Trump: Four Weeks In.

On the 16^th February, President Trump announced: “I don't think there's ever been a President elected who in this short period of time has done what we've done.” After four weeks in the White House, he said "incredible progress" had been made. He had signed more than two dozen Executive Orders, as well as several Bills. He also saw most of his cabinet in place and fired his first choice National Security Adviser, as well as an acting Attorney General for defying the seven-nation travel ban. But what has President Trump actually achieved?

President Trump signed Executive Orders at a seemingly unprecedented rate, often using a photo opportunity of a President at work, yet according to The Washington Post, President Obama signed more EOs during his same first weeks in office. The contrast doesn’t stop there. On entering office, Obama had a major economic crisis to face and he dealt with it in a serious but calm manner. Trump has no major crisis. Instead, he is treating the White House as if it is a television stage for a reality star. Gold curtains as a back drop for press conferences is not a good look, unless you happen to be tacky and want to be awash with the colour.

I have two particular issues that concern me. First, the American media. It chooses to analyse Trump the man, rather than the policies he is espousing. Some American newspapers are even providing a mental picture of the new President. ‘Experts’ trot out their views on the demonic and megalomaniac nature of the new man in the White House. I have to ask, have any of these experts examined him? Indeed, have any even spoken to him? I must conclude this is a media exercise of form over substance. Forget the body language and focus on the policies!

Having said this, in the administration’s first few days, Trump acted as if he was back on The Apprentice. ‘Look at me, look at what I’m doing, look at what I’m signing,’ seemed to be the desired message, followed by “you’re fired” when his NSA adviser, Michael Flynn, admitted lying to VP Pence over discussions with the Russians.

Where US relations with Russia are concerned, the American press is on a witch hunt. Did Trump know Flynn had talked to Putin's people about sanctions before the Inauguration? The D.C. media went into "shock horror" mode, but apparently forgot what Nixon allegedly did shortly before the 1968 election. He had a message sent to North Vietnamese leaders not to agree a peace deal with the Johnson administration because better terms would be on offer from him once he was elected. So, I feel the press itself has some questions to answer about its lack of balance on US/Russia reportage.

What of America's relations with NATO and Israel? Is it wrong for the Americans to tell its NATO partners to pay their fair share? Trump may not succeed but it's worth a try. As for peace in Israel, raising the proposition that a two state solution is off the table seems to me to be disingenuous. Is Trump trying to divide and rule in the Middle East, setting Iran against its neighbours? I suspect the policy will fail but there is no suggestion yet that Trump is embarked on a Middle East venture with all guns blazing. Yet the American press paints a different and adverse picture of Trump’s policy, criticizing him for overturning and terminating peace initiatives and alienating Palestinians in an effort to heat up the Middle East.

In previous blogs, I have alluded to parallels between the Trump and FDR administrations. However, where relations with the press are concerned, you could not find a greater difference. FDR operated on the premise that you catch more flies with honey. He knew he needed the newspapers to support his radical economic policies. He courted reporters, provided a press room in the White House and reaped the benefit. Trump’s declaration of war on the Fake News Media, even as he peddles it, will surely rebound. If he forgets or fights against the symbiotic nature of the relationship between the Chief Executive and the media, he will surely regret it.

My second issue is the apparent lack of understanding in the many Brits I talk with as to how America government works. I am told that Trump is a braggart, a self-obsessed, thin skinned man with a short attention-span who “lies like a hairy egg.” But I am weary with being asked how Americans could elect such a person. Can ‘the most powerful man in the world’ be this way? My answer is to point to the American Constitution. America handles separation of powers differently to the British. The President is not in any way like a British Prime Minister. When Presidential authority is analysed, he may be Commander in Chief but what are his other powers? He cannot declare war nor even appoint cabinet members, ambassadors or judges unless the Senate “advises and consents.” 

I suggest that currently, the most powerful man in D.C. is Paul Ryan. As Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ryan decides on passage of legislation through the House and particularly he controls the path of money bills. Trump will not be able to buy one brick for his acclaimed Mexican Wall unless Ryan gets his House colleagues to give the thumbs up.

The new administration appears to be chaotic. Numerous Presidencies have been shambolic from the get-go. Take a look at the first weeks of the Carter and Clinton administrations. At the latter's first State of the Union, he reneged on a middle class tax cut, saying, "you play the cards you're dealt." Effectively, Wall Street had given the finger to Clinton, telling him the tax cut would create an economic disaster.

Putting a new US government together is a gargantuan and difficult task, which is why most Presidents get a honeymoon period from the press. In 1952, America elected its first non-political President since Grant in 1868. Ike was a professional soldier but he had held positions of enormous power in the military, requiring political savvy and the press loved him. For sure, he knew his way around Washington. Now, America has a businessman, Donald J. Trump. No honeymoon period for him. His refusal to disclose tax returns must give cause to doubt his business dealings, let alone his honesty. But his political sensibilities are the real cause for concern. Does he really expect conflict of interest issues to go away? How does he expect to govern with a hostile media looking at his every move?

And Trump likes to equate all his actions with combative business deals. Having seen Congress repeal an Obama EO on gun registration for people with mental problems, what kind of deal is that? Also, the administration has withdrawn a federal guideline requiring transgender students to have unfettered access to bathrooms and locker rooms matching their gender identity. In doing so, it has signalled that the administration does not interpret current federal civil rights protections as prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.

This is not just a Trump thing. It is 21^st century Republican ideology which opposes not only any restriction on 2^nd Amendment rights but also LGBT. It suspect it will not be long before new federal restrictions on abortion come front and centre. I find it particularly distressing that Trump referred to “a so-called judge” when the seven nation Muslim ban EO was ruled unlawful. At the end of the day, seeing the executive branch of American government attack the legislative branch serves to undermine the rule of law on which western democracy is based. 

But should we Brits not get a better understanding how the executive branch government is often subservient not only to both Houses of Congress and the Courts but also the voters? In the 2018 mid-terms Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress may shrink and even disappear. The Constitution is based strictly on the doctrine of separation of powers and woe betide any President who seeks to contravene the rules. In 1937, FDR sought to pack a hostile Supreme Court bench with judges who would be more accommodating. An overwhelming Democratic Congress threw out the proposal in short shrift.

Let me be clear. I don't like Trump's politics, his style or pretty well anything else about him for that matter. I didn't vote for him, nor did any other Brits. To an extent, his election is none of our business. But the man in the White House could damage British interests with his overt ‘America First’ policy. It doubt it will do us on this side of the pond any good if our Prime Minister continues to fawn over Mr Trump.

The Deadly Variables

 

The late British Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan, when asked what he feared most politically, allegedly replied, “Events, dear boy, events.” I am not sure I would have agreed with him. Instead, I would have turned to the Greek legend of Achilles, which holds that he was dipped into the river Styx by his mother in order to make him invulnerable. His heel wasn't covered by the water and he died from an arrow wound to his heel. For me, the Achilles heel of politics is variables, the “what ifs” which, if not properly and fully explored and planned for, can bite you in the bum, never mind the heel.

The best recent example of a variable ignored is “Brexit.” Ex-Prime Minister Cameron, agreed to a referendum on the European Community, believing it would result in a strong Remain vote. Allegedly, he ordered the Civil Service not to waste time planning for a Leave vote. Some eight months after the referendum, the UK government remains in disarray, struggling to find a way through the intensely dangerous mine field of Brexit.

In America, the new President is wielding a broad sword as he wades into government. He is ruling by one Executive Order after another, seemingly in the belief that he is supreme and need not consider the legality of his actions. But he has come up against “an event,” in the guise of a federal judge who has told the Trump administration that the travel ban on Muslims seeking to travel to USA from specified countries is prima facie unlawful and will be stayed. The Federal Court of Appeal has refused an application by the administration to lift the stay. There was a full hearing yesterday. At the time of writing this Blog, the Appeals Court has reached no decision. Regardless of the ruling, the issue will not be resolved for weeks if not months, as the case will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court.

I doubt Trump considered there was even a variable. He seems to follow the dictum of Richard Nixon who, in the Frost/Nixon interviews, told David Frost that “the law is what the President says it is.” I have no doubt that in the months before the election, Trump told his billionaire friends that once he was in the White House, he would knock America into shape. What is it that makes Republican Presidents believe that being harsh and uncompromising equates with being smart? George W Bush bombed sand in Afghanistan as he embarked on the War Against Terror, something no longer mentioned. Ronald Reagan lied to Congress and the American public over the Iran/Contra affair, backing “freedom fighters” along the way.

 

In case you believe I am biased, I can point to one of the greatest Democratic Presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, who, in his first 100 days in office, ran roughshod over the American Constitution. Numerous government Bills and Executive Orders, such as the grant of monopolies and price controls, habitually offended the doctrine of Separation of Powers. It took two years for the Supreme Court to hear appeals and effectively destroy the First New Deal. Perhaps what is not so well known is that FDR’s Attorney General Joseph Jackson, the same man who prosecuted at Nuremberg, advised FDR and his cabinet that the New Deal laws were unlawful. The administration took a chance on the programs standing because they believed the country was in dire straits, much like Trump & Co seem to believe today.

 

I have to say I don’t “get” Republican Presidents. Reagan took offence at the partitioning of Berlin and constantly told the Russians, “tear down that wall.” Now Trump takes offence at Mexico and Mexicans who come into America as illegals but who keep the produce economy of America going. He has told them, “We will build a wall, a beautiful wall.” I for one would appreciate more consistency.

I’m turning to another matter which may cause Trump trouble. The President’s nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy, Neil Gorsuch, may find his confirmation hearings hazardous because the Senate Republicans may not have thought through the variables. I should say I know very little about Justice Gorsuch, therefore I shall not offer a view about his likely rulings if he is confirmed to the Court.

Usually, a candidate is carefully scrutinised by the White House before nomination. Gorsuch has received the usual Presidential accolades, telling the public he is “totally qualified” for the Bench. But don’t forget George W. Bush told the American public the same thing when he tried to get his family lawyer, Harriet Miers, onto the Supreme Court.

Gorsuch has been making the rounds of Capitol Hill before the Senate Judiciary Committee examines him in public. Assuming he passes, he will be the subject of a confirmation vote by the full Senate, where the Republicans hold a 52/48 majority. Thus Gorsuch’s nomination looks likely to succeed. What could prevent it? If the Judiciary Committee hearings disclose something seriously adverse, for example that Justice Gorsuch had an extra-marital affair, the nomination would probably fail. But this kind of disclosure is highly unlikely.

To defeat the nomination, the Senate Democrats will have to mount a filibuster and talk the nomination out. To defeat a filibuster, a cloture vote of 60 Senators is needed. Could the Republicans find eight Senate Democrats to cross the aisle? Doubtful, so will the Republicans activate what the media calls “the nuclear option,” changing Senate rules outlawing the filibuster and allowing instead a simple majority vote on the Senate floor to confirm the nomination? Such a change of rules could set a disastrous precedent because it would open the way for justices with extreme views, left and right, onto the high court. 

There is Republican chutzpah afoot. The Senate Republicans blocked an Obama hopeful, Merrick Garland, from a seat on the Court because, they said, the vacancy occurred in Obama’s last year in office and the seat should be filled by the new President and Senate. Now, Vice-President Pence says the vote must be allowed because the voice of the people would otherwise be denied. Talk about double standards.

Wise heads say Senate Republicans will not have to change the rules to get rid of the filibuster because the Democrats will not fight. Instead, they will give Gorsuch an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.  It is not that the Democrats do not have the spine to filibuster, although some suggest Democrats lack the will to fight as hard as the Republicans. It is concern for the future which will stop them. They will want to keep their filibuster powder dry because two Democratic-leaning Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Steven Breyer, are elderly and nearing the end of their terms of office. Two vacancies might occur during Trump’s incumbency and it may be better for the Senate Democrats to run away and fight another day. There is also the variable of the mid-term Senate election in 2018.

Like I said, in politics it’s the variables that will get you. President Trump must recognise he presides over a nation of laws, that Executive Orders are the weakest form of law and that he needs to work with Congress and be more respectful of the Supreme Court and lower court judges if he wants his program to get anywhere. If he fails to heed this lesson, keeps making references to “so-called judges” and expects members of Congress to do his bidding as they doff their caps, he is in for a rude awakening.

 

I will be taking a short break and will blog again at the end of the month.

Barack Obama: Reflections on a Presidency.

Arguably, the cruellest aspect of politics is that once a leader has left office, neither the media nor the public he or she has served want to know or care. Since the recent Inauguration, it has been Trump, Trump, Trump – no surprise there – and the Obamas might as well not have existed.

The question is being asked, did the Obama administration leave a legacy? Will President Obama be remembered and, if so, for what?  He inherited an economic Armageddon but handed over America with a much stronger balance sheet and the car industry restored to life and health. However, failure to tackle the multi-trillion dollar debt must leave an area of concern. “Kicking the can down the road” was practiced by both the executive and legislative branches of government. 

Mr Obama’s flagship legislation, the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, is in danger of being shredded by Trump and his friends but even the doubting Republicans must acknowledge that 20 million more Americans now enjoy healthcare insurance and peace of mind about paying for their health needs.

American foreign policy since 2009 is open to criticism but President Obama was not one to commit American lives by sending ground troops to hot spots without an exit strategy. Mothers of those who served in the armed forces during his Presidency owe him a debt for keeping their sons and daughters as safe as possible. However, the use of drones must be open to question, especially when “collateral damage” has occurred.

Days before the Obama presidency ended, the President was interviewed on 60 Minutes when he said: “I’m proud of the fact that, with two weeks to go, we’re probably the first administration in modern history that hasn’t had a major scandal in the White House.”

Was the administration indeed scandal free? Of course, “scandal” is in the eye of beholder. President Obama certainly had his share of controversies. What of the hesitant handling of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? Was the handling of the Benghazi attack scandalous? The Benghazi Congressional probes showed serious errors in security arrangements prior to the attack. It was the White House spin after the attack which uncovered the private e-mail server used by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Long waiting times at Veterans Affairs hospitals, disclosed in 2014, led to the resignation of the Secretary of Veteran Affairs. I am not aware of any other Obama cabinet official to resign under pressure. In 2012, CIA Director David Petraeus resigned but he was not of cabinet rank and it was for personal reasons, an extramarital affair.

I have compared these comparatively minor issues with recent previous administration scandals. Starting with the George W. Bush administration, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice relating to the outing of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative. Libby’s action, probably Cheney inspired, was revenge for Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, disclosing a serious flaw in the Bush administration’s nuclear policy. Lives of many CIA informers were put in jeopardy as a result of Libby’s action. Bush commuted Libby’s sentence but did not pardon him. Bush and Cheney were also at the heart of the policy to water-board Iraqi suspects. This was tantamount to torture.

President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in the Senate. Clinton faced long-running probes concerning a property investment known as ‘Whitewater,’ leading to a perjury case involving Monica Lewinsky. Independent prosecutors appointed during Clinton’s tenure probed Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy who was acquitted and won the conviction of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros

The presidency of George H. W. Bush was relatively scandal-free, though Catalina Villalpando, a U.S. Treasurer, pleaded guilty in 1994 to evading federal income taxes, obstructing an independent counsel’s corruption investigation and conspiring to conceal financial links with her former company while in office. An independent counsel was also appointed to look into allegations that Bush administration officials looked at Clinton’s passport records, but no criminal violations were found.

There were numerous criminal probes of personnel during the Reagan presidency. The Iran-Contra affair led to indictments of Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger, National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, National Security Adviser John Poindexter and numerous other officials. Many were pardoned by Bush or had their convictions overturned. That Reagan himself avoided impeachment is often a cause of amazement. A scandal over defence contracts forced Attorney General Edwin Meese to resign. There was also a successful fraud investigation over HUD contracts.

President Jimmy Carter’s Budget Director, Bert Lance, resigned amid allegations of misuse of funds in a bank sale that predated his government service but he was later acquitted. Under Gerald Ford, Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz resigned over racist remarks. Will Mr Trump and his senior executives be subject to the same strictures?

Finally, the Nixon Presidency ended in resignation over the Watergate affair, as well as the conviction of numerous White House aides in arguably the biggest political scandal of the 20^th century which paralyzed the American government for two years.

So when it comes to scandal, President Obama stands well in comparison to his predecessors. And there is much of his Presidency which deserves applause. He showed that a black Chief Executive could govern for all people, black or white, young and old, Christian, Jew or Muslim. Racist attackers were confronted. When handcuffed by Congress, especially on gun control, he was measured and reasoned in response, although you could see anger and frustration in his eyes, especially when he had to cope with mass murders of schoolchildren. I hope Mr Trump will live to rue his mean-spirited and self-serving attacks on the achievements of his predecessor.

More than anything else, after a long absence since the 1950s, President and Mrs Obama brought back a strong sense of dignity and grace to the White House, as well as perseverance, common sense, decency and humour based on self-deprecation. I am saddened that this good man has left public life, at least for the time being. He certainly fulfilled my idea of “presidential.”