in Wuhan , Chinese authorities hid its existence and its human-to-human transmission characteristics to their own people .
Nevertheless , according to The Times , world cooperation is essential for every country ’ s prospects for defeating the virus , including the United States .
But so-called nationalists are trying to thwart that .
As readers are told , “ Now , just as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joining forces across borders to create vaccines , and manufacturers coordinating to deliver critical supplies–national interests are winning out.
” The nationalists ’ “ zero-sum perspective is a guiding force just as the sum in question is alarmingly limited , ” they add .
And the reason that such neanderthal mindsets are so damaging ?
Because , as explained by Dr. Seth Berkley , the chief executive of the Gavi Alliance , a nonprofit started by Microsoft founder Bill Gates “ to get vaccines to the world ’ s poor , ” international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and we really ought to follow that paradigm.
” It ’ s true that Americans can benefit from the work of researchers abroad .
But presumably this authority isn ’ t old enough to remember that the United States became the world ’ s health leader largely on its own–along with the help of numerous genuinely skilled and talented immigrants .
“ Companies steeped in genomics and the rigorous demands of manufacturing , ” the Times warns , “ must find a way to develop new drugs , begin commercial production and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running major economies may limit supplies.
” Ostensibly proving this argument is none other than Daniel O ’ Day , the head of Gilead , a pharmaceutical company that has made a promising anti-viral agent ; “ The international nature of the supply chain for remdesivir reminds us that it is essential for countries to work together to create enough supply for the world.
” And if these supply chain run through or are centered in China ?
No problem , The Times assures readers .
After all , “ Given China ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital gear and medicines , American health effectively depends on being able to buy more from Chinese factories.
” Nor does the paper expect you to take reporters ’ word for this claim .
It ’ s also the view of “ international trade expert ” Chad Bown , who goes on to explain , “ Right now , the brightest shiny hope that we have is imports of this stuff .
We ’ d like to run the biggest trade deficit we could possibly find.
” “ It ’ s not that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s made us vulnerable , ” Bown added .
“ It ’ s that we are buying this stuff from China , and we decided to start a trade war with them.
” The only dissenting voices featured ?
An Indian health researcher who stated , “ In this situation , each country has to take care of itself .
If we are not able to take care of our population , it will be a very critical situation.
” That ’ s a great formula for insinuating that everyone not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selfish ) nationalistic governments , like America ’ s under Mr. Trump , supports a globalist approach .
You want cover ups of think tank conflicts of interest ?
Just look at the article ’ s treatment of Bown .
It ’ s bad enough he ’ s one of a crew of free trade extremists on which The Times relies nearly exclusively for expert opinion on that subject .
But it ’ s worse that he ’ s presented as an impartial authority with no stake in this field ’ s highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s employer is the Peterson Institute for International Economics , a Washington , D.C. think tank that ’ s funded not only by many U.S. and foreign multinational companies that have profited handsomely from the offshoring trade policies that sent so much American-owned healthcare manufacturing to China and other foreign economies in the first place .
It ’ s also funded by many of the countries that have benefited as well .
The same , moreover , can be said for Yanzhong Huang and Jennifer Huang Bouey , the two other think tankers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Foreign Relations and the RAND Corporation , respectively .
That ’ s not to say that the views of the world ’ s Bowns , Huangs , and Boueys should be automatically dismissed .
But readers deserve to know who signs their paychecks , and therefore who they need to please .
The Times itself has done excellent work exposing such think tank conflicts of interest–and how pervasive they ’ ve become .
Why doesn ’ t the paper insist on transparency whenever they ’ re quoted ?
Finally , you want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The United States , an unrivaled scientific power , is led by a president who openly scoffs at international cooperation while pursuing a global trade war ” ?
That claim came right after the lead paragraph speaking of the thralldom of shamefully nationalist principles , so it ’ s clear that readers are being told that scoffing at international cooperation is a major no-no .
Also included was the now-obligatory establishment swipe at President Trump ’ s interest in possible anti-CCP medicines that haven ’ t received the Beltway seal of approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggressive in securing an American stockpile of hydroxychloroquine , disregarding the counsel of federal scientists who have warned that testing remains minimal , with scant evidence of benefits.
” In fact , so determined were the reporters to diss the President that they missed the irony created by their very next sentences : “ India is the world ’ s largest producer of hydroxychloroquine .
Last month , the government banned exports of the drug , though it stipulated that shipments could continue under limited circumstances.
” A Times treatment of the Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have passed a Journalism 101 class isn ’ t hard to imagine .
Rather than condemning wholesale the Hobbesian global responses to securing and preserving medical supplies it did usefully describe , it would simply have noted that they clash with some major transnational features of modern scientific research .
Rather than dismiss the advantages of self-reliance , it would have at least ticked off some of them–like protection against all the export bans that have been imposed and could be imposed–and recognized that this goal is hardly fanciful for big , wealthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States .
And rather than assume that global well-being is the only legitimate goal of a national government , it might have given a nod to the idea that national loyalties still , despite the preferences of New York Times staffers , do still hold significant sway throughout the world .
A Gallup poll last month found that the news media was the only one of nine leaders and institutions examined whose coronavirus response received more negative reviews ( 55 percent ) than positive ( 44 percent ) .
Mr. Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 38 percent margin .
After reading this New York Times ‘ coronavirus-nationalism article , it ’ s difficult to see why the media ’ s ratings were remotely that high .
Alan Tonelson is the founder of RealityChek , a public policy blog focusing on economics and national security , and the author of The Race to the Bottom .

There’s no longer anything unusual about journalism marked by a failure to distinguish between fact and opinion, by blind worship of globalism and free trade, and by neglect of the special interest funding behind establishment think tankers masquerading as scholarly truth-seekers.
And of course, the ritualistic Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Much rarer is a liberal media article guilty of all these sins, which is why the New York Times‘ April 10 article on how nationalistic policies by governments around the world are crippling the global fight against the CCP Virus deserves as many rotten tomatoes as can be thrown.
Its headline is the slanted, “Why Nationalism is Jeopardizing the Virus Fight,” but it’s presented as a straight news article, rather than appearing on the paper’s Opinion page. Sure, there’s no doubt that countries around the world have been husbanding many of the healthcare goods that can strengthen public safety–like drugs, medical devices, and protective gear. But there’s supposed to be some readily available alternative? Or one conceivable in the policy-relevant future?
The article’s very first stage-setting paragraph describes “leaders of many of the world’s largest economies” as being “in the thrall of unabashedly nationalist principles, undermining collective efforts to tame the novel coronavirus.”
Why would anyone trying to report objectively use a phrase like “in the thrall”? It means “slave” or “captive,” and inevitably conveys an impression of thoughtlessness. Why write of whatever nationalist principles are being displayed as “unabashed” – i.e., unembarrassed or unashamed? Is it beyond doubt that nationalist leaders should be embarrassed and ashamed by these points of view?
And what exactly are those collective efforts being undermined? The only developments mentioned that even come close are the Trump administration’s overall efforts to slash scientific cooperation with China, and its reduction of U.S. health authorities’ presence in China.
But evidence abounds that see-no-evil pre-Trump American science and tech collaboration and exchange programs were a one-way street that sent to Beijing cutting edge knowhow crucial both for defense and for national competitiveness. None of that made its way into the Times. Besides, when the CCP Virus broke out in Wuhan, Chinese authorities hid its existence and its human-to-human transmission characteristics to their own people.
Nevertheless, according to The Times, world cooperation is essential for every country’s prospects for defeating the virus, including the United States. But so-called nationalists are trying to thwart that. As readers are told, “Now, just as the world requires collaboration to defeat the coronavirus–scientists joining forces across borders to create vaccines, and manufacturers coordinating to deliver critical supplies–national interests are winning out.”
The nationalists’ “zero-sum perspective is a guiding force just as the sum in question is alarmingly limited,” they add.
And the reason that such neanderthal mindsets are so damaging? Because, as explained by Dr. Seth Berkley, the chief executive of the Gavi Alliance, a nonprofit started by Microsoft founder Bill Gates “to get vaccines to the world’s poor,” international collaboration is “how science is done, and we really ought to follow that paradigm.”
It’s true that Americans can benefit from the work of researchers abroad. But presumably this authority isn’t old enough to remember that the United States became the world’s health leader largely on its own–along with the help of numerous genuinely skilled and talented immigrants.
“Companies steeped in genomics and the rigorous demands of manufacturing,” the Times warns, “must find a way to develop new drugs, begin commercial production and also anticipate how the predilections of nationalists running major economies may limit supplies.”
Ostensibly proving this argument is none other than Daniel O’Day, the head of Gilead, a pharmaceutical company that has made a promising anti-viral agent; “The international nature of the supply chain for remdesivir reminds us that it is essential for countries to work together to create enough supply for the world.”
And if these supply chain run through or are centered in China? No problem, The Times assures readers. After all, “Given China’s role as a dominant supplier of hospital gear and medicines, American health effectively depends on being able to buy more from Chinese factories.”
Nor does the paper expect you to take reporters’ word for this claim. It’s also the view of “international trade expert” Chad Bown, who goes on to explain, “Right now, the brightest shiny hope that we have is imports of this stuff. We’d like to run the biggest trade deficit we could possibly find.”
“It’s not that we are buying this stuff from China that’s made us vulnerable,” Bown added. “It’s that we are buying this stuff from China, and we decided to start a trade war with them.”
The only dissenting voices featured? An Indian health researcher who stated, “In this situation, each country has to take care of itself. If we are not able to take care of our population, it will be a very critical situation.” That’s a great formula for insinuating that everyone not under the the thumb of (disastrously selfish) nationalistic governments, like America’s under Mr. Trump, supports a globalist approach.
You want cover ups of think tank conflicts of interest? Just look at the article’s treatment of Bown. It’s bad enough he’s one of a crew of free trade extremists on which The Times relies nearly exclusively for expert opinion on that subject. But it’s worse that he’s presented as an impartial authority with no stake in this field’s highly controversial policy debates.
But Brown’s employer is the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington, D.C. think tank that’s funded not only by many U.S. and foreign multinational companies that have profited handsomely from the offshoring trade policies that sent so much American-owned healthcare manufacturing to China and other foreign economies in the first place. It’s also funded by many of the countries that have benefited as well. The same, moreover, can be said for Yanzhong Huang and Jennifer Huang Bouey, the two other think tankers cited, who work for the Council on Foreign Relations and the RAND Corporation, respectively.
That’s not to say that the views of the world’s Bowns, Huangs, and Boueys should be automatically dismissed. But readers deserve to know who signs their paychecks, and therefore who they need to please. The Times itself has done excellent work exposing such think tank conflicts of interest–and how pervasive they’ve become. Why doesn’t the paper insist on transparency whenever they’re quoted?
Finally, you want Trump Derangement Syndrome? How about, “The United States, an unrivaled scientific power, is led by a president who openly scoffs at international cooperation while pursuing a global trade war”? That claim came right after the lead paragraph speaking of the thralldom of shamefully nationalist principles, so it’s clear that readers are being told that scoffing at international cooperation is a major no-no.
Also included was the now-obligatory establishment swipe at President Trump’s interest in possible anti-CCP medicines that haven’t received the Beltway seal of approval: “President Trump has been especially aggressive in securing an American stockpile of hydroxychloroquine, disregarding the counsel of federal scientists who have warned that testing remains minimal, with scant evidence of benefits.”
In fact, so determined were the reporters to diss the President that they missed the irony created by their very next sentences: “India is the world’s largest producer of hydroxychloroquine. Last month, the government banned exports of the drug, though it stipulated that shipments could continue under limited circumstances.”
A Times treatment of the Chinese coronavirus and world politics that actually would have passed a Journalism 101 class isn’t hard to imagine. Rather than condemning wholesale the Hobbesian global responses to securing and preserving medical supplies it did usefully describe, it would simply have noted that they clash with some major transnational features of modern scientific research. Rather than dismiss the advantages of self-reliance, it would have at least ticked off some of them–like protection against all the export bans that have been imposed and could be imposed–and recognized that this goal is hardly fanciful for big, wealthy, scientifically advanced countries like the United States.
And rather than assume that global well-being is the only legitimate goal of a national government, it might have given a nod to the idea that national loyalties still, despite the preferences of New York Times staffers, do still hold significant sway throughout the world.
A Gallup poll last month found that the news media was the only one of nine leaders and institutions examined whose coronavirus response received more negative reviews (55 percent) than positive (44 percent). Mr. Trump’s performance was approved by a 60 percent to 38 percent margin. After reading this New York Times‘ coronavirus-nationalism article, it’s difficult to see why the media’s ratings were remotely that high.
Alan Tonelson is the founder of RealityChek, a public policy blog focusing on economics and national security, and the author of The Race to the Bottom.


theamericanconservative--2020-04-13--In Defense of Presidential Purges

In Defense of Presidential Purges

U.S. President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr April 1 , 2020 .
( Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images ) The separation of governmental powers established by the U.S. Constitution is a central pillar of our liberty .
And it is widely perceived that the executive branch has , over the decades , aggrandized its power vis-a-vis the legislative branch , particularly in the realm of foreign affairs and warmaking .
That gets substantial attention in the country ’ s political discourse , as it should .
Executive power , unchecked , constitutes an inherent danger to liberty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ prerogative should be inviolable , and that is in the president ’ s ability to maintain dominance over his own house , to run the executive departments and agencies of the government , within the context of the Constitution , accountable primarily to voters at election time and not to members of Congress or other political forces .
This includes the president ’ s power to hire executive branch employees ( though of course , in cases involving high-level officials , with the “ advice and consent ” of the Senate ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sees fit .
This element of power separation has come under attack during the Trump administration to a greater extent than the nation has seen since the presidency of Andrew Johnson , when Congress passed an intrusive law barring the president from firing his own employees and then impeached him when he shunned that congressional dictate .
Decades later , in an unrelated case affirming the president ’ s exclusive power to remove staff whose duties are an extension of presidential authority , the Supreme Court cited specifically the Johnson-era Tenure of Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump we have seen a surge in the view that , for example , the U.S. attorney general doesn ’ t actually work for the president but for the American people .
Often this is expressed as a solemn principle of the country ’ s constitutional system .
But in reality it wasn ’ t until the Watergate crisis of the 1970s that anyone ever challenged the president ’ s sway over his attorney general .
A leading constitutional scholar of that time , Yale ’ s Alexander Bickel , argued that Richard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspected presidential miscreant , had the right to fire his attorney general for any reason or no reason .
By extension , under Bickel ’ s reasoning , he also could fire the special prosecutor appointed to investigate his own actions .
Bickel believed that neither the legislative branch nor the judicial branch had any say in the matter .
But , as it turned out , the American people did .
Shortly after Bickel put forth his learned opinion , Nixon brazenly embraced that view and ordered his attorney general , Elliot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Archibald Cox .
Richardson refused .
Then his deputy , William Ruckelshaus , also refused .
Ultimately , the president had his way , but it unleashed a firestorm that swept across the nation .
Nixon ’ s political standing collapsed , and he never recovered .
It was the beginning of the end of his presidency .
One could argue that this was a happy outcome because the president ’ s right to hire and fire subordinates remained intact while the political price he paid in exercising that right turned out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the episode brought forth the faulty idea that the attorney general doesn ’ t really work for the president but , contrary to constitutional language and logic , for the country at large .
Today that view is widespread and powerful .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it starkly when , referring to Trump ’ s AG William Barr , she declared , “ He is the attorney general of the United States of America , not the attorney general of Donald Trump.
” And Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono confronted Barr at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike many as a devastating accusation .
“ You ’ ve chosen to be the president ’ s lawyer , ” she pronounced .
The problem here is that if the attorney general is beholden strictly to the American people , it opens the way for Congress , claiming to speak for the American people , to gain added leverage over the executive branch .
That breaches the power separation envisioned in the Constitution .
Or consider the doctrine , so avidly embraced by Trump opponents in Congress and the political arena , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey early in his presidency or sought to bring about the firing of special counsel Robert Mueller , who was investigating allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia .
There is no doubt that presidents are not immune from the law when they commit bad acts unrelated to their official duties .
Indeed , as William Barr noted in a memo written before he became AG , both Nixon and Bill Clinton sought to obstruct justice in ways that brought both presidents under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Barr added that enforcing such laws against a president doesn ’ t infringe on that president ’ s “ plenary power over law enforcement ” because the exercise of this discretion , ” such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding , ” doesn ’ t involve the commission of any actions that fall under a strict definition of obstruction .
Barr has taken a lot of heat for this distinction between presidential actions unrelated to executive authority , which can be unlawful , and declaring presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be unlawful .
But it represents a sincere effort to parse a complex area of constitutional law involving the imperatives of legal accountability and the importance of the president ’ s constitutional standing in our delicately balanced governmental system .
The issue of a president ’ s constitutional prerogative in executive-branch personnel matters was raised in some intriguing though indirect ways in a recent New York Times “ News Analysis ” by Peter Baker , which catalogued Trump ’ s recent actions apparently designed to purge his administration of people he didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like or who had run afoul of him during his recent impeachment ordeal .
It was a solid piece of reporting , and there ’ s certainly nothing wrong with journalists pursuing inside information on how a president conducts himself within his own executive domain .
There is a problem of tone , however , and an unmistakable one-sidedness .
Baker never notes or even hints at the president ’ s inherent executive power to hire and fire at will , thus seeming to give the president ’ s actions his own severe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that government inspectors general ( one of whom was fired by Trump ) are “ appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate ” but adds that they are “ traditionally granted a great deal of independence ” to ferret out mismanagement or misbehavior in government .
True , but such traditions don ’ t supersede presidential prerogative under the Constitution , a reality that goes unmentioned .
Further , the reporter clearly wants his readers to see the president ’ s actions as just another reflection of a ham-handed president out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He employs such value-charged words and phrases as “ purge , ” “ retribution , ” “ under-cover-of-darkness , ” and a “ hunt for informers and turncoats.
” He makes much of all this being carried on in a time of the coronavirus challenge– ” the latest instance of the president continuing to pursue his personal and policy agenda while the nation has been consumed by the pandemic.
” Well , it ’ s a Times “ news analysis , ” so all this may be fair game .
But , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s look at it in a different way , with the idea of bringing some perspective to the thing .
We have a president ( uncouth , unruly , and unseemly , yes , but that ’ s not relevant here ) who , upon getting elected , discovers he ’ s under investigation by federal officials on suspicion of treasonous collusion with Russia .
He knows it ’ s not true , and soon we all learn that the investigation was launched on the basis of an outlandish dossier commissioned by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential opponent–and that authorization from a secret court for surveillance on campaign personnel was granted on the basis of faulty ( and probably manipulated ) evidence .
The president tries to get a handle on the situation , in part by firing FBI Director Comey , but that only serves to instigate the naming of a special counsel , Mueller , who promptly expands the definition of obstruction of justice to include actions that traditionally had been considered acts of presidential prerogative .
Practically from day one , the president finds himself backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s essentially cleared of collusion , but the Mueller team employs artful language to hang the obstruction allegation around his neck , thus throwing raw meat to the braying bloodhounds who remain in pursuit .
The obstruction tag fades , but soon he is under siege from an impeachment initiative in the House .
It ’ s based on actions of the president in seeking to get Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential aspirant Joe Biden and his son , Hunter , who cadged huge amounts of money for doing essentially nothing for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stupid and unsavory action on the president ’ s part , but the American people , as a collective , reject the idea of tossing a president out of office on the basis of such a transgression , and we end up with what is essentially a partisan House impeachment and Senate trial that don ’ t destroy the Trump presidency but succeed in wounding him politically .
So he continues to be under immense political pressure from his intractable political enemies–and then comes the threatening scourge of coronavirus .
The president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be traced in large measure to his campaign pledge to improve U.S. relations with Russia .
“ Wouldn ’ t it be great if we could get along with Russia ?
” he said repeatedly on the campaign trail , thus stirring undying enmity of the American foreign policy establishment , which operates on an article of faith that Russia represents the country ’ s greatest threat .
Of course the Russia probe destroys his ability to fulfill his campaign promise of improving U.S.-Russia ties , and the impeachment ordeal reveals just how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own administration , as various officials of various levels of stature trek up to Capitol Hill to testify as to the nefarious nature of the president ’ s actions with Ukraine , based upon the nefarious nature of Russia .
The result : the president ’ s range of action with regard to Russia is totally wrenched from his purview .
Now put yourself in the position of the president whose experiences match those described above .
What kind of idiot would run the executive branch , in these circumstances , in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , facing the slings and arrows of Democratic opposition on one side and the uncertain specter of an out-of-control pandemic on the other , would keep in place within his administration men and women who clearly aren ’ t loyal to him and who had assisted in the effort to destroy his presidency ?
Any president must protect his presidency if he is to govern the country in a way that generates political support in the moment and wins history ’ s approval in the future .
Thus do we see that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his prejudicial way ultimately constituted a dog-bites-man story .
It ’ s still a good story .
But , in his zeal to get his hot branding iron up against Trump ’ s flank , Baker missed the full scope of the narrative .
Robert W. Merry , longtime Washington , D.C. , journalist and publishing executive , is the author most recently of President McKinley : Architect of the American Century ( Simon & Schuster ) .

The separation of governmental powers established by the U.S. Constitution is a central pillar of our liberty. And it is widely perceived that the executive branch has, over the decades, aggrandized its power vis-a-vis the legislative branch, particularly in the realm of foreign affairs and warmaking. That gets substantial attention in the country’s political discourse, as it should. Executive power, unchecked, constitutes an inherent danger to liberty.
But there is an area where executive prerogative should be inviolable, and that is in the president’s ability to maintain dominance over his own house, to run the executive departments and agencies of the government, within the context of the Constitution, accountable primarily to voters at election time and not to members of Congress or other political forces. This includes the president’s power to hire executive branch employees (though of course, in cases involving high-level officials, with the “advice and consent” of the Senate) and to fire his employees as the president sees fit.
This element of power separation has come under attack during the Trump administration to a greater extent than the nation has seen since the presidency of Andrew Johnson, when Congress passed an intrusive law barring the president from firing his own employees and then impeached him when he shunned that congressional dictate. Decades later, in an unrelated case affirming the president’s exclusive power to remove staff whose duties are an extension of presidential authority, the Supreme Court cited specifically the Johnson-era Tenure of Office Act as unconstitutional.
But under President Trump we have seen a surge in the view that, for example, the U.S. attorney general doesn’t actually work for the president but for the American people. Often this is expressed as a solemn principle of the country’s constitutional system. But in reality it wasn’t until the Watergate crisis of the 1970s that anyone ever challenged the president’s sway over his attorney general. A leading constitutional scholar of that time, Yale’s Alexander Bickel, argued that Richard Nixon, under intense pressure as a suspected presidential miscreant, had the right to fire his attorney general for any reason or no reason. By extension, under Bickel’s reasoning, he also could fire the special prosecutor appointed to investigate his own actions. Bickel believed that neither the legislative branch nor the judicial branch had any say in the matter.
But, as it turned out, the American people did. Shortly after Bickel put forth his learned opinion, Nixon brazenly embraced that view and ordered his attorney general, Elliot Richardson, to fire the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox. Richardson refused. Then his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, also refused. Ultimately, the president had his way, but it unleashed a firestorm that swept across the nation. Nixon’s political standing collapsed, and he never recovered. It was the beginning of the end of his presidency.
One could argue that this was a happy outcome because the president’s right to hire and fire subordinates remained intact while the political price he paid in exercising that right turned out to be self-destruction. Unfortunately, though, the episode brought forth the faulty idea that the attorney general doesn’t really work for the president but, contrary to constitutional language and logic, for the country at large.
Today that view is widespread and powerful. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it starkly when, referring to Trump’s AG William Barr, she declared, “He is the attorney general of the United States of America, not the attorney general of Donald Trump.” And Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono confronted Barr at a congressional hearing with what seemed to strike many as a devastating accusation. “You’ve chosen to be the president’s lawyer,” she pronounced.
The problem here is that if the attorney general is beholden strictly to the American people, it opens the way for Congress, claiming to speak for the American people, to gain added leverage over the executive branch. That breaches the power separation envisioned in the Constitution.
Or consider the doctrine, so avidly embraced by Trump opponents in Congress and the political arena, that Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey early in his presidency or sought to bring about the firing of special counsel Robert Mueller, who was investigating allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
There is no doubt that presidents are not immune from the law when they commit bad acts unrelated to their official duties. Indeed, as William Barr noted in a memo written before he became AG, both Nixon and Bill Clinton sought to obstruct justice in ways that brought both presidents under the spotlight of House impeachment proceedings–and appropriately so. Barr added that enforcing such laws against a president doesn’t infringe on that president’s “plenary power over law enforcement” because the exercise of this discretion, ”such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding,” doesn’t involve the commission of any actions that fall under a strict definition of obstruction.
Barr has taken a lot of heat for this distinction between presidential actions unrelated to executive authority, which can be unlawful, and declaring presidential actions that clearly fall under executive prerogative to be unlawful. But it represents a sincere effort to parse a complex area of constitutional law involving the imperatives of legal accountability and the importance of the president’s constitutional standing in our delicately balanced governmental system.
The issue of a president’s constitutional prerogative in executive-branch personnel matters was raised in some intriguing though indirect ways in a recent New York Times “News Analysis” by Peter Baker, which catalogued Trump’s recent actions apparently designed to purge his administration of people he didn’t trust or didn’t like or who had run afoul of him during his recent impeachment ordeal. It was a solid piece of reporting, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with journalists pursuing inside information on how a president conducts himself within his own executive domain.
There is a problem of tone, however, and an unmistakable one-sidedness. Baker never notes or even hints at the president’s inherent executive power to hire and fire at will, thus seeming to give the president’s actions his own severe stamp of opprobrium. He does note that government inspectors general (one of whom was fired by Trump) are “appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate” but adds that they are “traditionally granted a great deal of independence” to ferret out mismanagement or misbehavior in government. True, but such traditions don’t supersede presidential prerogative under the Constitution, a reality that goes unmentioned.
Further, the reporter clearly wants his readers to see the president’s actions as just another reflection of a ham-handed president out of control and consumed with vindictiveness. He employs such value-charged words and phrases as “purge,” “retribution,” “under-cover-of-darkness,” and a “hunt for informers and turncoats.” He makes much of all this being carried on in a time of the coronavirus challenge–”the latest instance of the president continuing to pursue his personal and policy agenda while the nation has been consumed by the pandemic.”
Well, it’s a Times “news analysis,” so all this may be fair game. But, just for the fun of it, let’s look at it in a different way, with the idea of bringing some perspective to the thing.
We have a president (uncouth, unruly, and unseemly, yes, but that’s not relevant here) who, upon getting elected, discovers he’s under investigation by federal officials on suspicion of treasonous collusion with Russia. He knows it’s not true, and soon we all learn that the investigation was launched on the basis of an outlandish dossier commissioned by the Democratic Party and Trump’s presidential opponent–and that authorization from a secret court for surveillance on campaign personnel was granted on the basis of faulty (and probably manipulated) evidence. The president tries to get a handle on the situation, in part by firing FBI Director Comey, but that only serves to instigate the naming of a special counsel, Mueller, who promptly expands the definition of obstruction of justice to include actions that traditionally had been considered acts of presidential prerogative. Practically from day one, the president finds himself backed up against a wall.
He’s essentially cleared of collusion, but the Mueller team employs artful language to hang the obstruction allegation around his neck, thus throwing raw meat to the braying bloodhounds who remain in pursuit. The obstruction tag fades, but soon he is under siege from an impeachment initiative in the House. It’s based on actions of the president in seeking to get Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential aspirant Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, who cadged huge amounts of money for doing essentially nothing for a corrupt Ukrainian energy company.
It was a stupid and unsavory action on the president’s part, but the American people, as a collective, reject the idea of tossing a president out of office on the basis of such a transgression, and we end up with what is essentially a partisan House impeachment and Senate trial that don’t destroy the Trump presidency but succeed in wounding him politically. So he continues to be under immense political pressure from his intractable political enemies–and then comes the threatening scourge of coronavirus.
The president can see that his beleaguered state can be traced in large measure to his campaign pledge to improve U.S. relations with Russia. “Wouldn’t it be great if we could get along with Russia?” he said repeatedly on the campaign trail, thus stirring undying enmity of the American foreign policy establishment, which operates on an article of faith that Russia represents the country’s greatest threat. Of course the Russia probe destroys his ability to fulfill his campaign promise of improving U.S.-Russia ties, and the impeachment ordeal reveals just how widespread is the anti-Russian sentiment within his own administration, as various officials of various levels of stature trek up to Capitol Hill to testify as to the nefarious nature of the president’s actions with Ukraine, based upon the nefarious nature of Russia. The result: the president’s range of action with regard to Russia is totally wrenched from his purview.
Now put yourself in the position of the president whose experiences match those described above. What kind of idiot would run the executive branch, in these circumstances, in a politics-as-usual manner? What kind of president, facing the slings and arrows of Democratic opposition on one side and the uncertain specter of an out-of-control pandemic on the other, would keep in place within his administration men and women who clearly aren’t loyal to him and who had assisted in the effort to destroy his presidency?
Any president must protect his presidency if he is to govern the country in a way that generates political support in the moment and wins history’s approval in the future. Thus do we see that the Trump actions described by Peter Baker in his prejudicial way ultimately constituted a dog-bites-man story. It’s still a good story. But, in his zeal to get his hot branding iron up against Trump’s flank, Baker missed the full scope of the narrative.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century (Simon & Schuster).


theamericanconservative--2020-04-13--Michael Gerson’s Tedious Anti-Trumpism

Michael Gerson’s Tedious Anti-Trumpism

In an old SNL skit from the ’ 90s called “ The Denise Show , ” a jilted ex-boyfriend , Brian , played by Adam Sandler , obsesses over his ex-girlfriend Denise ( Shannon Doherty ) .
Brian explains : “ Tonight ’ s subject is Denise : uh , have you seen her ?
Has she said anything about me ?
” The ex-boyfriend ’ s antics become increasingly ridiculous : “ Now is the part of the show where I like to give Denise a call and hang up on her .
…Now is the part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dad calls me up and yells at me .
…Now is the part where I look at Denise ’ s picture and I talk to it.
” Every time I see a Michael Gerson op-ed in The Washington Post , I ’ m reminded of Sandler ’ s character .
Gerson was once front and center in American conservatism , or at least neoconservatism , serving as President George W. Bush ’ s chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006 .
Beginning in May 2007 , he began his tenure as one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as conservative , alongside the likes of Charles Krauthammer and George Will .
With the rise of Donald Trump as a legitimate political contender , Gerson quickly and unabashedly hitched his wagon to “ Never Trump ” conservatism .
Since then , he ’ s found it hard to write of much else except his disdain for Trump and all those who have allied or come to terms with the president .
Just last month , Gerson ’ s op-eds have been titled : “ Never have GOP votes against impeachment seemed more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus address was an opportunity .
He butchered it , ” and “ Public health officials can beat coronavirus — if the White House lets them.
” In February , we had titles like “ Republicans owe Vindman a public apology : A pattern of presidential misbehavior has become a crisis in the rule of law , ” “ It is difficult for pro-lifers to vote Democrat .
But it ’ s better than Trump , ” “ By any measure , Buttigieg is Trump ’ s proven superior , ” “ Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breakfast is unholy and immoral , ” and “ To cheer Trump is to submit to him.
” You get the picture .
Gerson has become so predictable , it ’ s rarely worth bothering to read beyond the titles of his op-eds .
Nor is it just him .
Consider also Max Boot ( “ Trump is risking a terrible tragedy to avoid responsibility for the recession ” ) , Jennifer Rubin ( “ When the president is the problem ” ) , and David Frum ( author of the upcoming Trumpocalypse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are self-professed conservatives ; all were neocon supporters of Bush ’ s interventionist foreign policy .
And all have become banal broken records of formulaic anti-Trump rhetoric .
( On the plus side , it means savvy readers can get through the daily opinion section a lot faster . )
There are about 327 million people living in the United States .
Almost 520,000 of them are politicians ( 535 are federal , 18,749 are state , and the rest are local , in case you were wondering ) .
Gerson and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on one individual .
Their modus operandi demonstrates how far from the Founders ’ vision many conservatives have strayed .
Conservatives once spoke of the need for a strong legislature , strong judiciary , and strong decentralized governing system of states to blunt the power of the executive branch .
Federalist No .
47 and No .
51 , among others , come to mind .
In the post-Bush era of excessive executive orders and federal government expenditures , writers like Gerson , Boot , Rubin , and Frum prove how disdain for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curtail the power of the presidency .
I had hoped that frustration with a Trump executive , be it from the Right or the Left , would convince many of the need to recalibrate our political institutions and weaken the executive branch .
Alas , I was mistaken .
What it has proven is that the political vision of many conservative writers is largely ideologically undecipherable from liberals and the Democratic Party .
Let the reader understand—this is no defense of The Donald .
There are plenty of reasons for conservatives to critique @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on conversations with TAC writers over the years ( and reading many of their articles ) , I perceive a broad spectrum of conservative opinions regarding Trump .
Readers at TAC will find commentary on the president ranging from hopeful to annoyed to frustrated to despondent and everything in between .
This is more or less the same perspective TAC had towards Bush during his presidency .
Moreover , there are plenty of prominent conservative writers who periodically voice their complaints about the Trump administration without tethering their entire editorial portfolio to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and George Will come to mind , among others .
In obsessing over Trump , Gerson , Boot , Rubin , and Frum project a poverty of political imagination and creativity .
There is little willingness to seriously grapple with the “ America First , ” “ common-good capitalist , ” pro-religious brand of conservatism found among so many of Trump ’ s supporters .
Indeed , these columnists remain largely tone-deaf to this shift .
They seem to believe that if they simply write enough op-eds arguing that America ’ s post-Cold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has brought millions of people out of poverty and encouraged democracy , everyone will just forget the costs of that project .
Are they unaware that millions of American voters are fed up with almost 20 years of the global war on terrorism , which wasted billions of dollars , killed thousands of Americans , and incited destructive instability in a dozen countries ?
Are they unaware that millions of Americans are frustrated by an economic system that seems to prioritize other nations ’ citizens over its own ?
Are they unaware that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coronavirus , and through weakening industrial capacity , enfeebled our ability to defeat it ?
Are they unaware that millions of Americans care more about the opioid crisis and failing infrastructure than they do about what happens in Yemen , Syria , and Libya ?
Granted , most of the crew cited above was “ conservative ” only when that word was unfortunately associated with an interventionist foreign policy and unfettered free trade .
All the same , they still claim the conservative mantle , likely because it gives them a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a time when actual conservatives are no longer listening .
So they write for places like the WaPo , largely ignored by conservatives and giddily exploited by the Left .
They are irrelevant , interesting only as a humorous example of what happens when a person simply can ’ t let go .
Not unlike Brian ’ s infatuation with Denise .
Casey Chalk covers religion and other issues for The American Conservative and is a senior writer for Crisis Magazine .
He has degrees in history and teaching from the University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theology from Christendom College .

In an old SNL skit from the ’90s called “The Denise Show,” a jilted ex-boyfriend, Brian, played by Adam Sandler, obsesses over his ex-girlfriend Denise (Shannon Doherty). Brian explains: “Tonight’s subject is Denise: uh, have you seen her? Has she said anything about me?” The ex-boyfriend’s antics become increasingly ridiculous: “Now is the part of the show where I like to give Denise a call and hang up on her. …Now is the part of the show where I lose it and my dad calls me up and yells at me. …Now is the part where I look at Denise’s picture and I talk to it.”
Every time I see a Michael Gerson op-ed in The Washington Post, I’m reminded of Sandler’s character. Gerson was once front and center in American conservatism, or at least neoconservatism, serving as President George W. Bush’s chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006. Beginning in May 2007, he began his tenure as one of a handful of WaPo columnists who identified as conservative, alongside the likes of Charles Krauthammer and George Will. With the rise of Donald Trump as a legitimate political contender, Gerson quickly and unabashedly hitched his wagon to “Never Trump” conservatism.
Since then, he’s found it hard to write of much else except his disdain for Trump and all those who have allied or come to terms with the president. Just last month, Gerson’s op-eds have been titled: “Never have GOP votes against impeachment seemed more shortsighted,” “Trump’s coronavirus address was an opportunity. He butchered it,” and “Public health officials can beat coronavirus — if the White House lets them.” In February, we had titles like “Republicans owe Vindman a public apology: A pattern of presidential misbehavior has become a crisis in the rule of law,” “It is difficult for pro-lifers to vote Democrat. But it’s better than Trump,” “By any measure, Buttigieg is Trump’s proven superior,” “Trump’s politicization of the National Prayer Breakfast is unholy and immoral,” and “To cheer Trump is to submit to him.” You get the picture.
Gerson has become so predictable, it’s rarely worth bothering to read beyond the titles of his op-eds. Nor is it just him. Consider also Max Boot (“Trump is risking a terrible tragedy to avoid responsibility for the recession”), Jennifer Rubin (“When the president is the problem”), and David Frum (author of the upcoming Trumpocalypse: Restoring American Democracy). All are self-professed conservatives; all were neocon supporters of Bush’s interventionist foreign policy. And all have become banal broken records of formulaic anti-Trump rhetoric. (On the plus side, it means savvy readers can get through the daily opinion section a lot faster.)
There are about 327 million people living in the United States. Almost 520,000 of them are politicians (535 are federal, 18,749 are state, and the rest are local, in case you were wondering). Gerson and his allies choose to focus their energies largely on one individual. Their modus operandi demonstrates how far from the Founders’ vision many conservatives have strayed.
Conservatives once spoke of the need for a strong legislature, strong judiciary, and strong decentralized governing system of states to blunt the power of the executive branch. Federalist No. 47 and No. 51, among others, come to mind. In the post-Bush era of excessive executive orders and federal government expenditures, writers like Gerson, Boot, Rubin, and Frum prove how disdain for Trump takes precedence over the need to curtail the power of the presidency. I had hoped that frustration with a Trump executive, be it from the Right or the Left, would convince many of the need to recalibrate our political institutions and weaken the executive branch. Alas, I was mistaken. What it has proven is that the political vision of many conservative writers is largely ideologically undecipherable from liberals and the Democratic Party.
Let the reader understand—this is no defense of The Donald. There are plenty of reasons for conservatives to critique our current commander-in-chief. Indeed, based on conversations with TAC writers over the years (and reading many of their articles), I perceive a broad spectrum of conservative opinions regarding Trump. Readers at TAC will find commentary on the president ranging from hopeful to annoyed to frustrated to despondent and everything in between. This is more or less the same perspective TAC had towards Bush during his presidency. Moreover, there are plenty of prominent conservative writers who periodically voice their complaints about the Trump administration without tethering their entire editorial portfolio to Trump’s Twitter feed. Ross Douthat and George Will come to mind, among others.
In obsessing over Trump, Gerson, Boot, Rubin, and Frum project a poverty of political imagination and creativity. There is little willingness to seriously grapple with the “America First,” “common-good capitalist,” pro-religious brand of conservatism found among so many of Trump’s supporters. Indeed, these columnists remain largely tone-deaf to this shift. They seem to believe that if they simply write enough op-eds arguing that America’s post-Cold War pursuit of economic and political globalism has brought millions of people out of poverty and encouraged democracy, everyone will just forget the costs of that project.
Are they unaware that millions of American voters are fed up with almost 20 years of the global war on terrorism, which wasted billions of dollars, killed thousands of Americans, and incited destructive instability in a dozen countries? Are they unaware that millions of Americans are frustrated by an economic system that seems to prioritize other nations’ citizens over its own? Are they unaware that our economic globalism has accelerated the spread of the coronavirus, and through weakening industrial capacity, enfeebled our ability to defeat it?
Are they unaware that millions of Americans care more about the opioid crisis and failing infrastructure than they do about what happens in Yemen, Syria, and Libya?
Granted, most of the crew cited above was “conservative” only when that word was unfortunately associated with an interventionist foreign policy and unfettered free trade. All the same, they still claim the conservative mantle, likely because it gives them a kind of currency among liberal mainstream media at a time when actual conservatives are no longer listening. So they write for places like the WaPo, largely ignored by conservatives and giddily exploited by the Left. They are irrelevant, interesting only as a humorous example of what happens when a person simply can’t let go. Not unlike Brian’s infatuation with Denise.


theamericanconservative--2020-04-11--With Each Crisis, POTUS Becomes More Powerful, and Partisan

This has been the pattern : the Executive assumes new power that is never fully annulled when the threat ends .
The COVID-19 crisis offers unprecedented insight into the delicate balance between free market solutions and government overreach .
We see it today in the admittedly tricky balance between personal freedom , public health and economic survival .
But the real underlying problem may be more significant than it appears .
Alexander Hamilton repeatedly warned against the reactive ingredients of populist sentiment during times of crisisand political ambition .
He said when people are in crisis , they will allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And government will gladly respond .
The problem is , government rarely contracts once the crisis is over .
Nowhere is this concern more pronounced – and more demonstrably imbalanced – than in the office of the presidency .
And it did not begin with Donald Trump .
If you sense an unsettling partisan quality to the federal government ’ s response to the current crisis ; if your mind is boggled at the gamesmanship occurring while lives and economies are at risk ; if Congress seems unusually hyperpartisan and unaccountably mired in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for resources on political grounds ; and if it all seemingly enables the president to act autonomously – even competitively , trust your senses .
And look to history to understand .
President Woodrow Wilson superseded Congress by using an Executive Order to arm U.S. merchant ships , a move that which ultimately led the U.S. into World War I .
The Great Depression and World War II , combined with a Democratic majority , enabled FDR to enact temporary programs which became the basis of today ’ s welfare state .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entitlement , today they absorb more than 60 percent of the federal budget and—many experts say—have created disincentives that actually increase dependency .
Truman sent troops to Korea without the consent of Congress and assumed control over the armed forces by establishing the Department of Defense and CIA .
In 1978 , FISA courts were created .
In 2001 , President George W. Bush , with the justification of a crisis , used them to trample personal privacy after 9/11 .
Those expanded rules are still in place today .
In his book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Stephen Knott explores the notion that George Washington ’ s nonpartisan presidency has not survived .
This may come as a surprising statement in a world accustomed to executive orders and a gridlocked Congress .
However , Knott has a basis for concluding that “ the American president was intended , at least in part , to serve as the nation ’ s chief of state , as its symbolic head , not a partisan leader.
” Hamilton and Washington embraced a similar constitutional view of government and a presidency that delivered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a president should focus on the interests of the nation—not majority-party advantage .
It is a civics debate we have pushed to the very back of the intellectual shelf .
Could it be true —that the president was never intended to be the head of a political party or ideology ?
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. popularized the concept of the “ imperial presidency ” during the Nixon administration , but it goes back much further .
And examples abound of presidential decisions seemingly justified by crisis that still impact the nation today .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the status of the American president .
“ Leader of the free world ” and “ party leader ” are both historically recent designations that have shifted the roles of Congress , the judiciary and even states under concepts of federalism .
It has contributed to a change in politics and a divisive , winner-take-all mentality .
Further , the emergence of the president as “ campaigner in chief ” virtually eliminates the ability of a president to respond in nonpartisan terms and creates a quadrennial political split in our nation that never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the need for presidential leadership in times of crisis ; it is the pattern of assumed power that is never fully annulled when the crisis ends .
It is the partisan positioning that is perceived to be embedded in every statement—every decision—by parties determined to benefit politically .
We should take a moment and recognize our vulnerabilities as citizens in times of crisis—vulnerabilities that political demagogues know how to exploit .
Further , in an election year , we should be awake to the notion that our inspired form of government may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When partisan politics eclipse the sacred obligation of those entrusted with power ; when presidents speak as the head of a party rather than the head of a nation—we no longer benefit from a Congress sworn to balance “ ambition against ambition ” via a vigorous House and a measured Senate , under the constitutional scrutiny of a dispassionate judiciary and exercising only powers that are , as per the Constitution , “ few and defined.
” Passion during a crisis is not political—it is human nature .
However , exploitation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be aware of an existing structural imbalance at the federal level that enables the leveraging of passion and avoidance of responsibility .
What is needed today are leaders committed to the principles of liberty and a version of power described in the Constitution—representatives who possess a quixotic affection for freedom and who will lead with an insistence that the people and nation come first .
Then the balance of power can be set right .
Then , and only then , would we see Congress capably resume its intended responsibilities : balance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be newly empowered to make local , independent decisions—free from the threat of political retribution .
Then , we would see a return to a more dignified office of the president , elevated to protect the unity and welfare of a nation—prioritized above party .
Editor ’ s Note : This article has been edited to reflect Wilson ’ s Executive Orders prior to the U.S. entrance into World War I .

The COVID-19 crisis offers unprecedented insight into the delicate balance between free market solutions and government overreach. We see it today in the admittedly tricky balance between personal freedom, public health and economic survival. But the real underlying problem may be more significant than it appears.
Alexander Hamilton repeatedly warned against the reactive ingredients of populist sentiment during times of crisis and political ambition. He said when people are in crisis, they will allow – perhaps demand – expanded government. And government will gladly respond.
The problem is, government rarely contracts once the crisis is over.
Nowhere is this concern more pronounced – and more demonstrably imbalanced – than in the office of the presidency. And it did not begin with Donald Trump.
If you sense an unsettling partisan quality to the federal government’s response to the current crisis; if your mind is boggled at the gamesmanship occurring while lives and economies are at risk; if Congress seems unusually hyperpartisan and unaccountably mired in turmoil while states seem to be competing for resources on political grounds; and if it all seemingly enables the president to act autonomously – even competitively, trust your senses. And look to history to understand.
President Woodrow Wilson superseded Congress by using an Executive Order to arm U.S. merchant ships, a move that which ultimately led the U.S. into World War I. The Great Depression and World War II, combined with a Democratic majority, enabled FDR to enact temporary programs which became the basis of today’s welfare state. As his programs expanded from emergency aid to entitlement, today they absorb more than 60 percent of the federal budget and—many experts say—have created disincentives that actually increase dependency.
Truman sent troops to Korea without the consent of Congress and assumed control over the armed forces by establishing the Department of Defense and CIA. In 1978, FISA courts were created. In 2001, President George W. Bush, with the justification of a crisis, used them to trample personal privacy after 9/11. Those expanded rules are still in place today.
In his book The Lost Soul of the American Presidency, Stephen Knott explores the notion that George Washington’s nonpartisan presidency has not survived. This may come as a surprising statement in a world accustomed to executive orders and a gridlocked Congress. However, Knott has a basis for concluding that “the American president was intended, at least in part, to serve as the nation’s chief of state, as its symbolic head, not a partisan leader.”
Hamilton and Washington embraced a similar constitutional view of government and a presidency that delivered stability—even calm—to the governed. They agreed that a president should focus on the interests of the nation—not majority-party advantage.
It is a civics debate we have pushed to the very back of the intellectual shelf. Could it be true —that the president was never intended to be the head of a political party or ideology?
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. popularized the concept of the “imperial presidency” during the Nixon administration, but it goes back much further. And examples abound of presidential decisions seemingly justified by crisis that still impact the nation today.
The enlargement of presidential powers has changed the status of the American president. “Leader of the free world” and “party leader” are both historically recent designations that have shifted the roles of Congress, the judiciary and even states under concepts of federalism. It has contributed to a change in politics and a divisive, winner-take-all mentality. Further, the emergence of the president as “campaigner in chief” virtually eliminates the ability of a president to respond in nonpartisan terms and creates a quadrennial political split in our nation that never seems to heal.
At issue is not the need for presidential leadership in times of crisis; it is the pattern of assumed power that is never fully annulled when the crisis ends. It is the partisan positioning that is perceived to be embedded in every statement—every decision—by parties determined to benefit politically.
We should take a moment and recognize our vulnerabilities as citizens in times of crisis—vulnerabilities that political demagogues know how to exploit. Further, in an election year, we should be awake to the notion that our inspired form of government may be fundamentally misaligned with its founding principles.
When partisan politics eclipse the sacred obligation of those entrusted with power; when presidents speak as the head of a party rather than the head of a nation—we no longer benefit from a Congress sworn to balance “ambition against ambition” via a vigorous House and a measured Senate, under the constitutional scrutiny of a dispassionate judiciary and exercising only powers that are, as per the Constitution, “few and defined.”
Passion during a crisis is not political—it is human nature. However, exploitation of a crisis is political, and we should be aware of an existing structural imbalance at the federal level that enables the leveraging of passion and avoidance of responsibility.
What is needed today are leaders committed to the principles of liberty and a version of power described in the Constitution—representatives who possess a quixotic affection for freedom and who will lead with an insistence that the people and nation come first. Then the balance of power can be set right.
Then, and only then, would we see Congress capably resume its intended responsibilities: balance and oversight. Then, states would be newly empowered to make local, independent decisions—free from the threat of political retribution. Then, we would see a return to a more dignified office of the president, elevated to protect the unity and welfare of a nation—prioritized above party.
Editor’s Note: This article has been edited to reflect Wilson’s Executive Orders prior to the U.S. entrance into World War I.
Rick B. Larsen is president of Sutherland Institute.