March 6, 2019--Jack: T-PAC

It's that time of year when conservatives gather for the annual CPAC conference. 

The highlight this time was the appearance Sunday afternoon of Donald Trump who spoke for nearly two-and-a-half hours! Fidel-Castro, Mussolini-length, and surely a CPAC record for the longest expletive-larded speech ever. 

Trump had a lot on his mind. Most of it from agita. 

Just a few days earlier, while Michael Cohen was testifying before the House Oversight Committee, he was on Air Force One heading back to Washington from the collapsed summit with Kim Jong-un. At about the same time the New York Times was reporting that he personally countermanded his senior intelligence advisers and granted his son-in-law top secret security clearance.

And so he seized the opportunity to get many grievances off his chest and the audience loved every minute of it. They were as one. So much so that they stood and cheered for more than a disgraceful minute when he proclaimed John McCain dead. Tearfully, it will be a moment they will share with their Republican grandchildren.

Slumped and weary-looking as if he were bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders, Trump entered stage right where a lonely American flag stood, forlorn and limp on its pole. As if just happening to notice the flag, slowly he approached it, bending to embrace it. He coddled and rocked it in his arms as if he was comforting a loved one. With a sad smile, moving his lips dramatically so all could read them, he said, "My baby."

While streaming his remarks a day or two later to see if my eyes had deceived me on Sunday, the phone rang, and, as if he knew what I was up to, I was not surprised that it was Jack.


"I was watching your favorite show," he said, without even a greeting. "'Morning Joe.' All they could talk about was that speech. To tell you the truth I agreed with Joe and his guests that the slur about John McCain was way off base. Especially coming from someone who managed to dodge the draft."

"That was the lowest of many low points," I said.

Jack said, "But off that performance, if you guys are not careful you could be looking at six more years of our president." He chuckled at the prospect.

"Enlighten me."

"One of Joe Scarborough's quests, someone from the Washington Post, called Trump insane. He said if you had an old grandfather that crazy you'd lock him up in the attic. Another guest accused Trump of being 'unhinged.'"

"That was Eugene Robinson," I muttered.

"And then Mike Barnicle chimed is to say that the only thing missing was for Trump to show up wearing paper slippers."

"He's a regular," I said.

"I actually thought that was pretty funny. But he and the others totally missed the bigger point."

"Which is?"

"Look, who am I to tell you guys what to do, but if you want to win in 2020 you need to get your act together. Not only have you given Trump a perfect person to run against . . ."

"Spare me. It's a long time before we have a candidate. Now it's just a couple of dozen hopefuls looking to gain traction. It's premature to talk about running against Trump. We first have to sort things out."

"I mean,"Jack said, "We used to have Nancy Pelosi to run against--which I admit didn't work out so well in 2018--but now we have that girl from the Bronx. I can never remember her name . . ."

"Alexander Ocasio-Cortez."

"You have initials for her, right?"

"Some people refer to her as AOC. What's your problem with her?"

"Actually it's the opposite of a problem. She's a gift that keeps on giving. Isn't she the one who wants to ban hamburgers to reduce global warming?"

"Not really, but your guys are accusing her of that."

"She's perfect to run against. She's a socialist and her ego is so large that she can't get enough air time on TV. I know she turns a lot of your people on but she's too far out for the people I assume you are hoping will vote your way. If she's the new face of the Democrat Party, Trump will be a shoe in."

"Before we declare him the winner let's see what Mueller and the House committees come up with."

"You need to remember that the more dirt that came up about Clinton the more popular he became. And he won a second term. But OAC is not your major problem. The fact that after maybe the worst month of his presidency, Trump, like Clinton is seeing his favorables going up. Just this week by three points. To 46 percent or so."

"What then is our major problem?"

"You're doing it again."

"What again?"

"Just like last time around when you thought Trump was just a joke. You couldn't imagine him beating Hillary. And guess what--he did. Mainly because she and the rest of you wouldn't take Trump seriously and looked down your noses at him and his supporters. And now you're doing a version of the same thing. Again take CPAC. Rather than trying to figure them out and especially Trump' appeal to them--they listened and cheered for him for two-and-a-half hours--you're busy making fun of him. How his speech was incoherent and that he's crazy. Things like that. By doing this you're motivating his people to stay loyal to him and are turning off a lot of people who are on the fence about him."

"I don't disagree with that," I conceded. "All during the last presidential campaign I thought Hillary and the liberal media were missing what was happening in the middle of the country and therefore we made a huge mistake by not showing respect for people who live and vote there. Rather, we too frequently mocked and disparaged Trump and those who turned out to be his voters."

Jack said, "And your reaction to CPAC shows me you're doing the same thing all over again. Which, for me is just fine. But to win you need to recognize that Trump, when it comes to politics and marketing himself, is crazy like a fox. He's totally brilliant at that. I know you think he's dumb and maybe about things you care about he is. But about appealing to his base and a lot of independents he's a version of a political genius. 

"If you want to win, first, you need to not nominate one of your crazies who Trump will mock 24/7. But you also need to get more comfortable with at least a segment of his followers. To see them as fellow Americans who have some legitimate issues, including some you share. Like worrying about how their children and grandchildren will fare as the economy changes and how the demographics of America are becoming more diverse than even some of your people are comfortable with. Don't fool yourself into believing all your liberal friends are so happy about these changes. 

"So you need to find a way to talk about this that's not bigoted and condemning. You need to have and show more understanding of the views and fears of people who you disagree with. You have to stop pointing fingers of contempt at them. Again, I'm talking about just some of Trump's people. From your perspective most are, to quote Hillary who was right about this, irredeemable. One of your problems is that you assume everyone is or should be as tolerant as you try to be. Well, you know what, in this regard you and your friends are far from perfect. You need to take a hard look at what's really in your heart." 

I finally said, "I've been attempting to make that argument for years. Liberals are more tolerant, every poll shows that, but there are a lot of closeted progressives who aren't happy about all the changes you mentioned. But in regard to immigrants and people of color Trump and the CPAC crowd are way out of line. There's no way to paper over that"

"I'll tell you what was really going on with the CPACers."

"I'm all ears."

"They were marking the end of the traditional Republican Party. It's now Trump's party. They could call themselves T-PAC. And his speech, if you can call it that, was like an inaugural address or a comedian's stand-up spritz to celebrate the victory of this new party. That explains the John McCain crack. They saw his death as if it signaled the end of the old Republican Party. A party that they saw him as representing. But again what they did was disgraceful. No two ways about that. 

"But here's the bottom line," Jack continued, "Trump and many of his people are really anarchists. You should call them out for that just as they accuse all of you of being socialists. But you should make a distinction between that part of T-PAC and the others who aren't so radical. As I've been saying, you need to find a way to reach out to and appeal to some of them. You also need to recognize that a large part of Trump's appeal is that he's entertaining. Which politically is not a bad thing. We are an entertainment-obsessed nation and you should look for someone to run against him who average people can enjoy listening to."

"I agree with that."

"Otherwise you're cooked."

January 3, 2019--Weakman Trump

Many on the left, even before he took office, concerned about his authoritarian inclinations, were fearful that Trump would intentionally morph into a Mussolini-style strongman. That he would become an American fascist.

That can still happen as panic sets in, as various investigations press in on him, as it becomes more and more apparent that he is totally corrupt, having committed serious felonies in both his personal and presidential life, a fully authoritarian Trump may emerge. 

But with impeachment and possible criminal indictments looming, instead of Trump the strongman we may see Weakman Trump. 

His signature initiatives, one domestic and two international are collapsing and to preserve them and himself he will be required to do more than compromise--he will need to capitulate.

As I write this he is in the early stages in the process of caving in to the new Democratic leaders of Congress. In the White House Situation Room of all places, they are witnessing Trump in the throughs of trying to wiggle out of the political responsibility for the unpopular government shutdown. 

The real reason for the shutdown has to do with Trump's highest-priority domestic campaign promise--not that the government needs to be slimmed down, but that he will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. He is the one who linked the two with the shutdown as a bargaining chip that he gambled the Dems would trade away to fund their supposed favorite thing--more big government.

Two-thirds of Americans are unhappy with the shutdown and blame it on Trump while the same two thirds oppose Trump's "nonnegotiable" line drawn in the Rio Grande--his most conspicuous, base-pandering campaign promise--that he will build a "beautiful" wall and Mexico will pay for it.

If nothing else, Trump knows how to read polls and he sees that both the shutdown and the wall are losing political gambits. With the shellacking he took during the recent midterm elections and the current unpopularity of him and his policies, with 2020 looming, not to say a possible Mueller report, he is seeking a way to back down and save a little face. Usually it is the Democrats who cave. This time (thus far) they are hanging tough and enjoying the spectacle of Trump twisting in the proverbial wind.

Then there are the international messes Weakman Trump is desperate to get behind him. In at least two cases, both leading campaign promises--to withdraw from the Middle East, especially Syria, and to get North Korea to denuclearize--his impulsive decision to bring home all American troops from Syria is not working out. Some key Republicans have taken the lead in criticizing him and he has already agreed to allow the withdrawal timetable to swell from 30 days to four months. In fact expect those four months to stretch out further. 

And it is clear that the only deal Trump's real strongman friend, North Korea's Kim Jong-un, will agree to is not to destroy any of their nuclear weapons or delivery systems until the U.S. withdraws American soldiers from South Korea, ends joint military operations with our longtime allies, eliminates sanctions, and removes our nuclear weapons from the region.

A weakened Trump, if he wants to continue to take credit for making a deal with North Korea (and, politically, to feed his base he has to) he will need to do some fancy tap-dancing to cover up the caving that will be required to get out of this dilemma. 

My concern--often weak men are more dangerous than strong ones.

October 11, 2018--October Surprises

In election cosmology an October Surprise is a news event deliberately created, timed, or occurring spontaneously that influences the outcome of an election, particularly for the presidency.

With the upcoming midterm elections, since Donald Trump has kidnapped them and made the hundreds of congressional contests all about him--in effect, a referendum on his presidency--by nationalizing these individual races, it would not be unexpected for him to come up with a whopper of an October Surprise. One that would underscore what he claims to be his achievements (tax cuts, renegotiating NAFTA, withdrawing from the Iran deal, a strong job market) a surprise designed to motivate his base to vote for candidates he supports. Essentially, any and all Republicans running for office.

Recent examples of October Surprises include leaking the news in 2000, when George W. Bush was locked in a tight contest with Al Gore, that some years earlier Bush had been cited in Maine for driving while under the influence.

Four years later, to undermine Bush's reelection chances, Osama bin Laden released a videotape in which he took credit for the 9/11 terrorist attack in the hope that this would remind voters of Bush's failures.

The 2008 stock market crash weakened John McCain's chances in his race against Barack Obama. Republicans in general were blamed and the onset of the Great Recession boosted the chances of all Democrats, especially Obama's. So much so that the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress.

And then most recently, in 2016, it is generally agreed that FBI director James Comey ruined Hillary Clinton's candidacy when in late October he summarily released thousands of emails of hers that, even though they contained nothing disqualifying, reminded the voting public that she was not trustworthy.

What then might Trump have in mind for us during the next few weeks? We know he shapes a daily political drama to dominate the news cycle and thus I suspect there will be at least two surprises of magnitude that will suck up all the media oxygen. I predict there will, unprecedented, be at least two such surprises since for Trump more is never enough.

One will involve foreign affairs, the other will focus on domestic theatrics.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently spent a week in Asia. In China but more interesting in North Korea. After his Korea visit he said little progress was made in denuclearization talks. I wonder.

My guess is that he brought with him for Kim Jong-un one of those love letters Trump mentioned the other day. Letters so steamy that even the exhibitionist president said they were too amorous to disclose.

Trump's to Kim likely included a plea--

"Help me out please! I'm about to get shellacked in the midterm elections and need your help. Maybe you could blow up a big missile or two on live TV. I could then say you're on track to getting rid of all your nukes. Of course that's really unnecessary. I just need a good show one of these mornings. Maybe you could time it so it could be shown on Fox & Friends. My favorite."

Then domestically, a couple of days ago, without a formal announcement, Trump launched the Month of the Woman. It began with UN ambassador Nikki Haley announcing on live TV in the Oval Office that she is resigning. 

There they were, Trump and Haley together shamelessly flirting with each other. 

The Month of the Woman will culminate with Trump appointing Dina Powell, a woman, to replace Haley. Unless Trump can convince daughter Ivanka to allow him to appoint her. One advantage for her--it would get her out of Washington (which she hates) and back to New York City.

Recognizing that the so-called "gender gap" is hovering at about 30 points, some are saying it's not a gap but a chasm, realizing that, Trump will do all sorts of things between now and November 6th to focus on how good his presidency has been for women and then will hope that at least a few will show up at the polls in November and vote for him.

If women come out in a wave of votes for Democrats, he'll need more than a couple of surprises to keep him from being impeached in January. There aren't enough angry old white guys to keep him politically safe. We'll see, then, if he can bamboozle enough women to vote for Republicans as he did in 2016.

I'm saying, more than anything else, Kim has to come through for him.

October 4, 2018--A Subdued Trump

Until a day or two ago Trump had been on a roll and, incredibly, at times almost sounded like a normal person.

He spoke moderately about deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. After the ("failing") New York Times wrote about how Rosenstein contemplated wearing a wire to record Trump's irrational behavior, when all were expecting him to fire Rosenstein and perhaps even Robert Mueller, Trump said he really wants to "keep" Rosenstein, that he'll meet with him in a week or so, and "we'll see what happens." As if Trump had nothing to do with the what happens.

When Senator Jeff Flake got the Senate judiciary committee to delay a week before voting on Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court, to allow the FBI time to reopen its background check, rather than returning to ranting about and mocking the Arizona senator ("Jeff Flakey"), he offered temperate comments about this being a good idea. "No rush," he again said, "We'll see what happens." He even offered to withdraw Kavanaugh from consideration if he is found to have lied during his testimony before the committee.

Then he bullied Mexico and Canada to agree to significant changes in NAFTA. Changes even Democrats such as Chuck Schumer praised. A new-seeming Trump barely took a victory lap.

I thought someone in the White House must have slipped some Thorazine into his Big Macs.

Most amazing, after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's wrenching statement to the judiciary committee, rather than attacking her credibility, Trump spoke softly about how it is important to listen to what she has to say and, again, if it proved to be true, he indicated he would withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination. 

But then, on Tuesday, unable to contain himself, Trump lashed out, mocking Dr. Ford.

At a rally in Southaven, Mississippi, imitating her voice, he spun out this viscous two-character Q&A--

"How did you get home? 'I don't remember.' How did you get there? 'I don't remember.' Where is the place? 'I don't remember.' How many years ago was it? 'I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.'"

That, I thought, is the Trump I know. Playing to his misogynist base.

Where had he been? What had he been up to?

I suspect, probing to find his best political way to respond to all the battering before launching new lines of attack.

And then he found his strategy--

He set his nasty little dialogue in a new context.

At the Mississippi rally he told parents in the audience, in the era of #MeToo, boys are in more danger than girls. Daughters might be threatened by sexually assault but their sons might find themselves falsely accused of committing sexual abuse and thus have their lives ruined. 

He said, "It's a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something you may not be guilty of. This is a very difficult time."

This is red meat for his base. Especially for middle-age white men who have felt their prerogatives, their privileges threatened, initially by how they experienced the women's movement which, among other things, called for equal pay, sexual parity, control of their bodies, political and executive equivalence, and now by the MeToo movement.

Women with access to a microphone or blog or a corporate human resources office have the power, these disaffiliated men feel, not only to boss them around, but with a simple accusation potentially ruin their lives.

It doesn't help the progressive cause when cable news outlets such as CNN have guests drawing comparisons between Bill Cosby (a convicted sexual predator) and Brett Kavanaugh. No matter how despicable and slimy he feels, Kavanaugh has not been convicted of anything, much less being, like Cosby, a "serial rapist."

We may already be seeing the beginnings of the political consequences from the new Trump campaign to play on this anger, these fears. 

In a number of key Senate battleground red states where Democrats are seeking to retain seats, poll numbers are beginning to swing in their opponents' direction. In North Dakota, for example, Senator Heidi Heitkamp who was running neck-and-neck with Kevin Cramer is now trailing by about 10 points.

We need to get to work. There are just four weeks until Election Day. We know Trump will be campaigning full time. Assuming he doesn't get any more love letters from Kim Jong-un.

July 16, 2018--Bromance In Helsinki

Here's what to expect today in Helsinki at the Trump-Putin summit--

Putin publicly will throw Trump a crumb or two. 

Just enough to make it appear that the president's strategy of "befriending" the Russian dictator in a one-on-one relationship is paying off.

Trump has already delivered for the Russian leader (even before he became president) and so, from his friend Vladimir Putin's perspective, he deserves his little reward.

Trump has shrugged off Putin's crimes in Crimea and the Ukraine; he has destabilized and thus weakened both NATO and the European Union (to Trump the EU is a "foe"); he has undermined the political standing of British prime minister, Theresa May (she mishandled Brexit because she didn't take his "advice"); and done all he could to undercut Europe's dominant economy and leader, Angela Merkel, claiming Germany is a "captive" of Russia; and Trump has ignored Putin's meddling in our presidential election and thus tampered with our democracy.

You and I even know why Trump has functioned as Putin's lackey--

Putin has the goods on him. 

Remember that infamous BuzzFeed dossier, the one that reports on Trump's private business dealings in Russia (some of them likely illegal) as well as those incendiary claims that Trump in 2013, while in Russia for the Miss Universe Pageant, cavorted with prostitutes and intentionally sullied the same hotel suite used by Michelle and Barack Obama. My guess is that Putin has a KGB video tape of those golden showers.

Thus, to help keep his boy propped up expect Putin to say he will personally investigate what's behind the recent indictment by the Mueller team of a dozen Russian intelligence operatives. Pretending to know nothing about it he will agree to look into the charge that they directly hacked Hillary Clinton's campaign and he will, with a straight face, promise to report what he finds directly to Trump. (Don't hold your breath waiting for the results of that investigation.) 

Also, expect Putin to say he will order his military to work more closely with America's special forces to coordinate the hunt in Syria for the remnants of ISIS (again, resist holding your breath); and, as a bonus for Trump being such an important member of the Putin team, the Russian president will agree to open bilateral discussions leading to a plan to reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons. (Once more don't . . .)

Then, speaking of nuclear weapons, Putin will praise Trump for meeting with Kim Jong-un and will agree to use his non-existing influence to press Kim to actually denuclearize. My advice--again, don't hold your breath for any of this to happen. It's all about the pretending and photo-ops.

At the end of their private meeting, at a joint press conference, metaphorically speaking, expect nothing but hugs and air kisses. 

And after that, expect nothing. Except Putin's relentless campaign to weaken all aspects of American and Western European life. With Trump continuing to clear the way for him.

May 29, 2018--Kim & Trump Together At Last

Don't be taken in by all the on-again off-again business about whether Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un will or won't meet on or about June 12th.

They'll meet. 

About that you can bet the house. And they will make a deal. Or a version of a deal, including possibly a faux deal. They'll be OK with that since anything resembling one will work. Will work for each of their purposes.

Never before have there been two political adversaries who so desperately need a deal. And so we will have one.

Kim's country is falling apart. Not that for decades, since his grandfather's rule, has there been much remaining to fall apart. Pretty much everything has been collapsing since the Second World War. Though one would not even be able to notice how fallen apart things are, especially after dark, since with the exception of the capital, Pyongyang, there is no power and thus there are no electric lights.

That should be the worst of the situation. Even more dire, most North Koreans are grossly undernourished if not out and out starving with parasitical worms common in most North Koreans' digestive systems.

But there is a small North Korean elite who are loyal to Kim as long as they keep getting their goodies (electricity, TVs, things to buy, and overseas trips and bank accounts). If they sense that Kim is imperiled by unhappy elements within the country and thus might be in danger of being overthrown, the military might rise up and preemptively do the overthrowing. 

Kim has had dozens from the elite killed, including, especially brutally, family members. As a signal that he can play rough. But he could be more precariously in office than he appears to be from our vantage point halfway around the world.

So any deal would prop him up, particularly if some of our sanctions were lifted and things for ordinary North Koreans improved. After Kim and Trump meet, if we see lights burning at night across the country, we'll know things are getting better.

Evidence that Trump will be satisfied by any version of a deal is his more than usual refusal to do any prep work prior to the summit. Briefing papers have been prepared but he has refused to be briefed. He plans to wing it, guided by his "instincts," which he has previously proclaimed are the best in all of history.

He knows making a deal, even one in which he makes more concessions than Kim, will boost his approval ratings by at least 10 points and this could help Republicans in November maintain control of the House. And if that were to happen, there will be no impeachment. 

So the stakes for Trump are very high.

A deal would also allow Trump yet more leverage when it comes time to savage the Mueller report and the inevitable additional indictments that will be forthcoming this fall or winter.

Then there is the Nobel Peace Prize. If they make a deal it would be difficult for the Swedish Academy not to award one to Trump (and Kim) and this would allow him to further obliterate all traces of Barak Obama and his presidency. More than anything else, perversely, Trump's controlling obsession.

Why, one might wonder, would Kim trade away his nuclear weapons based on promises from the world's most dishonest and untrustworthy leader?

Again, things for him are desperate and it's the only card he has to play.

That reminds me a joke. One of my father's. He had only two or three jokes in his repertoire, so pay attention.

It's about sardines.

Louie gets a call from his friend Dave. "Louie," Dave says, "Do I have deal for you. A warehouse full of canned sardines. And they're yours for a special price. Only $5,000." So Louie buys the sardines.

A week later, Louie calls his cousin Murray and says, "Murray do I have a deal for you. A warehouse full of canned sardines. Priced especially for your only $7,500." 

Sight unseen Murray buys the sardines and after a few days calls his friend, Steve, "Steve," he says, "Do I have a deal for you. A warehouse full of sardines. They're for sale at a special price just for you--$10,000."

This sounds like a good deal to Steve and after sending Murray a check he goes to the warehouse to check out his sardines. They are in huge shipping crates. He opens a crate and then one of the cans of sardines.

They smell awful. "I'll try another one," he thinks. "This one must be a defective tin." But the next one and the one after that are also spoiled. 

So, angry, he calls Murray to complain that all the sardines are rancid. 

Murray is not surprised and tries to calm Steve down.

"You don't understand," Murray says. "These are not eating sardines. They're buying and selling sardines."

So Kim will tell Trump that he has a deal for him. He's willing to denuclearize because his atomic weapons are not for bombing purposes but for trading purposes.

At least let's hope so.

On Sale at the White House Gift Shop

May 2, 2018--Let's Make A Deal

With Kim Jong-un saying last Sunday that he will give up his nuclear arsenal if Trump pledges not to invade North Korea, Kim and Trump could conclude a deal in less than half an hour. 

What else would need doing besides Trump figuring out the  theatrics of the summit meeting?

If Trump didn't require more than a day in Moscow in 2013 to run the Miss Universe Pageant, talk about a Moscow Trump Tower, and do whatever that night in Moscow's Motel 6, the situation with North Korea, thanks to Kim, is shaping up to be even more of a walk in the park.  

Of course Trump will make that pledge if that's all it takes. No need for dozens of diplomats (which we, by the way, no longer have) to work on the devils in the details. All Kim has to do is agree to having a couple of UN disarmament people resident in North Korean to make sure Kim complies. And all Trump has to do is, well, not very much. 

No need for Kim to schlep all the way to Singapore or Mongolia to meet. He doesn't have a dependable airplane to get him there anyway and the train he rides around in is so ladened with bombproofing that it can rumble along at only 22 miles per hour. He'd have to leave Pyongyang tomorrow to get to Singapore by mid May. 

To make things simple and convenient they could meet on Air Force One. Trump could fly it into Pyongyang Sunan International Airport and Kim could use an Uber to get to the meeting.

I'm making light of this because I think I may be hallucinating. I temporarily increased my meds last week and I don't trust myself these days.

But the more serious side of me senses the makings of a deal. To sign off on one there needs to be self-interest on all sides. 

And there is.

Let's start with South Korea. If we stumble into a war on the peninsular, which was feeling more and more likely just before the Olympics--remember "little rocket man" and who had the bigger nuclear button--military experts estimated that in the first half hour up to half a million Koreans would be killed. Of course, Pyongyang would be bombed back to the Stone Age and Seoul to the Iron Age, there would be no winners, very much including the global economy. So hyper-capitalistic South Korea doesn't want to go there. No more Samsung? No more Kia? No more Hyundai? 

Also, nationalist South Korean president Moon would very much like to shrug off the heavy American presence and hand, freeing his country of client statehood.

China also would like to see the U.S. less dominant in Asia. It is their goal to have us withdraw our 23,500 troops from Korea and for us to be less dominate in the regional economy. And our diminished role advances China's aspirations and worldview. 

Of course they would have to figure our a way to deal with a new Tiger Economy, millions of refugees wanting into China, and the possible unification of Korea. Korea would instantly become the new Germany and thus an economic power to reckoned with. China would have to figure out how to accommodate and/or co-opt that.

What a deal would mean to North Korea is evident. People there would have electricity and food, the roads would be fixed and Kim would have an Air Force One of his own. He also could use the money that participating in winning the Nobel Prize would provide. Perhaps for Kim, more than anything else, he would morph from pariah status to player on the world stage.

Trump too in important circles is a pariah but if he were to sign off on such a deal he would have a chance to get off that schneid. It might even help Republicans win more seats in the House of Representatives than currently projected and make it less likely that Trump would be impeached. It might also be an incentive for him to declare mission actually accomplished and decide to turn the keys over to Mike Pence.

He also could use the Nobel cash.

Kim at Pyongyang Airport

April 23, 2018--Contortions

It has been painful to witness progressives, Democrats twisting themselves into contortions as they attempt to come to grips with what is happening with the North Koreans.

Their problem is less with Kim Jong-un and the North Koreans than with how to think about and react to Donald Trump's involvement.

Remember how during the 2016 primaries he said it would be his "honor" to meet face-to-face with Kim? He was roundly criticized and mocked by both his Republican and Democratic opponents as being naive and inexperienced in the world of global diplomacy. He was chastised for asserting that traditional forms of diplomacy (which included many months of pre-summit negotiations between lower-level staffs) were the necessary prerequisites to meetings between heads of states. Particularly hostile ones.

Think Kissinger meeting privately with Zhou Enlai before Nixon would consider getting together with Zhou much less Mao.

Failing to recall how neophyte Barack Obama was roundly criticized and mocked by his political opponents (Hillary Clinton leading the pack) during the 2008 campaign when he declared he would be willing to meet face-to-face with the leaders of Iran and North Korea in the search for peace, progressives, opposing Trump now in such ahistorical, knee-jerk fashion are being, well, intentionally forgetful, hypocritical, or both.  

So now we not only have a heads-of-state meeting on the books for late May/early June, but we appear to have Kim making all sorts of preemptive concessions about his nuclear weapons program.

First he announced he was suspending all testing of missiles and nuclear warheads. Then, again without demanding anything in return, he announced over the weekend that he will be shutting down his nuclear weapons research and fabrication facilities. He wants, he says, to turn his focus to the collapsed North Korean economy.

This latter promise is discombobulating progressives. On Saturday and Sunday, for example, on CNN and especially MSNBC, former senior Obama national security advisors and staff have been all over the airwaves struggling with how to think about and respond to these overtures.

First, and most appropriately, they expressed skepticism, warning that the North Koreans for decades have made promises of this sort that they haven't kept. Then they dismissed the evidence that the extra-severe sanctions imposed on the North Koreans, mainly by the U.S. and China, have led to the further hollowing out of the North Korean economy, such as it is, and this is forcing Kim to the table. 

They are ignoring this evidence because, as with Kim's pledge to scale back his weapons program, not to have criticized what seems to be unfolding would give tacit if not overt credit to Trump, as unlikely and crazy and as confounding as what may be happening might turn out to be. 

Liberals so despise Trump that they cannot bear to give some credit, much less offer any praise for his leading the effort to bring this about.

Most outrageously, if Trump pulls this off he would be a leading candidate to receive a Nobel Peace Prize. If the unthinkable were to occur, he as well as Obama would have one. 

Worse--all of us in our heart-of-hearts know Obama didn't really deserve his whereas if we manage to make a verifiable deal with the North Koreans, Trump will have earned his.

Sometimes the world is too confounding to deal with. This may turn out to be one of those occasions.

Kissinger and Zhou Enlai

March 28, 2018--North Korea Again

Considering the remarkable, just completed meeting in Beijing between Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un, here is something I posted on March 9th--

Finally, maybe, perhaps, could it be at last that there is some good news from Korea?

Change often comes about in unexpected ways.

South Korean leaders worked hard to convince North Korea to join an all-Korean contingent of athletes at the recent Olympics. 

Even maxim-leader Kim Jong-un's sister attended, sitting in the VIP box fewer than 10 feet from Vice President Pence, who did not even have the manners to smile in her direction. (His wife travels with him wherever he goes to keep him from paying attention to beautiful young women.)

Things felt so frosty that it seemed as if Trump couldn't wait for Pence to leave so he could get on with the business of nuking Pyongyang.

For the new president of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, having North Koreans participating in figure skating and ice hockey was less about sports or medal counts than high-stakes geopolitical politics.   

Moon ran for office as a new-style leader who would not wake up every morning with his marching orders delivered to him by our ambassador (assuming we ever again have one) but as one who would find his own way on the Korean peninsular, especially testing to see if there is any chance to make a deal for some sort of rapprochement before we, "fire and fury," incinerate both Koreas.

That opportunity may be coming into focus. Earlier this week high-level South Koreans travelled north where they had substantive discussions with their North Korean counterparts, including in the North Korean delegation, Kim's sister--the "Korean Ivanka." 

After the two days of meetings Kim announced that he would order the suspension of missile and nuclear testing during any talks Moon might be able to broker between the North and the United States. Further, Kim hinted, he is willing to discuss the denuclearization of North Korea, America's and the world's ultimate objective.

Trump's response? Moderate. Reasonable. Rational. No tweets about "Little Rocket Man" and "whack job." Just indications of appropriately skeptical openness to Kim's initiative.

Could this be, might this be, perhaps this represents . . .

I am reluctant to compete these sentences and jinx the situation.

But here's the framework for a deal. Admittedly, a stretch--

We agree to discussions (remember during the campaign how Trump said he would be willing to meet with Kim, that to do so would be "his honor"). South Korea, China and even Russia eagerly await the results and, back-channel, encourage Kim to be negotiable. 

After a couple of months, there is the outline of the deal--

In exchange for ratcheting-back their nuclear program, on route to reducing it, the North agrees not to develop nuclear weapons that are small and dependable enough to be delivered by their ICBM missiles that already have the capacity to reach the United States.

In return, we agree to draw down our military presence in South Korea, withdrawing the bulk of our current contingent of 23,500 troops. The UN agrees to deploy inspectors on both sides of the border to guarantee that North Korea and the U.S. fulfill their commitments.

Longer term, the country is unified, following the examples of Vietnam where there is now one Vietnam, and Germany where there is now one Germany. To help in the process, the economic behemoth, South Korea, devotes trillions to the modernization of North Korea, which in turn over time also becomes an economic powerhouse.

Trump one way or the other is forced to give up carrying out any tail-wag-the-dog actions in a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the now rapidly encroaching Mueller investigation. He has to settle for stumbling into helping to promote world peace.

Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump share the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump finally, with this at least, reaches parity with his predecessor. 

OK, too much, scratch that. But they are widely adulated. Enough so that Trump decides not to run for reelection, reminding us endlessly how he fulfilled all his promises. How the mission has been accomplished.

In fact, if anything like this plays out, unlikely partners as Kim and Trump are, they would deserve a lot of credit.

March 13, 2018--Spatting With Friends

I'm spatting again with some of my liberal friends. 

This time about the potential meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un.

They are sharply critical of Trump for so impetuously agreeing to meet while I, though I too have my reservations, have been asking them what are the better alternatives--Not talking? Exchanging insults? ("Little Rocket Man," "Dotard") Saber rattling? All-out war where everyone agrees hundreds of thousands would die within minutes?

Most frequently, my friends, though they generally feel direct talks are ultimately a good idea, contend it is premature for Trump to agree to meet before traditional forms of negotiation and diplomacy prepare the way for a presidential meeting.

As one put it, "Countries such as North Korea, rogue countries seeking the imprimatur of legitimacy, see being invited to a face-to-face encounter in itself to be a major goal. Trump meeting with Kim would be a sign of welcoming him and North Korea into the company of credible nations. Kim craves a seat at that table. And so for Trump to trade it away, getting nothing substantial in return, is not the way to make a deal with the likes of Kim."

All good points, I concede but continue to ask what are the alternatives. My friends say, "None of the above."

So again I ask, "What should we do?"

My friends continue to say have Secretary of State Tillerson and what little staff he has work on what they would discuss when meeting, preparing the way for it, very much including what the two leaders will say and do when they finally get together. What agreements they can endorse and literally sign off on. Come up with agreements about step-by-step plans for the North that include ratcheting back their nuclear program while we agree to drawdown our military forces that are stationed in South Korea. 

And, of course, my friends say, to make sure before Kim and Trump meet that there will be verifiable stipulations regarding how the various drawdowns will be verified. To quote Ronald Regan when dealing with the Soviet Union, "Trust, but verify." In Russian, Doveryay, no proveryay.

"Sounds good," I say, "But the sad reality is that Trump does not have a diplomatic team in place or anyone for that matter in his administration who knows anything about East Asia much less Korea. We don't even have an ambassador to South Korea. And so, considering all of this and the reality of North Korea's nuclear weapons and ICBMs, what's the best way to proceed?"

At this point conversation begins to lose velocity with my friends and I at least agreeing that there are no precedents to draw upon and, considering the type of leaders they and we are afflicted with, maybe we have no choice but to try it Kim's and Trump's way--roll the dice and hope for the best. 

With that hope based precariously on the very fact of who are our leaders. One, in Kim, whose favorite American seems to be the preposterous Dennis Rodman while those most on our president's mind also come from the media and popular culture--"Alex" Baldwin and Chuck Todd. 

Before we move on, to underscore why I am attempting to cling to hope, I ask my friends why they believe with a Kim and a Trump traditional approaches, traditional forms of diplomacy have any chance of succeeding. Even if there were the usual Republican foreign policy folks serving in the Trump administration or, for that matter, if Hillary Clinton had been elected and with her there was the usual army of Democratic foreign policy experts, with Trump and Kim why would we expect any of the traditional approaches to foreign policy to work.

"Didn't we try that?" I ask, "Republicans as well as Democrats, when they or we were in power? What evidence of success can we point to from the approaches of the previous four presidents, who, over more than 25 years, tried various strategies, from cajoling and threatening to buying-off (bribing) the North Korean leadership?" 

Pressing further, I also ask, "What did George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama for that matter accomplish with regard to North Korea?" 

And concluding, I say, "During those two-plus decades the North Koreans became a major nuclear power. That's what got accomplished."

One more troubling thing--a friend, who I suspect represents a somewhat widespread feeling in progressive circles, acknowledged that a big part of him doesn't want this approach to work because he doesn't want anything positive to happen during Trump's presidency. Not to the economy and not in world affairs.

"So," I said, "If Kim and Trump roll the dice and that fails won't we then wind up going to nuclear war? If this is where we're already headed, maybe, just maybe . . ."

March 12, 2018--Distractions

We needed some laughs without Donald Trump being the source of them and so we turned to TV. 

Not CNN, MSNBC, or Fox. We needed a break from that.

Of course, though late last week the North Korean business was being played out in screaming headlines and Breaking News was constantly interrupting normal broadcasting--with Breaking News the new normal--Fox & Friends, that idiotic morning show, dredged up a few new things about O.J. Simpson to yack about to distract their viewers. The "gloves don't fit" and whatnot.

We almost never watch entertainment programming on network TV--I confess I had not seen a full episode of Seinfeld until about six months ago and now am addicted to it, though not unhappily, I still have been unable to find a way to like Friends--not wanting more shows to become compulsive about--we try to read and talk to each other when seeking distraction from news of the day, news of the hour, or news of the last five minutes.

At lunch with a friend last week, sensing our agitation about all things Trump, he asked if we had ever watched Episodes.

"Episodes of what?" I asked.

"The TV series. Episodes the TV series, which ran for five seasons on Showtime."

Never even having heard of it should give you some idea of how out of touch we are. Much of that out-of-touchness, I should confess, intentional.

When he said it was created by the co-creator of Friends, I stopped listening and tried to turn the conversation back to why Hope Hicks was quitting her White House job. "That's like a sitcom," I said.

But desperate, the other night, having run out of things to talk about, Rona said, "Why don't we give in and take a look at that show Lee mentioned. He has a life so any TV show he mentions might actually be fun."

And so we did. By Sunday evening we had watched all five seasons, about 40 half-hour episodes.

We love them and are already feeling blue that soon we will miss the extra-vivid characters and hilarious situations and will have nothing to do but return to talking about Trump and Kim Jong-un.

Oh, I forgot to mention, Episodes is about . . . 

And it stars Matt LeBlanc from Fr . . .

March 9, 2018--Denuclearization?

The blog posting after this one was written before the announcement that Donald Trump and North Korean president Kim Jong-un plan to meet in May to discuss the possible end of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program. 

This note is to indicate that I am not ignoring that potentially world-changing event. Though like other liberals who detest Trump, I haven't yet figured out what tone to take when discussing it. Caught off guard by the announcement, the late night MSNBC hosts from Rachel Maddow to Lawrence O'Donnell couldn't stop dealing with Trump in a begrudging, joking way. Their shows were planned to be about Stormy Daniels and such. For my views about North Korea see Wednesday's blog (two below) which ahead of the news about North Korea, I feel, pretty much rings true.

March 7, 2018--Korea

Finally, maybe, perhaps, could it be at last that there is some good news from Korea?

Change often comes about in unexpected ways.

South Korean leaders worked hard to convince North Korea to join an all-Korean contingent of athletes at the recent Olympics. 

Even maxim-leader Kim Jong-un's sister attended, sitting in the VIP box fewer than 10 feet from Vice President Pence, who did not even have the manners to smile in her direction. (His wife travels with him wherever he goes to keep him from paying attention to beautiful young women.)

Things felt so frosty that it seemed as if Trump couldn't wait for Pence to leave so he could get on with the business of nuking Pyongyang.

For the new president of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, having North Koreans participating in figure skating and ice hockey was less about sports or medal counts than high-stakes geopolitical politics.   

Moon ran for office as a new-style leader who would not wake up every morning with his marching orders delivered to him by our ambassador (assuming we ever again have one) but as one who would find his own way on the Korean peninsular, especially testing to see if there is any chance to make a deal for some sort of rapprochement before we, "fire and fury," incinerate both Koreas.

That opportunity may be coming into focus. Earlier this week high-level South Koreans travelled north where they had substantive discussions with their North Korean counterparts, including in the North Korean delegation, Kim's sister--the "Korean Ivanka." 

After the two days of meetings Kim announced that he would order the suspension of missile and nuclear testing during any talks Moon might be able to broker between the North and the United States. Further, Kim hinted, he is willing to discuss the denuclearization of North Korea, America's and the world's ultimate objective.

Trump's response? Moderate. Reasonable. Rational. No tweets about "Little Rocket Man" and "whack job." Just indications of appropriately skeptical openness to Kim's initiative.

Could this be, might this be, perhaps this represents . . .

I am reluctant to compete these sentences and jinx the situation.

But here's the framework for a deal. Admittedly, a stretch--

We agree to discussions (remember during the campaign how Trump said he would be willing to meet with Kim, that to do so would be "his honor"). South Korea, China and even Russia eagerly await the results and, back-channel, encourage Kim to be negotiable. 

After a couple of months, there is the outline of the deal--

In exchange for ratcheting-back their nuclear program, on route to reducing it, the North agrees not to develop nuclear weapons that are small and dependable enough to be delivered by their ICBM missiles that already have the capacity to reach the United States.

In return, we agree to draw down our military presence in South Korea, withdrawing the bulk of our current contingent of 23,500 troops. The UN agrees to deploy inspectors on both sides of the border to guarantee that North Korea and the U.S. fulfill their commitments.

Longer term, the country is unified, following the examples of Vietnam where there is now one Vietnam, and Germany where there is now one Germany. To help in the process, the economic behemoth, South Korea, devotes trillions to the modernization of North Korea, which in turn over time also becomes an economic powerhouse.

Trump one way or the other is forced to give up carrying out any tail-wag-the-dog actions in a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the now rapidly encroaching Mueller investigation. He has to settle for stumbling into helping to promote world peace.

Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump share the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump finally, with this at least, reaches parity with his predecessor. 

OK, too much, scratch that. But they are widely adulated. Enough so that Trump decides not to run for reelection, reminding us endlessly how he fulfilled all his promises. How the mission has been accomplished.

In fact, if anything like this plays out, unlikely partners as Kim and Trump are, they would deserve a lot of credit.

January 4, 2018--Let the Games Begin!

Kim Jong-un and Trump Donald-un are at it again. We've moved from "Little Rocket Man" to back-and-forths about whose nuclear button is bigger than whose. (Fortunately, on both sides, there are no such buttons.)

Do you think these world leaders have a size problem? We know that "Little Marco" Rubio felt that way about candidate Trump's hands and other body parts. 

This ends the entertainment portion of this posting. 

The rest is perhaps even hopeful.

Remember back in the early 1970s, after 20 years of estrangement between the United States and "Red" China, both sides were looking for a face-saving way to begin to engage each other.

The U.S. ping pong team was in Japan competing in the world table tennis tournament. Since they were in the neighborhood, the People's Republic of China invited them to come to Beijing for a series of exhibition matches. 

Never mind that our team was trounced. What turned out to be important was not the ping pong but the fact that this represented the beginning of communication between both sides which culminated in 1972 with fierce Cold Warrior Richard Nixon visiting China, most remarkably sitting down to talk with maximum leader, Mao Zedong. The rest is the history we are living with today.

There may be, may be something similar happening right now on the Korean peninsular.

With the Winter Olympics less than a month from opening in South Korea, in his annual New Years address to the world, North Korea's president Kim Jong-un hinted that he would like to talk with his South Korea counterpart, Moon Jae-in, about the possibility of the North sending athletes to the games. I suppose in the tradition that enemies put aside their weapons to compete in the Olympics.

Quickly, President Moon took up Kim's offer. They or their representatives have already made plans to meet in the demilitarized zone as early next week and they have already reconnected the hot line between the two Koreas. We know that when they meet they will be talking about more than ski jumping.

Obervers in Asia and the West are noting that this is an attractive strategy for each side--for Kim it shows some flexibility in regard to talking to those who oppose him and his nuclear program. It also, as many are putting it, "drives a wedge" between two erstwhile allies--South Korea and the United States. Presuming that if Moon agrees to meet it will be in defiance of Trump, president of South Korea's longest time ally, the United States.

On President Moon's side of the table, it shows his independence from the United States. That his is not a puppet regime. We have been a huge presence there from the years of the Korean War until today. Nearly a remarkable 70 years. Currently there are 37,500 U.S. military personnel in South Korea, and for decades we have been the the major patrons of most South Korean political leaders.

But Moon, who recently come to power as a "liberal" has sought to put some distance between us and his country. So this wedge may be just what he is seeking--some measure of independence from our influence.

In a frenzy of threatening tweets about Pakistan, the Palestinians, Iran, and North Korea, President Trump has indicated he has no problem with the two Koreas talking with each other.

Perhaps he too is hoping that this small opening, not unlike the ping pong diplomacy of the 1970s, will lead to a way for us to back off while saving face. 

This has not been Trump's MO--backing off or looking for ways to save face--but one never knows with someone as unpredictable and as embattled as he. Maybe he will switch to becoming as obsessed with Pakistan or Venezuela as he is with North Korea. In his world, that could be a version of a good thing. And it does fit an America First agenda of sorts, though Pakistan has at least 100 nukes and I'm not sure provoking them as he recently has is such a good idea.

It is fragile things of this sort that we hope for and cling to.

November 28, 2017--The Highways of North Korea

Recently there were two dramatic attempts to escape from North Korea. One was caught on videotape as the defector raced south along a highway that led to South Korea and freedom.

On the tape we see him chased by North Korea border guards who fired 45 shots at him. Five struck home. Amazingly he was not killed, but rather was rescued by five South Korean soldiers who risked their lives to pull him to safety.

He is apparently resting comfortably in a hospital in the South, watching in fascination a steady stream of CSI reruns.

Doctors treating him reported that like the other escapee, his digestive system was full of parasitical worms. Some as long at 11 or 12 inches! They said this is evidence of how malnourished North Koreans are. They may have nukes and missiles but the regime does not have the resources or inclination to feed or treat its citizens.

The tape went viral. I asked Rona if she had seen it. She hadn't so we found it on YouTube. There it was in real time and slow-motion.

"Amazing," Rona said. "What a brutal situation." 

She leaned closer to the computer screen to get a better look at the escape. "Did you see that highway?"

"Highway?"

"The road he raced down."

"I didn't notice it."

"Take another look." We played the tape again.

"I think I see what you mean."

"How perfect the road surface is."

"I see that now," I said.

"Not a crack in it, no potholes, no bumps, no deterioration."

"Even the left-turn graphic on the surface looks as if it was just painted."

"When you think about the roads in Maine and New York City," Rona said, "it makes me angry that ours and our bridges are collapsing while those in about the poorest country in the world are in perfect shape."

"So when it comes to infrastructure who lives in a Third World country?"

Rona not answering was the answer.