'Trump crosses DMZ, but his diplomacy falls short".

Jennifer Rubin, columnist for the Washington Post has written an essay about President Trump and the North Korean problem that is worth reading in full.   So I present it here.   Rubin is a frequent political analyst on MSNBC news shows.

Ironically, she is always introduced as a "conservative," which perhaps she is in some basic principles.   But in this era dominated by Donald Trump, being anti-Trump is far more the defining identity than a position on the conservative-moderate-liberal scale.  Jennifer Rubin is passionately anti-Trump.

*     *     *     *     *

"In an alternative universe — let’s call it Earth 2 — the Singapore summit in June 2018 between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was swiftly followed by a full and complete accounting of North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction.

"Teams of lower-level U.S. and North Korean negotiators then spent the next seven months hammering out the details of 'complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization' — the goal set by the Trump administration. At every turn, the North Korean side proved more accommodating than expected. Clearly Kim was a different ruler from his father and grandfather. So determined was he to kick-start North Korea’s economic development that he was willing to give up the nuclear weapons that his regime had spent decades and countless billions of dollars developing.

"Only a few final issues remained to be negotiated when Kim and Trump met again in Hanoi in February. But after several days of arduous, painstaking negotiations, the two leaders reached a breakthrough. And then, on June 30, 2019, Trump traveled to the demilitarized zone separating North Korea and South Korea to sign a denuclearization treaty with Kim. Shortly thereafter, teams of international inspectors began swarming all over North Korea to begin dismantling and carting away its nuclear, chemical, biological and missile facilities. Trump won the Nobel Peace Prize and claimed vindication for writing, after the Singapore summit, 'There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.'

"Back on Earth 1, needless to say, events have followed a different path. More than a year after the Singapore summit, North Korea still has not delivered an accounting of its weapons of mass destruction programs — the prerequisite for real progress on dismantlement. North Korea has continued to build nuclear weapons and missiles; it is now more dangerous than it was a year ago.

"The only concrete concession from North Korea was to allow the repatriation of some remains of U.S. service members killed during the Korean War. But despite Trump’s efforts to pretend otherwise, North Korea has stopped cooperating with the Pentagon’s human-remains recovery teams. Trump touts the fact that North Korea is no longer testing nuclear weapons or long-range missiles — a test moratorium that began before, not after, the Singapore meeting — but it has continued testing shorter-range missiles. In return for North Korea’s forbearance from more provocative tests, the United States has discontinued major exercises with South Korea, degrading the allies’ military readiness.

"The Hanoi summit was not the prelude to an agreement but was instead an embarrassing bust. Trump left early after Kim demanded the lifting of sanctions in return for the shuttering of only one of North Korea’s many nuclear plants. There have been no substantive talks in the months since, amid reports that some of North Korea’s negotiators had been purged and possibly killed. The only contact between the two sides was an exchange of what Trump called 'beautiful' letters between him and Kim.

"What, then, is the meaning of the surprise meeting between Trump and Kim on Sunday at the DMZ — and of Trump’s brief walk into North Korea? “Big moment, big moment,” Trump told Kim, adding, “Stepping across that line was a great honor. A lot of progress has been made, a lot of friendships have been made, and this has been in particular a great friendship.”

"In truth, the 'historic' meeting at the DMZ was symbolism utterly devoid of substance. It was a photo op. That’s it. The only agreement was to resume lower-level talks — you know, the ones that should have been going on for the past year. . . . 

"If Kim has made anything clear in the past year, it is that he has no interest in denuclearizing — and why should he? He has seen what happened to leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gaddafi, who gave up their weapons of mass destruction, and he has no desire to emulate their sorry examples. What he wants is a relaxation of sanctions in return for shutting down a facility or two without in any way impairing his nuclear capabilities. Trump hasn’t given in; if he is desperate enough for a foreign policy achievement before the election, he may yet do so. But 'complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization' is no longer on the table — and that phrase is no longer heard from any administration official. Instead, North Korea is achieving its goal of being accepted as a nuclear-weapons power.

"Ironically, the three meetings between Trump and Kim have proved to be an impediment, not a lubricant, for negotiations, because Kim has realized that Trump is far more pliable — and gullible — than any of his aides. Trump’s subordinates complain about North Korean missiles tests and general intransigence; Trump does not. He is all too happy to enhance Kim’s legitimacy in return for, essentially, nothing. So the lesson for Kim is to ignore Trump’s subordinates and go straight to the big man himself. Which he just did again.

"This makes for a great reality show but lousy diplomacy."

*     *     *     *     *

I have only one thing to add.   I'm not sure that Trump is being totally naive and gullible, nor that Kim is totally playing him.   I suspect that Trump is, at least in part, thinking of what will best serve his political purposes.   He wants the photo ops, the image of him as the great negotiator who will solve the North Korea problem    I have no doubt that, nearer the election, we're going to see some pretend grand gesture that Trump will spin into a faux tale of a breakthrough, maybe involving some quid pro quo that Kim is in on, to make Trump look the hero, just in time for his gullible base to believe it.

That is a very cynical view of the president of the United States -- that he would sell out his country for his personal benefit.   But Donald Trump is quite capable of such manipulations for his own purposes.   And what does Donald Trump most need to stay out of jail?   He needs to stay in the Oval Office, with its immunity to indictment, until January 2025, by which time most of the statutes of limitations will have run out.

You bet, I'm cynical . . .  and angry and frightened . . . and desperately trying to hold on to the hope that our democracy is strong enough to carry us through this Trump nightmare.

Ralph

Happy Independence Day.

I say "Happy Independence Day" this year with a heavy heart and a thick coating of irony, because I find it harder and harder to feel pride in being an American.  And I'm not alone.

A new Gallop poll on patriotism asked how people feel about their country.   While 70% said they feel proud to be an American, only 45% said they feel "extremely proud."

This is the lowest number since Gallop began asking this question 19 years ago.  It's tempting to blame it all on Donald Trump.   In fact, the poll shows that our slippage in pride began several years ago, but there has been a decidedly downward shift since 2016, the year of the presidential campaign.

So from Trump's standpoint, there's nothing he needs more than to stage a big "Celebration of America" on the Washington Mall, with him playing the most prominent role as the president.   Besides, he does love a parade, especially one with lots of military weapons and flyovers, ever since President Macron hosted him for the big event they hold on Bastille Day in France.

So, as much as it galls to let him spoil a tradition, I'm going to follow the advice of New York Times writer Alex Kingsbury:

------

"[T]here’s a good argument for checking the outrage and letting the show, complete with flyovers and armored vehicles, buckle under the weight of its own absurdities and contradictions. . . .

". . .  Mr. Trump has thrown himself into the planning of the event with the sort of gusto that he can’t seem to muster for briefing papers longer than a single page — and certainly with more gusto than he mustered for his own military service. . . .

"This is all on brand for him: co-opting the honorable traditions of the armed forces for political pageantry. But the president’s political opponents would be wise to keep their powder dry. . . .

"The answer to political spectacle is to not give it too much weight.

"The power of America’s national monuments is that they are shared projects that outlast temporal politics. They are the sum of many acts and the products of political disagreements. They are a common heritage that no political movement, whether honorable or noxious, holds a monopoly on forever."

-------

I do make a solemn promise;  and it's in line with Kingsbury's point to just "not give it too much weight."   I will not spoil my holiday by watching this spectacle on tv.   I will try not to spend any blood pressure points on it.  There are other ways to enjoy the day.

Ralph

Fund-raising Pete

The end of June was reporting time for second-quarter fund-raising by presidential candidates.   Joe Biden retains the top-dollar amount, largely because of access to the Democratic Party's large donors.   I suspect that's going to change.

But, somewhat surprisingly, Pete Buttigieg ran him a close second this quarter, raising a staggering $24.8 million.  What Pete has done, more than any other candidate, is tap into both big donors as well as one-time, small amount donors.   Most candidates have concentrated on one or the other.   No one has done as well combining both as has Mayor Pete.

For example, during this three month period, he attended about 50 high-dollar fund-raising events -- but also 20 "grass-roots" events, where ticket prices start at $15.  The average donation over the course of his campaign has been $47.

The Buttigieg campaign reported that he added more than 230,000 new donors during the second quarter, bringing his total individual donor list to more than 400,000.

Ralph

Socialism: the good and the bad.

Already we're hearing rumblings from Republicans, calling Democrats "socialists" and referring to their "socialist agenda."    Bernie Sanders has long identified himself as a Democratic Socialist, and several of his opponents in the Democratic primary race agree with him on many, if not most issues.

So what does it all mean?    Why do we have such confusion about "Socialism?"

Those of us old enough to have lived through the Cold War have a better grasp on this, perhaps, because the totalitarianism of the communist-controlled countries often spoke of the "socialist" underpinnings of their political philosophy.    Make no mistake, however:    Joseph Stalin was a brutal, totalitarian dictator, whatever he believed about socialism.

But that really adds more confusion than clarity.    A recent New York Times op-ed article by economist Paul Krugman helps.   He begins:

"What did you think of the bunch of socialists you just saw debating on stage?

"Well, you may protest, you didn't see any socialists up there.  And you'd be right.  The Democratic Party  has clearly moved left in recent years, but none of the presidential candidates are anything close to being actual socialists -- no, not even Bernie Sanders, whose embrace of the label is really more about branding . . . than substance.

"Nobody in these debates wants government ownership of the means of production, which is what socialism used to mean.  Most of the candidates are, instead, what Europeans would call "social democrats":  advocates of a private-sector-driven economy but with a stronger social safety net, enhanced bargaining power for workers and tighter regulation of corporate malfeasance.   They want America to be more like Denmark, not more like Venezuela."

Krugman then goes on the discuss how far the Republicans have moved to the right, by comparison.   Saying that Republicans are expected to use the Democrats' "socialist agenda" against them in the election campaign -- yet we tend to accept Republicans' even more extreme rightward shift as "simply a fact of life, barely worth mentioning."

According to a study quoted by Krugman, US Republicans have moved "far to the right of mainstream European conservative parties. . . . Basically, if we saw something like America's Repubicans in another country, we'd classify them as white nationalist extremists."

Krugman continues:  "One might even argue that the GOP stands out among the West's white nationalist parties for its exceptional willingness to crash right through the guardrails of democracy.  Extreme gerrymandering, naked voter suppression and stripping power from offices the other party manages to win all the same -- these practices seem if anything more prevalent here than in the failing democracies of Eastern Europe. . . .

"So it's really something to see Republicans trying to tar Democrats as un-American socialists.  If they want to see a party that really has broken with fundamental American values, they should look in the mirror."

Krugman did not set out to write a clarifying article about the meaning of socialism and communism.  He was writing about the current political climate and how the term is misused as a slur.

So let me add a bit of clarifying history from the Cold War era experience.   There seem to be two big objections among Americans against a socialist system:

(1)  Conflation of the totalitarian political enforcement of socialist policies rather than having them democratically adopted through free elections;   this argument really is against totalitarianism, not socialism per se.   Democratic socialism is no more totalitarian than is capitalism.

(2)   Others object because they do not accept the principle of egalitarianism.   They do not want to have a social safety net or social benefit programs, because it means asking people who do not need help to share in paying for it for those who do.    This involves progressive taxation -- which critics call the pejorative "wealth re-distribution."

For the best arguments against the latter objection, I would turn to the teachings of Jesus (feed the poor, care for the sick, take in the stranger, etc.)   In fact, there is a saying going around:   "Jesus was a socialist."    The other good answer comes from Elizabeth Warren, who addresses it head-on when she confronts the wealthy factory owner or the corporate billionaire about how much they benefited from government assistance (sometimes referred to as "corporate welfare"), whether it is the transportation systems that allow them to ship their products or the huge loopholes that allow companies like Amazon to pay no corporate taxes at all.

Ralph

"SCOTUS hands GOP huge political victory on partisan gerrymandering"

I'm trying to understand something that feels wrong to me:  the Supreme Court's decision about gerrymandering.   I get that the majority says that it's just not up to them to tell states how to draw their voting districts.

OK.   But isn't the Supreme Court the last protector of citizens' rights?    And isn't the right to vote a very fundamental right that should not be subject to the abrogation of that right by the party that happens to be in power?

What is most chilling of all is the realization that there's nowhere to appeal the Supreme Court's decision.   Except, of course, the people themselves and their elected representatives -- who could theoretically pass a law that would take care of this.  In effect, that's what SCOTUS is saying is the proper remedy.

But then we're asking a party that happens to be in the majority to pass a law that weakens their own power.   Frankly, we the people are just not that mature, especially in our present bitter divisiveness.

Chris Cillizza, writing for CNN, explains just what the court decided and what the results will be, even if he doesn't make me feel any better about the future under this ruling.

*     *     *     *     *

"Armed with a five to four conservative majority thanks to President Donald Trump's appointment of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh . . . the Supreme Court said it had no role to play in partisan gerrymandering -- a decision that amounts to a massive political victory for Republicans, not just in the moment, but also likely for the next decade-plus.

"While the court didn't give Republican everything they wanted on Thursday -- rejecting the addition of a citizenship question to the census that the Trump administration had pushed for -- the ruling on line-drawing with political concerns as a primary motivation is an absolute game-changer for a party that has already reaped the considerable rewards of its ongoing domination at the state legislative level.

"What SCOTUS said Thursday was, essentially, if state legislators want to draw the lines of their own districts and those of their members of Congress using political calculations, it's not the court's job to stop them.   That state legislatures are given that power and can exert it as they see fit.

"On its face, this ruling impacts both parties equally.   After all, both parties have shown a willingness over the last several decades to push their partisan advantage in the decennial line-drawing process.    And the cases on which the court ruled on Thursday involved one Democratic gerrymander (Maryland) and one Republican (North Carolina).

"But, to see things through that this-hurts-both-sides-equally frame is to miss the forest for the trees.   Thanks to avalanche elections in their favor in 2010 and 2014, Republicans have an absolute stranglehold on the state governments.

"According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Republicans currently have full control over 30 of the 49 partisan legislatures in the country. . . .  In most of the large populations states where seats are expected to be gained or lost -- Republicans have total control, and large enough majorities that should insulate that control barring a massive Democratic landslide in 2020. . . . 

"Now, there's no question that Republicans -- thanks to the gains they made in 2010 -- have . . . already squeezed a lot of juice from the gerrymandering fruit, and its not clear how much is left.

"And there will likely be a renewed push . .  . by Democrats and election reform types to pass laws that take the line-drawing out of the hands of state legislators and give that power to independent/bipartisan/nonpartisan commissions.

"But, in order for those sorts of efforts to work, state legislators have to willingly give up a huge bit of political power.   And politicians -- of either party -- are not big on that sort of thing.

"Make no mistake:    The Supreme Court's ruling on partisan gerrymandering is a massive moment in electoral politics.  It could very well help Reupblicans retake control of the US House as soon as 2022 and, if the party plays things smartly over the next two years, could well put them in position to hold that majority for much of the next decade."

*     *     *     *     *

So that is already one hugely significant result of Donald Trump's reshaping the federal judicial makeup.    And I'm disappointed that Chief Justice John Roberts joined the conservative majority in this decision, rather than playing the Justice Anthony Kennedy role of swing vote to keep the court in a more centrist position.

Let's look again at what the court is saying.  They are maintaining that it is just not the job of the court to do what the legislative bodies can and should do for themselves.   But while straining at the gnats of such a principle, it seems to me that they are ignoring the dragon: that is, the effect on voting rights.   Anything that dilutes the one-person/one-vote principle seems wrong to me.

And that is exactly what gerrymandering does.   It is a deliberate effort to make some votes count more than others, whether the underlying purpose is partisan or racial or any other reason.   There should be no reason for anyone's vote to count more than anyone else's vote.

If it's not the court's business to safe-guard that, then why don't we just let the Russians and the Chinese, and whoever else wants to, come in and pick our next president?   Or maybe they will do that anyway with technology.

Ralph