August 19, 2019--Buy Greenland? No, Buy . . .

It looks as if our real-estate-mogul-in-chief wants to buy Greenland.

If he knew anything about U.S. history one might imagine he's thinking Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase; or Seward's Folly--the purchase of Alaska from, yes, the Russians--during the impeached Andrew Johnson's administration; or more arcanely the Gadsden Purchase which occurred when Franklyn Pierce was president and fleshed out our border with Mexico.

But, no, I think he's thinking about a non-governmental post-presidency deal for himself and his acquisitive family  He must have heard that the ice pack that covers 80 percent of Greenland is melting fast (not because of global warming since there is no global warming) and that means the land will soon be ready for "development"--condos, casinos, golf courses, hotels, and the like. Stuff Trump understands.

There is though one hitch--Denmark, which owns it, and the 50,000 people who are Greenlandians are fiercely opposed. But Trump will be visiting Denmark in a few months and will likely float the idea during his meetings with senior political leaders and perhaps bring along a suitcase full of Benjamins to lubricate the discussion. But that too is not going to work.

I have another suggestion--why not buy our 51st state. Israel. Yes, next time he sees him, which could be tomorrow, Trump should make an offer to his best friend, a real Benjamin, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who could be on his political last legs and may soon be fitted for an orange jumpsuit.

To get a sense of just how much they are each other's poodle and are depending on each other to get reelected, consider what happened last week when Trump lobbied Netanyahu and got him in a flash to block two Muslim U.S. congresswomen who have been critics of the Israeli government from entering the country. During the August break they were intending to pay an official visit to Israel and were planning, transgressively, to meet with Palestinians.

From Trump's and Netanyahu's  perspective this was outrageous enough for them to see the political opportunity to make the congresswomen the public face of the socialist, anti-semitic Democratic Party. Along with AOC the Squad are even better to caricature and demonologize than Nancy Pelosi.

In the meantime, Donald Jr. is thinking timeshares in Jerusalem.

March 7, 2019--How to Lose In 2020

Right now, in real time, House Democrats are busy tearing themselves apart and working hard to lose the 2020 election.

The Washington Post is reporting that House Democrats erupted into a full-scale brawl Wednesday, challenging leaders over indirectly sanctioning freshman Representative Ilhan Omar for alleged anti-Semitic remarks amid an outcry over party inaction to President Trump’s divisive comments on race. 

In a closed-door session, Democrats protested plans to vote this week on a resolution condemning religious hatred, a measure prompted by Omar’s comments last week suggesting supporters of Israel have “allegiance to a foreign country.” 

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday there may not be a vote this week on any resolution. “We’re discussing what is the best way to address it." 

Many of those speaking out Wednesday were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who bristled at the notion that Omar would be targeted for a rebuke--even an indirect one, as Democratic leaders had planned--while lawmakers remain silent about Republican behavior, especially that of Trump. 

“I think there’s a big rise in anti-Semitism and racism, and that’s a bigger conversation we need to be having,” said Rep. Cedric L. Richmond (D-La.). “But it starts at 1600 Pennsylvania. It doesn’t start with one member out of 435 members of Congress.” 

It is my view that also at issue is what is implied by the "indirect" rebuke to Omar in the resolution which, originally spoke only about anti-Semitism but subsequently, to broaden the criticism and take some of the onus off Omar, was redrafted to include condemnation of anti-Moslem, racist, and homophobic behavior. 

It is just this kind of identity politics that will ironically fuel the great divider's, Trump's claim that Democrats are about dividing rather than unifying people and how this exposes that Democrats will pander to any interest group in a desperate search for votes.

It also will contribute to making it more difficult for Democrats to nominate a moderate, which in turn means it will be more likely that Trump will find a way in 2020 to secure 270 Electoral votes.

We need to keep our eyes on the prize--winning in 2020. After winning, we can get back to struggling with legitimate and productive disagreements about social policy.