Category: Politics

Back in 1976, we had a nationwide 55 mile per hour (mph) speed limit on the interstate system. It was done as a safety feature, and to save gas. It was hated by red-blooded, car-lovin’ Americans, who routinely flouted the law. But it was the law. In September of that year, Lieutenant Chuck Neary of the Indiana State Police coordinated with other local law enforcement departments to do something about that, in an effort that later went nationwide as Operation CARE (Cooperative Awareness and Reduction Efforts).

With little warning, “bears” (as the CB radio fans called the police) were all over the major interstate highways, from dawn-to-dusk. They drove three abreast at times, all at 55 mph. Or they drove two abreast, leaving the passing lane empty for anyone foolish enough to pass. Many did, and were dutifully pulled over by the many other police cars stationed along the highway. They had helicopters, radar traps, even a small airplane. They went at it all day, and made many arrests.

CB radio was a big deal back then, and the CB airwaves were laced with incredulity and profanity (and that was just my brother and me). It was a news headline, repeated other times, and even duplicated by other police forces. At the time, truckers attributed it to harassment, or called it a publicity stunt. Others suggested it was a cash grab by the State of Indiana. As a red-blooded, sixteen year-old owner of a baby blue Gran Torino, I saw it as denial of my constitutional right to drive how I wanted, when I wanted. I told my dad, Lt. Neary, as much; he just chuckled.

Years later, as he was reminiscing about his career, I asked what he intended with that operation. He told me flatly that speed kills, and differences in speed between drivers account for most accidents. People had become blasé about speeding since they got away with it so often, and this effort forced them to all drive the (same) legal limit, or face the consequences. Accidents went down that day, but they stayed down for a period thereafter. Sure, it took longer to get anywhere on those days, but the pain was necessary to get back to obeying the law.

You no doubt have seen several horror stories about visa holders being detained, or very nice undocumented migrant families being suddenly deported. These are sad stories. The stories exist because for a very long time, no one has enforced the law. That means there will be many sad stories, but they all have one thing in common: someone broke the law.

There’s the Canadian woman who got her professional visa denied at the border in Washington, then decided to try flying to Tijuana and crossing there. These things are all computerized; when the border agent pulls up your file and it says “denied entry” on another crossing , then you appear again trying to enter, what does that sound like to you? Even a friend of hers who advises Canadians about American visa processes told her it was a bad idea!

How about the German tattoo artist who tried to enter at San Ysidro (California) with her tattooing equipment? She had a tourist visa, which means she may not work in the United States. Who brings their work gear with them on a tourist junket? Somebody planning to violate the terms of their tourist visa, that’s who. She maintains she just wanted to tattoo a friend (for free), but even assuming that’s true, it’s the responsibility of the person entering a country to know and abide by that country’s visa limitations. And not do anything suspicious, because a visa is a privilege granted, not a right.

And the other German man with a green card who got taken into custody, and “violently interrogated” without anyone ever touching him? Seems Customs and Border Protection learned he had outstanding drug-related charges against him.

The French Scientist turned away from a conference in Houston allegedly because he had “anti-Trump text messages” on his phone? He also had a confidential document from the Los Alamos National Laboratory hidden on his phone, after having signed a non-disclosure agreement with them. While several French authorities have continued to cite the texts, no one has yet denied the document or the agreement violation. Hmmmmmm. But I’m sure it was just the texts!

For example, if you’re a Lebanese nephrologist invited to work (with a visa) at Brown University as a professor and doctor, it may be best not to attend the funeral for a Hezbollah leader before arriving to the States. Pictures of her visit were found in the deleted files of her cell phone by ICE officials (who have the authority to search such devices for anyone entering the country). She admitted she deleted them to avoid looking like someone who supported Hezbollah, but also that she found the Hezbollah terrorist leader Nasrallah to be “a highly regarded religious leader.”

How about the young British girl who wanted to backpack the Pacific Northwest into Canada. She signed up with a travel agency that linked her with people who would share their accommodations in exchange for helping out with chores (watching the kids, watering the plants, doing yard work). When she tried to enter Canada (yes, my Canadian friends, read that part again!), their immigration officials told her she couldn’t do such an exchange as it violated the terms of her Canadian visa. When she turned around, she had to explain to US officials what had happened. Then they, too, determined she had violated her American visa and detained her.

Many Mexicans would dearly love to visit the United States, not to migrate there, but to go to Las Vegas, or Disney World, or New York City. It costs between $200 and 2000 USD to apply (non-refundable). And the key to getting the visa: proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you will return to Mexico at the end of the visa period. I knew a local American couple helping a Mexican high school student who had been tentatively accepted to several US universities, and wanted to get a tourist visa to visit them first. They were denied, because they explained the student was thinking of attending US universities (which was true). But that indicated the student thinks they can stay in the United States, which is a disqualifier.

Why is the United States being so sticky about visas? Guess what the number one source of illegal immigration into the United States is! It’s not those poor, huddled masses sneaking through the border fences. It’s people getting legitimate US visas and then just deciding to stay afterward. See, the US didn’t even have a system for checking up on such people for a long time, so the visa holders, like the speeders, just decided it was fine to do so.

And a similar logic applies to other immigrant groups. US law permits the President to allow people from countries suffering environmental disasters (think earthquakes, tsunamis, etc) to temporarily resettle some refugees in the US. What’s odd is, no one who does so ever leaves. Some get paroled into the country by the Executive Branch, others just decide to stay. Undocumented migrants who sneak across the border do the same thing. They often apply for asylum, go through an extensive juridical process, get denied (about 90% get denied), then fail to show up for their deportation hearing.

The peculiar logic of having laws which no one follows goes from ridiculous to sublime after a while. States began producing special government-issue identification for people who should not legally be here, because not having a government ID made life difficult. Cities consider allowing such people to vote. I’ve already mentioned before that the combination of birthright citizenship and lax immigration enforcement creates families of undocumented/illegal aliens with US-citizen children, complicating how to deport one without the other.

Some will point out that the visa instances I cite involve people who claim to have been mistreated (poor food, locked in cold cells, unable to contact anybody, etc) while in detention. I don’t doubt that at all. I’ve toured the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa crossing cites, two of the busiest in the world. They have rudimentary cells, and aren’t designed for long-term detention. ICE has other sites which function as real prisons, because that’s what they are: prisons. Entering any country illegally is a crime. Yes, it’s a civil violation, not necessarily a criminal one (it could be), but I suggest next time you’re before a judge, you question receiving punishment because “breaking a civil law is not a criminal act.” Let me know how that turns out, will ya?

Think this is a US/Trump problem? It is true this administration has decided to be stricter than any other. But if I overstay my ninety-day tourist visa to the European Union, then the next time I return they will slap me in their holding cell, put me on the next flight back (at my expense). And I won’t be staying at a White Lotus resort.

Germany and the UK just provided notices to their citizens. Outrage media (in the first case, Newsweek, which is nothing but an online hype-outfit) called it a travel warning. In the text of the announcement, the German government covered the fact it was NOT a warning, that the US was using the same procedure that Germany uses, and that in is incumbent upon the traveler not to do or say anything that would constitute a reason for denial-of-entry. Thus is it everywhere people want to go. The UK issued an advice, which simply updated their existing advice by adding this phrase: “You should comply with all entry, visa and other conditions of entry. The authorities in the US set and enforce entry rules strictly. You may be liable to arrest or detention if you break the rules.” The Hill called this a “travel warning.” Some warning.

What about the California couple who were deported from Orange County to Colombia after living here for thirty-five years? They were stalwart members of the community, good people. They have grown (American-born) daughters and even a grandchild. Stop for a moment, and ask yourself this: in which country, on what planet, is it ok to flout the law for thirty-five years? Even ICE had taken to letting the couple make annual appointments to report they were still here! But before we leave their case, it also represents one more house that was not available for California’s American-record homeless crisis. For thirty-five years.

Would I like to see a little more nuance in visa and deportation enforcement? Yes, yes, I would. But what I see now is people claiming every enforcement is illegal, immortal, or stupid. All the cases I cited above begin with legacy/social media stories that either ignore or avoid pertinent facts in order to outrage people only waiting to be outraged. When you ignore a law long enough, people will expect you to ignore it forever. When that becomes untenable, there will be real pain.

Post Script: Some may wonder why I didn’t address the issue of the Palestinian green card holder being detained, or the transfer of “Tren de Aragua terrorists” to El Salvador. Both cases involve obscure interpretations of law, which will undoubtedly end up at the Supreme Court. And we have few facts, but many claims. In the first case, did you know the free-speech rights of green card holders may be different than citizens? I didn’t. It’s a case of unsettled law. Likewise, the second case will revolve around whether the President can declare an emergency under the Alien Tort Statute (1789). Once that’s settled, the rest follows (even due process, supposedly). And since the government is releasing little data, all we have are claims by the defendants they were “attacked for free speech” or “tattoos.” None of which is determinative for the cases. So we’ll have to wait to make an intelligent comment.

I referred to the Separation of Powers in the US Constitution the other day in a post, making the point it is a plural phrase: it is not a single, shared power, but different and competing powers. We all know this from high school civics (back when that was taught) or SchoolHouse Rock (when TV ruled).

Many talking heads are invoking arguments about the separation of powers, making it sound like there are clear divisions. There are in a general sense. But they are very fuzzy at the margins. Let’s see how.

The President is the pinnacle of the Executive Branch. He enforces laws, either through bureaucrats, police powers, or the military (listed in order of decreasing danger presented to the average citizen). He has sole authority when it comes to foreign policy and is commander in chief of the military. Yet Congress must approve treaties and declare war. Right there you start to see how the separation is more conceptual than absolute. The laws the President executes (hence the Executive Branch) are written by Congress, although he (so far, only he) must also agree to sign them. If he vetoes them, the Congress with a super-majority can override his veto. Clear as mud?

The President has broad authority to set standards for how his branch executes the law. For example, he may tell the Department of Homeland Security to arrest violent criminal aliens as a priority, which does not mean all other persons here illegally are off the hook. Just that there are limited resources, and all the laws cannot be executed equally. Or he could tell the Internal Revenue Service to focus on corporate tax cheats rather than individuals. Or the Department of Justice to seek out certain kinds of discrimination. All of that is within his purview, although the Courts and the Congress may disagree with it.

The Congress has the power of the purse, that is, they control the money flow. This sounds very powerful, and it is, but it is the ultimate double-edged sword. First, authorizations (permission to do something) and appropriations (dollars to do something) have to be passed as bills into law, meaning they have to survive a committee process, floor votes, and sometimes super-majorities, not to mention getting the President’s signature after all that. The more Congress specifies the details, the more power they have, but also the more accountability. Members sometimes put into law “spend $x dollars with Y company to make Z product” which is called an earmark and can be (almost always is) a corrupt practice. But if they say “spend $x dollars on foreign aid” the Executive Branch might do something they don’t like. So they try to be just specific enough.

All of which leads to the argument about how the President spends the money. To know whether he is abiding by the Congress’ intent, you have to know the exact language in the original authorization and appropriation, items buried deep in thousands of pages in the federal register. Suffice it to say that many of the people talking about such things today in the media have not done that research, which means they don’t know what they’re talking about. And then there is the timing issue. Appropriated money has to be spent within a specific time frame, usually one fiscal year (October-September). So one can’t say the Executive Branch is defying the Congress (definitively) during the fiscal year, because the game is not over yet. And any President can pause any spending to review it for legal or policy reasons, and they do so all the time.

Sometimes there are fundamental arguments. Democratic-controlled Congresses in the 1980s passed the (first) Boland amendment (named for Massachusetts Democratic Representative Edward Boland) which restricted US Intelligence Agencies from providing any funding to the Nicaraguan Contras. Legitimate power of the purse, or unconstitutional limit on the President’s foreign policy authority? The Reagan White House read the amendment literally, and sent money from the National Security Council (which is not an intelligence agency) to the Contras. Then Congress passed another Boland Amendment prohibiting any transfer of US funds to the Contras, nor the use of any appropriations to arrange funding for the Contras. But President Reagan decided the Congress could not tell him he couldn’t cut a deal with Iran to fund the Contras! Neither side went to court, fearing they might lose and set a precedent.

Here’s a hypothetical. If the power of the purse is so clear, why can’t Congress simply say the President has a compensation of one dollar per year, and nothing for the White House as an institution? The fact that the President receives a compensation is in the Constitution (but not how much), as well as the fact his compensation can’t be changed during his term, but couldn’t Congress just practically zero him out and make him irrelevant? Obviously not, but why not?

This is where the third branch comes in: the Judiciary Branch. They were considered by the Founders to be the least powerful branch. Members had to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, which meant both the other branches could influence who sat in the courts. Congress even has the ability to limit some of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction (what cases or concepts they can review), an extremely powerful but rarely invoked authority. The Judiciary Branch really marked out its territory in the case of Marbury v. Madison, when the Supreme Court ruled that it was the deciding authority for what is or is not constitutional. The court ruled that the US Constitution implied that someone–in their view the Supreme Court–has to be the final arbiter of constitutionality. This made them the referee in battles between the states and federal government, between the Executive and Legislative Branches, and even between competing constitutional rights (think life and choice, for example).

But they have no power to enforce their decisions. President Andrew Jackson almost certainly did not say, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” but he did defy the Chief Justice’s ruling in a case about the Cherokee Nation. Abraham Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court’s overruling his suspension of habeus corpus during the civil war, and FDR cowed the court (when it ruled much of his New Deal unconstitutional) by threatening to pack it with new appointees. Events like Richard Nixon’s agreeing to give up his secret Oval Office tapes because the court ordered it are actually more of the exception than the rule in highly controversial cases.

Let’s take a current example to see how all this plays out. President Trump has threatened–and begun the process of–dismantling the US Agency for International Development (US AID). It is written into law, so he can’t just do that, can he? Well, he can certainly stop its spending for review, and that review can take time. At what point does it become something more like a refusal to spend (called impoundment in federal appropriations language)? That would be a court’s call, as an argument between the branches.

Can he fire all the employees? Yes, but there is a process for that which must be followed. Is he following the process? Again, there is a labor relations board which must rule on that. Oh, and the President has vacated this board’s members, so it can’t rule because it lacks a quorum. Another case to be made to the courts. How much of the funding can he redirect? Each line item in the authorizations and appropriations has to be reviewed for how specific it was, and how much leeway the Executive Branch has. Given Congress’ desire to be more general, I would bet there is a lot of leeway, but again, that will be up to the courts. A District court judge just ruled that the Administration does have to pay for those commitments which were already made; this is a peculiarity of foreign aid. Much of it is paid retroactively to NGOs, charities or governments. US AID officials sign a contract which instructs the aid recipient how to spend and on what, then promises to reimburse them when they demonstrate they have complied. The administration stopped even these payments, and the court (rightly in my opinion) said, “not so fast, a contract is a contract.” Little reported in the headlines (From the Washington Post: “‘Unlawful’ suspension of USAID funding probably violated Constitution, judge says”) was that the judge confirmed that the administration could stop all prospective payments, which are far larger.

The headlines are often misleading in these cases, as I have pointed out before, because controversy attracts eyeballs. There are forty-six current court cases (according to the NY Times) against the Trump administration. None have yet made it to the Supreme Court for final determination. As each judge at each level weighs in, media (both legacy and digital) trumpet (pun intended) the results with “unconstitutional” or “vindicated” headlines/chyrons. But none of these verdicts are final until the Supreme Court decides.

Another recent example involves the Executive Branch ignoring court decisions. The Trump administration allegedly (at the time I write this, the facts aren’t all in) sent Venezuelan illegal aliens to prisons in El Salvador despite a district court judge’s injunction. Assume for a second that it’s true: they ignored the court. What happens now? The judge could find some officials in contempt, but what would that mean? Who would jail them? The administration has already sent a case to the Supreme Court asking that the very recent (post 1960s) practice of district courts issuing nationwide injunctions be invalidated, which would either enable effective government or precede authoritarianism, depending on your views of the administration.

Also, the courts have often stated they won’t rule on “Political Questions” a doctrine which holds that there are disagreements that are either outside the court’s jurisdiction or beyond its competence. In so doing, the Judiciary Branch says in effect, “don’t drag us into your political disagreements, work it out as politics between the parties.” While this may seem cowardly to some, it avoids the court setting precedents over issues that then resonate throughout the entire system. It’s like Mom & Dad telling the boys to “work it out for themselves,” because neither of them will like their parents’ intervention.

Perhaps this clarifies the separation of powers. More likely, it doesn’t. That’s because, contra what the talking heads say online, it isn’t always clear who has the right to do what. And even when it is, there are limits and loopholes and things that nobody wants to argue about in court, because while the argument is still active, either side can win. And the parties involved often switch sides based on who sits in what office. Once the Supreme Court rules in such cases, the game is over.

Now is the time for all good people to choose a side. I ask you: are you pro- or anti-hammer? Don’t temporize, don’t ask for clarification. Hammers are as obvious and tangible a thing as there is: everybody has held one in their hands. Now admit it: which are you?

My friends, all being intelligent, reasonable people, will of course object to this rush to judgment. “Pat,” they’ll say, “hammers are just tools. Tools can be used for good or evil. You can’t automatically and conclusively judge them, only how they are used.”

Poppycock (that’s British for bullsh!t). Hammers can kill people, just ask the Beatles. Even without evil intent, just used as sport, they can be deadly. Hammers are prone to misuse: I used a hammer once to nudge a pane of glass into place with disastrous consequences. And the numbers of times we all have smashed our fingers! In today’s modern world, hammers are unnecessary: think of all the Ikea products you can assemble without ever using a hammer!

Those smug hammer-enthusiasts will counter that hammers don’t kill people, people do. Few things are as satisfying as hitting the nail on the head: that’s why the saying exists, for Pete’s sake! Hammers are safe when used correctly, most hammer collectors are fine people who would never misuse them, and if all else fails, hammers are a fine form of self-defense.

Some of you may be thinking I’ve lost it. Others intuit a defense of the Second Amendment. You’re both wrong (maybe not the first group; the jury is still out on my sanity). I want to talk today about Trump’s favorite word: tariffs. I wrote about candidate Trump’s love of tariffs back before the election, but now we have actual tariff proposals, counters, and changes. And commentary, so much commentary, very little of which is coherent.

The first point about tariffs you already know: they are a tool, and just that. It is true that tariffs (specifically the Smoot-Hawley legislation) were a massively contributing factor to the Great Depression. It is also true tariffs were a primary source of government income for centuries before that event. Were all those governments so stupid? No, they avoided highly-unpopular personal or income taxes by using tariffs. But tariffs don’t work well within a free-trading system, so they eventually went extinct, right? Like buggy whips?

Well, no. Countries around the world have used tariffs and continue to do so. Ronald Reagan slapped quotas and tariffs on Japanese automakers and electronics back in the 1980s, with great effect. By the way, the use of a quota and accompanying high tariff for everything exported about the quota is the same method used by Canada to protect its dairy industry today. No one ends up paying the tariff (which can reach almost 300%!), because the quota simply limits American dairy competition with the Canadian domestic producers. Germany tariffs American autos, Japan tariffs American beef, and so forth. I ask again: are all these governments stupid?

No. Tariffs may protect domestic industry, or help it grow. But not if your country can’t make the product for technical (think TSMC for high-end chips) or environmental (think Tequila or Champagne) reasons, or if your domestic producers simply see the tariff as a chance to raise their own prices and reap greater profit. Tariffs may raise revenue (from whom, ahh, that is a good question for further down the page). But not if you remove them, or people substitute other domestic products for the tariff’d ones, or the companies go ahead and move production to your country. Tariffs may start a trade war as other countries post reciprocal tariffs. But wait a minute. If Trump’s tariffs are a stupid idea that only taxes Americans, what are Canada’s/Mexico’s/the EU’s tariffs in response? Are those governments that stupid?

Earthy Metaphor: President Trump takes a dump on the Presidential seal rug in the middle of the Oval Office. Would you expect Prime Minister Carney (Canada) or Presidenta Sheinbaum (pronounced SHANE-baum, not SHINE-baum; she’s Mexican, not from Baltimore) to do the same in their respective offices? Or perhaps they would refrain from a similarly stupid act?

About who pays tariffs, a meal culpa (times three). In my breezy coverage of Trump’s tariff ideas pre-election, I suggested the exporting country pays the tariff. This is not technically true. The actual tariff payment is made by the importing company, whatever its nationality. But who really pays it? Everybody and nobody. The importer pays the foreign producer for the product, and then on top of that pays the US government the tariff for that product. But the importer is a business, not a charity: they require profit, and the tariff eats into their profit. What do they do? Well, one thing they can do is raise the price of the good they imported when selling it to the retailer/consumer. In this manner, the end-user or buyer (you and me) pay the tariff. You’ll hear free-traders and progressives alike making this argument.

The problem is, it’s not that simple. If you suddenly raise the price on an item, especially a lot, fewer people will buy it. Or they’ll buy a substitute that is cheaper. If there is no sale, there is no profit at all. So the importer does NOT pass along the entire tariff. The importer “eats” some of the tariff, because making less profit is better than no sale at all. And the importer may renegotiate with the producer, asking them to lower their price (which eats into the producer’s profits), thus sharing the tariff pain, and reducing the tariff (which is based on the price). The same thing goes on throughout the retail chain, with intermediate businesses making fine-tuned decisions about how much they can raise prices, not just passing along the whole tariff. There’s a word to describe businesses which simply pass long any external costs imposed upon them: bankrupt.

Simile: Like asking who pays for the US Army? Well, the federal government. But where do they get the money? From taxpayers, and from tariffs, and from asset-seizures, and from foreign purchases of US bonds. So you, white-collar criminals, and the Chinese government all pay for the US Army. So what?

Now nothing I have said should be construed as suggesting the Trump administration has a finely-tuned, coherent strategy to use the tool called tariffs. They have articulated different reasons for different tariffs, which is appropriate. One constant is that America will place reciprocal tariffs on anyone who tariffs it. Even this doesn’t always make sense. For example, an exact reciprocal tariff on Canadian dairy products would have little effect; they’re worried about American competition, not vice versa. But let’s assume there are competent bureaucrats in the US federal government who can identify the correct equivalent items to tariff.

According to US officials, some of the large, across-the-board tariffs against Canada and Mexico are related to immigration and fentanyl trafficking. There is nothing wrong with using tariffs to garner non-economic policy outcomes. Trump did so very effectively with Colombia with respect to repatriating migrants. But such broad tariffs are like putting a nail between each of your fingers and swinging the hammer wildly: perhaps somewhat effective, but painfully costly.

My best guess here is Trump is using these Canadian and Mexican tariffs as a negotiating ploy. Immigration is dramatically down, but he needs to keep it there. Fentanyl deaths are also declining. I bet Trump will continue to impose, delay, or limit these tariffs, asking for more support from Canada and Mexico, until some point in the near future when he declares victory (for his policies). How much economic pain will that entail? How many fingers will get hit?

There is no legitimate immigration/drug-snuggling rationale for the Canadian tariffs; I don’t think there is a good economic rationale, either. I believe the tariffs with Canada are also personal. First, Trump hates Trudeau, and sought every opportunity to demean him, even after it was clear he was stepping down. Trump also has this odd obsession with enlarging America, and Canada became one of his chief targets, as impossible as that is. Canadians are pissed, frankly, and new Prime Minister (pending election) Carney is feeding off the disgust and talking tough. He has to. His party was set to be wiped out in the elections, but after Trump’s riling up the Canucks, Carney is now tied with Pierre Polievre, the more conservative (relatively) candidate and party.

Whoever wins would do well to look south, all the way to Mexico City, for a different approach. Why? While I admit they’re in the right, and have a right to be upset, Canada cannot engage in a long-lasting trade-war with America. Both sides would be hurt, but one side would have bruises and the other a gaping chest wound. Or a traumatic amputation.

In the end, Canada has to come up with a way to stand up to Trump without burning the log cabin down. Which is why Mexico City is the place to look. Presidenta Sheinbaum has masterfully responded to Trump’s provocations. While some expats friends have reveled on social media about imaginary responses from her to Trump, belittling him (they like how it makes them feel; but they’re not real, because she is way too savvy to respond that way), she has instead demonstrated grace and resilience. She responds specifically to his requests, rather than trying to point out logical flaws or statistical errors. She actually at least tries to address her fellow President’s concerns. She remains respectful, at least of the office, if not the man.

Her results? A much better relationship, some appreciation from the White House (which is rare indeed), and a record approval rate in Mexico. You think this would all be obvious by now, but of course, one could also try to shut off the power to New England (Shout out to Doug Ford!). In the end, I think Mexico is going to trade additional tariffs on China for relief from the United States. For a variety of reasons that are unique to Mexico (and cited in this NY Times piece by Keith Bradsher), Mexico actually has the international right to drop major tariffs on China while China cannot (legally) respond. Look for la Presidenta (I checked, the Real Academia Española does recognize a feminine version of El Presidente) to do precisely that.

The reciprocal or retaliatory tariffs are another thing altogether, and it’s not clear in each case what goal Trump is seeking. Clearly the ones on China and Europe are different, and how they play out will be different. I’ll wait to see more information before I judge them, and suggest you do, too. I don’t believe tariffs are a great thing, or there is a finely-tuned Trump tariff strategy. I also reject the notion that tariffs “are the stupidest thing ever and no sane person could ever support them.” Because many nations, over many centuries, have used them. Like most things Trump, people immediately gravitate to either extreme, which is sad but predictable.

My advice? “Stay calm and mind the gap (in tariffs).”

In part one we discussed why the argument in the Oval Office was less important than some made it out. In part two we covered the far more important change in international security that that argument unveiled. In part three, let’s finish off those “pretences” that Kissinger referenced.

“America is abandoning world leadership.” Even Trump would argue he is doing nothing of the sort. America no longer has world leadership. It is one thing to abandon something, another thing to recognize it’s gone. While America is certainly first among equals in power, influence, money, etc., it no longer has the sway it did at the end of WWII or the end of the Cold War. That’s a simple fact backed by massive data. Any American leader faces the same choice: try to pretend we lead the world, at an exorbitant cost, postponing an inevitable decline, or fix what ails America now.

I would note too that using Ukraine as the totem for America’s global influence is, at best, a partisan gambit. Where were these same people when the Biden administration withdrew from Afghanistan (especially the part where we didn’t coordinate with our European allies)? How about the Obama administration’s acquiescence to the “little green men” who occupied Crimea? One can go back through Cold War history and find example after example of America deciding to ignore allies, cut losses, or even abandon friends. It happens, even to the “leader of the free world.”

“Russia has broken every agreement.” Thanks to fervent reader Volodmyr Z. from Ukraine for this comment! He’s right. Putin said over a decade ago he wanted to regain all the lost territories, and he has consistently been on a path to do so ever since, including invading Ukraine thrice. Which is why the President of Ukraine cannot negotiate with Russia, because Russia doesn’t see him as an equal partner, nor as one who has anything other than surrender to offer Russia. Know with whom Russia does keep agreements? The United States. I worked Strategic Arms Control with the Soviets, and they were scrupulous about the agreements. Not because they were nice guys, or even decent human beings. “Trust but verify.” They knew we would catch them cheating, they feared we would cheat, and they thought the agreements were good for Russia. That’s how it works, and that’s why the US must be the principal negotiator for peace. Not because we’re the leader of the free world, but because Russia sees us as a power and wants something from us. The Republic of Vietnam may have signed the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, but nobody doubted who negotiated it, or whose signature was most important.

“How can we repudiate the shared values of our closest Western allies?” These shared values are an interesting case. What do they mean? If you mean a commitment to free trade, they’ve always been less shared than it seemed, as the US consented to all kinds of special protections. Try selling American milk tariff-free in Canada, American cars in Germany, or American beef in Japan. Maybe it was human rights? Don’t pray silently in public in the UK, don’t wear a burka in public in France, and don’t insult someone in public in Germany (not kidding; they’re all criminal violations). Most of Europe’s abortion laws were MORE restrictive than the US under Roe; now they’re somewhere in the middle of our Red and Blue state laws. Certainly it would include respect for non-intervention, unless of course you’re speaking of the French in Africa, or the British in the Suez. Anti-Racism! Yes, that’s it, we all share an antipathy to racism. I used to endure lectures on racism from a German friend. I don’t need to tell my educated friends today that it’s easy to not be racist when there is only one race around. Europe has embarked upon a program of migration that welcomed large-scale racial mixing, and if you follow the news there, it’s not going well. Guess I won’t be getting the lecture again soon.

None of which is to say the nations of “the West” don’t have many things in common; they do. But the greatest single shared value was this: The US didn’t want to run the world, and didn’t want anyone else to either. That was something with which all could agree. We’re making that agreement more explicit today, for our own purposes, and many don’t like it.

“The US is abandoning the globe at the moment of greatest peril.” You often see this contention with respect to further Russian aggression in Europe. Russia has learned it can’t even “take” Ukraine. I admit, Russia might think differently about Latvia (solely as an example), and that’s a reason for NATO’s European members to get serious about defense. But the Red Army is not on the brink of overrunning Paris, nor will it be in the next fifty years. Russia is demographically headed for oblivion, and all we need to do is provide hospice care. Even China is only looking to accomplish what the US did in the Cold War: establish an international system friendly to Chinese interests; they’ll not be landing on the beaches of Honshu, either. Oh, and they’ve gotten “old” before they got “rich,” so time is against them, too.

There is an international competition going on, but it revolves around technology (specifically artificial intelligence) and domestic stability. Which is why those are areas on which the United States should be focused.

“Ukraine must have a security guarantee as part of peace negotiations.” What does this mean? Let’s drop the euphemisms here. Any security guarantee is only as good as the willingness of the guarantor to fight a war on behalf of the guarantee. Otherwise-thoughtful people are saying that adding Ukraine to NATO, or giving them a US-backed security guarantee, will prevent Putin from attacking again. That is only true if we are willing to fight a nuclear-armed Russia in a war over Ukraine. So if you are willing to send your husband or wife, brother or sister, daughter or son to die defending Ukraine, then YES, argue for such a security guarantee. If not, stop.

President Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum, in which the UK, the US, and Russia (!) all pledged to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. How did that work out? President Obama did not give Ukraine a security guarantee after the Russians took Crimea. Did he miss an opportunity? There is no evidence in our foreign policy actions by both parties, or in any polling done over the last two decades, that the people of the United States agree that defending Ukraine is a vital national interest. A security guarantee is not a bluff; it is a real commitment, which is why it works. We have one with NATO; we don’t with Ukraine.

“Trump has undermined the very basis of NATO, the most successful security alliance in history.” This goes directly to Kissinger’s point: Trump didn’t undermine NATO, Trump demonstrated NATO’s current situation accurately, and it’s not good (he would say, “the worst . . . EVER! Terrible!”). NATO will go down in history as unique and uniquely successful. Back even in the Cold War, it was the only one of the multilateral pacts which survived at all (Google CENTO and SEATO and see how they did). NATO worked because it had a simple premise, which Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, the British first Secretary General of NATO, allegedly characterized as “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” He was absolutely correct. Today, from a security perspective, the Russians can’t get in, the Americans want out, and the Germans have fallen and can’t get up.

How bad is it? In the stark reality of Russia occupying a sovereign nation and breaking continental norms in place for eighty years, the European states have . . . almost succeeded in pledging to eventually spend 2.5% of GDP on defense. France has demanded that Europe coordinate their defense industries and military capabilities . . . to no response. Three years after Germany announced a Zeitenwende (foundational change in how it sees security), they may soon pass a law . . . forcing eighteen year-olds to fill out a digital survey on their interest in joining the army. And the UK just committed to sending peacekeeping troops to Ukraine to be deployed . . . wherever there is no fighting. Pardon me if I’m not sanguine about Europe’s willingness to bear any share of the burden, let alone its share. NATO may indeed survive this challenge; it’s been remarkably resilient. If it does, it will survive because European states take on most of the burden for their own defense.

Finally, “There is no change in the global system; Trump’s behavior as a mafia don is the cause of all this.” President Trump is far more publicly transactional than any modern US President, and more theatrically vulgar (in the original Latin meaning), too. If you wish to characterize that as “Tony Soprano-like,” go ahead. But suggesting that’s the reason things are the way they are gets cause-and-effect backward. As Kissinger suggested, as the voters too felt, things changed. Trump, with all his manifold faults, represents both a factor illuminating that change and a response to it.

In the Godfather movies, there is a scene where young Vito Corleone meets with and confronts the local crime boss, Don Fanucci. This is not the wild west; it’s New York City in 1920. In a nation of laws, with functioning police and courts, it’s still a violent time. Corleone doesn’t go to the press, or the police, or the courts. He stalks the Don and kills him, setting himself on the path to becoming Don Corelone, head of a crime syndicate. As immoral as his choice is, he accurately understood the environment in which he lived. Vito Corleone didn’t make the times; the times made him into Don Corleone.

This will be hard, friends. I’m going to ask you to do something really difficult in this installment. To wit, surgically remove your Trumpian lizard brain. You know, the part of your brain that instantly responds to all things Trump. Whether you go “hell, yeah, fight, fight, fight, pwn the libs!!” or “there goes that giant orange, pig-faced Satan of a Putin puppet!” Take it out, just for a few moments.

That’s too hard. It’s too embedded in most people. So just turn it off and let the rest of your brain think. You’ll enjoy the experience, I promise you.

Like him or not, Henry Kissinger was one of the sharpest minds in American foreign policy over the last fifty years. Yes, he made tragic mistakes (foreign policy successes and intelligence failures are the two possible foreign policy outcomes), but also had incredible successes. But most of all, he had keen insight. He could look past Mao’s brutal authoritarianism and see a man who could be wooed away from the Soviet Union, for example. That was both morally obtuse and incredibly prescient.

Of Donald Trump the politician, Kissinger said, “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences.” Note Kissinger was neither praising Trump nor denigrating him, just positioning him as a character in history. I’m going to argue in this post that the important thing in Kissinger’s insight is NOT about Trump, but about the phrase “the end of an era.”

“Yes,” you’re thinking, it’s the end of civility and decency!” There’s the subliminal Trump brain again. Every time that lizard emerges from its hole, just smack it back under.

What you saw in the Oval Office the other day was a stark reminder that we are officially in a different era. No one can debate that anymore. What era did we leave, and what does the future hold? Let’s see.

“Pat, we know the answers already: America will be Great Again!” SMACK. Positive Trump lizards get no better treatment than negative ones.

At the end of World War II, America literally bestrode the world. We had immensely powerful armed forces backed (briefly) by a nuclear monopoly. We occupied large swaths of the planet, had a roaring economy which was practically unaffected by wartime destruction, and a great generation of leaders who understood that the globe remained on the precipice. Nazism, fascism, and militarism had been defeated; communism stood beside us as the sole, evil competitor.

America abandoned its longstanding principle of non-involvement outside of the Western Hemisphere. We took on alliances, built international institutions, remade defeated foes into fledgling allies, and stood against further Communist advances. We did so partly because the primary lesson of the early 20th century was that if no one stood up for international decency, America would be dragged into yet another global war. We did so mostly because not being dragged into such wars meant Americans could go back to loving life in America, which is as close to the national dream as there is. In pursuit of these goals, America engaged in all forms of behavior: principled stands, political bullying, nation building, overthrowing governments, space races, technology boycotts, local wars, trade embargoes, and much espionage. Some called it the end of America’s naivete.

The implicit deal America struck with its real or potential allies was this: we will provide the security umbrella, you stand with us against Communism. Everything else was of secondary importance. We gave nations favorable trade deals, because everyone wins with free trade, right? We forgave debts and ignored public slights: the sight of a burning American flag became a staple of international protest in friendly countries! We cut deals with dictators. We let countries off of their defense burden so they could build happy, well-financed social systems to ensure their domestic tranquility. America wasn’t an altruistic superpower; it did what it did in order to win the Cold War. It was that important.

As you know, the West won the Cold War. America truly was once again the sole superpower, and there was no clear challenger. Believe me, I worked in the field at the time, and a great search was on for the next “peer competitor.” But try as we might, we could identify no country that was within decades of providing the challenge. The system of international law, alliances, human rights, and free trade that the United States and its allies promoted stood as a testament to its victory. But the system was built to face a serious challenge; how would it function in the absence of any challenge?

Not well, as it turned out. NATO sought a new mission, and the title of an influential foreign policy article in the 90’s was “NATO: Out of Area or Out of Business?” NATO changed from a defensive alliance of like-minded free countries to a halfway house for newly-freed European states, shepherding them into the fold. It even invoked its sacred Article V guarantee when Al Qaida attacked America on 9/11, a generous if entirely unnecessary gesture. Even the advent of Islamic terrorism was insufficient as a global challenge, although it did succeed in two things: first, encouraging American hubris that led to disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and second, a reminder of just who our real friends and enemies were.

What happened over the next thirty years? The stresses on that American international system started to show. In the absence of a common threat, why spend money on defense at all, since America wanted to be the sole superpower? Why not protect your industries with tariffs, since America didn’t care in the past? Vote against them in the United Nations; what’s the difference? Protest and criticize them as you will; after all, there’s plenty of Americans who will agree with you!

Just as the international system frayed, so did the American national consensus. Americans’ legendary mobility (no one moves, or rather moved, as frequently as Americans did) started sorting people into Red or Blue states. In the absence of a reason to pull together, we pulled apart, arguing over every little thing. Think I’m kidding? We currently argue about transsexual women (men who insist they are women) participating in women’s sports. The NCAA (the governing body for college sports) estimates there are . . . wait for it, less than ten such athletes. It is neither the human rights issue of our time nor a generational threat. But we are still arguing. The arguing, protesting, and lawsuits over all things have yielded a nation without the ability to govern itself. We stare down a $36 TRILLION dollar national debt and can’t stop spending. We pay annually more to service that debt than we do on the military or Medicare, and in the not so distant future, it will surpass Social Security spending. And no party or leader has any plans whatsoever to address it.

“But Pat, I want to focus on Trump! He’s the Bad Orange Man, the cause of all things wrong with America today. Did you see how terribly he behaved with Zelensky?”

Or is it:

“DOGE will slice fraud/waste/abuse. Trump will tariff us back into a balanced budget. Why can’t you see that!

Forget about Trump, remember? This is about the new era. What is it?

The grand coalition led by America is over. Don’t tell me how great it was; I know. It succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. But it doesn’t, it can’t, work in this new world. The world doesn’t have to revert to the base aggression that the Greek philosopher and strategist Thucydides described, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” (By the way, Athens was a democracy at the time!). But something new is going to replace what was.

In this new era, nations will have to take greater responsibility for their actions. There will be no global policemen, perhaps a few regional ones. International relationships will be more transactional: contracts, not covenants. To all those people who ever shouted (or wanted to) “Yanqui go home!” you’ll get your wish. I have a little secret for my foreign friends: if you polled all Americans and gave them the choice to live in America free from outside threats, but also free of outside commitments, over ninety percent would take it. Yes, America’s foreign entanglements (George Washington’s phrase) were key to our Cold War success, but now America’s biggest problems are back at home.

This may sound depressing, but it needn’t be. This is a return to history, after a brief (80 year) unusual period of idealism. Nations have strengths and weaknesses. They have interests, allies, and threats. None of that is permanent. We fought two wars against the United Kingdom before deciding they were our most special friends. Even during the Pax Americana, things changed. Iran was once a staunch ally, and initially the US kept Israel at arm’s length. We befriended Communist China long enough to separate them from the Soviet Union, but then kept trying to change them while they became a potential challenge.

Would it have been nice to keep things as they were? It may seem so, but the answer is no, because America does not have the power to play that role any longer, and more importantly, it doesn’t have the will. America is powerful, the most powerful single nation on the planet. But it has found that it cannot endlessly expend its resources everywhere on the planet. America lashed out after 9/11, eliminated al Qaida, and defenestrated the Taliban. Two decades later, we couldn’t even muster the will to prevent the Taliban’s return, despite knowing what would happen. It wasn’t the casualties: more service members were dying in training accidents than in Afghanistan when President Trump wrongly committed to and then President Biden incompetently executed our shameless withdrawal. It wasn’t the cost, most of which was sunk cost at that point. It was a loss of nerve, a loss of will.

Perhaps after healing its domestic wounds and stabilizing its spending, it can resume a global role. And there is no reason a more multi-polar world has to be worse. There are pertinent lessons of history here. After the disastrous upheaval of Napoleon’s wars in Europe, the great powers sat down with smaller countries at the Congress of Vienna, creating a set of rules that enabled a balance of power on the continent, preventing more war. True, the rules were regressive and counter-democratic, because the ruling elites feared the mass armies that French republicanism had unleashed. But the rules worked splendidly to ensure peace (in general) for one hundred years, until another set of changes left them vulnerable to the instability that led to World War I.

In the grand finale (part three), I’ll bring us back to Trump and the moment and perhaps shed some additional light. I’d recommend leaving your Trumpian brain at rest, but you do you!

If you haven’t watched the full video of the Trump/Vance-Zelenskyy tag team WWF death match in the Oval Office, here it is:

Stop right there. Don’t try to tell me you saw it. Or you already know what happened. Unless you watch the full forty-nine minutes, don’t even try it.

You might have seen a video clip or partial transcript which focuses on the contentious parts, but this is the full version. The first thing you’ll notice is how boring it is. The first eight minutes are completely normal, with a pleasant exchange and mutual supporting language. Then the press is invited to ask questions. Trump and Zelenskyy have a jocular disagreement over whether Europe or the US has provided more support, but they laugh it off. There’s a snarky question (around 19:00) from the press about Zelenskyy’s “not wearing a suit,” which is odd in that nobody seemed upset about Elon Musk’s attire at the cabinet meeting. Trump later makes a point that Zelenskyy’s “outfit is fine.”

Things start to go south around twenty minutes in, when Trump suggests Ukraine “won’t need security assurances because Putin won’t want to go back” into Ukraine. Zelenskyy shakes his head, and when he gets his chance to talk, he challenges Trump directly that Putin “broke his agreements” even “when you were the President.” Trump sits back and becomes visibly agitated while Zelenskyy reiterates his point, then he explains Putin must pay for starting the war. Even that would have been a blip, and that’s all. There was a lunch waiting to be served, and an agreement waiting to be signed

For those who suggest this was an “ambush” planned by the administration, all this agenda was agreed to in advance by the two staffs. Photo op in the Oval with nice words and press pool, lunch (no press), signing ceremony with press conference. They are at the end of the photo op when President Trump says, “ok, one more question.” It’s over for all practical purposes. A reporter asks a question about negotiating with the Russians, and JD Vance responds by saying, in effect, the US is more influential when it engages in diplomacy rather than tough talk (an explicit swipe at the Biden administration). This comment is not directed at Ukraine or Zelenskyy, yet the Ukrainian President asks if he may interrupt Vance, then proceeds to explain that Putin does not honor his word, “what kind of diplomacy are you speaking of here?” This is the point where things blow up.

The people focusing on the theatrics are missing the point here. It doesn’t matter whether Vance’s comment was provocative. It also doesn’t matter whether Zelenskyy called Vance a name or just swore under his breath. If you think there haven’t been such arguments in the Oval, you’re wrong. Joe Biden swore at Zelenskyy in an Oval phone call, before hanging up on him. LBJ and Richard Nixon said much worse, just not for the cameras (although there are tapes, and what tapes!). What you saw was what normally goes on behind the scenes. There’s a reason for that, because politicians want people to believe politics is all about rational positions, not personalities, but adults know that personalities are often just as important.

What you saw was, in Trump’s phrase, “great television,” but lousy diplomacy. Whether you think either side was right or wrong, it doesn’t pay to take such arguments public, regardless of who starts them. What you saw was two opinionated men (not one) who already disliked one another let their personal animosities take over. On a superficial level, it was uncomfortable, like children watching mom and dad fight. For Americans, it was embarrassing, except President Trump is not capable of feeling embarrassment.

For Ukraine, it was suicidal. Tell me how getting thrown out of the White House, no mineral rights deal, and perhaps all aid shut off, helps Ukraine fight Russia. Then remind me if anybody on the planet didn’t know Trump was mercurial, antagonistic, and not particularly enamored of Zelenskyy. British, French, and American Congressional leaders all warned Zelenskyy, to no avail. As to Zelenskyy’s claim Putin cannot be trusted, answer this question: how does this war end except with negotiations with Russia? Did Zelenskyy think he was making some new point?

You may remember that the almost-signed mineral rights deal was preceded by another rupture, sparked by the Rubio/Vance meeting with Zelenskyy last week. According to the former, the Ukrainian President said he needed time to get his legislature to approve the deal. Then he left and publicly announced he was rejecting the deal. That’s just politics; they all eventually got over it. That will probably happen here again, although much damage has been done.

In the end, Zelenskyy knows he cannot win (the war or the peace) without US support. He wants a security guarantee, and I don’t blame him. He wants it for the same reason he can’t have it: Russia will eventually try to invade Ukraine again. European leaders just held an emergency summit and agreed (wait for it) to provide peacekeeping troops NOT along the conflict line, and calling for a “US backstop.” Europe cannot secure Ukraine’s future or rearm it without US support. Putin wants to secure the gains he has and end the fighting, for now (yes, he’ll try again). And Putin wants the US to end the economic sanctions which are starting to bite.

Contra Putin’s comments, NATO didn’t start this war, nor did Ukraine. But neither did the US. If you read the bold faced text in the last paragraph, you’ll note that all parties know that only the US can end the war with negotiations. Zelenskyy would be happy to keep fighting forever as long as the billions in aid keep flowing, but he has no plan for victory, just a hope, and “hope is not a method.” Putin knows he has gained only a partial victory, and like he did with Crimea and earlier in the Donbas, he’ll take his winnings for now, confident he can invade again, or perhaps badger Ukraine into submission. This is why negotiations are the only way out at this point. And the United States, not Ukraine, is “holding the cards” as Trump put it.

The undiplomatic row in the Oval Office was a symptom of a deeper change in world politics. I’ll cover what that is in part two!

Spin used to be just a setting on your washing machine, now it’s a way of life. Most of us think we’re experts at spotting spin, and we are, in that we notice spin with which we disagree. Let me let you in on a little secret: we’re missing half the spin, that is, the spin with which we agree!

Spin, the art of not being entirely truthful (“economical with the truth” I once heard it called), leaving out some inconvenient facts or exaggerating others, is endemic in the news and on social media. In the legacy media, it’s driven by (1) partisan blind spots, (2) lazy or uneducated reporting, and (3) the rush to be first, whether right or wrong. On social media it’s the same. Let’s look at some examples.

Elon Musk is running DOGE, the misnamed Department of Government Efficiency. It’s misnamed only in that the title was retrofitted to create the acronym DOGE, after a Musk favorite cryptocurrency, and “Department” has a specific meaning in government terminology. Reminds me of the time I explained to a security guard that writing the word “SECRET” on the top and bottom of a blank piece of paper didn’t make it secret, as that was a status requiring several other qualifications according to the government.

Either way, DOGE is running around accessing secured federal information technology systems and making unconstitutional eliminations of federal employees and programs. Or they’re not. See, no one, and I mean no one, really knows for sure. President Trump has said Musk is a special government employee, a category which would grant him such access. But the President has also said Musk is not in charge of DOGE. Many people are getting “fired” and some federal funding transfers have stopped, but no one has produced an order signed by Musk directing such things. And that matters, because courts have enjoined his access and actions, then gradually dropped their objections, because you can’t stop the actions of the federal government just because you don’t like him. You have to produce evidence, and so far it’s lacking. That doesn’t mean such evidence won’t arrive tomorrow: it may. We just don’t know, but that doesn’t stop spin meisters from saying it’s all legal or unconstitutional (either/or).

Mr. Musk’s DOGE team claimed to save $US 8 Billion dollars on a single Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contract. The amount was actually an accounting error; the actual cancelled contract was for only $8 million. So they did save some money, but not nearly as much as they indicated. Now they’re talking about sending DOGE rebates to all Americans based on the “savings” they are creating from cutting federal expenditures. The figure $5,000 USD had been bandied about. There are approximately 260 million American adults. Giving each one dollar would require . . . (yes, you guessed it) $260 million dollars. Make it 100 dollars and you need $26 trillion dollars; the entire US federal budget is only about $7 trillion dollars, so don’t buy that new fridge just yet.

On the flip side, have you heard about the mass firings of civil servants? Did you think federal employees were notoriously hard to fire? They are, except during their probationary period (usually one-to-two years when they enter on active federal service or change jobs or classifications, becoming an executive, for example). During this period, they can be fired for almost any reason, the one known exception is they cannot be fired for political reasons. It appears the administration is going through entire agencies and firing all employees in their probationary period. Why? Isn’t that stupid? On one hand, yes, you remove the flow of new blood and let go of people you just trained. On the other hand, if you do it in a sweeping way, no one can claim you’re doing it for political reasons (which means it won’t be successfully challenged in court or mediation).

What about the non-probationary federal employees who worked in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs? How can they be fired, aren’t they protected? Yes, they are, but they’ll have to make claims in court or the labor relations board. Most have chosen not to do so. Would you want to work for an organization that has identified your specialty as something to be eradicated? And given recent court rulings about DEI programs, a legal case could have the effect of validating the administration’s position that DEI is unconstitutional. This falls under the category of “don’t ask a question you don’t want the answer to.”

Did the administration not cut employees at the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA), the folks who (among other things) protect nuclear weapons? Who is guarding the nukes? Some media claimed the administration let go perhaps 300 probationary employees, but the Department of Energy spokesman said in fact only 50 employees managing a loan program or with clerical roles were fired. So are we supposed to believe the federal civilian spokesman as a competent civil servant, or ignore him as an incompetent Trump toady? It gets so confusing at times. Now some of the fired employees have been recalled (I guess it’s a blessing that someone thought something wasn’t quite right).

Here’s the ultimate in spin: did you hear about the US Agency for International Development (AID) program which spent $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland? What about the $32,000 spent for a transgender comic book in Peru? Not true, the Washington Post intoned in a fact check about the administration’s “wildly inaccurate claims.” The Post refutes these claims by explaining both were State Department grants (oh, that’s totally different). And it wasn’t a DEI musical, it was a musical event (key word) promoting DEI. And the comic book featured a gay hero, not trans. Granted (pun intended) these are small sums, but calling the claims wildly inaccurate on this basis is only possible if you have lost all sight of the meaning of accuracy in the first place.

I’m sympathetic to friends who tell me they don’t know what to believe. It’s hard to dig into complex topics, and easier to go with your gut, what you want to believe, or what a source you like tells you. But it’s deadly, too. Your choices are to either do the research, avoid joining the discussion, or participating in the spin, thereby making it worse. Doing the research is exhausting, even for a retiree with mucho federal experience and too much time on his hands. Avoiding commenting or sharing things is hard when everybody else is doing it. But if you choose the third option, you abandon any pretense of ethical standing. You’re not fighting the good fight, clarifying the problem, illuminating solutions, or engaging in informed debate.

And that’s a choice. When you’re in the washer, spinning endlessly around, no one will take you seriously when you say it’s time to stop.

It never ceases to amaze (me, at least) how people can become so fixated on the daily flow of “news” that they miss the forest for the trees. Or the substance for the tweets, as it were. My MAGA friends are quite literally dancing in the streets, celebrating each new Executive Order as if they change things (sometimes they do, often they don’t, as I pointed out back in the Biden era). Liberal/Progressive friends seem to carom from one level of outrage to another; I’m hoping the sedatives kick in soon, because it appears (like Spinal Tap) “these go to eleven.”

Between cautioning each group on their mental well-being (I’m NOT the therapist in the family), I realized something about the larger trends behind all this, and I did so from an unlikely source: the “old gray lady,” aka the New York Times. MAGA wing, stay with me now!

For its many sins of omission (not to mention commission), the Times really does try to get to the bottom of things. Ezra Klein was one of the first challenging Biden’s continued fitness for office, for example. And lately he had an interview of note with conservative legal scholar/historian Yuval Levin (read/listen here). And further to the Times’ credit, they have in-house conservative Ross Douthat interviewing figures on the right to discuss the actual ideological ferment (yes, there is) on that side of the spectrum; his talk with Steve Bannon is worth your time (and I know, my liberal friends view Bannon as “The Lesser Satan,” but you’ll enjoy/be shocked at his take about the Broligarchy and the need for a strong Consumer Financial Protection Bureau).

For those unwilling to spend the time learning, I’ll cut to the chase by sharing what I discerned listening to these sources and thinking about them.

First, Trump is a genuine phenomenon, but Trumpism is not a “thing.” There can be no doubt about Trump as a unique character, and this being the Trump era. Scream all you want, it’s reality you’re fighting against, not Trump. But Trumpism, even generalized as MAGA, is not a coherent movement. It’s a polyglot coalition held together by the uniqueness of Donald J. Trump. I’m not saying it’s unimportant, or faux. Just don’t expect it to long outlast the Trump presidency. Whatever direction J.D. Vance or Don Jr. (or whomever) takes the movement, it will be very different. Nobody is Trump, and those who try to be Trump (remember Marco Rubio and his “small hands” comment?) fail miserably. There is further evidence for this point in the election results: Trump has never gotten to a popular vote majority (not that that matters for elections, but it does tell you something about the electorate) in three tries, even though he won twice and lost once, all narrowly. His is a populist movement, but it appears to be at best a plurality, not a majority.

Second, the Trump phenomenon is a symptom, not the cause of America’s challenging situation. The Founders built our government with a separation of powers (note the plural), not a division of power (singular). The executive, legislative, and judicial branches have very different powers. By far the most important and powerful is the legislative branch (i.e., the Congress), which controls the power of the purse, must advise and consent on the Judicial branch members (and can legislate their jurisdiction), and can impeach the other two branch’s members. To be effective, the legislative branch must build a durable majority (sometimes even a veto-proof one) in order to take full command of its authority. When it can’t, it cedes that authority (in practice) to either the President or the Supreme Court. As the American electorate has become more evenly divided over the past thirty years, such Congressional majorities have evaporated. Which results in “do-nothing” congressional terms that satisfy no one. Which results in increasing calls for strong (some would say strongman) leadership from the presidency, or greater judicial oversight of vague congressional formulations (both of which we see now).

By the way, this was as the Founders intended: Congress being the most powerful branch, they wanted it to act only when it could build a durable majority, lest we become a nation where each succeeding administration (or legislative session) simply undoes what the preceding one did (sound like today? Yup). So the main problem we have is not the electoral college, nor the size of the Supreme Court, nor the two-party system, nor “first past the post” primaries, nor gerrymandering, nor–well–fill in the blank. It’s the simple fact that Americans are evenly divided, and both parties seek primarily to shore up the base rather than do politics with the other side.

Third, we are on the cusp of a third era of modern America. The first was the New Deal, which ran from the 1940s to the 1980s. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) built an enduring coalition that fundamentally changed America. He was so personally popular he was able to ignore the Washingtonian limit of two presidential terms, and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress continuously from 1933 to 1981, with only two, two year exceptions! Even when Republicans won the White House, they accepted the permanence of the New Deal and only tinkered at the margins.

That all changed with the advent of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The second era of modern America could be called the Global/Internationalist era, wherein the defining characteristic was a commitment to free trade. While the Congress and White House changed hands repeatedly, both parties played along with the idea that more free trade was better for the world, better for the United States, and better for Americans. The triumph of capitalism over communism proved this in Russia with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and even in China with the Chinese Communist Party decision that “to get rich is glorious!” Economists assured us that via the magic of comparative advantage, if every country played by the rules and traded freely, all would benefit.*

See, there’s always the asterisk. In macroeconomic terms, this is all undeniably true. However, the benefits are not equally distributed: there are always winners and losers. The losers in this case were middle- and lower- or working-class Americans who found themselves without decent paying jobs, let alone careers. They did get cheap sh!t from China, so they had that going for them. Oh, and the elites of the world, the highly educated, those with access to capital due to family, university degree, or initial business success, were wildly rewarded. That era officially ended with the 2008 financial crisis.

Since then, the American public has been in search of the next formulation or era. Progressives/Liberals put forward a sweeping set of individual rights (gay marriage, abortion on demand, trans rights, immigrant rights, etc), new government benefits (“ObamaCare,” student loan ‘forgiveness’) and controls (guns, internet censorship). Conservatives offered tax breaks (which generally favor the wealthiest), new religious protections, and opposition to “woke” ideology. The American public bought neither side’s arguments in total. They selected one from side A, one from side B, oftentimes contradictory choices (especially when it came to paying for benefits).

The one constant has been a growing awareness that economically, the free trade proposition has been a losing one for the average American worker. The trend first became noticeable during the Obama administration, when the Democratic party wrongly believed it had established a lasting demographic coalition of the working class, people of color, and progressives. When white working class voters started to leave the party, party stalwarts attributed it to simple racism: they weren’t ready for a black President, so good riddance. Most working class voters were still in the party, so what?

Then the trend continued during the Clinton campaign, with more white working class male voters leaving, culminating in Trump’s first unfathomable election. The knee-jerk reaction among Democrats was that Trump attracted those same racists and added white working class sexists (who couldn’t stomach a woman in the White House), so that was all the problem was. Trump was an aberrant candidate who rode an aberration in the electorate to one-time victory, probably with the help of Russia. Nothing to see here. Joe Biden’s victory cemented this view, bringing back some–but not many, just enough– of those working class voters.

Trump’s second inexplicable victory showed remarkable gains in groups which confounded the Democrats’ reading of the electorate: working class men, Latinos, blacks, youth, and women all demonstrated a real shift despite supposedly Trump being a threat not only to their rights and their benefits, but also to democracy. Those voters overwhelmingly voted on the economy, and thought Trump would do a better job managing it for them.

While cultural issues played a part, it’s somewhat misleading. The most memorable campaign ad was Trump’s “She’s for they/them, Trump is for you.” This did not attract voters because it was anti-woke, or anti-trans, or anti-anything else. It worked because it coincided with those voters’ beliefs about the two party’s priorities: Trump on the economy, Democrats on social issues. Kamala Harris did not run a campaign heavy on identity politics; she practically ran away from it. But you can’t talk about something all the time for years (as a party) and then suddenly pivot away in a campaign. Voters thought that such issues were what was important to Democrats, and in many ways the voters were right. The voters weren’t necessarily against those issues, but they most certainly were more interested in economic ones. And they turned back to Trump.

Is that the end of the story? No. While politically this is the Trump era, who the ultimate winner of this new era is, is up for grabs. The working class of all races is in play, it’s a majority of the electorate, and it wants to see action on the economy. These voters are patient: they don’t expect prices to drop tomorrow, but prices sure-as-cheap-Chinese-sh!t better stop going up like clockwork. They want to see more and better jobs, lower taxes, and yes a little bravado from our federal government. They would also like less regulation, and the same or better benefits. I didn’t say all their claims are reasonable or even consistent, did I? Most of all, they don’t want to see business-as-usual when it comes to the economy, because that means more of the global/internationalist way.

Whichever party addresses those issues will cement the backing of this large group, probably for a decade or more. The good news is, if they meet some or most of the voters’ demands, that party will have earned the right to govern with a durable majority.

Do you think much about “why?” you are a citizen? For most Americans, it’s simply an existential state: I am, therefore I am an American. Or perhaps, I am an American, therefore I pay taxes. As an expat, citizenship has more immediate resonance. I remain an American citizen: I vote, pay taxes (state & federal), carry a US passport, and retain all the rights and obligations that ensue. I am also a foreigner. I carry a card (my residente permanente) with me at all times that explains my status in Mexico, as Mexican law requires. When I walk around in public, it is quite obvious ‘I’m not from around here,’ partly because I’m too blanco, too tall, and I walk with the quintessentially American ‘I’m in charge here’ stride. Citizenship affects my daily life.

Every nation has to decide how it determines who is a citizen. There are basically two options, known legally in Latin as Jus Sanguinus (the right of blood) or Jus Solis (the right of soil, as in location). In the former, you are what either of your parents is; under the latter, you are what you are based on where you were born. Neither is an absolute condition. Countries with birthright citizenship exempt the children of foreign diplomats, for example, and nations with blood citizenship often place limits of how far back you can claim descent (parents? grandparents? great-grandparents?).

The vast majority of nations today employ blood citizenship, and have throughout history. Birthright citizenship is a fairly new concept, historically, mostly used by new nations in the Western Hemisphere who were trying to encourage a growing population. These same countries also employed a version of immigration which basically allowed anybody (or at least anybody white, back in the day) to enter and then claim citizenship. There was a lot of land, not enough people, so those were the rules. Among the countries that had birthright citizenship and either restricted or eliminated it recently are Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and India.

While it has always been the practice in the United States, the Constitution is silent on the issue. What? Aren’t there people screaming that President Trump’s order is UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Yes, yes there are. The original text of the Constitution has no language about citizenship rules, birthright or blood. The common practice was birthright, but that was all it was: common law. After the Civil War, some people wanted to exclude freed slaves from citizenship, and they claimed the slaves did not belong here as they were brought here against their will (further punishment, what a concept!). The 14th Amendment was written with specific text to cover this case and end the discussion. Here’s the important section:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Amendment XIV, US Constitution, 1868

Some folks on Trump’s side of the argument are trying to make a great deal out of the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” claiming that illegal aliens are not this (subject to the jurisdiction thereof) and therefore their children are not US citizens. The problem with this argument is those illegal immigrants are most certainly subject to our laws, most specifically, they may be deported. One would have to first claim they couldn’t be deported, which is hardly the case.

What about the concept of signing an Executive Order to change a Constitutional principal? Odd business, that, but not as off-the-wall as you might think. First off, many of the people claiming this is completely unacceptable didn’t blanch at then-president Biden’s attempt to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment with a statement, not even a formal order. Also, since the birthright concept is based on multiple judicial rulings (not the original text of the Constitution), generating a court case by promulgating an Executive Order and lawsuits to halt it is perfectly acceptable. Better to begin the formal amendment process in my opinion, but there is nothing to exclude getting a favorable review from the US Supreme Court, either.

As to the legal arguments: An originalist legal interpretation of the Constitution might hold this was specific language dealing with a specific case (freed slaves), and probably does not apply universally. However, the US Supreme Court did rule in the case of the United States vs Wong Kim Ark in 1898 that the same birthright rules apply to the children of immigrants. But hold your horses, that case involved legal immigrants! This is where things get really interesting.

The Justices in that case made birthright citizenship crystal clear, but they also pointed out two obvious exceptions. One was the aforementioned exclusion of children of diplomats, the other children born to a foreign occupying army. Yes, the Supreme Court stated that if a foreign army occupied US territory, and those soldiers had children in that territory, those children would not be US citizens. But why these exceptions? The diplomatic one is a reciprocal courtesy, one of those areas where the need to engage in foreign discourse creates one-off exceptions to normal rules (like the limited extra-territoriality of embassies). But the occupier’s children? Basically, they don’t belong here, which is a value judgment. Thus even the seminal case affirming birthright citizenship has in its majority opinion language allowing for exclusion.

Will the courts use that? Of course the lower courts will hold that the matter is settled, and it is, according to precedent. The question is: is the precedent correct? That is a decision for the US Supreme Court. Overturning birthright citizenship would mean overturning a century of legal holdings, so the odds are long against it, but not impossible, especially if an originalist legal argument can build a simple majority among the justices.

The better question, lost in the pro/anti Trump noise: is birthright citizenship working for America today? There is nothing about the concept that screams “authoritarian” or “racist”, unless you think countries like the UK, Ireland, and New Zealand have those attributes. There is nothing inherently American in birthright citizenship, that is, nothing essential for America’s self-concept. It is a historical legacy, true. But how is it working?

“Au contraire!” Professor David W. Blight responds in The Atlantic. He calls birthright citizenship “A Sacred Guarantee,” and he’s right, with respect to freed slaves. But his argument goes further to suggest what’s really at stake is equality before the law, which is also in the 14th Amendment. But that’s a separate section, unaffected by the citizenship clause. And the Supreme Court has already held that equality before the law extends beyond citizenship to everyone physically in the Unites States, including foreign diplomats, visitors, and even enemy Prisoners of War (an issue which cropped up with respect to the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)!

Even before the 14th Amendment, America employed birthright citizenship because we wanted to encourage population growth, and not that many people wanted to come. Is that still the case? There are documented cases of birth tourism, where pregnant women from countries like China pay to to gain an entry visa near a due-date, then stay and deliver a brand new American citizen before returning home. The numbers are not large, but I know no one who thinks this is a good idea. There are also “accidental Americans,” people who were born in America to visiting foreign parents who later get a note from the US IRS explaining they owe taxes and fines for not submitting annual returns! And of course the millions of children of illegal immigrants (or the undocumented, if you prefer) present another form of challenge. Try to detain them as a family and the courts have held you can’t hold the children as they have done nothing wrong. Try to deport the parents and you risk splitting up a family. Why do we privilege those who flout the immigration system but then have children, too?

Some suggest dire consequences if birthright citizenship is banished. Much of this is simple hysteria: other forms of citizenship are in force all over the world, so it’s not exactly an unknown concept. For example, the vast majority of people in the USA at the time the law–or its interpretation —is changed would be simply “grandfathered” in as citizens. So, no, I wouldn’t have to go back and prove my parents were Americans. Going forward one would, but that is increasingly the way of things, as anybody who went and got the new REAL ID knows.

The Washington Post recently had a scary story about the possibility of mothers in labor being turned away from hospitals because they don’t have a US passport. They warned about the administrative burden for hospitals having to “affirm” citizenship of newborns. There is even the emotional account of a woman whose premature labor results in her son being born before President Trump’s edict goes into effect, thus “I know he will be able to live in peace in this country.” The problem with such “reporting”? Hospitals can’t turn anyone away for their papers: it’s the law (and it is how many illegal/undocumented persons get emergency room health care). A birth certificate doesn’t need to be issued in the hospital; it was a matter of convenience that can easily be transferred back to the local government. And an administrative burden? Really? Like hospitals don’t require forms and proofs already? Finally, the mother and child story almost prove the point: is this how citizenship should work?

Carlos Lozada (himself a naturalized American citizen) wrote in the New York Times “the practice (birthright citizenship) has become an essential trait of our national character.” What does that even mean? Is it unchanging and unchangeable? Slavery was an essential trait of our national character for ninety years, too.

There is a valuable debate to be had about our existing immigration and citizenship laws. It is necessary and overdue, but must be had without unnecessary inflammatory rhetoric. Very many nations, nations we respect, use blood citizenship. America has used birthright citizenship for a very long time. This issue should not be decided based on who proposes it, or what racist ulterior motives can be ascribed to them. It should be decided on one point alone: what works best for America today?

At the end of most US presidential administrations, there are a rash of pardons or commutations. The pardon power, the ability to forgive, is among the President’s sole prerogatives and is sweeping (the only enumerated limitation is for crimes of impeachment; everything else is fair game!). There are norms (like not pardoning your family or cronies), rules (a process for people to apply for pardons), and customs (pardons are for crimes already committed, not those in the future). But these are not absolute limits.

Pardons happen throughout a term in office, but most frequently at the end of an administration primarily because they are lousy politics. The person pardoned may be happy, as well as their supporters, but there is usually a court, a jury, and victims who will be outraged. There is also the problem of recidivism: the person you pardon may go out and commit another crime, invariably calling into question why they are free in the first place. Better for that to happen when you’re out of office.

The recent ending of the Biden administration and the beginning of President Trump’s second term yielded a unique situation with many pardons on both sides of the inauguration. And it also yielded another fine example of partisans looking at the wrong thing, leaving a real problem unaddressed while trying to score attention points with hypocrisy.

Let’s start with the new President. Trump issued blanket pardons for the January 6th defendants, calling them hostages and heroes. According to sources who met with him prior to the decision, he was leaning toward the outcome Vice President Vance foreshadowed: pardons for those who were nonviolent. But something triggered Trump (one legacy media source claimed it was Biden’s last pardon actions) and he went instead with a sweeping action.

Needless to say, he was wrong. There are people who were at the Capitol that day that do not belong in prison, but there were many who committed violent or destructive acts. They should not be free. Self-described patriotism is not an excuse for riot any more than deprivation is an excuse for looting. And “Biden did it first” is also not a reason. Trump also pardoned a convicted drug kingpin, apparently believing he was unfairly targeted (I certainly hope so!). And he’s looking at some other cases where police officers were charged with criminal offenses that perhaps represent overreach by local federal prosecutors. These are a mixed bag of actions which are overwhelmingly negative.

In his last days in office, President Biden went on a pardoning spree. He reneged on earlier promises and pardoned his son. He claimed it was to prevent the incoming administration from conducting a vendetta against Hunter, but this was factually incorrect, as the pardon also included offenses to which Hunter had already pled guilty, and was so sweeping as to include anything he might have done over a long period of time. Then he added pardons for a variety of other family members, mostly people who were listed in court records as having been names used on accounts for the transfer of foreign funds into Hunter and James (the President’s brother) Biden’s business dealings. Next were several people (January 6th Committee and staff, General Milley, Dr. Fauci) whom Biden believed Trump may go after in the future. Finally, he issued sweeping pardons for people involved in nonviolent federal crimes, which included drug distribution, financial fraud, and embezzlement.

The truly preventative pardons were probably a good idea, if for no other reason than to protect President Trump from his worst instincts. Many of the other pardons were horrid and specious. Biden pardoned drug dealers directly responsible for many deaths, and fraudsters who ruined many people’s lives. He commuted federal death sentences ostensibly due to his faith, but not for racists (perhaps Biden has his own rite in the Catholic Church). Even people who had defended Biden throughout his tenure called the actions shameful and inexplicable.

If you’re thinking this is a “both sides” argument, your thinking is part of the problem. What we have here is not a partisan issue: it is a bipartisan example of the abuse of power, and “both sides” should address it as such. What do I think?

Leaders in the House and Senate should initiate a constitutional amendment to the President’s pardoning powers. The amendment should limit pardons to past actions and for periods of time not to exceed four years. It should ban pardons within the final six months of a presidential term. Perhaps limit the crimes to which pardons can be applied, or place other conditions on them. I’m sure there are other considerations people of good will can suggest.

Rather than play a game of “I’m outraged by your President’s actions!” while turning a blind eye to mine, we should seize the opportunity provided to address the problem. The process to amend should be limited to the issue at hand and kept as simple and straight-forward as possible, which means it needn’t run for years.

Or we can all go on dunking on social media.