Another view of Bolton's influence as NSA

Vox.com's Sean Illing interviewed Tom Nichols, a professor of national security studies at Harvard and the Naval War College.  Nichols also authored the book The Death of Expertise:  The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters.   Here is reporter Illing speaking:

*     *     *     *     *

"Liberals and Democrats do not like Bolton, and for rather obvious reasons.   Among other things, he has advocated for preventive war with Iran and North Korea, championed -- and still defends -- the disastrous war in Iraq, wrote the foreword to a book by Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, two prominent counter-jihadists, and has generally become the most hardline defender of military force on the American right.

"But how is Bolton viewed in conservative circles?   Is he aligned with mainstream Republicans, or is he too extreme?

"I reached out to Tom Nichols . . . to find out.  [He] is a conservative who previously advised Republican Sen. John Heinz (who died in 1991) on defense and security affairs.   I wanted to know what he thought of Bolton, and if he's as worried as people on the left are.   A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows."

Sean Illing

"What was your initial reaction to Bolton's appointment?"

Tom Nichols

"I don't think anyone can be surprised.   This is one of the few moves that Trump has been telegraphing for months.  I've been dreading it, but I figured it was going to happen sooner or later, and not because of who Bolton is or what he believes but because he's on television a lot, and the president appears to watch a lot of television.

"To be clear, what Bolton believes and what the president ran on are diametrically opposed.  So it's not like Trump has found his soulmate in Bolton.  At some point, you run out of options and serious people willing to take the job, so, naturally Trump turns to someone on TV."

Illing

"It may strike some readers as odd to hear that Trump's campaign vision and Bolton's worldview are diametrically opposed."

Nichols

"Bolton's philosophy is to extinguish all threats to the US by extending military force at will.  Trump ran on 'America First' and called the Iraq War stupid, whereas Bolton continues to defend the Iraq War and believes that we should stomp out danger wherever we think it will appear.   So you're either an isolationist guy or you're an elephant roaming the field stomping on every mouse that scares you;  and Bolton is the latter."

Illing

"The word neocon is being tossed about a lot, but Bolton isn't really a neocon because he doesn't seem to care about promoting democracy abroad;  he just wants to use American power to advance American interests, including waging preventive wars."

Nichols

"You've got it exactly right.  Neocons are about using American force not just for interests, but to establish certain values and changes around the world.

"I don't think Bolton is a neocon because he doesn't seem to care about democracy promotion;  he's an advocate of preventive war, which means acting way in advance to stomp out a perceived threat -- that's significantly different than preemptive war, which is about neutralizing an imminent threat.

"Bolton's approach to war is preventive, and I think it's extremely dangerous."

Illing

"How is Bolton viewed in conservative foreign policy circles?"

Nichols

"The hard right doesn't like him because he's not really an isolationist.   The Bush-era people thought highly enough of him to make him UN ambassador, but nothing else.   He's developed this reputation as a master in-fighter, someone who can navigate the bureaucracy.   But for a master in-fighter, he sure has been kept out of power for the last 20 years.

"As far as I can tell, his reputation is that he's a brilliant guy, but very strange in his views and more extreme than most conservatives.   His threshold for going to war is much much lower than most people on the right."

Illing

"The national security adviser's job is to ensure that the president hears the views of the entire national security establishment, in order to help him or her make the best decision.  An ideologue like Bolton seems like the worst person to have in that role, mostly because he's likely to filter out facts and views that don't align with his worldview."

Nichols

"In fairness, the NSA is almost always someone with an agenda.  We've had very few truly honest brokers in this position in part because the job is so loosely defined.  Basically, the NSA position is whatever the president wants it to be.  But if part of the job is to be the gatekeeper among all the competing institutional interests around the president, then Bolton is a terrible choice."

Illing

"Does Bolton's appointment make war with North Korea or Iran more likely?"

Nichols

"I think he'll want to go to war, but I'm not convinced that he'll succeed.  Washington's a big place with a pretty strong bureaucracy, and there's an entire defense department that Bolton won't control.   Also the Trump White House is chaotic.  My biggest fear in the early days of the Trump administration was, 'What would happen if all these people were competent?  What happens if Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon turn out to be smart and effective?'

"But they were all swallowed by the chaos of the administration and got very little done.   So I'm not convinced that Bolton is going to magically bring all this coherence to the West Wing.   What he will be able to do is snuff out a lot of dissenting voices because of his proximity to the president, and that is certainly a concern."

Illing

"I guess the major worry is that nearly all of the so-called 'adults in the room' have been purged.   Defense Secretary James Mattis is the only man left standing at this point.  That might increase Bolton's influence."

Nichols

"Yes, that worries me.  But I think a lot depends on who would replace Mattis in the event that he leaves.  Historically when there's a clash between the defense secretary and the NSA, the defense secretary wins.   The NSA is not in anyone's chain of command, so he can't start a war or order a strike.   He's merely an adviser to the president, and so his influence is constrained at an institutional level.

"So people don't need to panic right now.   There might come a time when we should panic over what Bolton is telling the president but I think it's too early for that now.   Concerned?   Yes.  Panicked?   No.

"Let's wait and see if Bolton is actually able to accomplish anything."

*     *     *     *     *

That's a little bit reassuring, certainly less panic than some of the early predictions that said things like:   "If Bolton becomes NSA,  we're all  dead."   Now, apparently, we can wait and see whether we need to panic.

Ralph

How to choose a chief of the Veterans Administration

The United States Veterans Administration is a huge, sprawling organization that has defied easy management.  In fact, mismanagement of some of its hospitals was a source of minor scandal -- practically the only scandal -- during the Obama administration.

President Trump has just replaced the holdover Obama head of the VA, David Shulkin.   It may be a good choice -- or not.   It's the way he went about making the choice that I'm critical of.

As usual, he was given a list of qualified people as suggestions, along with their credentials.   But instead he chose the White House physician, Admiral Ronny Jackson, who made quite a splash in January in reporting to the media about the president's annual physical exam.

He reported on the president's pysical and mental health in glowing terms, even saying playfully that, if the president had eaten a better diet for the past 20 years, he would probably live to be 200.  Asked to what he attributed such good health, given his diet and weight, he replied that "it's in the genes." 

And he specifically mentioned that the president had passed the cognitive mental status exam with  a perfect score.   (That's so Trumpy.)   And misleading.   Unimpaired cognition is an important factor in mental health -- but only one small aspect.   It says nothing about depression, stability, resilience, judgment, good relationships, etc. that we usually think of as signs of mental health.

But that's beyond what I want to go into here.  The point is that Dr Jackson performed well on TV, and he further praised the president's mental health based  on the almost daily hours he spends with him, given that he routinely travels with the president.  The president likes him.

Now to the point.   I have no reason to question Dr.  Jackson's medical expertise nor his credentials.  He could be the best in the world at that.  He's an experienced combat surgeon as well, and he has served as White House physician under three presidents before Trump.

But what are his qualifications as an administrator to take over one of the largest, most difficult administrative jobs in the government?  The Veterans Administration is the second largest bureaucray in the federal system, with 231 hospitals, 350,000 employees, and a budget of  $200 billion.  For all his medical and battlefront experience, has he ever been in charge of a large organization?   Trump doesn't seem to think that's important.

Here's the point.   Dr. Jackson's #1 quality that got him this appointment as head of the VA may very well be that he knows how to flatter the boss by praising him in Trumpian language.   And his #2 quality is likely being good enough on TV -- but not too good.   It's not good to be too good -- not good enough to overshadow the boss, anyway.

I hope that Dr, Jackson actually does have hidden talents as an administrator.   But I worry that Trump's "gut" decision is based on hearing what he wants to hear, not considering his administrative qualifications.

The other worry is that Dr. Shulkin was let go because he does not favor privatization of VA health care.   At least he's been very vocal about that since his days were numbered.    What's Jackson's position on that?  My guess is that he at least has not said he opposes it.

Ralph

PS:  After writing the above, I saw an interview with Dr. Shulkin on "All In With Chris Hayes."   He is very open and frank in saying that he was systematically undermined by political appointees installed in his department who wanted him out because he opposes privatization.   He's says the Koch brothers are behind it, as they are pushing to privatize Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security -- solely in order to make money out of it for themselves.    All the criticism about his spending on a trip to Europe was trumped up and distorted in order to smear him.

I found him quite credible, and Chris was astonished at some of the blatant abuses he related.   According to his story, this was pure and simple a political effort to  get rid of him because of his stance against going private.  He says that, overwhelmingly, the veterans want the VA to be improved, not  dismantled.

What tax cut? Poll shows . . . not so much

Helene Olen, reporting for the Washington Post, quotes from a poll by CNBC's All America Economic Survey and by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies.

Only a third of Americans have noticed more money in their paychecks from the $1.5 trillion Trump tax cuts.   More than half -- 52% -- say they've seen no change at all.   And a majority of those who have noticed extra funds say it "either helps a small amount or not at all."

An estimate by the Tax Policy Center figured that the average family would get about $18 per week extra.   But of course some of that winds up going for higher medical insurance premiums.

In other words, much ado about not much -- at least for ordinary Americans.   Now with wealthy Americans, it's a different story;  but the polls didn't quantify their reactions.   When you're dealing with the upper, uppers -- the top 1% and less -- statistics don't mean a lot unless you're looking at dollar amounts.

Is anybody who knows anything about finances and tax policy at all surprised?   Of course not.   This is exactly what was predicted.   Trump and Mnuchin and Ryan and all the Republican tax cutters knew what they were doing.

It's part of the scam they've been running for decades.   Give the tax cuts to the rich and watch it trickle down.

Except that it never does.  I'm just gratified to know that people are beginning to notice it this far ahead of the November midterm elections.

Ralph

Former SCOTUS justice advises that we "repeal the 2nd amendment"

U.S. Supreme Court Assoc. Justice John Paul Stevens was on the highest court from 1975 until his retirement in 2010, making him the third longest-serving SCOTUS member.    He has remained active in speaking and writing about major issues in our jurisprudence, tending to more liberal positions.   He opposed the Bush v. Gore decision that gave the presidency to George W. Bush.   He also dissented from the Heller decision that defined an individual right to bear arms that has turned gun control into such a hot issue.

One of his recent books (2014) is Six Amendments:   How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.  Yesterday, March 27th, in the wake of the March For Our Lives rallies in DC and across the nation and world, Justice Stevens penned an op-ed for the New York Times, which I find compelling and definitely worth reading:

*     *     *     *     *

"Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

"That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. 

"But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

"Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that 'a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'  Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

"For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well regulated militia.'

"During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.RA.'s . . . [efforts as] one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.'

"In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

[I inject here that, even the majority opinion's conservative author, Justice Antonin Scalia, wrote that the right was not unlimited, that some restrictions could be placed on the right.--[R]   Back to Steven's op-ed:

"That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

"That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence."

*     *     *     *     *

I was stunned over the weekend by the vehemence of the argument put up by a Republican strategist Rick Tyler, who was a spokesman for the Ted Cruz 2016 campaign;  he later became part of the "Never Trump" group.  He has been a guest on MSNBC and usually gives a rather rational, conservative opinion that I can respect, even when I differ with his policy positions.

But, as the TV anchor tried to get Tyler to state clearly why he was so opposed to any gun regulations, he became agitated, irrational, and just kept interrupting and insisting that it's about "second amendment rights" -- as though that is literally an immutable thing, rather than something to be discussed.    He is someone I would have thought you could have a rational discussion with;   but on this occasion, anyway, that was literally impossible.

I'm with Justice Stevens.    The second amendment, at least the part about militas and guns, is a pure anachronism.    I still like my solution, which I've espoused on here before:    OK.   Let's stipulate the individual right to bears arms -- but limited to the type of guns that were available when the 2nd amendment was adopted.

That would be muzzle-loading muskets that fire one shot at the time, with rather time-consuming reloading procedures, including pouring in gun powder, adding the lead shot, then stuffing bits of cotton or cloth to keep it in.    At least we'd have no shooting of 17 or 36 people before anybody can do anything about it.

Let's go with repeal of the amendment, as well.

Ralph

PS:   After finishing this, I saw a response from Harvard Law Professor and constitutional expert Laurence Tribe, who said that Stevens may be right about it being "simple" as a legal remedy;  but repealing a piece of the Constitution is far from simple as a political endeavor.   It would require a super-majority approval by both Houses of' Congress and then ratification by voters in three-fourth of the states.   So as a practical matter, it's not likely to happen.

Good for you, Melania

Melania Trump rose above it all Sunday night.   Shortly after the CNN "60 Minutes" interview by Anderson Cooper with Stormy Daniels, Melania released this statement:

"While I know the media is enjoying speculation and salacious gossip, I'd like to remind people there's a minor child whose name should be kept out of news stories when at all possible."

Classy.    Not hiding and pretending to ignore.   Not playing victim.  Instead, she's being the strong protector of the son that her husband's behavior puts in such a position.  Just like choosing cyber-bullying as her First Lady project.  The perfect issue for the wife of such a bully.

Ralph

Abusing power, degrading democracy

Dylan Matthews on Vox.com reports this about Stormy Daniels, Trump, and the cover-up as discussed on CNN by Anderson Cooper and Daniels' attorney Michael Avenatti:

Matthews writes:
   "I don't care if Donald Trump had consensual sex with a woman other than his wife;  that's a matter for him and Melania to handle privately.   What I do care about is that the President is a bully, who attempts to silence through money and intimidation, anyone (but particularly women) who stands between him and what he wants.

   "This is about abuse of power, pure and simple, a point that Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti, makes extremely well in his own interview with "60 Minutes'" anchor Anderson Cooper.

COOPER:  'There are people who argue that this is much ado about nothing, that if this was not a story about an adult film actress and the President of the United States, no one would pay attention.'
AVENATTI:   'This is about the cover-up.  This is about the extent that Mr. Cohen and the president have gone to intimidate this woman, to silence her, to threaten her, and to put her under their thumb.  It is thuggish behavior from people in power.  And it has no place in American democracy.'

Back to Matthews:
   "Avenatti is exactly right:   this is about the cover-up.  It's about the fact that Trump was willing to exploit his money and power to intimidate Daniels, through agents like his longtime attorney Michael Cohen.   And it's about the entitlement that lets him justify that behavior to himself."

*     *     *

Is anyone surprised by the picture of Donald Trump that Daniels' encounter paints?   Will anyone be swayed by it in their political support for Trump?

The answer to both questions is what is shocking to me.   For anyone willing to see, Donald Trump has telegraphed -- even rubbed our noses in -- this image of him all along.    What is shocking is how many people really do not care -- and that tells us just how degraded we have allowed our democratic institutions, and those who hold offices, to become.

Ralph

NRA reacts like a scared bully

Until the day of the March For Our Lives rallies in hundreds of cities around the world, with 800,000 in Washington, DC, the National Rifle Association had remained relatively silent about the big day.

And then the NRA unloaded -- with mocking, sarcasm, lies -- and they used it as a membership drive impetus.  Calling it a "carnival" atmosphere, the NRA posted this call for new members on Facebook:

"Today's protests aren't spontaneous. . .  Gun-hating billionaires and Hollywood elites are manipulating and exploiting children as part of their plan to DESTROY the Second Amendment and strip us of our right to defend ourselves and our loved ones."

It's true that some media stars (like George Clooney and Oprah Winfrey) have donated a lot of money to help pay for the expenses of organizing these rallies and providing entertainment;  but it is a bald-faced lie to claim that these kids are being manipulated or, for that matter, trying to destroy the second amendment.  That's not even mentioned on their agenda.

If the Parkland kids are trying to destroy the second amendment, then so was Justice Antonin Scalia, the legal-eagle hero of conservatives.  When he wrote the majority opinion that defined it as an individual right "to bear arms," he also said in that opinion that the right is not absolute.  He said that limits may be placed on what weapons may be purchased by private individuals.  That's all the kids are demanding.

Wayne LaPierre himself should sit down with some of them, listen to them . . . and then make up his mind.    I'd put them up against any honest promoter and activist for a good cause.   The NPR is the manipulator here -- using tragedy to increase the sale of guns for its financial backers in the gun industry.   The more they can scare people with lies, the more guns get sold.

Let's see who wins in the voting booths in November.  That's what counts;  and the kids know it.   You better believe they know it, and that's where their long-range focus is.   That's why the NRA is running scared.

Ralph

Emma Gonzalez

                            photo by:   Nicholas Kamm/Getty Images

One of the leaders of that extraordinary group of activist-teens from the Parkland, Florida high school is Emma Gonzalez, shown here at the Washington rally.

Emma began by describing what it was like during those "long, tearful, chaotic hours in the scorching afternoon sun . . . not knowing.  No one understood the extend of what had happened. . . . No one knew that the people who had gone missing had stopped breathing long before any of us had even known that a code red had been called."

Emma then read the names of the victjms and talked about the things they would never do again.   And then she did a remarkable thing.   She simply stood in silence.

And she stood there, silent herself, at the podium, and held the crowd in the palm of her silence . . .  for a full six minutes and 20 seconds.   Because that's the length of time that the shooting lasted. 

Incredible.   It's difficult to have even a full minute of silence in a crowd.  But this was intense and powerful.   Here are some reactions from social media posted during the silence:

Elizabeth West (limeylizzie):   "The power of silence is so underestimated.   Emma is holding this crowd in the palm of her hand."
     
Dave (D_opus):  "Amen.  I can't stay silent for more than 30 seconds usually.  Emma is an amazing young woman."

JeffSand (jsand42):  "Brave girl.  Powerful speech.  Congrats on the rally."

Ishmail (imadni):   "Emma is right now exhibiting incredible power."

AJ (AlissaJass):   "Without saying a word.   Emma is a special soul."

Ralph

Protests against gun violence in schools -- and politicians who do nothing about it

Led by the impressively mature and expressive teenage survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting that killed 17, hundreds of thousands of young people and their supporters took to the streets in peaceful protest Saturday, calling for "common sense gun control laws."

The largest crowd was in Washington, D.C., but tens of thousands also rallied in other cities around the world, with over a million total anticipated at some 800 rallies worldwide,

The National Rifle Association and politicians whose silence is bought by them were the main targets.  One of the hallmarks of these young activists is that they are articulate, intelligent, savvy about government and politics -- and they are also practical.

They are not calling for banning all guns;  there is no hysteria in their tone --  only sorrow and determination to get something done.  They're demanding universal background checks that work, raising the age for gun purchases, and a ban on assault-type rifles and high capacity magazines.

One of the most effective rhetorical flourishes in the many, brief speeches given by these young people was the repetition of a demand for action from politicians, followed by the promise that non-action will have consequences:  "We will vote you out."   It became a chant from the crowd:  "Vote them out."  

Other notable rallying cries were:  "Why do your guns matter more than our lives?" and "Our ballots will stop bullets."  In fact, a major focus of these rallies is registering young people and others to vote.   And, for those not yet 18, work to get others to vote.

The White House put out a rather generic statement offering support to the students, without being critical of the NRA or politicians.   But it was not from the president, himself;  as of early evening he had made no comment.  He is spending the weekend at Mar-a-Lago and went golfing Saturday morning, according to the Associated Press.

Not surprising, not at all.

Ralph