By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
During the campaign, Donald Trump published a “Contract
with the American Voter,” and he may even have read it. He described the
document as “my pledge to you.” If anybody had been listening, they might have
learned from his former business partners what a Trump contract is worth and
from his ex-wives what value he puts on a solemn pledge.
I have some bad news, Sunshine: Ya got took.
One of the items on Trump’s Contract with the American
Voter was a reiteration of his vow to designate the People’s Republic of China
a currency manipulator, which would enable the implementation of certain
economic sanctions from the federal government. It was a dumb idea (every
country that engages in monetary policy is a currency manipulator, “currency
manipulator” being more or less Janet Yellen’s job description), but it was one
that Trump stuck to — indeed, coming down on China for its economic policies is
one of the few ideas to which Trump has consistently cleaved. (Before it was
China, it was Japan, the other Asian Economic Superman that was going to eat
our national lunch but never quite got around to doing so; India probably is
next up for that dubious honor.) Every third word out of Trump’s mouth was
“China.” And now? “They’re not currency manipulators,” he says.
Trump says this is just strategy, that China stopped
manipulating its currency months ago; in reality, there has been no major
change in Chinese monetary policy. He also says that bringing up the issue now
would make it more difficult to get Beijing’s cooperation in dealing with North
Korea. That is true. It was true six months ago. It was true six years ago. It
may very well be true six years from now. This is a typical Trump pattern: Do
nothing, declare the problem solved, claim victory. That isn’t deft diplomacy —
it is a failure of nerve.
A few other things have come up: That wall across the
entirety of the southern border that Mexico was going to pay for? Mexico isn’t
paying for it, which is convenient for everybody, since it isn’t going to be
built. There will be additional fencing put up, as there almost certainly would
have been in any case, and the United States will pay for it. And John Kelly,
homeland-security secretary, says that the wall in many places will not be a
wall at all, but an array of “technological sensors.” Ryan Zinke, interior
secretary, has been paying a little attention to the geographical arcana that
escape the view from Fifth Avenue, including the fact that a very large portion
of the border is a river. “What side of the river are you going to put the
wall?” he asks, not unreasonably. “We’re not going to put it on our side and
cede the river to Mexico. And we’re probably not going to put it in the middle
of the river.” Wait until they hear about the Amistad Reservoir and the Santa
Elena Canyon.
NATO was obsolete during the campaign. It has been
un-obsoleted. Rush Limbaugh this week attempted to put the best spin on that,
saying that Trump’s anti-NATO position was only a bargaining tactic, a
successful ploy to get NATO members to up their military spending to the 2
percent of GDP they’ve all agreed to. He cited NATO secretary-general Jens
Stoltenberg’s statement earlier this week that NATO members are finally getting
serious about their commitments. One problem with that line of argument: They
aren’t actually doing it. Setting aside the question of whether that 2 percent
agreement is in fact sensible and appropriate, NATO members are not living up
to it and they are not going to live up to it. Germany, which has Europe’s
largest national economy and was long the dominant military power on the
Continent, is spending about 1.2 percent of GDP on defense — and that after a
large increase this year. There is no radical increase even under discussion.
Europe’s second-largest economy is that of France, a big military spender by
European standards, but one in which military spending is under 2 percent and
likely to stay there. Only two credible global military players in NATO — the
United States and the United Kingdom — spend 2 percent or more; when something
goes wrong in the world, no one shouts: “For the love of God, call the Greeks!
Call the Estonians! Call the Poles!” in spite of their respective military outlays
of 2.4, 2.2, and 2 percent of GDP. A few NATO members — the ones nearest Russia
— expect to be up to 2 percent soon. Good on Latvia and Lithuania, but that’s
hardly a diplomatic triumph for the United States.
No fighting China on currency, no wall, no NATO reform.
Add a few more items to the list: Janet Yellen was definitely out before she
wasn’t; our relationship with Russia was “great” during the campaign but today
is a “horrible relationship” that is “at an all-time low” (he may not know
about the Cuban missile crisis); the president could not make war on Syria
without congressional approval (“big mistake if he does not!”) until he could.
The Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land. Steve Bannon of Goldman
Sachs, Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs, Steven Mnuchin of Goldman Sachs, and Dina
Powell of Goldman Sachs are firmly ensconced in their various roles throughout
the Trump administration. The alt-right basement-dwellers and sundry
knuckleheads beamed that Trump was going to be a “nationalist,” and that he
would give the boot to coastal elitists, moderates, and Ivy League snoots. In
reality, Trump is a New York Democrat who is being advised by other New York
Democrats — Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner prominent among them — who are more
or less the sort of people who brought you the Obama and Clinton
administrations: business-friendly corporate Democrats, people who think of
themselves as post-ideological pragmatists, consensus progressives who are much
more interested in opening up backdoor channels to Planned Parenthood than they
are in the priorities of people they consider nothing more than a bunch of
snake-handling rustics and talk-radio listeners stockpiling gold coins and
freeze-dried ice cream in their basements. Trump was a Clinton donor and a
Chuck Schumer donor, and he is acting like one.
Surprise.
Rush Limbaugh was right in his way: What Trump said
during the campaign was, in fact, a load of nonsense deployed for the purposes
of steamrolling the other side in difficult and delicate negotiations. What
Limbaugh and the rest of Trump’s admirers missed is that it wasn’t NATO and the
Chi-Coms and Enrique Peña Nieto on the other side of the negotiating table
getting hornswoggled.
It was them.
No comments:
Post a Comment