All in Shakespeare

It’s an old political leaders’ trick. When things are going badly at home, stir up trouble abroad. Hence, last week, Mr Trump boarded Air Force 1 with his entourage of Trump relatives and travelled east. Saudi Arabia was a triumph; huge business deals amounting to billions of dollars were signed off. Then to Israel and Palestine, followed by Rome and Brussels, where the “leader of the free world” barged his way through the crowd of NATO VIPs so he could appear front and centre. His smug look and supercilious grin made him look like the boastful bully in the playground. Finally at the G7 meeting in Taormina, he declined to walk with his fellow leaders. Was that a demonstration of “America First”?

Meanwhile, back home, the Republican Party was getting hit left, right and centre. Mr Trump will find it hard to avoid responsibility, even though he was abroad and the events were not entirely his fault. Let’s start with Greg Gianforte. In a special election in Montana for its Congressional seat, Gianforte was going to win for the Republicans by miles. However, a few days before the vote, he assaulted a journalist from The Guardian, a UK newspaper, and has been charged with misdemeanour assault.

The Missoulian,  Montana’s largest circulation newspaper, said “there is no doubt that Gianforte committed an act of terrible judgment that, if it doesn’t land him in jail, also shouldn’t land him in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Whilst the fall-out will disappear in a while, the 24/7 news machine will hound Gianforte, who won the seat, and his Party, for imitating Trump’s poor impulse control. Is Gianforte’s behaviour further evidence of the tribalism entering American politics? I hope not but Speaker Ryan has another headache to look forward to when Gianforte takes his seat in the House. This one isn’t over.

Next, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is back in the news but in a way that casts the executive branch in a bad light. Last March, Sessions recused himself from investigations related to the 2016 campaign for the White House in relation to meetings with Russian government representatives. It transpires that Sessions has not disclosed dozens of meetings with foreign ambassadors. Sessions says he was told by the FBI that disclosure was unnecessary. Sessions cancelled appearances due to be made before two congressional committees, claiming an unspecified scheduling conflict. Well, Mr A.G., Congress is like an elephant. It won’t forget.

On top of this, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has been cited a “person of interest” by the FBI. For all anybody knows, Mr Kushner is completely innocent of wrongdoing. The FBI is merely seeking information from a willing participant but it’s the perception versus reality game that seems to count these days. The Russian Interference Investigation by both Congress and the FBI will ramble along throughout the summer and when Congress reconvenes after the summer recess, I suspect that other high-ranking members of the administration will find feet held to the fire. Mike Flynn, the sacked NSA Director and Paul Manafort, Trump’s sacked campaign manager will both have interesting tales. In the meantime, Kushner is the first person in this potential scandal to bring problems into the West Wing home.

Far more serious and immediate is the state of America’s tax finances. According to Michael Mulvaney, the Director of the Office of Budget Management, tax receipts are “coming in a little bit slower than expected.” This statement may underscore a situation where the federal government runs out of money this summer. The Continuing Resolution agreed in Congress to fund the government through to end September needs political tweaking. Will Congress agree to raise the US debt ceiling before recess? The Freedom Caucus, some thirty Republican members of the House of Representatives, is already on record that it will refuse to agree any CR extension without budget cuts to match the expected expenditure. So, Congressional Republicans need help from House Democrats, who may come to the administration’s help at a price. For example, the Democrats may demand the Republicans end new legislation on healthcare attempting to defeat Obamacare.

 

The crucial effect is that Republicans may find themselves going into next year’s 2018 mid-term elections without a big ticket items to show to their supporters. Do remember the Republicans hold the White House and both Houses of Congress, as well as a notional majority on the Supreme Court. Despite all these advantages, they will look impotent.

More trouble for Trump: this week, the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan body, “scored” the House American Healthcare Bill, the legislation to be introduced to repeal and replace Obamacare. Before Trump’s trip, the House had passed the Bill before CBO’s commentary. CBO’s main findings have now been published: 23million more Americans will be uninsured by 2026; more important, 14 million will be uninsured in the first year and the 50-64 year-old group will be the hardest hit; the federal deficit will reduce by only $119 billion, not the Executive prediction of $150 billion. Some 20 Senators from those states where Medicare expanded under Obamacare, including Senator Capito (West Virginia), have already expressed concern that millions of their voters will be left in the lurch. The hidden meaning is the Bill will fail in the Senate if major changes are not made. But will the House agree those changes? There is a major fight in the making.

And finally, if all this wasn’t enough, Trump is going to be red-faced because of another broken election promise. During last year’s campaign, Trump made a pledge to voters in Indiana that jobs at the air-conditioning manufacturer, The Carrier Corporation, would be saved. His words: “there is a 100 per cent chance the jobs will be saved. Last week, Carrier announced it will cut 632 workers from its Indianapolis plant and move the jobs to Mexico. This has to be a huge embarrassment to Trump and a major dent to his personal credibility, especially as he tweeted last November and December how he had saved the jobs.

These are just a few of the many problems that the President is facing on his return to Washington. No doubt one solution for him will be to take a golf vacation. If so, he should beware of any bad golf shot because that will get politicized. It is said that “it’s all in Shakespeare.” If so, may I quote from Henry IV Part II: “uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.”

 

 

 

2020: Who Will Lead the Democratic Party?

It is often said that a week is a long time in politics. If so, three years is a political millennium. But the Republicans are reeling. The White House seems to be in chaos and The Republicans in Congress are wobbling, thus it is reasonable to commence thinking about who might lead the Democratic Party in upsetting its opponents into the 2020 elections.

At the moment, fate is suggesting that the house on Pennsylvania Avenue is theirs for the taking next time around. But which Democrat will make it through the primaries and into the Presidential election? I have not checked the usual web sites like five thirty eight or Larry Sabato. The vast majority of professional observers got the 2016 result spectacularly wrong so why should they be accurate now? Bearing in mind I have no crystal ball, the following is mere conjecture.

First, the Democratic old guard. Supporters of Hillary Clinton will want their champion to make a third try for President. I don’t see this happening. Defeats by Obama (2008) and Trump last time out, as well as her age, mitigate against another run. Likewise, Bernie Sanders and his left wing agenda will find limited support but he does not appeal nationwide, and he is also too old. The House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi and the Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Shumer, are both getting on. Neither has ever voiced the desire to live in The White House.

Second, I suspect there will be a new Democratic order in the Party leadership soon, probably before the 2018 mid-terms. If the new leader is to emerge from the Senate, Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) arguably will be the front runner. She has strong qualifications, both as a Harvard Law School professor and US Senator. She has gained popularity nationwide for her attacks on the banks and the financial industry. She is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would bolster her foreign policy and national security experience. However in 2020, she will be 71 years old.

If Warren fails, Tim Kaine, (Virginia) Clinton’s running mate last year, must have a chance. He gained national recognition but he is regarded as somewhat dull. He did himself no favours in his debate with now Vice-President Mike Pence. But he has solid Democratic credentials. Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota) has attracted attention from the media including the influential New Yorker magazine which described her as, “popular, practical, appealing and progressive.” She favours ‘no-nonsense’ politics which will appeal in the Rust Belt states won by Trump. However, she does not have much of a national profile.

Corey Booker (New Jersey), one of only three African-Americans in the Senate, is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. He is said to be media-wise and has the qualities of a street-fighter. He is hardly a liberal, but he might be able to unite the progressive and centre-left Party members. He is well known in his state and within the Washington Beltway but, like Klobuchar, he lacks a nationwide profile.

Amongst the governors who may seek the Presidency is Andrew Cuomo of New York. His late father, Mario, famously refused the opportunity in 1992. Andrew Cuomo leads a large, liberal state but he has positioned himself as a centrist, at a time when the Party is left leaning. Where would he find a power base in the primaries? Another ex-governor is Deval Patrick (Massachusetts), who was talked of by many political commentators, including David Axelrod, as a potential successor to Obama. However, he left office in 2015and may not want to return to the political boxing ring. He is now a partner at Bain Capital, which will hardly endear him to the left and centre of the Party.

K
There are other Senators and Governors who may join the pack. Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Chris Murphy (Connecticut), Kamala Harris (California), as well as Governor John Hickenlooper (Colorado), are among those capable of throwing their hat into the ring.

If the Democrats take a leaf out of the Republican book and opt for a candidate without elected political experience, two names occur to me. The first is Oprah Winfrey. Why not? Like Trump, she is rich and hosts a reality television show. Unlike Trump, she is a trusted celebrity. She was an enthusiastic backer of President Obama. Might she be tempted into a race?

The second is Michelle Obama. As First Lady, she enhanced her reputation as a people person, especially when appearing in James Corden’s Carpool Karioke. During her eight years in the White House, she enjoyed huge popularity, particularly with those who hold strong liberal ideals. She dignified the office of First Lady and in the 2016 campaign she made memorable speeches. At the Democratic Convention, she poured scorn on Trump for his hurtful, hateful language about women. Mrs Obama has insisted she will not run for office for family reasons. I doubt whether she will be persuaded otherwise but she would be a formidable candidate, uniting black and women’s voters.
I
n three years’ time, if I am spared, I will take another look at this blog and if any named above are in the mix, I’ll remind you. If not, I’ll stay quiet! Whatever else, it has been a huge relief this week avoiding writing about Mr Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

Bring Back Bartlet

Normally, I don’t take much notice of lawyers when they impinge on the body politic. One exception was Lionel Tribbey, who left a lucrative Chicago practice to take up the appointment of Senior White House Counsel to President Josiah Bartlet, a major character in The West Wing. When two administration White House assistants purposely infringe the law, causing Tribbey to delay a vacation to resolve the problem, he storms into the Oval Office, using these immortal words: “I will kill people today. I will kill people with this cricket bat, which was given to me by Her Royal Majesty Elizabeth Windsor, and then I will kill them again with my own hands. I was ready to take a vacation, Mr. President, I was ready to go someplace warm, with a beach, somebody bringing me drinks with little umbrellas in them!” Now, that’s what I call lawyering.

I often wonder whether Tribbey’s character and name was borrowed from Laurence H. Tribe, (also pronounced Tribbey) who is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. Tribe is one of the most respected lawyers in his field. Many lawyers believe it is a pity that he has not been raised to the Supreme Court bench. I respect his legal opinions, so when he writes that the time has come for Congress to launch an impeachment investigation of President Trump for obstruction of justice, I sit up and take notice.

Tribe’s case is that America is faced with a President whose conduct strongly suggests that he poses a danger to the system of government. Impeachable offenses could theoretically have been charged from the outset of this Presidency. Tribe cites as an example Trump’s brazen defiance of the foreign emoluments clause, which is designed to prevent foreign powers from pressuring U.S. officials to stray from undivided loyalty to the United States. By retaining some influence on the Trump business empire, the breach continues daily.

There are now multiple investigations underway into the whims of an authoritarian leader. Tribe argues that Comey’s summary firing will not stop the Russian inquiry, yet it represents an obvious effort to interfere with a probe involving national security matters vastly more serious than the “third-rate burglary” that Nixon tried to cover up in Watergate. The question of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign goes to the heart of America’s system of government and ability to conduct free and fair elections.

Consider, too, writes Tribe, how Trump embroiled Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Attorney General Sessions, despite Sessions’ recusal from involvement in the Russia investigation, in preparing phony justifications for the firing. Trump also used both Vice President Pence and White House staff to propagate a set of blatant untruths before giving an interview to NBC’s Lester Holt that exposed the truth about firing the FBI Director. Trump admitted he had made up his mind long before receiving the opinions of his law officers.

Tribe comments that the Trump/Comey encounter was even more sinister, with Trump insisting that Comey pledge “loyalty” to him in order to retain his job. Publicly saying he saw nothing wrong with demanding such loyalty, the President turned to Twitter with a none-too-subtle threat that Comey would regret any decision to disseminate his version of his conversations with Trump, something that Comey has every right, and indeed a civic duty, to do. I’m not personally confident about this allegation: in the midst of a red scare, President Harry Truman insisted that all administration officials swear a loyalty oath or be dismissed and Congress raised no sustained objection.

Tribe’s major point is to say that if the evidence does not in itself rise to the level of “obstruction of justice”, that phrase is to empty the concept of all meaning. Obstruction of justice was the first count in the articles of impeachment against Nixon and, years later, a count against Bill Clinton. In Nixon’s case, the list of actions that together were deemed to constitute impeachable obstruction reads like a forecast of what Trump may have done decades later, making misleading statements to, or withholding material evidence from, federal investigators or other federal employees; trying to interfere with FBI or congressional investigations; trying to break through the FBI’s shield surrounding ongoing criminal investigations; dangling carrots in front of people who might otherwise pose trouble for one’s hold on power.

Tribe makes an interesting legal case but would a Congress of the president’s own party to initiate an impeachment inquiry? Are the votes there? A majority in the House is required to approve article of impeachment and 67 Senate votes are required to convict. When all is said, impeachment is more a political than a legal process and if the votes are not there, why proceed? Trump’s unpopularity seems to be on the increase and if Congressional Republicans start to see their seats are at risk in the 2018 mid-terms, minds may change.

 What if Trump is convicted? He will be followed by V.P. Pence, who was the safety valve on the Republican ticket last year. He is a right-wing Republican, popular with the Part’s base. However, he has hardly distinguished himself since Inauguration. He has been described as one who, on any given day, will do his customary imitation of a bobble-head. Standing near Trump in the Oval Office, he nods his head robotically as the President says one asinine thing after another. Pence is the most prominent and highest-ranked of Trump’s lackeys. His apparent naivete and trust are routinely abused by Trump who has him vouch for things that are not true. Pence had to deny there was talk of sanctions between Mike Flynn and the Russians and, more recently, the reason Comey was fired as FBI director. In both instances, the President either lied to Pence or failed to tell him the truth. The result was the same: The Vice President appeared clueless.

Like most nations, there is a national barometer that does not like surprises. The US stock market has been unfazed by Trump’s shenanigans. This may mean that Tribe will have to wait a while for his predictions of a Trump impeachment to come true. For sure, none of this would have happened during President Bartlet’s incumbency.

­- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Since writing this blog, three things happened. The Justice Department announced the appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special prosecutor to investigate the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. I have yet to read the precise terms of reference and the powers given to Mueller but there is no doubt that a political circus will occur in Washington this summer.

 The President’s reaction was both expected and odd. “No politician in history - and I say this with great surety - has been treated worse or more unfairly.” Had he written this in a history exam, he would have been given an F. If limited to America, Harry Truman was treated abominably both when he entered Congress and between 1946 and 1948. Going back in time, Jesus Christ was a victim of politics, as was Jean D’Arc and Socrates. Finally, the US stock market suffered its biggest fall this year. Are these signals that the Trump Presidency is starting to crumble? Let’s see how many Republican members of Congress follow John McCain, who said yesterday there was a feeling of Watergate in the air.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where's a Progressive When You Need One?

Where‘s a Progressive When You Need One?

First, the history. Unsurprisingly, America was very different at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. In this period, America’s middle class emerged, coupled with a Progressive movement which initiated nationwide major business, social and political change. What made the Progressives stand out was that they were politically non-partisan. People from all ideological persuasions whether Democrat or Republican joined in.

The stark contrast between the comfortable living conditions of the rich and the harshness of life of the poor was far more visible in most American cities than it is today. City fathers had to cope with expanding populations and the dreadful social and economic conditions which followed. Slums and tenements sprang up in their thousands in most cities, housing new city dwellers and immigrants alike, those for whom employment was uncertain. If evidence of working class life was needed, it was readily available, either from fictional accounts such as Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, which was based on life in the Chicago meat industry, or factual accounts such as Marie van Vorst’s “The Plight of the Working Woman”, published in McClure’s magazine in 1903.

Starting as far back as New York City’s Tammany Hall in the 1870s, machine government ruled in all cities. It was often riddled with corruption from top to bottom. In Satan’s Circus, Mike Dash explains how the infamous Boss Tweed made himself a wealthy man. “Under Tweed’s rule, New York spent $10,000 on a $75 batch of pencils and another $171,000 on tables and chairs worth only $4,000.” Tweed and his cronies probably stole more than $50 million, roughly equivalent to $800 million today.

To counter the awfulness of city life, new professional social workers and muckraking journalists investigated and exposed the shocking conditions of sweatshops and dangerous tenement firetraps. Women reformers became prominent. Jane Addams, inspired by England’s Toynbee Hall, established the Hull House settlement houses. Lilian Wald championed the establishment of a Children’s Bureau within the federal government.

All this fed into the Progressive’s crusade for government reform, a crusade both haphazard and piecemeal. Incremental development was unavoidable because municipal power was diffused. The battle had to be fought city to city and state to state. There was little room for political reform in the federal arena. Indeed, the Seventeenth Amendment, under which U. S. senators would in future be elected by popular vote, was the Progressive movement’s sole federal success.

However, Progressives were responsible for numerous political reforms: these included limiting the privileges and duration of franchises, extending the scope of utility regulation, modernizing out-of-date and badly skewed tax assessments to benefit taxpayers as a whole, increasing the number of independently appointed government posts, and broadening the civil service to reserve positions for specialists; introducing central, audited purchasing and rationalizing office structures.

There were failures, Prohibition for one. Also, Progressive ideas found diminishing returns as America entered The Great War and by 1920, Progressivism lost its way as America ‘returned to normalcy’ in the Jazz Age. The zeal for more reform was replaced by a society which like to drink illegally and get involved in get rich quick schemes, promoted by a buoyant stock market. As the federal government loosened all controls on business regulation in the Roaring Twenties, Wall Street became the Wild West. But at the end of the 1920s, America consequently suffered its worst ever economic depression.

I have been reflecting on the Trump domestic agenda and whether there are parallels with the 1920s and ‘30s. The Obama administration, hampered by a contrary Congress, did its best to control debt, while trying to provide poorer citizens a better life. However, the Democrats found law-making a virtual impossibility, met by intransigence in both House and Senate. Now we have the Trump administration.

The first Trump budget, the one still being negotiated, would have resulted in an increase in the $19 trillion American debt, not the promised reduction, the suggested new tax cuts would have benefited mostly the rich and super rich; the middle classes would have paid for the tax reductions through cuts in health benefits. Trump’s jobs initiative – unemployment has indeed fallen this calendar year – is accompanied by loosening of business and environmental regulations, including coal mining on federal land, amongst other policies which may damage the physical and economic health of Americans. Interesting suggestions, for example improving the infrastructure, seem to be on hold, but then so is the ridiculous Mexican wall.

All in all, Trump seems to want billionaires to benefit and to encourage business, particularly big business, to thrive much like Calvin Coolidge who said: “the business of America is business.”  Trump seems unconcerned that his ideology will be introduced at the expense of health, safety and the financial security of the vast majority of Americans, as he puts up the “You’re Not Welcome” sign to visitors from Muslim countries.

Mr Trump seems neither to know nor care for the values of an enlightened government: tolerance, respect for fair debate, a checked and balanced government, objectivity, impartiality and recognition of international interdependencies. These are matters which Mr Obama had at the forefront of his administration and I am saddened by their passing. Nor does Mr Trump seem to have a grasp on America’s history in the first 30 years of the twentieth century.

And this is the man who thought Andrew Jackson fought in the American Civil War! I don’t have a crystal ball but Trump’s America seems to be headed for isolation. If so, what next? How will the administration reduce the fearful American debt? America first may well become America last.

 

 

As I write, the Comey FBI/Russia scandal is speeding up. It is far too soon to make judgments, let alone speculate as to where the story will go. Is impeachment on the cards? Maybe but not for sacking Comey. It’s the Trump business and “emoluments” that could remove him. What really counts is the politics. If senior Republicans come to the view that Trump will wreck their Congressional majorities in the 2018 mid-terms, impeachment will become a reality.

Elections, Elections, Elections

Apart from my family and friends, the two most important interests that occupy me are sport and politics. Both provide the stuff of life, the OMG moments that help make time on the planet worthwhile. For example, as most of you know, I have been a fanatical supporter of Tottenham Hotspurs, virtually from birth. This season, they had a remote opportunity of winning "The Double", namely both the Premier League and the FA Cup. It can't happen now but there’s always next season? And if it did, OMG? I’ll be in Holy Moly country.

As for politics, I am waiting to read a tweet from President Frump along the lines of: "That effing May has called a British General Election. FAKE POLITICS. She wants to lose so she doesn't have to entertain me on my state visit to England. Never mind, Queen Betty will be fine with me. I'll be back on the Brit newspapers front pages before you can say nuke."

For the third time in as many years, we Brits are going to the polls. In the good old days, it was once or twice in five years. It’s so wearying. In case my American readers are confused about what has happened in the little old kingdom of Westminster, here's the explanation. Back in 2010, the Conservative Party, led by David Cameron, won the General Election but did not have enough seats for an overall parliamentary majority. So, Cameron and Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, did a deal, forming a coalition government, something which does not and, indeed, cannot occur under the American governmental system.

It was a term of the deal that the 2010 Coalition government would run its full five year term. Hitherto, the British Prime Minister had the sole right to call a General Election at any time during parliament’s five year term, so long as six weeks’ prior notice is given. Mr Clegg wanted to avoid a situation where a popular Cameron government could call for an early election and kick the Liberal Democrats out of power and back into the long grass. So the Coalition passed The Fixed Term Parliaments Act, requiring our government to serve its full five year term unless either the government lost a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, or Parliament passed a motion to dissolve, which passed with a two thirds majority. And this is exactly what happened last week. Within 24 hours of announcing the new election, Mrs May had won her motion to avoid the Fixed Term Act.

Could this happen in America? No. Imagine The Frump being rebuffed by the Republican majority in Congress and the Courts again and again over a period of months and years. He does not have the power to go to the American people before 2020 to ask whether they want to see his administration repeatedly being denied. His choices are limited: he can hope for better things after a mid-term election in 2018, run again in 2020 in the hope that he will get a very clear mandate for his policies, or he can resign the office. It follows that in certain respects, the so-called ‘most powerful man in the world’ has less power than our Prime Minister. Indeed, if Mrs May wins the June election, I expect the new Conservative government will repeal The Fixed Parliament Act and go back to the old system where a Prime Minister has the prerogative to call a general election whenever he or she chooses. I can see the President going both green and crimson, which would make an unfortunate clash with his orange hair and gold curtains!

I suspect my American friends will look upon our process of an election campaign with envy. Not only are there statutory limits on election expenditures but the time between the declaration of the election and voting day is often a mere 42 days. Compare this with American election expenditures which runs in the billions, while the campaign lasts for two years or more.

Don't be too envious. I'm anticipating the foulest, dirtiest UK election ever where prejudice will trump policy, forgive the “t” word. I wonder when our political leaders will adopt the Trump campaigning methods of talking over an opponent, vilifying and lying about his or her record and bringing out the worst in people. Already, Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, has talked about “a rigged system.” Even worse, the debate is “hard Brexit and soft Brexit.” Why can’t our leaders understand that what is needed is smart Brexit.

Politics is a serious business, fortunately often tinged with humor, but it is not a relentless war where victory at any cost is worthwhile. Policy, not personality, should be supreme. Sadly, this is no longer the case. Perception is far more important than reality these days when it comes to politics.

 

As I am confident that El Trumpo will not blow up the Korean peninsula during the next week or so, I am taking a break. I'll be back in mid-May.

 

Nukes and Boasts

If you accept the thrust of last Sunday’s newspapers, we should all be dead or dying from nuclear radiation. Trump’s threat to “go it alone” against North Korea was, evidently, leading to imminent nuclear war. A few journalists tried to provide a balance, noting that the North Korean nuclear threat was mostly empty and estimated that the chances of their dropping a Hiroshima level bomb on Seoul were lower than Watford playing in the Champion’s League next season.  (For my American readers, the Champion’s League is the highest level club soccer competition in Europe and Watford are a middle of the road Premier League side.)

However, the nuclear sabre-rattling by both America and North Korea was taken seriously by much of the media and politicians alike. Some compared the situation to the Cuban Missile Crisis of October, 1962. When I read this over breakfast, I almost choked on my corn flakes. Cuba is 90 miles from Key West. Pyongyang is thousands of miles from America’s shores. Yes, I know if South Korea is attacked by the North, America is likely to respond quickly but the South Koreans have an admirable armoury of anti-missile missiles. And, more important, they refused to ratchet down their deployment, notwithstanding pleas from their allies.

What is Trump’s foreign policy? Once the USA became the world’s policeman, the Truman Doctrine of the 1940s was put in place. It was followed first by Eisenhower’s “brinkmanship and asymmetrical response,” then JFK’s and LBJ’s “flexible and calibrated response” until set aside by Nixon and Kissinger with realpolitik, as they played Russia and China off against each other. And now we have foreign policy a la Trump which seems to be limited to “the new sheriff in town.” Trump has let the Joint Chiefs have their head and last week, they showed off the Mother of All Bombs, to the western media’s delight. MOAB is an eleven ton earthquake bomb. It was dropped in remote Afghanistan. What a really scary move and demonstration of American power! No doubt that will bring the Syrians and North Koreans to the negotiating table! But we should not be dazzled by the technology. In 1944, the RAF dropped ten ton earthquake bombs on the German submarine pens in Peenemunde.

What none of the learned writers mentioned in their stories and blogs was that use by America of a nuclear weapon was an act of war, requiring Congressional approval under the 1973 War Powers Act. Failure to get approval before use of a nuclear bomb would lead not only to impeachment of the President but also criminal prosecution of the Joint Chiefs.  Mr Trump may have many “toys” at his disposal but he should heed the words of LBJ who once famously exclaimed to his Secretary of State for Defense about the North Vietnamese, “the only fucking power I’ve got is nuclear power and I can’t use it.” Not only did he know Congress would not approve, notwithstanding the Gulf of Tonkin blank check, but also it would be an act of inhumanity.

I have another serious concern. Last week, Mr Trump announced: “We are sending an armada, very powerful. We have submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier, that I can tell you… And I will say this. He [Kim Jong-Un] is doing the wrong thing. He is doing the wrong thing.” Putting on one side the President’s inarticulate and repetitive phrasing, The Guardian observed: “As an explanation of a nuclear crisis, this is right up there with his [Trump’s] February press conference, when he spilled the secrets about his classified briefings on nuclear war with Russia: “Nuclear holocaust would be like no other.” The crucial point is that the vaunted American armada was not sailing towards North Korea. In fact, it was sailing away from Pyongyang, more than 3,500 miles into the Indian Ocean for a joint exercise with the Australian navy.

So, what next for the Trump administration foreign policy? The appointment of Dr Strangelove? These days there are many available car parking spaces at Foggy Bottom, home of the State Department. Important positions have not been filled as part of the effort to neuter and shrink the federal government. As a result, the lack of expertise in American foreign affairs is showing and making America look like an incompetent fool.

However, on a different tack, Mr Trump has not disappointed. I have been awaiting this particular Trump announcement for quite a few days and this week, the boast came: “I have accomplished more in my first 90 days than any previous President.” This statement by any president post 1933 suggesting that his first 100 days somehow topped Roosevelt’s achievement is rank stupidity. LBJ, Reagan and Obama are credited with significant legislative achievements early in their first terms, but much of their success generally came after the first 100 days. And none of these three Presidents claimed to be more successful than FDR.

In FDR’s first 100 days, he addressed enormous problems including a third of America’s workforce being out of work and the wholesale failure of the banking system, as well as the vast numbers of people rendered homeless, as the Great Depression reached its nadir. In his first 100 days, FDR persuaded Congress to pass 15 major bills and over 70 Acts. The legislation reshaped every aspect of the American economy and life: banking, industry, agriculture and social welfare. The administration’s policy was clear: Relief, Recovery and Reform. This is not the place to explore the detail of FDR’s achievements. Suffice it to say he is one of the most revered and respected men ever to have occupied the White House.

In contrast, what has Trump actually achieved? He and his group of businessmen friends, the men from Exxon and Goldman Sachs, have attacked America’s status quo to give nightmares to millions of people whose health is insured under Obamacare. Visiting Muslims are no longer welcome stateside. Regulations protecting the health and welfare of citizens are being rolled back in the name of big business. And by changing its rules, the Senate has approved the appointment of a right-wing Trump nominee to the Supreme Court. 

President Trump, you would be well advised not to make a big deal of your record to date. The evidence not only shows you not coming close to matching FDR. It also demonstrates you have little grasp of governing and rely far too much on bullying, sound bites and self-aggrandisement to try to get the job done, as you define it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Healthcare of the Nation

Over the past months, two people close to me have been admitted into hospital as emergency cases. One was in England, the other in America. I, too have known the emergency hospital experience in both England and America. I readily admit that these cases comprise a miniscule sample, not a useful guide to the state of healthcare in both countries.

However, let me say that I and those close to me have never experienced unkindness or anything unprofessional from the medics. Mind you, the healthcare experience as an emergency patient is not pleasant. It is scary to find so many professionals gathered around a bed and speaking English in a way that is not penetrable. What the hell is “stat”? There is little dignity either. But what the professionals on both sides of the Atlantic are doing is in the patient’s best interests. They are confirming a diagnosis and applying professional expertise to make an awful situation less bad. Then, over days, weeks and sometimes months, more expertise is applied to provide a cure or a modus vivandi. After all, doctors and nurses are not miracle workers.

The recent past has confirmed my opinion of healthcare workers, both in UK and America. Doctors are well trained, most will listen but they are given so many patients which often prevents the bedside manner emerging. Nurses are habitually kind, caring and professional and will take time to talk to the patients, if time allows. And the porters are usually cheerful and chatty, although they are the forgotten men and women of the hospital. We should remember that without them, things would come to a grinding halt.  

So why does healthcare come in for so much criticism, both here and in USA. Reasons include media, money and politics. First the media. You never see a headline: “Hospital has 98.5% Patient Satisfaction.” Good news doesn’t sell. But a story about the removal of the wrong kidney will run for days. Of course, it should never have happened but it’s a ten million to one chance. An inexperienced clerk, an overworked and tired surgeon, and hey presto. I do not dismiss that a life will probably be lost as a result but where is the media balance? Little or no good news is published.

One story that has not yet been publicised in UK is that NHS nurses are considering industrial action. The nurses have never gone on strike since the NHS was created in 1948 but a miserly 1% pay rise this year, when inflation stands at 2% plus, is effectively a pay cut. This is an example of the UK government’s intransigence on funding when nurses are the lifeblood of the NHS. The media won’t report the story unless the nurses strike.

Where the countries divide most is on healthcare funding. In UK, we have a mutual insurance system. Most beneficiaries of the NHS contribute to its funding through taxation. (Children are excluded from responsibility as most do not pay taxes.) Treatment is free at the point of delivery. No one is asked for a credit card or insurance details when seeking medical help at a hospital or General Practitioner’s practice. However, the NHS has some big problems. First, it seems unable to manage on a £115 billion budget. The NHS has more than a million employees but there are often severe staff shortages, especially at night, which results in huge expenditure for locums. Second, there is a postcode (zip code) lottery where treatment is better in one place than another. These days, the NHS employs numerous managers, who seem to struggle year on year. Perhaps it is not surprising because there are hidden government cuts in funding, year on year. Yet it is the doctors who get criticised.

The USA operates mostly under a private healthcare system. There are federally funded hospitals for those without insurance but my experience is that these are under-funded, where pressurised doctors and nurses are desperate to help with limited resources. And the patients are left with debts they cannot repay. The private system is governed by Health Maintenance Organizations, whose reputation for trying to avoid claims is notorious. The HMO system with its deductibles and coverage differentials is so complex that it needs someone more expert than me to explain it. Insurance premiums escalate annually, often with the excuse that negligence action pay-outs have risen sharply.

Essentially, the “money” difference between the countries could be explained as the UK being service driven and the USA profit driven. But this is simplistic and naïve. The Thatcher government introduced market competition into the NHS but it has never worked well. And I am certain that HMOs don’t always seek to cheat their customers at the outset; it’s more likely that the latter haven’t read the small print carefully.

Where I have major issues is politics. In the UK, the NHS has been a political football. Successive governments since the 1970s have tried to introduce different management and costing systems to make the NHS efficient. The government does not want to accept the service is demand-based. You cannot budget successfully if you don’t accommodate for the vast numbers of people who seek to use the service, increasing every year. I do not have a perfect solution but other countries, like France, have managed well. Why do we not introduce new rules to require a contribution, in addition to that paid via taxation, for use of the health service, which in turn can be covered by insurance? Would most taxpayers really object to a £5 levy for seeing a GP or £25 per day for a hospital stay? However, the NHS is the “third rail” of British politics. It is an entitlement so if a politician touches it, his career will die.

There are other interesting suggestions to improve the NHS. For example, place a team of GPs at the front door of every A and E (ER) Department to help some 30% of patients who do not actually need emergency hospital care. And the government should be honest with the public about the real choices if, as a nation, we do not spend more on the NHS as a proportion of our gross domestic product. However, healthcare is the most complex and difficult of topics that government faces and I don’t pretend solutions are readily available and easy.

As for USA, I am no expert on Obamacare but a government policy that enabled 20 million more Americans to benefit from health insurance was significant. Republican political ideology to damage and defeat Obamacare is anathema, if those 20 million and probably many others will cease to have insurance and, more important, peace of mind. The Trump administration and Congressional Republicans are all over the place on how to replace the Affordable Healthcare Act. They said it was an easy fix. Really?

What I dread for Americans is an Unaffordable Healthcare Act, accompanied by a return to Republican political ideology of the 1920s: ‘wealth is a sign from God that he approves of you and poverty is a sin.’ Is such a return unthinkable? Well, so is a nuclear war with North Korea!