theamericanconservative--2020-05-13--The Absolutely Useless, Always Forgettable Secretary of State

In times of war and peace , whether it is Hillary or Mike , this is a post that wastes more time and money than it 's worth .
Saying “ Mike Pompeo ” out loud feels odd , like mouthing the name of an old girlfriend .
What ’ s Mike done lately ?
Does he have a Facebook page ?
As the Trump administration wraps up its first term focused on domestic issues , the United States has passed almost four years without much foreign policy , and thus without the need for a Secretary of State or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Google query shows “ Searches related to Mike Pompeo Achievements ” include “ Mike Pompeo weight , ” “ Mike Pompeo net worth.
” One can easily imagine Pompeo , even pre-COVID , slipping out the side door at Foggy Bottom shouting as one long syllable “ I ’ ll be working from home , check with my deputy if anything comes up ” while his wife is waiting in the car for him , Ferris Bueller-style .
We had high hopes .
Mike and John Bolton were the Bad Boys who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and North Korea , outdo Cheney and even challenge the legend , Bloody Kissinger .
Pompeo instead watched as not much happened between the U.S. and North Korea .
He watched as the ending of the Iran nuclear treaty caused not much to happen .
He watched as a standing to-do item for Secretaries , suck up to the Saudis , dropped off .
Bolton , who liberals expected to see one day in Tehran rolling a mullah ’ s bloody head around his lap , now squats unemployed by the phone hoping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intern to listen to his stories .
Prior to Pompeo , it was Rex Tillerson .
Tillerson couldn ’ t even come up with an elevator speech of his accomplishments when asked , listing as he left office North Korean sanctions which achieved nothing , alongside his own mea culpas for failing to make progress in Afghanistan and Syria and Iraq , where with a straight face he noted there was “ more to be done.
” A bit hard to blame him , as Trump chose a policy of stasis , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and forever be the man who lost Afghanistan and Syria and Iraq .
Commentators wrote Tillerson would be remembered as the worst secretary of state in history .
Wrong .
He made no significant blunders , gave away nothing .
He just didn ’ t do much at all .
His actual only real accomplishment was a humiliating apology tour of Africa , meeting with leaders on the periphery of U.S. foreign affairs grouchy over the president calling their nations sh*tholes .
It would be easy to blame Trump for everything , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions , his decrees by Twitter .
Unlike his predecessors , Trump never took advantage of his get-one-free foreign incursion along the lines of invading Grenada , occupying Lebanon , or an adventure in Somalia , never mind a big ticket item like a Mideast war or three .
Sure , Trump did bomb Syria ( who hasn ’ t ? )
and nipped at Iran , but the tumescence was over before the media could even declare the end of the world again .
One can imagine diplomatic meetings with friendly foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Anything new from your side ?
No , you ?
Something on Twitter from POTUS about Armageddon , misspelled .
Say , Crimea still giving you trouble ?
A little , whatever , you watching Tiger King ?
Pretty funny .
Quite.
” So turn the page backwards to John Kerry , Obama ’ s second term Secretary of State .
Kerry imagined himself a Kennedy-esque man of action , Flashman at the ready , and had the State Department keep an online tally of how many miles he had traveled doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ One of the Most Significant Secretaries of State in the Last 50 Years , ” heady company when you realize the list includes Acheson , Dulles , Rusk , and Kissinger .
That Nation article cites as achievements “ the military retaking of Mosul , the sponsorship of an Oceans Conference , the strengthening of the Gulf Cooperation Council ” all of which mean what in 2020 ?
Kerry also sang Happy Birthday to Vladimir Putin at an APEC conference , so there ’ s that .
Kerry ’ s signature accomplishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly .
As negotiated the thing was only for 10 years anyway , and would be about half over even if Trump had not walked away .
And that ’ s giving Kerry full marks for getting an agreement which the Iranians wanted badly enough to help their economy they were willing to trade away a lot of Wonka tickets .
Kerry ’ s work with the TPP and Paris Agreement also showed fine effort .
We ’ ll put them up on the fridge next to the one song Ringo got onto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s efforts came to little substance ( albeit often through little fault of his own ) but the legacy business is harsh .
On the other side of the scale you do also have John Kerry helping muck up Syria .
Kerry floundering in the Ukraine and Crimea .
Kerry failing to move the ball forward in Iraq , Afghanistan , North Korea , Palestine , or blunting China as it assumed a pivotal role in Asia in every way except militarily ( they ’ re working on it . )
Kerry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was leaving Democratic voters wondering whether the country dodged a bullet in 2004 when George W. Bush beat Kerry to take on a dismal second term .
But Hillary !
Never mind “ one of , ” Google chair Eric Schmidt called her “ the most significant Secretary of State since Dean Acheson ” ( suck it , Kerry . )
Secretary of State was only the first half of the prize Hillary got for clearing the way for Obama in 2008 ( Barack shooing Joe Biden aside for her in 2016 was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of it .
For herself .
Ignoring America ’ s real foreign policy needs ( or was she being ignored ? )
she turned the State Department into an arm of her Foundation , projecting “ soft power ” on things like women ’ s issues and AIDS to pair with her eventual platform , all the while generating B-roll like an ersatz Angelina Jolie .
She had the Department obsessively document her constant travels , with formal photos of Secretary Clinton alongside world leaders as well as selfies of Hil letting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was less a tenure in the same job once held by giants like Thomas Jefferson , James Madison , and Daniel Webster as it was a four-year campaign stop .
In the tally of history Hillary Clinton did… not much .
Time Magazine listed her key accomplishments as “ the liberation of Libya , establishment of diplomatic ties with Burma , and the assembly of a coalition against Iran.
” In a summary piece , USA Today singled out “ Clinton convinced Chinese leaders to free blind dissident Chen Guang Cheng @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joining an American think tank opposing abortion and gay marriage .
From the horse ’ s mouth , quoting Hillary Herself , key accomplishments were “ hosting town halls with global youth , raising awareness for religious minorities , protecting Internet freedom and advancing rights for women and the LGBT community around the world.
” Not resume items as momentous as forever changing the Cold War balance of power by opening China like Henry Kissinger or assembling the first Gulf War coalition like James Baker .
Meanwhile , the world owes Hillary for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Libya and the subsequent refugee flow , the human misery of Syria , the missed chances of the Arab Spring , and failing to end other wars she helped start or voted for .
A generation before Hillary we have Colin Powell and Condi Rice , whose only accomplishments as Secretary were to midwife marching America into the desert ( Colin ) and to march the State Department into the desert with the guaranteed-to-fail mission to create democracy in Iraq ( Condi . )
The good news is today the U.S. is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by sweating out the sins of diplomacy , but just by not going around the world throwing matches into buckets of gasoline .
Trump has made little use of his Secretaries of State and their Department .
But as we ’ ve seen , no recent president made much use of those diplomats either .
The next Secretary , whether working for Trump or Biden , will find themselves in charge of a Cabinet agency is search of a mission .
They may very well end up somewhere near the traditional ceremonial role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and funerals , or perhaps simply overseeing a network of embassies to serve as America ’ s concierge abroad , arranging official visits for fact-finding Members of Congress , and hosting Washington bureaucrats in town to play at international relations .
If the U.S. government had suddenly to downsize into a smaller capital space , the State Department would likely end up on the curb , alongside those boxes of the kids ’ elementary school drawings .
Cute , good times , but why did we keep them all these years ?
Peter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veteran , is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the # 99 Percent .

Saying “Mike Pompeo” out loud feels odd, like mouthing the name of an old girlfriend. What’s Mike done lately? Does he have a Facebook page? As the Trump administration wraps up its first term focused on domestic issues, the United States has passed almost four years without much foreign policy, and thus without the need for a Secretary of State or a department of diplomats behind him.
A Google query shows “Searches related to Mike Pompeo Achievements” include “Mike Pompeo weight,” “Mike Pompeo net worth.” One can easily imagine Pompeo, even pre-COVID, slipping out the side door at Foggy Bottom shouting as one long syllable “I’ll be working from home, check with my deputy if anything comes up” while his wife is waiting in the car for him, Ferris Bueller-style.
We had high hopes. Mike and John Bolton were the Bad Boys who were supposed to start wars with Iran and North Korea, outdo Cheney and even challenge the legend, Bloody Kissinger. Pompeo instead watched as not much happened between the U.S. and North Korea. He watched as the ending of the Iran nuclear treaty caused not much to happen. He watched as a standing to-do item for Secretaries, suck up to the Saudis, dropped off. Bolton, who liberals expected to see one day in Tehran rolling a mullah’s bloody head around his lap, now squats unemployed by the phone hoping a think tank will offer up an intern to listen to his stories.
Prior to Pompeo, it was Rex Tillerson. Tillerson couldn’t even come up with an elevator speech of his accomplishments when asked, listing as he left office North Korean sanctions which achieved nothing, alongside his own mea culpas for failing to make progress in Afghanistan and Syria and Iraq, where with a straight face he noted there was “more to be done.” A bit hard to blame him, as Trump chose a policy of stasis, not wanting to withdraw the last trooper anywhere and forever be the man who lost Afghanistan and Syria and Iraq.
Commentators wrote Tillerson would be remembered as the worst secretary of state in history. Wrong. He made no significant blunders, gave away nothing. He just didn’t do much at all. His actual only real accomplishment was a humiliating apology tour of Africa, meeting with leaders on the periphery of U.S. foreign affairs grouchy over the president calling their nations sh*tholes.
It would be easy to blame Trump for everything, with his open mic night style of making decisions, his decrees by Twitter. Unlike his predecessors, Trump never took advantage of his get-one-free foreign incursion along the lines of invading Grenada, occupying Lebanon, or an adventure in Somalia, never mind a big ticket item like a Mideast war or three. Sure, Trump did bomb Syria (who hasn’t?) and nipped at Iran, but the tumescence was over before the media could even declare the end of the world again.
One can imagine diplomatic meetings with friendly foreign nations in the Age of Trump: “Anything new from your side? No, you? Something on Twitter from POTUS about Armageddon, misspelled. Say, Crimea still giving you trouble? A little, whatever, you watching Tiger King? Pretty funny. Quite.”
So turn the page backwards to John Kerry, Obama’s second term Secretary of State. Kerry imagined himself a Kennedy-esque man of action, Flashman at the ready, and had the State Department keep an online tally of how many miles he had traveled doing studly diplomatic stuff. The Nation called him “One of the Most Significant Secretaries of State in the Last 50 Years,” heady company when you realize the list includes Acheson, Dulles, Rusk, and Kissinger.
That Nation article cites as achievements “the military retaking of Mosul, the sponsorship of an Oceans Conference, the strengthening of the Gulf Cooperation Council” all of which mean what in 2020? Kerry also sang Happy Birthday to Vladimir Putin at an APEC conference, so there’s that.
Kerry’s signature accomplishment, the Iran Nuclear Agreement, faded quickly. As negotiated the thing was only for 10 years anyway, and would be about half over even if Trump had not walked away. And that’s giving Kerry full marks for getting an agreement which the Iranians wanted badly enough to help their economy they were willing to trade away a lot of Wonka tickets. Kerry’s work with the TPP and Paris Agreement also showed fine effort. We’ll put them up on the fridge next to the one song Ringo got onto each Beatles album. Most of Kerry’s efforts came to little substance (albeit often through little fault of his own) but the legacy business is harsh.
On the other side of the scale you do also have John Kerry helping muck up Syria. Kerry floundering in the Ukraine and Crimea. Kerry failing to move the ball forward in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Palestine, or blunting China as it assumed a pivotal role in Asia in every way except militarily (they’re working on it.) Kerry’s actual most significant real achievement was leaving Democratic voters wondering whether the country dodged a bullet in 2004 when George W. Bush beat Kerry to take on a dismal second term.
But Hillary! Never mind “one of,” Google chair Eric Schmidt called her “the most significant Secretary of State since Dean Acheson” (suck it, Kerry.) Secretary of State was only the first half of the prize Hillary got for clearing the way for Obama in 2008 (Barack shooing Joe Biden aside for her in 2016 was the second) and Clinton made the most of it. For herself.
Ignoring America’s real foreign policy needs (or was she being ignored?) she turned the State Department into an arm of her Foundation, projecting “soft power” on things like women’s issues and AIDS to pair with her eventual platform, all the while generating B-roll like an ersatz Angelina Jolie. She had the Department obsessively document her constant travels, with formal photos of Secretary Clinton alongside world leaders as well as selfies of Hil letting her hair down among her own diplomats. It was less a tenure in the same job once held by giants like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Daniel Webster as it was a four-year campaign stop.
In the tally of history Hillary Clinton did… not much. Time Magazine listed her key accomplishments as “the liberation of Libya, establishment of diplomatic ties with Burma, and the assembly of a coalition against Iran.” In a summary piece, USA Today singled out “Clinton convinced Chinese leaders to free blind dissident Chen Guang Cheng,” who returned the favor by joining an American think tank opposing abortion and gay marriage.
From the horse’s mouth, quoting Hillary Herself, key accomplishments were “hosting town halls with global youth, raising awareness for religious minorities, protecting Internet freedom and advancing rights for women and the LGBT community around the world.” Not resume items as momentous as forever changing the Cold War balance of power by opening China like Henry Kissinger or assembling the first Gulf War coalition like James Baker. Meanwhile, the world owes Hillary for her significant contributions to the failed state of Libya and the subsequent refugee flow, the human misery of Syria, the missed chances of the Arab Spring, and failing to end other wars she helped start or voted for.
A generation before Hillary we have Colin Powell and Condi Rice, whose only accomplishments as Secretary were to midwife marching America into the desert (Colin) and to march the State Department into the desert with the guaranteed-to-fail mission to create democracy in Iraq (Condi.)
The good news is today the U.S. is experiencing a peace of a sorts not by sweating out the sins of diplomacy, but just by not going around the world throwing matches into buckets of gasoline. Trump has made little use of his Secretaries of State and their Department. But as we’ve seen, no recent president made much use of those diplomats either.
The next Secretary, whether working for Trump or Biden, will find themselves in charge of a Cabinet agency is search of a mission. They may very well end up somewhere near the traditional ceremonial role of the Vice President, attending conferences and funerals, or perhaps simply overseeing a network of embassies to serve as America’s concierge abroad, arranging official visits for fact-finding Members of Congress, and hosting Washington bureaucrats in town to play at international relations.
If the U.S. government had suddenly to downsize into a smaller capital space, the State Department would likely end up on the curb, alongside those boxes of the kids’ elementary school drawings. Cute, good times, but why did we keep them all these years?
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People,Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-05-13--The Chilling Return of ‘Papers Please’

The Chilling Return of ‘Papers Please’

The coronavirus lockdown drags on , yet only a few fringe fanatics ( and France , but I repeat myself ) support continuing complete shutdowns of the world ’ s economies .
However , even those countries that have opted to end forced quarantines still present a range of worrying responses .
One of these ongoing debates surrounds the so-called “ Corona apps , ” with which authorities intend to track and trace the movements of their own citizens .
In Poland , the government is mandating that those infected with COVID-19 install an app and use it to send @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If they do not comply , they face a visit from the law enforcement .
The nightmarish infringements on civil liberties are set to continue with “ immunity passports.
” The German Robert Koch Institute , along with other researchers and blood donation services , is working on a large-scale study to establish immunity in COVID-19 patients .
Those found to have built immunity , either because they ’ ve already had the disease or through antibody testing , could be issued paperwork that exempts them from lockdown restrictions .
CNN ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convinced by the concept , and quotes a noted beacon of human freedom to back it up : “ In China , for example , QR codes have been used to loosen restrictions in Wuhan , where the pandemic originated .
People assessed to be healthy have been given a green QR code , indicating they can travel within the province.
” From a law enforcement level , the existence of immunity passports would extend indefinitely the practice of questioning citizens without reasonable suspicion at any time .
“ Papers please ” wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is crossing a border , but merely because one is outside .
If you were worried about rogue police abusing power before , wait until stop and frisk becomes the norm all across the United States , at any time of the day .
In the United Kingdom , Professor Peter Openshaw , a member of the government ’ s new and emerging respiratory virus threats advisory group , told The Guardian that “ people granted the passports would have to be kept under close observation to ensure they were not becoming reinfected.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to daily identification checkpoints and mandatory home visits .
Any pretense of individual liberty and fundamental rights would go out the window .
But beyond that , on a more practical level , the measure would be inoperable .
In a scientific brief published at the end of April , the World Health Organization ( WHO ) —known to be warm on authoritarian measures such as those used by China—preliminarily rejected the idea of these passports .
Current antibody tests , the WHO warned , could confuse immunity with one of the six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the common cold .
The WHO also noted that such paperwork would give citizens the impression that they do not need to abide by social distancing guidelines , giving them a false sense of security .
Professor Openshaw adds that immunity passports would incentivize people to try and deliberately catch coronavirus , which could end up overwhelming the health sector , exactly the scenario that the lockdowns are meant to prevent .
There ’ s also a massive opportunity for crime under such a proposal .
In 2015 , 50 million travel documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2014 , the UK recorded a five-year high of counterfeit passport seizures .
Fake passports fuel organized crime and have long been available on the black market .
Immunity passports would be far more valuable , since they would grant not just the ability to go to other countries , but other basic freedoms of movement , going into shops or meeting friends .
The idea that people would pay a pretty price for their freedom would be an understatement .
In turn , the government could only react to such a flood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , casting us into yet another spiral of increasing state control .
There is no instance in which the systematic control of citizens has not ended in police abuse , or plain and simple authoritarianism .
There is a genuine fear about the coronavirus .
That said , we can not allow such fear to rid us completely of our fundamental rights .
States of emergency were and are designed to be temporary , and in that , to be short .
If the debate is over whether to radically overturn the Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then let us have that debate .
Let us talk about rewriting the rules , instead of just plain ignoring them .
Bill Wirtz comments on European politics and policy in English , French , and German .
His work has appeared in Newsweek , the Washington Examiner , CityAM , Le Monde , Le Figaro , and Die Welt .

The coronavirus lockdown drags on, yet only a few fringe fanatics (and France, but I repeat myself) support continuing complete shutdowns of the world’s economies. However, even those countries that have opted to end forced quarantines still present a range of worrying responses. One of these ongoing debates surrounds the so-called “Corona apps,” with which authorities intend to track and trace the movements of their own citizens. In Poland, the government is mandating that those infected with COVID-19 install an app and use it to send a selfie on a regular basis. If they do not comply, they face a visit from the law enforcement.
The nightmarish infringements on civil liberties are set to continue with “immunity passports.” The German Robert Koch Institute, along with other researchers and blood donation services, is working on a large-scale study to establish immunity in COVID-19 patients. Those found to have built immunity, either because they’ve already had the disease or through antibody testing, could be issued paperwork that exempts them from lockdown restrictions.
CNN’s medical analyst Saju Mathew counts himself as convinced by the concept, and quotes a noted beacon of human freedom to back it up: “In China, for example, QR codes have been used to loosen restrictions in Wuhan, where the pandemic originated. People assessed to be healthy have been given a green QR code, indicating they can travel within the province.”
From a law enforcement level, the existence of immunity passports would extend indefinitely the practice of questioning citizens without reasonable suspicion at any time. “Papers please” wouldn’t be experienced only because one is crossing a border, but merely because one is outside. If you were worried about rogue police abusing power before, wait until stop and frisk becomes the norm all across the United States, at any time of the day.
In the United Kingdom, Professor Peter Openshaw, a member of the government’s new and emerging respiratory virus threats advisory group, told The Guardian that “people granted the passports would have to be kept under close observation to ensure they were not becoming reinfected.” In practice, this would amount to daily identification checkpoints and mandatory home visits. Any pretense of individual liberty and fundamental rights would go out the window.
But beyond that, on a more practical level, the measure would be inoperable. In a scientific brief published at the end of April, the World Health Organization (WHO)—known to be warm on authoritarian measures such as those used by China—preliminarily rejected the idea of these passports. Current antibody tests, the WHO warned, could confuse immunity with one of the six existing coronaviruses, four of which cause the common cold. The WHO also noted that such paperwork would give citizens the impression that they do not need to abide by social distancing guidelines, giving them a false sense of security. Professor Openshaw adds that immunity passports would incentivize people to try and deliberately catch coronavirus, which could end up overwhelming the health sector, exactly the scenario that the lockdowns are meant to prevent.
There’s also a massive opportunity for crime under such a proposal. In 2015, 50 million travel documents were either lost or stolen. In 2014, the UK recorded a five-year high of counterfeit passport seizures. Fake passports fuel organized crime and have long been available on the black market. Immunity passports would be far more valuable, since they would grant not just the ability to go to other countries, but other basic freedoms of movement, going into shops or meeting friends. The idea that people would pay a pretty price for their freedom would be an understatement. In turn, the government could only react to such a flood of false documentation by becoming more authoritarian, casting us into yet another spiral of increasing state control.
There is no instance in which the systematic control of citizens has not ended in police abuse, or plain and simple authoritarianism. There is a genuine fear about the coronavirus. That said, we cannot allow such fear to rid us completely of our fundamental rights. States of emergency were and are designed to be temporary, and in that, to be short.
If the debate is over whether to radically overturn the Bill of Rights and human rights conventions, then let us have that debate. Let us talk about rewriting the rules, instead of just plain ignoring them.
Bill Wirtz comments on European politics and policy in English, French, and German. His work has appeared in Newsweek, the Washington Examiner, CityAM, Le Monde, Le Figaro, and Die Welt.


theamericanconservative--2020-05-16--Architects of American Carnage

Architects of American Carnage

The banner of principled conservatism is now being carried by the architects of American carnage .
By “ principled conservatives ” all they mean is that they are conservatives who oppose the Republican president .
If they have principles—foreign policy interventionism and neoliberal economics—they are bad ones .
After The Weekly Standard closed its doors , Bill Kristol and his gang moved on to start new web publications like The Bulwark and The Dispatch .
From their new perches , they attempt to police the boundaries of allowable opinion in American politics .
We should not let them .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neoconservatives turned Never-Trumpers are very nice people .
I ’ ve known many of them for years .
They are serious about their faith , family , and country , and treat others with respect .
But politics isn ’ t about being nice , it ’ s about the real impact of policy on people ’ s lives—both at home and abroad .
By any measurable standard , their careers are failures .
Their policies have killed , yes , literally killed , hundreds of thousands , and they should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play the part of moral traffic cop came last week when the Bulwark published a hit piece on Rusty Reno & First Things .
The catalyst for the article was a series of tweets that Rusty published on Twitter about how people who wear masks are cowards .
He made a mistake , and I myself told Rusty he came off like an ass , even though many conservatives actually agree with his broader point about the culture of fear that is developing around the virus .
But as The Bulwark acknowledged , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s tweets .
Rusty ’ s tweets were simply an excuse to take a scalp .
Their real contention is that Rusty has soiled First Things by embracing “ Trumpism.
” In other words , Rusty is the latest victim of TDS , Trump Derangement Syndrome .
Look , I don ’ t agree with everything Trump says or tweets .
No one does !
He says a lot of crazy shit , much of it ’ s true .
But the cure can ’ t be worse than the disease , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not talking about the pandemic , but about those who lose their minds in response to passing comments on Twitter .
Yes , we all have a moral responsibility to “ tame the tongue.
” It is , as St. James put it , “ …a restless evil .
Full of deadly poison.
” But after dustups like these , critics at The Bulwark have a way of making themselves look like the ones who need to go to the corner for a time out .
SAD !
What exactly is this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Their chief exemplar is the “ Against the Dead Consensus ” manifesto that First Thingspublished in March of 2019 .
In it , the signatories , make their case for , GASP , “ common good conservatism , ” which defenders of warmed over Reagansim describe as “ ill thought out—little more than inchoate mush.
” The mushy highlights ?
• “ We want a country that works for workers.
” Man the ramparts .
Lock the doors .
Here comes the BAD ORANGE MAN with his “ infected ” magazine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ thief in the night !
Let ’ s be honest .
The manifesto is nothing more than Catholic Social Teaching with a populist veneer .
It ’ s goal is to push conservatism in a “ pro-worker , pro-family ” direction .
After decades of conservatives sucking up to the Military Industrial Complex and Big Business , this is a breath of fresh air .
But not if you ’ re an editor at The Bulwark .
Why is that ?
Because they can not stand the thought that neoconservative ideology has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American people .
They miss patting themselves on the back in the Rose Garden on sunny afternoons while the Christian population of Iraq was being decimated , collapsing by over 1 million people , since the beginning of the war .
They long for the days when they can be back in power—preferably in a Joe Biden administration—to lecture purportedly “ backwards ” Arabs on how to practice gratitude .
As Kristol ’ s former colleague , Fred Barnes once put it , “ I ’ d like to see one other thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the greatest act of benevolence one country has ever done for another .
A grateful Iraqi heart would be a sign of a new Iraqi attitude and a signal of sure success.
” Behold the power of positivity !
With a little bit of elbow grease and a “ can-do ” attitude , there will be a thousand George Washingtons blooming in every corner of the Fertile Crescent .
As their fearless leader once said in his second inaugural : “ I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen with our eyes .
Today , Bush is a nice old man who passes out candy and paints pictures .
But his presidency was an unequivocal catastrophe .
Trump was right , “ The worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country : going into the Middle East , by President Bush.
” That ’ s why Trump is president and the Bush-era neocons have been sidelined .
If that was the price for exorcising the idealistic infection of Bushism , then so be it .
Two years later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Washington Post , “ The Weekly Standard is gone .
But the future of conservatism is bright .
”

The banner of principled conservatism is now being carried by the architects of American carnage. By “principled conservatives” all they mean is that they are conservatives who oppose the Republican president. If they have principles—foreign policy interventionism and neoliberal economics—they are bad ones. After The Weekly Standard closed its doors, Bill Kristol and his gang moved on to start new web publications like The Bulwark and The Dispatch. From their new perches, they attempt to police the boundaries of allowable opinion in American politics. We should not let them.
On a personal level, most of these neoconservatives turned Never-Trumpers are very nice people. I’ve known many of them for years. They are serious about their faith, family, and country, and treat others with respect. But politics isn’t about being nice, it’s about the real impact of policy on people’s lives—both at home and abroad. By any measurable standard, their careers are failures. Their policies have killed, yes, literally killed, hundreds of thousands, and they should not be taken seriously.
Their latest attempt to play the part of moral traffic cop came last week when The Bulwark published a hit piece on Rusty Reno & First Things. The catalyst for the article was a series of tweets that Rusty published on Twitter about how people who wear masks are cowards. He made a mistake, and I myself told Rusty he came off like an ass, even though many conservatives actually agree with his broader point about the culture of fear that is developing around the virus. But as The Bulwark acknowledged, their story was not actually about Rusty’s tweets. Rusty’s tweets were simply an excuse to take a scalp. Their real contention is that Rusty has soiled First Things by embracing “Trumpism.” In other words, Rusty is the latest victim of TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Look, I don’t agree with everything Trump says or tweets. No one does! He says a lot of crazy stuff, much of it’s true. But the cure can’t be worse than the disease, as people say. And I’m not talking about the pandemic, but about those who lose their minds in response to passing comments on Twitter. Yes, we all have a moral responsibility to “tame the tongue.” It is, as St. James put it, “…a restless evil. Full of deadly poison.” But after dustups like these, critics at The Bulwark have a way of making themselves look like the ones who need to go to the corner for a time out. SAD!
What exactly is this “Trumpism” that The Bulwark decries? Their chief exemplar is the “Against the Dead Consensus” manifesto that First Things published in March of 2019. In it, the signatories, make their case for, GASP, “common good conservatism,” which defenders of warmed over Reagansim describe as “ill thought out—little more than inchoate mush.” The mushy highlights?
“We oppose the soulless society of individual affluence.”
“We stand with the American citizen.”
“We reject attempts to compromise on human dignity.”
“We resist a tyrannical liberalism.”
“We want a country that works for workers.”
“We believe home matters.”
Man the ramparts. Lock the doors. Here comes the BAD ORANGE MAN with his “infected” magazine. Be watchful, Trumpism comes like a thief in the night!
Let’s be honest. The manifesto is nothing more than Catholic Social Teaching with a populist veneer. It’s goal is to push conservatism in a “pro-worker, pro-family” direction. After decades of conservatives sucking up to the Military Industrial Complex and Big Business, this is a breath of fresh air. But not if you’re an editor at The Bulwark.
Why is that? Because they cannot stand the thought that neoconservative ideology has been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the American people. They miss patting themselves on the back in the Rose Garden on sunny afternoons while the Christian population of Iraq was being decimated, collapsing by over 1 million people, since the beginning of the war. They long for the days when they can be back in power—preferably in a Joe Biden administration—to lecture purportedly “backwards” Arabs on how to practice gratitude. As Kristol’s former colleague, Fred Barnes once put it, “I’d like to see one other thing in Iraq, an outbreak of gratitude for the greatest act of benevolence one country has ever done for another. A grateful Iraqi heart would be a sign of a new Iraqi attitude and a signal of sure success.”
Behold the power of positivity! With a little bit of elbow grease and a “can-do” attitude, there will be a thousand George Washingtons blooming in every corner of the Fertile Crescent.
As their fearless leader once said in his second inaugural: “I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes.”
Well, we’ve seen with our eyes. Today, Bush is a nice old man who passes out candy and paints pictures. But his presidency was an unequivocal catastrophe. Trump was right, “The worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country: going into the Middle East, by President Bush.”
That’s why Trump is president and the Bush-era neocons have been sidelined. If that was the price for exorcising the idealistic infection of Bushism, then so be it. Two years later, I stand by my obituary in the Washington Post, “The Weekly Standard is gone. But the future of conservatism is bright.”


theamericanconservative--2020-05-18--When COVID Hot Takes Are All About the Victim Class

The coronavirus has exacted a terrible toll on human life .
Our response , effectively shutting down all financial activity , has had a devastating impact on the livelihoods of many .
The scale of the medical and economic problems the world is currently facing should have put paid to identity politics once and for all .
The insidious claims that skin color , gender , and sexuality determine everything about a person should have withered away .
Sadly , this is not the case .
For some , the coronavirus has provided the perfect opportunity to ramp up their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us of facts that , pre-coronavirus , some in the West preferred to wish away .
We have been reminded that biology—our bodies—are real living organisms , not simply social constructs .
Nature is not just green and pleasant—it also throws up lethal viruses .
We will be depending upon scientists , not gender studies professors , to come up with a cure or a vaccine .
Not everyone can work from home ; right now we depend upon not just health care professionals but also shelf-stackers , farm laborers , delivery drivers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crafting may be fun for a financially secure few but they won ’ t sustain a national economy .
There is much we still do not know about the coronavirus .
But we do know that it impacts males and females differently ; in every age group , almost twice as many men as women have died from COVID-19 .
Despite what the transgender ideologues have led us to believe , it turns out that sex is real .
Chromosomes and hormones not only exist but have a real impact on our bodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall ill and to die but feminist hot takes on the coronavirus are , of course , all about women .
Apparently , national success in tackling the pandemic boils down to one key factor : having a female leader .
Whether it ’ s Germany ’ s Angela Merkel , New Zealand ’ s Jacinda Ardern , or Finland ’ s Sanna Marin , leaders , it seems , don ’ t need experience or strength of character so much as they need vaginas .
Of course , we hear far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for women , who are now burdened with extra housework , child care , and homeschooling .
Having everyone at home all day , every day , certainly increases the domestic load , but there is no instruction manual dictating how this extra work should be distributed .
With more time spent at home , campaigners have warned of an increase in domestic violence .
Bizarrely , in the UK , the same papers and commentators that had been most vocal in calling for the government to introduce the lockdown measures that severely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ) freedom were also quickest to spread panic about domestic violence .
At present , reports of an increase in domestic abuse are often just anecdotal .
More people seem to be calling helplines and visiting websites but this does not tell us whether there has been an increase in crime rates or greater awareness as a result of increased publicity of the services on offer .
But it ’ s not just women we are asked to pity .
There have been warnings that transgender people are especially vulnerable as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are more likely to succumb to illness than others , but because gender reassignment surgeries have been delayed and some are struggling to get hormone therapies and access counseling services .
We have also been asked to view the coronavirus through the prism of race .
In the UK , black people are more than four times as likely to die from COVID-19 than white people .
When age , self-reported health and disability , and other socio-demographic characteristics are taken into account , black people are still almost twice as likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus .
It is vitally important that we find out why this is the case .
One possible explanation may be that blacks and ethnic minorities are more likely to work in front-line services that bring them into close contact with the general public .
There may also be genetic explanations .
We know that some diseases , such as sickle cell anemia , occur in some ethnic groups more than others .
But the emerging identity-driven narrative rules out any serious investigations .
Instead it offers only one simple and pre-determined explanation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deputy director of a UK race equality think tank , argues , “ We can not ignore how important racial discrimination and racial inequalities , for example , in housing , are , even among poorer socio-economic groups.
” The British author Afua Hirsch decries “ a colonial mindset ” that she finds “ at work in much of the coronavirus response.
” The UK government has launched an inquiry into racial disparities in coronavirus deaths .
But leading commentators have already warned the committee not to “ overplay cultural and genetic factors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variance in death rates.
” These people have decided that an inquiry is unnecessary : they already seem to know that racist intensive care doctors are providing second-rate treatment to black patients .
How insulting .
From the very start of the pandemic , far too many politicians , media commentators , and celebrities found not a medical emergency but an opportunity to promote their view of the world .
And there are certainly criticisms to be made over how most countries have responded to the pandemic .
But at this point in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is irrelevant .
Far worse , it could be detrimental to the search for a cure or a vaccine .

The coronavirus has exacted a terrible toll on human life. Our response, effectively shutting down all financial activity, has had a devastating impact on the livelihoods of many. The scale of the medical and economic problems the world is currently facing should have put paid to identity politics once and for all. The insidious claims that skin color, gender, and sexuality determine everything about a person should have withered away. Sadly, this is not the case. For some, the coronavirus has provided the perfect opportunity to ramp up their identity-obsessed battles.
The global pandemic reminds us of facts that, pre-coronavirus, some in the West preferred to wish away. We have been reminded that biology—our bodies—are real living organisms, not simply social constructs. Nature is not just green and pleasant—it also throws up lethal viruses. We will be depending upon scientists, not gender studies professors, to come up with a cure or a vaccine. Not everyone can work from home; right now we depend upon not just health care professionals but also shelf-stackers, farm laborers, delivery drivers, and refuse collectors. Bread-baking and crafting may be fun for a financially secure few but they won’t sustain a national economy.
There is much we still do not know about the coronavirus. But we do know that it impacts males and females differently; in every age group, almost twice as many men as women have died from COVID-19. Despite what the transgender ideologues have led us to believe, it turns out that sex is real. Chromosomes and hormones not only exist but have a real impact on our bodies.
Men may be more likely to fall ill and to die but feminist hot takes on the coronavirus are, of course, all about women. Apparently, national success in tackling the pandemic boils down to one key factor: having a female leader. Whether it’s Germany’s Angela Merkel, New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern, or Finland’s Sanna Marin, leaders, it seems, don’t need experience or strength of character so much as they need vaginas.
Of course, we hear far more often about how the coronavirus is terrible for women, who are now burdened with extra housework, child care, and homeschooling. Having everyone at home all day, every day, certainly increases the domestic load, but there is no instruction manual dictating how this extra work should be distributed.
With more time spent at home, campaigners have warned of an increase in domestic violence. Bizarrely, in the UK, the same papers and commentators that had been most vocal in calling for the government to introduce the lockdown measures that severely curtailed women’s (and men’s) freedom were also quickest to spread panic about domestic violence. At present, reports of an increase in domestic abuse are often just anecdotal. More people seem to be calling helplines and visiting websites but this does not tell us whether there has been an increase in crime rates or greater awareness as a result of increased publicity of the services on offer.
But it’s not just women we are asked to pity. There have been warnings that transgender people are especially vulnerable as a result of the coronavirus emergency—not because they are more likely to succumb to illness than others, but because gender reassignment surgeries have been delayed and some are struggling to get hormone therapies and access counseling services.
We have also been asked to view the coronavirus through the prism of race. In the UK, black people are more than four times as likely to die from COVID-19 than white people. When age, self-reported health and disability, and other socio-demographic characteristics are taken into account, black people are still almost twice as likely as white people to die from the coronavirus. It is vitally important that we find out why this is the case. One possible explanation may be that blacks and ethnic minorities are more likely to work in front-line services that bring them into close contact with the general public. There may also be genetic explanations. We know that some diseases, such as sickle cell anemia, occur in some ethnic groups more than others.
But the emerging identity-driven narrative rules out any serious investigations. Instead it offers only one simple and pre-determined explanation: racism. Zubaida Haque, the deputy director of a UK race equality think tank, argues, “We cannot ignore how important racial discrimination and racial inequalities, for example, in housing, are, even among poorer socio-economic groups.” The British author Afua Hirsch decries “a colonial mindset” that she finds “at work in much of the coronavirus response.”
The UK government has launched an inquiry into racial disparities in coronavirus deaths. But leading commentators have already warned the committee not to “overplay cultural and genetic factors, and claim this explains the ethnic variance in death rates.” These people have decided that an inquiry is unnecessary: they already seem to know that racist intensive care doctors are providing second-rate treatment to black patients. How insulting.
From the very start of the pandemic, far too many politicians, media commentators, and celebrities found not a medical emergency but an opportunity to promote their view of the world. And there are certainly criticisms to be made over how most countries have responded to the pandemic. But at this point in time, partisan, identity-driven point scoring is irrelevant. Far worse, it could be detrimental to the search for a cure or a vaccine.
Joanna Williams in the director of the UK based think tank Cieo.


theamericanconservative--2020-05-18--Time to Break up the FBI?

Time to Break up the FBI?

Former FBI Director James Comey speaks at Harvard Kennedy School on February 24 , 2020 in Boston , Massachusetts .
( Photo by Paul Marotta/Getty Images ) Fittingly , the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) was founded by a grandnephew of Napoleon Bonaparte , Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte , during the Progressive Era .
Bonaparte was a Harvard-educated crusader .
As the FBI ’ s official history states , “ Many progressives , including ( Teddy ) Roosevelt , believed that the federal government ’ s guiding hand was necessary to foster justice in an industrial society.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ malleable document , a take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing .
The FBI inherited that mindset of civil liberties being optional .
In their early years , with the passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I , the FBI came into its own by launching a massive domestic surveillance campaign and prosecuting war dissenters .
Thousands of Americans were arrested , prosecuted , and jailed simply for voicing opposition .
One could write a long history of FBI abuses and failures , from Latin America to Martin Luther King to Japanese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their more recent cases .
The FBI needlessly killed women and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge .
Anyone who has lived anywhere near Boston knows of the Bureau ’ s staggering corruption during gangster Whitey Bulger ’ s reign of terror .
The abuses in Boston were so terrific that radio host Howie Carr declared that the FBI initials really stood for “ Famous But Incompetent.
” And then there ’ s Richard Jewell , the hero security guard who was almost railroaded by zealous FBI agents looking for a scalp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorist bombing .
But it was 9/11 that really sealed the FBI ’ s ignominious track record .
The lavishly funded agency charged with preventing terrorism somehow missed the attacks , despite their awareness of numerous Saudi nationals taking flying lessons around the country .
Immediately after 9/11 , the nation was gripped by the anthrax scare , and once again the FBI ’ s inability to solve the case caused them to try to railroad an innocent man , Stephen Hatfill .
With 9/11 , the FBI also began targeting troubled Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , and then holding a press conference to tell the country that they had prevented a major terrorist attack—a fake attack that they themselves had planned .
9/11 also opened the floodgates to domestic surveillance and all the FISA abuses that most recently led to the prosecution of Michael Flynn .
I am no fan of Flynn and his hawkish anti-Islamic views , but the way he was framed and then prosecuted really does shock the conscience .
After Jewell , Hatfill , Flynn , and so many others , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the FBI has become similar to that of Stalin ’ s secret police , i.e .
“ show me the man and I ’ ll show you the crime.
” I am no anti-law enforcement libertarian .
In a previous career , I had the privilege to work with agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration ( DEA ) and they were some of the bravest people I have ever met .
And while the DEA can be overly aggressive ( just ask anyone who has been subjected to federal asset forfeiture ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would plot a coup d ’ état against the president of the United States .
The DEA sees their job as catching drug criminals ; they stay in their lane .
For the FBI , merely catching bad guys is too mundane .
As one can tell from the sanctimonious James Comey , the culture at the Bureau holds grander aspirations .
Comey ’ s book is titled A Higher Loyalty , as if the FBI reports only to the Almighty .
They see themselves as progressive guardians of the American Way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in danger .
No healthy republic should have a national police force with this kind of culture .
There are no doubt many brave and patriotic FBI agents , but there is also no doubt they have been very badly led .
This savior complex led them to aggressively pursue the Russiagate hoax .
Their chasing of ghosts should make it clear that the FBI does not stay in their lane .
While the nation ’ s elite colleges and tech companies are crawling with Chinese spies who are literally stealing our best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Counterintelligence Section , Peter Strzok , spent his days trying to frame junior aides in the Trump campaign .
Some conservatives have called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to be fired .
This would accomplish nothing , as the problem is not one man but an entire culture .
One possible solution is to break up the FBI into four or five agencies , with one responsible for counterintelligence , one for counterterrorism , one for complex white-collar crime , one for cybercrimes , and so on .
Smaller agencies with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as national saviors and could be held accountable for their effectiveness at very specific jobs .
It would also allow federal agents to develop genuine expertise rather than , as the FBI regularly does , shifting agents constantly from terrorism cases to the war on drugs to cybercrime to whatever the political class ’ s latest crime du jour might be .
Such a reform would not end every abuse of federal law enforcement , and all these agencies would need to be kept on a short leash for the sake of civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diminish the ostentatious pretension of the current FBI that they are the existential guardians of the republic .
In a republic , the people and their elected leaders are the protectors of their liberties .
No one else .
William S. Smith is senior research fellow and managing director at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America .
His new book is Democracy and Imperialism : Irving Babbitt and Warlike Democracies ( 2019 ) .

Fittingly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was founded by a grandnephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte, during the Progressive Era. Bonaparte was a Harvard-educated crusader. As the FBI’s official history states, “Many progressives, including (Teddy) Roosevelt, believed that the federal government’s guiding hand was necessary to foster justice in an industrial society.”
Progressives viewed the Constitution as a malleable document, a take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing. The FBI inherited that mindset of civil liberties being optional. In their early years, with the passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I, the FBI came into its own by launching a massive domestic surveillance campaign and prosecuting war dissenters. Thousands of Americans were arrested, prosecuted, and jailed simply for voicing opposition.
One could write a long history of FBI abuses and failures, from Latin America to Martin Luther King to Japanese internment. But just consider a handful of their more recent cases. The FBI needlessly killed women and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Anyone who has lived anywhere near Boston knows of the Bureau’s staggering corruption during gangster Whitey Bulger’s reign of terror. The abuses in Boston were so terrific that radio host Howie Carr declared that the FBI initials really stood for “Famous But Incompetent.” And then there’s Richard Jewell, the hero security guard who was almost railroaded by zealous FBI agents looking for a scalp after they failed to solve the Atlanta terrorist bombing.
But it was 9/11 that really sealed the FBI’s ignominious track record. The lavishly funded agency charged with preventing terrorism somehow missed the attacks, despite their awareness of numerous Saudi nationals taking flying lessons around the country. Immediately after 9/11, the nation was gripped by the anthrax scare, and once again the FBI’s inability to solve the case caused them to try to railroad an innocent man, Stephen Hatfill.
With 9/11, the FBI also began targeting troubled Americans by handing them bomb materials, arresting them, and then holding a press conference to tell the country that they had prevented a major terrorist attack—a fake attack that they themselves had planned.
9/11 also opened the floodgates to domestic surveillance and all the FISA abuses that most recently led to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I am no fan of Flynn and his hawkish anti-Islamic views, but the way he was framed and then prosecuted really does shock the conscience. After Jewell, Hatfill, Flynn, and so many others, it’s time to ask whether the culture of the FBI has become similar to that of Stalin’s secret police, i.e. “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
I am no anti-law enforcement libertarian. In a previous career, I had the privilege to work with agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and they were some of the bravest people I have ever met. And while the DEA can be overly aggressive (just ask anyone who has been subjected to federal asset forfeiture), it is inconceivable that its agents would plot a coup d’état against the president of the United States. The DEA sees their job as catching drug criminals; they stay in their lane.
For the FBI, merely catching bad guys is too mundane. As one can tell from the sanctimonious James Comey, the culture at the Bureau holds grander aspirations. Comey’s book is titled A Higher Loyalty, as if the FBI reports only to the Almighty. They see themselves as progressive guardians of the American Way, intervening whenever and wherever they see democracy in danger. No healthy republic should have a national police force with this kind of culture. There are no doubt many brave and patriotic FBI agents, but there is also no doubt they have been very badly led.
This savior complex led them to aggressively pursue the Russiagate hoax. Their chasing of ghosts should make it clear that the FBI does not stay in their lane. While the nation’s elite colleges and tech companies are crawling with Chinese spies who are literally stealing our best ideas, the chief of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Section, Peter Strzok, spent his days trying to frame junior aides in the Trump campaign.
Some conservatives have called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to be fired. This would accomplish nothing, as the problem is not one man but an entire culture. One possible solution is to break up the FBI into four or five agencies, with one responsible for counterintelligence, one for counterterrorism, one for complex white-collar crime, one for cybercrimes, and so on. Smaller agencies with more distinctive missions would not see themselves as national saviors and could be held accountable for their effectiveness at very specific jobs. It would also allow federal agents to develop genuine expertise rather than, as the FBI regularly does, shifting agents constantly from terrorism cases to the war on drugs to cybercrime to whatever the political class’s latest crime du jour might be.
Such a reform would not end every abuse of federal law enforcement, and all these agencies would need to be kept on a short leash for the sake of civil liberties. It would, however, diminish the ostentatious pretension of the current FBI that they are the existential guardians of the republic. In a republic, the people and their elected leaders are the protectors of their liberties. No one else.
William S. Smith is senior research fellow and managing director at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America. His new book is Democracy and Imperialism: Irving Babbitt and Warlike Democracies (2019).


theamericanconservative--2020-05-19--If Trump Responded to the Coronavirus Like FDR

Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , looks on as U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks about coronavirus vaccine development in the Rose Garden of the White House on May 15 , 2020 .
( Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images ) The coronavirus pandemic has cost America tens of thousands of lives , 100,000 small businesses , and trillions of dollars of lost wealth .
It has also consumed a considerable amount of President Trump ’ s political capital .
The administration lost control of the narrative that they had taken proactive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours-long press conferences became headline news for the President ’ s battles with the press and conflicting information .
More than a few opportunities passed during the crisis to fundamentally remake the country in a way that would have benefitted the working class and his voters .
It may sound crass to talk about using a crisis to push through any sort of political agenda , but that is what leaders on both sides of the political aisle have done for over a century .
President Franklin Roosevelt saw an opportunity during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far as threatening to pack the Supreme Court to impose his will .
Likewise , George W. Bush vastly expanded the scope of federal government surveillance after 9/11 .
During the present crisis , Nancy Pelosi and Democratic governors have used the coronavirus as an excuse to empty prisons and strengthen private-sector unions .
The same would have been possible for the President if there was a coherent vision within his administration .
In an alternative reality , where Trump ’ s administration was staffed with nationalists and populists who believed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the current constellation of FreedomWorks , Bush Administration , and Heritage Foundation alumni , the White House could have delivered a series of substantial victories for working-class Americans .
When news broke on December 31st that the coronavirus was infecting an untold number of Chinese citizens , the Trump administration offered to send CDC health experts to Wuhan .
They took steps to nip the spread of the virus in the bud , but the Chinese Communist Party deliberately misled the world .
By January 20th , when the World Health Organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread by human-to-human transmission , precious time had already been lost .
The first confirmed case in the United States was the next day .
None of this was President Trump ’ s fault , and he made the correct call on January 31st to suspend travel to and from China .
However , in the aftermath of that decision , the Trump Administration should have outlined a vision for the country .
Initially , the Trump Administration could have pressed the governors to outline a plan to protect senior citizens in assisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most vulnerable group in the country , and utilized the Defense Production Act at a much earlier stage to have manufacturers in the U.S. make masks and build ventilators .
These steps alone would have saved thousands of lives and stopped the media from breathlessly carrying the stories of medical supply shortages .
When the country was forced to shut down as outbreaks blossomed in New York , Detroit , and New Orleans , the Trump Administration should have used it as an opportunity to fundamentally restructure our economy .
First , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broad freeze on all work visas , with the sole exception being visas that dealt with our food supply .
President Trump has halted some visas , but the suspension is not nearly broad enough to make a lasting impact , as companies continue to outsource jobs to cheaper foreign labor .
Next , the freeze should have been coupled with a provision in the stimulus package to offer billions of dollars to training programs for Americans out of work in low-wage jobs , allowing them to learn new skills during the quarantine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Germany during the 2008 financial crisis and laid the groundwork for the country ’ s successful rebound as the engine of Europe over the past decade .
Training programs would ’ ve been especially useful for hourly workers who have felt the brunt of the economic downturn .
While they can file for unemployment , many have only seen their hours reduced and therefore do not qualify for assistance .
When Congress started spending trillions of dollars stimulating the economy , Trump should have pushed a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan on the condition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industrial Midwest .
A major reason why manufacturing can not return to states like Michigan , Ohio , and Wisconsin is because their roads , airports , and railways are decades behind states like Texas and California .
Investing in those states would have benefited him politically , created thousands of temporary jobs in the construction field , and would have driven demand for oil , steel , and other supplies in adjacent industries .
Finally , when the virus was controlled , Trump could have focused on moving manufacturing out of China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With new infrastructure and a better-trained workforce , many of those jobs businesses could have relocated to the Midwest , bringing quality jobs where they are needed most .
This may not be the perfect plan to deal with all the problems raised by the coronavirus , but it lays out policy goals with a greater vision of how to give economic opportunity for working-class Americans .
After decades of being on the losing end of globalization , Trump could use this time when Americans are hyper critical of immigration and China to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The coronavirus pandemic has cost America tens of thousands of lives, 100,000 small businesses, and trillions of dollars of lost wealth. It has also consumed a considerable amount of President Trump’s political capital. The administration lost control of the narrative that they had taken proactive steps to solve the crisis. Daily hours-long press conferences became headline news for the President’s battles with the press and conflicting information. More than a few opportunities passed during the crisis to fundamentally remake the country in a way that would have benefitted the working class and his voters.
It may sound crass to talk about using a crisis to push through any sort of political agenda, but that is what leaders on both sides of the political aisle have done for over a century. President Franklin Roosevelt saw an opportunity during the Great Depression, and he went so far as threatening to pack the Supreme Court to impose his will. Likewise, George W. Bush vastly expanded the scope of federal government surveillance after 9/11. During the present crisis, Nancy Pelosi and Democratic governors have used the coronavirus as an excuse to empty prisons and strengthen private-sector unions.
The same would have been possible for the President if there was a coherent vision within his administration. In an alternative reality, where Trump’s administration was staffed with nationalists and populists who believed in the message of his 2016 campaign, rather than the current constellation of FreedomWorks, Bush Administration, and Heritage Foundation alumni, the White House could have delivered a series of substantial victories for working-class Americans.
When news broke on December 31st that the coronavirus was infecting an untold number of Chinese citizens, the Trump administration offered to send CDC health experts to Wuhan. They took steps to nip the spread of the virus in the bud, but the Chinese Communist Party deliberately misled the world. By January 20th, when the World Health Organization finally confirmed that the disease was being spread by human-to-human transmission, precious time had already been lost. The first confirmed case in the United States was the next day.
None of this was President Trump’s fault, and he made the correct call on January 31st to suspend travel to and from China. However, in the aftermath of that decision, the Trump Administration should have outlined a vision for the country.
Initially, the Trump Administration could have pressed the governors to outline a plan to protect senior citizens in assisted living facilities, since they were the most vulnerable group in the country, and utilized the Defense Production Act at a much earlier stage to have manufacturers in the U.S. make masks and build ventilators. These steps alone would have saved thousands of lives and stopped the media from breathlessly carrying the stories of medical supply shortages.
When the country was forced to shut down as outbreaks blossomed in New York, Detroit, and New Orleans, the Trump Administration should have used it as an opportunity to fundamentally restructure our economy.
First, the President should have come out with a broad freeze on all work visas, with the sole exception being visas that dealt with our food supply. President Trump has halted some visas, but the suspension is not nearly broad enough to make a lasting impact, as companies continue to outsource jobs to cheaper foreign labor.
Next, the freeze should have been coupled with a provision in the stimulus package to offer billions of dollars to training programs for Americans out of work in low-wage jobs, allowing them to learn new skills during the quarantine. This system of retraining was pioneered by Germany during the 2008 financial crisis and laid the groundwork for the country’s successful rebound as the engine of Europe over the past decade. Training programs would’ve been especially useful for hourly workers who have felt the brunt of the economic downturn. While they can file for unemployment, many have only seen their hours reduced and therefore do not qualify for assistance.
When Congress started spending trillions of dollars stimulating the economy, Trump should have pushed a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan on the condition that it be used to rebuild the industrial Midwest. A major reason why manufacturing cannot return to states like Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin is because their roads, airports, and railways are decades behind states like Texas and California. Investing in those states would have benefited him politically, created thousands of temporary jobs in the construction field, and would have driven demand for oil, steel, and other supplies in adjacent industries.
Finally, when the virus was controlled, Trump could have focused on moving manufacturing out of China and back to the United States. With new infrastructure and a better-trained workforce, many of those jobs businesses could have relocated to the Midwest, bringing quality jobs where they are needed most.
This may not be the perfect plan to deal with all the problems raised by the coronavirus, but it lays out policy goals with a greater vision of how to give economic opportunity for working-class Americans. After decades of being on the losing end of globalization, Trump could use this time when Americans are hyper critical of immigration and China to reverse decades of decay for Middle America.
Ryan Girdusky is the author of They’re Not Listening: How the Elites Created the National Populist Revolution. He is a contributing editor to TAC and a host of Right Now.


theamericanconservative--2020-05-19--The People Will Ultimately Decide When the Shutdown Ends

With , or without a 'second wave ' on the horizon .
On March 24 , President Donald Trump said he wanted the country and the economy “ opened up and just raring to go by Easter.
” Easter came and went .
And Trump was mocked for being aspirational and unrealistic .
Yet , with Ascension Thursday at hand , 40 days after Easter , the president seems to have been ahead of his time .
The country , as a whole , is , and has been , opening up .
Sunday ’ s New York Times reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than two-thirds of the states have been relaxing restrictions as Trump had urged .
The reasons : weariness with the lockdown and sheltering in place , a growing belief that the worst of the pandemic is behind us and undeniably positive news from several fronts in the coronavirus war .
“ New Cases in U.S.
Slow , ” ran The New York Times top headline Sunday , adding the cautionary warning , “ Posing Risks of Complacency.
” The facts suggest a positive trend .
The number of newly confirmed coronavirus cases in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month .
The number of deaths has fallen from 2,200 a day in April to closer to 1,400 a day in mid-May .
Several days last week recorded fewer than 1,000 deaths , an awful toll but a clear improvement over April .
As of Friday , the rate of new cases of the coronavirus was declining in 19 states and rising in only three .
New Orleans and Detroit have seen sharp drops .
The number of new cases in New York , Massachusetts and Rhode Island has dropped .
New cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sioux Falls , South Dakota , where meatpacking plants had seen outbreaks , have declined .
“ On eight of the past nine days , ” said the Times , “ there have been fewer deaths announced than there were seven days prior , indicating that the virus toll appears to be easing .
More than half of the 24 counties that have recorded the most coronavirus deaths , including Oakland County , Mich. , and Hartford County , Conn. , are seeing sustained declines.
” Still , the thrust of the Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be courting , should we try to resume normal activities too soon .
Do that , says the Times , and we could easily forfeit all the progress we have made .
Message : Social distancing , sheltering in place , wearing masks , working at home—the practices that broke the back of the pandemic—should be sustained for those able to do so .
Clearly , the opening in many states has been driven by popular protest and public demand .
Crowds have ignored social distancing to demonstrate for an end to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wear masks and engaged in the time-honored practice since the ’ 60s of civil defiance and disobedience .
The protesters seem to be saying : We deplore the losses and know the risks , but we can not live our lives behind closed doors in our homes until the elites tell us , as though we were children , when we may go out in the yard .
Hence , the next question we are all likely to confront : If there is a sudden resurgence of the coronavirus , a second wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state governors demand a new shutdown , a new closure of beaches , parks , shops , restaurants and churches , will the people of this republic comply with those demands or defy them ?
Will the nation answer back to the elites : We did that .
We sheltered in place .
We wore the masks .
We socially distanced .
We stayed in our homes .
We stayed home from work .
We have done all we were told to do to contain the virus .
But , now , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on unemployment and sunk our GDP to Depression-era levels , we ’ re going back to work .
The political divide has already begun to appear .
Among those making the case for ending the shutdown and reopening the country and economy will be Trump , red state governors like Ron DeSantis in Florida and Brian Kemp in Georgia , conservatives in Congress and populists .
The proponents of a second shutdown will be liberal governors and mayors , the mainstream media and the Nancy Pelosi wing of Congress .
It should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political interests are best served the longer the shutdown endures and the worse the economic situation on Nov. 3 .
If the economy has failed to begin a robust recovery by fall , the greater the odds that Joe Biden wins the White House .
Yet , even if the pandemic returns in the fall , the establishment can not keep the country closed indefinitely .
Prediction : If the people conclude they have done all they can do to mitigate the suffering from a virus they can not eradicate , they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the establishment will have neither the will nor ability to push them back into their homes .
Ultimately , the people will decide when this shutdown ends , and when a plurality so concludes , the elites will be swept aside .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .

On March 24, President Donald Trump said he wanted the country and the economy “opened up and just raring to go by Easter.”
Easter came and went. And Trump was mocked for being aspirational and unrealistic. Yet, with Ascension Thursday at hand, 40 days after Easter, the president seems to have been ahead of his time.
The country, as a whole, is, and has been, opening up. Sunday’s New York Times reports that, for weeks now, more than two-thirds of the states have been relaxing restrictions as Trump had urged.
The reasons: weariness with the lockdown and sheltering in place, a growing belief that the worst of the pandemic is behind us and undeniably positive news from several fronts in the coronavirus war.
“New Cases in U.S. Slow,” ran The New York Times top headline Sunday, adding the cautionary warning, “Posing Risks of Complacency.”
The facts suggest a positive trend. The number of newly confirmed coronavirus cases in the U.S. has been dropping for a month. The number of deaths has fallen from 2,200 a day in April to closer to 1,400 a day in mid-May. Several days last week recorded fewer than 1,000 deaths, an awful toll but a clear improvement over April.
As of Friday, the rate of new cases of the coronavirus was declining in 19 states and rising in only three. New Orleans and Detroit have seen sharp drops. The number of new cases in New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island has dropped. New cases in Cass County, Indiana, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where meatpacking plants had seen outbreaks, have declined.
“On eight of the past nine days,” said the Times, “there have been fewer deaths announced than there were seven days prior, indicating that the virus toll appears to be easing. More than half of the 24 counties that have recorded the most coronavirus deaths, including Oakland County, Mich., and Hartford County, Conn., are seeing sustained declines.”
Still, the thrust of the Times article was about the new crisis we will be courting, should we try to resume normal activities too soon. Do that, says the Times, and we could easily forfeit all the progress we have made.
Message: Social distancing, sheltering in place, wearing masks, working at home—the practices that broke the back of the pandemic—should be sustained for those able to do so.
Clearly, the opening in many states has been driven by popular protest and public demand. Crowds have ignored social distancing to demonstrate for an end to the shutdown. Protesters have refused to wear masks and engaged in the time-honored practice since the ’60s of civil defiance and disobedience.
The protesters seem to be saying: We deplore the losses and know the risks, but we cannot live our lives behind closed doors in our homes until the elites tell us, as though we were children, when we may go out in the yard.
Hence, the next question we are all likely to confront:
If there is a sudden resurgence of the coronavirus, a second wave, and the media elite and blue state governors demand a new shutdown, a new closure of beaches, parks, shops, restaurants and churches, will the people of this republic comply with those demands or defy them?
Will the nation answer back to the elites: We did that. We sheltered in place. We wore the masks. We socially distanced. We stayed in our homes. We stayed home from work. We have done all we were told to do to contain the virus. But, now, with the shutdown having put 36 million Americans on unemployment and sunk our GDP to Depression-era levels, we’re going back to work.
The political divide has already begun to appear.
Among those making the case for ending the shutdown and reopening the country and economy will be Trump, red state governors like Ron DeSantis in Florida and Brian Kemp in Georgia, conservatives in Congress and populists.
The proponents of a second shutdown will be liberal governors and mayors, the mainstream media and the Nancy Pelosi wing of Congress.
It should not go unmentioned that the latter’s political interests are best served the longer the shutdown endures and the worse the economic situation on Nov. 3. If the economy has failed to begin a robust recovery by fall, the greater the odds that Joe Biden wins the White House.
Yet, even if the pandemic returns in the fall, the establishment cannot keep the country closed indefinitely.
Prediction: If the people conclude they have done all they can do to mitigate the suffering from a virus they cannot eradicate, they will resist the imposition of another shutdown, and the establishment will have neither the will nor ability to push them back into their homes.
Ultimately, the people will decide when this shutdown ends, and when a plurality so concludes, the elites will be swept aside.
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--2020-05-20--Why Trump Will Likely Lose in November

Why Trump Will Likely Lose in November

Donald Trump captured the presidency in 2016 in part because he perceived , alone among presidential contenders that year , that a chasm had opened up between the country ’ s arrogant meritocratic elite and vast numbers of citizens who felt the elites had turned on them and were leading the country astray .
But another factor was the perception of many voters that Barack Obama ’ s second term had been a mild failure ( following a mild first-term success ; hence his 2012 reelection ) .
Incumbent performance in office remains a potent factor in presidential elections .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely will lose the presidency come November .
His performance , thoroughly at variance from his blustery rhetoric , will have rendered him , in the eyes of a majority of Americans , ineligible for rehire .
His is not the kind of record that normally leads to a two-term presidency or to party retention of the White House when the incumbent is not on the ballot .
Viewed from this perspective , Trump looks like a goner .
Trump supporters will of course recoil at this prediction .
In disbelief , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followers and the fecklessness of his opposition .
And it is true that former Vice President Joe Biden , the presumptive Democratic candidate , appears hapless as he hunkers down in his Delaware basement and projects himself with a certain halting awkwardness .
But history tells us that voters focus far more on incumbent performance , which can be sharply defined , than on predictions of challenger performance , which are wispy at best .
It is true also that Trump ’ s knot of popular support–about 43 percent of the electorate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to accept just about anything he does or says so long as he continues to attack those dastardly elites .
But presidential elections also don ’ t turn on any incumbent ’ s base of support .
Reelection requires that a president build upon that base and create a governing coalition by bringing in new converts through Oval Office achievement .
Richard Nixon , a 43 percent president following the 1968 election , pulled to his party much of the George Wallace constituency , nearly 14 percent of the popular vote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landslide .
Similarly , following the 1980 election Ronald Reagan pulled to his banner the so-called Reagan Democrats , which contributed to his margin of victory in numerous congressional battles and in his own landslide reelection in 1984 .
Or consider the case of Bill Clinton , like Nixon a 43 percent president after his 1992 victory against incumbent George H. W. Bush and upstart candidate Ross Perot , who garnered 19 percent of the popular vote .
Clinton had his head handed to him in the 1994 midterm elections following a sub-par @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
But after that he brilliantly calibrated his leadership to capture a significant portion of the Perot vote .
Thus did he build on his base through performance in office and become a two-term president .
Trump has proved himself incapable of this kind of political calibration .
He can ’ t even talk to those Americans who might be receptive to his policies but haven ’ t yet joined up .
He talks only to his base .
And , in any event , in presidential politics talk is cheap–and particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
Ultimately , he will rise or fall on performance , and his performance hasn ’ t been impressive .
Has he scored a major domestic policy triumph such as Reagan ’ s when he transformed the country ’ s economic debate by promoting the novel concepts of supply-side economics ( spurring a torrent of economic growth far in excess of anything Trump has generated ) or when he saved a Social Security system heading toward insolvency ?
Or like Clinton ’ s when he fostered passage of major welfare-reform legislation ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major foreign policy achievement such as Nixon ’ s China initiative or H. W. Bush ’ s Gulf War victory ?
No .
Or consider his major campaign promises of 2016 .
How has he fared on those ?
On immigration , Trump forced the debate on a reluctant establishment in 2016 and positioned himself as president to craft and promote a comprehensive new approach to the issue , taking into account that the country now faces unprecedented levels of immigration and heightened levels of civic anxiety as a result .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ festering issue now generates more civic discord than ever .
An effective president would have seen this as an issue of highest priority , requiring guile , political maneuverability , creativity , negotiating skill , and ultimate compromise .
Trump probed in the right direction when he suggested legal status for many of the country ’ s 3.6 million so-called Dreamers—immigrants brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own—in exchange for tough measures to curb illegal immigation and major reforms in legal immigration , including an end to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigration lottery and a greater concentration on bringing in immigrants with proven skills of immediate value to the nation .
Trump backed off when it became clear that congressional Democrats wouldn ’ t buy it .
But the American people might have , particularly after the president offered expedited processing for the current 3.6-million-applicant backlog of family-based migrants .
That would have kept the chain-migration policy in place for years .
All in all , a pretty moderate program .
But Trump never took his plan to the American people .
He didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have rallied to the cause .
Typically , he talked only to his base—and often in language certain to offend precisely those people who might have been available to bolster his position on the issue .
Without an ability to build on his base through effective and persuasive communication , no comprehensive concept could gain traction .
Result : a possibly grand opportunity lost .
Or consider his stance on America ’ s mindless involvement in Mideast diplomacy , including intrusive regime-change wars that destabilized the region and distracted the country from more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relationship with China .
What has Trump done in that realm ?
He has adopted a belligerent stance toward Iran that threatens to slip into hostilities of the kind he railed against during the campaign .
He has proved incapable even of getting America out of its military involvement in Afghanistan , which has little point after 20 years of self-imposed quagmire .
And he has allowed America to be complicit in Saudi Arabia ’ s brutal war in Yemen .
Then there is Trump ’ s response to the coronavirus pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ question has been largely an ugly partisan matter , with Trump supporters praising his actions to the skies while his detractors see nothing but incompetence .
But , when we pull back from this frivolous quarrel and look at his performance as it will likely be seen by those independent-minded voters needed by Trump to build on his base , the picture doesn ’ t look pretty .
Did he discern the nature of the crisis in a timely manner ?
Was he decisive ?
Was he consistent in his perceptions and pronouncements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed to soothe the nation and bring it together ?
Did he employ rhetoric that was kind and sensitive in a time of anxiety ?
No on all counts .
This is not the record of a president well positioned for a second term .
True , unanticipated developments could intervene to alter the year ’ s political equation .
The distinctive nature of our time could yield results far removed from the normal course of political events .
And it ’ s even possible , one supposes , that I could just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , barring those things ( unlikely as they are ) , Trump ’ s chances for a reelection victory don ’ t look very good .
Robert W. Merry , former Wall Street Journal reporter and Congressional Quarterly CEO , is the author most recently of President McKinley : Architect of the American Century ( Simon & Schuster ) .

Donald Trump captured the presidency in 2016 in part because he perceived, alone among presidential contenders that year, that a chasm had opened up between the country’s arrogant meritocratic elite and vast numbers of citizens who felt the elites had turned on them and were leading the country astray. But another factor was the perception of many voters that Barack Obama’s second term had been a mild failure (following a mild first-term success; hence his 2012 reelection). Incumbent performance in office remains a potent factor in presidential elections.
And that’s why Donald Trump likely will lose the presidency come November. His performance, thoroughly at variance from his blustery rhetoric, will have rendered him, in the eyes of a majority of Americans, ineligible for rehire. His is not the kind of record that normally leads to a two-term presidency or to party retention of the White House when the incumbent is not on the ballot. Viewed from this perspective, Trump looks like a goner.
Trump supporters will of course recoil at this prediction. In disbelief, they will point to the intensity of his followers and the fecklessness of his opposition. And it is true that former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic candidate, appears hapless as he hunkers down in his Delaware basement and projects himself with a certain halting awkwardness. But history tells us that voters focus far more on incumbent performance, which can be sharply defined, than on predictions of challenger performance, which are wispy at best.
It is true also that Trump’s knot of popular support–about 43 percent of the electorate, based on approval surveys–is remarkably solid, willing to accept just about anything he does or says so long as he continues to attack those dastardly elites.
But presidential elections also don’t turn on any incumbent’s base of support. Reelection requires that a president build upon that base and create a governing coalition by bringing in new converts through Oval Office achievement. Richard Nixon, a 43 percent president following the 1968 election, pulled to his party much of the George Wallace constituency, nearly 14 percent of the popular vote in 1968. The result was a reelection landslide. Similarly, following the 1980 election Ronald Reagan pulled to his banner the so-called Reagan Democrats, which contributed to his margin of victory in numerous congressional battles and in his own landslide reelection in 1984.
Or consider the case of Bill Clinton, like Nixon a 43 percent president after his 1992 victory against incumbent George H. W. Bush and upstart candidate Ross Perot, who garnered 19 percent of the popular vote. Clinton had his head handed to him in the 1994 midterm elections following a sub-par performance during his first two years in office. But after that he brilliantly calibrated his leadership to capture a significant portion of the Perot vote. Thus did he build on his base through performance in office and become a two-term president.
Trump has proved himself incapable of this kind of political calibration. He can’t even talk to those Americans who might be receptive to his policies but haven’t yet joined up. He talks only to his base.
And, in any event, in presidential politics talk is cheap–and particularly cheap coming from a self-absorbed braggart like Trump. Ultimately, he will rise or fall on performance, and his performance hasn’t been impressive.
Has he scored a major domestic policy triumph such as Reagan’s when he transformed the country’s economic debate by promoting the novel concepts of supply-side economics (spurring a torrent of economic growth far in excess of anything Trump has generated) or when he saved a Social Security system heading toward insolvency? Or like Clinton’s when he fostered passage of major welfare-reform legislation? No. Can he take credit for a major foreign policy achievement such as Nixon’s China initiative or H. W. Bush’s Gulf War victory? No.
Or consider his major campaign promises of 2016. How has he fared on those?
On immigration, Trump forced the debate on a reluctant establishment in 2016 and positioned himself as president to craft and promote a comprehensive new approach to the issue, taking into account that the country now faces unprecedented levels of immigration and heightened levels of civic anxiety as a result. But he squandered the opportunity, and the festering issue now generates more civic discord than ever.
An effective president would have seen this as an issue of highest priority, requiring guile, political maneuverability, creativity, negotiating skill, and ultimate compromise. Trump probed in the right direction when he suggested legal status for many of the country’s 3.6 million so-called Dreamers—immigrants brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own—in exchange for tough measures to curb illegal immigation and major reforms in legal immigration, including an end to chain (family-based) migration and the immigration lottery and a greater concentration on bringing in immigrants with proven skills of immediate value to the nation.
Trump backed off when it became clear that congressional Democrats wouldn’t buy it. But the American people might have, particularly after the president offered expedited processing for the current 3.6-million-applicant backlog of family-based migrants. That would have kept the chain-migration policy in place for years. All in all, a pretty moderate program. But Trump never took his plan to the American people. He didn’t address the people who might have rallied to the cause. Typically, he talked only to his base—and often in language certain to offend precisely those people who might have been available to bolster his position on the issue. Without an ability to build on his base through effective and persuasive communication, no comprehensive concept could gain traction. Result: a possibly grand opportunity lost.
Or consider his stance on America’s mindless involvement in Mideast diplomacy, including intrusive regime-change wars that destabilized the region and distracted the country from more pressing foreign policy challenges, particularly its relationship with China. What has Trump done in that realm? He has adopted a belligerent stance toward Iran that threatens to slip into hostilities of the kind he railed against during the campaign. He has proved incapable even of getting America out of its military involvement in Afghanistan, which has little point after 20 years of self-imposed quagmire. And he has allowed America to be complicit in Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen.
Then there is Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. The debate that has ensued over this question has been largely an ugly partisan matter, with Trump supporters praising his actions to the skies while his detractors see nothing but incompetence. But, when we pull back from this frivolous quarrel and look at his performance as it will likely be seen by those independent-minded voters needed by Trump to build on his base, the picture doesn’t look pretty. Did he discern the nature of the crisis in a timely manner? Was he decisive? Was he consistent in his perceptions and pronouncements? Did he conduct himself in ways designed to soothe the nation and bring it together? Did he employ rhetoric that was kind and sensitive in a time of anxiety? No on all counts.
This is not the record of a president well positioned for a second term. True, unanticipated developments could intervene to alter the year’s political equation. The distinctive nature of our time could yield results far removed from the normal course of political events. And it’s even possible, one supposes, that I could just be wrong in my analysis. But, barring those things (unlikely as they are), Trump’s chances for a reelection victory don’t look very good.
Robert W. Merry, former Wall Street Journal reporter and Congressional Quarterly CEO, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century (Simon & Schuster).