Diplomacy in the Age of Indiscretion

 When Trump meets Putin in their summit in Alaska, he should start out in the way he does with all the other heads of state--demand the outrageous, as a gift.  In this case, Kamchatka:  I'm sure he has learned its strategic importance, like Greenland's, from playing Risk.  He can claim the Russians have not properly developed its colonization there, no doubt citing some disaffected indigenous complaints, or manufacturing them. Truth is, the population of that wintry and volcanic wilderness has dropped 40% in the last 3 decades.  He's been saying publicly that there would be a "swap", with territories going both ways.  I'm pretty sure he knows the Russians will not give back their conquered lands in the Ukraine, so maybe this?  Doing this would let Putin know that his is no longer automatically a "most favored nation" in Trump's eyes, unless the Russians kowtow.  

Why would he think he could be the arrogant strongman with Putin, when he has been so pusillanimous toward him in the past?  The key could be the Epstein Files virus; since it is out, and he is (partially) outed, perhaps the compromat that Putin had on him all along is no longer so salient.  Just a theory; I'm sure Vladimir has a few details he could remind Donald of, if they get a moment to speak privately.  The tipoff will be if Trump is his usual overconfident, aggressive self, or if he is deferential to the little thug. In this particular case, I'm looking for the bully side to come out, here on our own turf. 

There are enough other topics that Russia and the US could have a productive summit without spoiling it with unproductive yelling sessions about Ukraine.  You know, nuclear weapons, the fate of mankind, that kind of thing. At least the Ukraine war kiss-off could be scheduled toward the end of the meeting, with everyone going back to their corners afterwards.  If, at the end of that session, Trump is in the corner with Russia, he will have failed country and mankind once again.  

Since we expect nothing, our President must be instructed to tell Putin he will not win his war, that this is his chance to avoid failure.  To drive the point home, if the meeting fails utterly, sanctions should be expected.  But more:  Trump should subtly get Putin to understand there would be an increase in Ukraine's armaments, should there not be, at a minimum, a ceasefire.  Call it an armistice, it sounds more official. 

I do hope I'm not too late with this advice.  

The International Court of Justice Would Say It's Against the Law

 Its recent ruling was clear and directive:  climate change causes harm to people, therefore it is expected that states will do what they can to mitigate the damage.  If they do not, they are liable.  That responsibility is not only for those countries which have entered into international accords, or in our case that have exited them abruptly, or that have committed themselves (or have not done so) to measures to reduce fossil fuel emissions.  Here's a legacy of Drumpfenreich 2.0 and its abhorrence of our natural environment--we will be paying for it for decades down the road. 

The ICJ is easily confused with the International Criminal Court, also in The Hague, Netherlands, an institution to which the USA does not belong.  The ICJ, on the other hand, is a central part of the UN's function, helping to define international law and adjudicate disputes, and the USA actually has a judge on the court's panel.  This "member" is Sarah Cleveland, appointed to the Court in 2024. So, we must obey? Tell it to the Republicans in Congress which just made policy going high-speed in reverse. 

Migration 

We in the US tend to think of this as our unique domestic issue, but it is not only a global one, it is intrinsic to human nature.  When it's not working out where they live, people will look to go somewhere they think gives them a better chance. This has been true since the earliest days of our species, and it's an important reason why we're still around.  

Is there not a basic human right to live where one wants to be?  Anyone might agree, in the abstract, that one should not be forced to stay, any more than that they be forced to leave. 

 Having said that, then all of the qualifications on that statement line up to oppose it.   There are, or should always be, many reasons to stay.  The impulse to go must be stronger than all one's many ties holding them back. In that sense, they are forced to leave--an important consideration in today's view of migrants.  In the more common case, there are ties to those who have gone before, and thus the scale is tipped more toward it being voluntary. In either case, though, there is the question of whether they could lose their right ever to return, which affects their choices and their status in society. .

Even more immediate for those departing, though, is the question of whether they can stay at their destination, if indeed they have had the luxury of choosing it.   The reaction of those already residing at the destination cover the entire range of responses, from effusive welcome to hostile gunfire.  Thus it has always been. 

In modern times, though, it has become a matter of the policy of nations with regard to the borders with their neighbors. For a century the US has been a leader in the strategy of defining limits on the numbers of immigrants permitted, factored by nation of origin of the immigrant.  It is the reduction in the effectiveness of those controls, which favor certain countries of origin, to which Trump rebels in the pattern of recent migration originating from the southern border.  To be clear, that means not enough racism of the right kind. 

Regardless of the regrettable Trump policies, which are extreme in the sense that they violate that basic right to remain where one lives, compounding it with brutality and the most destructive of motives, the Democrats have lacked a counter-strategy that has any electoral effectiveness.  In retrospect, I would say it was not their adherence to principle that was the problem but a lack of flexibility to the dynamics of intra-continental migration.  Going forward, they should advocate for adhering to those natural, age-old principles, like neighboring countries being the first refuge for forced refugees, national discretion over  the volumes of voluntary migrants based on economic and social considerations, global responsibility for reconstruction, preventive action to avoid environmental disasters.  

 

Debacles #2

Everyone has their favorite complaints about the Administration now, even if you are still supporting it in some way, which is to say doing its bidding. 

Whether it's recurring inflation, the stagnant job and home markets, the spread of the Epstein Files virus and flailing efforts to contain it, that stupid bill that was last month's story, the destructive effects upon almost every Federal agency not committed to a mission statement imposing nationalism by force, failure to properly observe legitimate court orders,  the debt limit increase and the upcoming budget-driven shutdown threat...and did I mention the lack of "release of the Epstein Files"?   We all have several. 

Number One for me, the domestic issue most dangerous for the future of our nation, is the fate of the aggressively provocative redistricting effort going on in Texas, prompted by Trump and endorsed by despicable Governor Greg Abbott.  This one has the potential to lead to major conflagration, particularly if the mentality of "avoid being the loser" continues to cause escalation.  

Essentially, the rethink on the Republican side is that they didn't gerrymander aggressively enough when they had the chance.  They went for safe districts, instead of maximizing potential wins. That response was after completion of the 2020 Census, during the Biden Administration, when even red states believed they had to pay attention to propriety and national public opinion.  

Factually, new districting boundary lines only had to be approved by state legislatures and governors, unless there was some other review required by law (one downside of the Democrats' retaliation strategy).  The Supreme Court had already shown a lot of tolerance for redistricting done with an objective of partisan gain. That was a very big first mistake; the second was eliminating the requirement that redistricting in certain Southern states subject to the Voting Rights Act of the sixties be consistent with that law, one of its main provisions. 

The way it works out, Republicans still want to create districts with majorities of minorities within large cities, because they can surround them with competitive or safe red districts; in medium-sized cities they want to break those center-city districts into pieces outnumbered by adjacent suburban areas, or even better, rural ones.  Texas Republicans are using those strategies, along with one to break up some Hispanic seats near the Mexican border by mixing them with more Republican areas inland.  It could gain the Republicans 3-5 seats just from Texas in 2026, which could make the difference if the count on House seats is very close.  (And in the House, majority control, with even a very small margin, is everything, as shown by this Mike Johnson House.)

The response from the Democratic side is led by Gavin Newsom, who as Governor of California is in a position to say that there are a number of seats in his state that he could gain for the party through a counteracting move. It would be very controversial, and would take a while with an uncertain outcome, but it could be done.  There is a similar possibility in New York, and there are additional Republican ones in some of their states with large partisan majorities. 

It's quite easy to see where this form of nuclear war would go in the end if this continues.  Those with large statewide partisan margins would end up with state contingents entirely of one party or the other, and generally less contested seats.  Ironically, though, the Texas maneuver, if successful would do the opposite: safe Texas Republican seats would become more competitive, and this could backfire if Democratic turnout is strong in 2026 and Republican faithful and their leaners do not turn out as well. 

These short-term opportunities are huge:  Texas Democrats should use all means, as they are doing now, to resist this anti-democratic measure, even to force the Republicans to make shameful authoritarian moves to get them to come back and vote.  I think Democrats can delay this measure for months, months in which the Democrats in a couple large states can prepare their counter-measures. 

I see the following possible outcomes, perhaps in order of likelihood:

1) Republicans get away with their maneuver, significantly more than Democrats.  That does not mean the Democrats will come up short in their strong case to take back control of the House. 

2) Every Republican maneuver will be countered by equivalent Democratic ones. The PR battle would be fierce. This one should be a net positive for Democrats, despite going against their own principles.  

3) Both sides see the possibility to coexist, with these big-state powers being a mutual deterrent, and Texas doesn't do what Trump wants.  Everyone chickens out, and our President reluctantly TACO's, as well.  This is the best possible outcome for all, even Trump, because one way or another he would have to live with the Democrats after 2026, quite possibly with their having a majority.  You see how low I think the odds are for this. 

4) A California Republican Representative has proposed a bill that would make it illegal for states to redistrict for partisan purposes during the period between census updates, after each state gets its shot at the beginning of the decade.  If that passes, Texas would be blocked from the change, and so would the other states.  I see this as having little chance, as Republicans will not go against Trump's wish.  

5) Something goes wrong.  Let me give an example:  one of the Texas Democrats is roughly handled and injured by Federal marshals coming to capture them, against the local authorities' own orders.  There is now a martyr; Texas Republicans respond by imposing the new map without a quorum after they change the rules. It would be something comparable in its arrogance to South Carolina passing secession in 1861, except the secessionists would have the White House.  I can only hope this is not what will happen. 

There is one clear winner in this escapade (a lot of potential losers)--his name is James Talarico.  He is a Democratic State Senator from Texas, and his potential as a political leader has now been discovered by several journalists with national credentials.  He speaks well, understands the complexity of the situation, and he is walking the walk by challenging the Republicans and leaving the state.  His is a name to watch, and he may end up leading the statewide charge in the Democrats' desperate 2026 Senate race there*, against either incumbent John Cornyn, but more likely against the (even more despicable than Abbott) Attorney General there, the corrupt and evil Ken Paxton, who is running against Cornyn from the Trump-side in the primary.   

A good outcome is possible, both in public sentiment and practical results. The most important thing is to establish that gerrymandering--like this exceptional case, but even in the normal course of affairs--is contrary to real democracy.  It's a tricky objective for the Democratic party to pursue, to avoid seeming hypocritical, especially if some states will tit for Texas' tat. 

Transitional:  Tariffs 

 I pose this as a transition from navel-gazing at domestic issues to what is even more important to me, the importance of what the USA does in these years in the world, for both the short-term security of us all as well as the long-term course of history. 

Tariffs may seem a foreign policy issue, and thus under the direct control of the Executive, as foreign policy really is, but it is really a domestic one, and that is reflected in the Constitution--the legal power of raising revenue is with Congress.+ The taxes will end up being absorbed domestically, either by businesses afraid to raise prices in response--perhaps viable in the short term--or by consumers.  What I think more likely is that the larger businesses will raise prices, now, before they absolutely have to do so.  In this case, the spoils are there for the quickest and most greedy.  This will be noticed, though!

From the international side, though, if we just look at it for a moment, it's quite different--if and when the USA ever stops changing the tariff rates and compensatory investments Trump will require.  Or if the courts realize that his whole scheme is unconstitutional and illegal, until such time as Congress goes along.  Which they would, maybe even relatively quickly, but there would be some comical unwinding and rewinding involved.  This is just one example to say that the chaos is not yet over. 

I saw an email the other day, on the occasion of the agreement with the European Union, one which has been roundly criticized as too favorable to Trump and too unfavorable to the EU.  I was sent an email in response to that with the subject line "Bye Europe: Buy America".  Let's think about the reverse:  "Bye America: Buy Europe".  If we just split for Europe, we don't pay the US tariffs there, and we have access to American goods without tariffs. ** Just sayin'. 

Anyway, from what early evidence is being produced now, and still before TrumpThink takes over all our Federal economic reporting, the effect of tariffs domestically will be a few hundred billion dollars of windfall revenue, as long as it lasts.   Which would not seem to be very long, unless Trump gets tired of winning his tariff extortion game. Inconsistency is the hallmark of Trump 2.0, along with incompetent execution. A tax on all citizens, one Congress has not blessed.

The problem for the rest of the world with Trump's regime is not necessarily that there are tariffs on goods sent to the US.  Except in the case of Brazil and a couple others with the punitive rates, the US' market will remain a premier destination among many for exporters.  It's knowing that he can turn around and cripple your business for any reason. It produces overpricing and other harmful short-term strategies.  

*The principal names I have heard named to run as a Democrat against the Republican Texan nominee are not confidence-inspiring, in that they have tried and fallen short before.  Paxton winning the nomination against Cornyn, though, would give the Democrats a chance for an upset if they can push the Republicans to extremity and campaign like crazy.  It's the kind of upset Democrats will need to have any chance of getting control of the Senate in 2026.  

 + Let's not talk about Congress' abdication of foreign policy influence, probably as well-deserved as states' abdication of the death penalty would be. If you can't possibly do it right, just kick it upstairs.

 ** There may also be attractive base pricing of US products over there in some cases due to the drop in the value of the dollar since the beginning of the year, something like 15%.