 |
| US Senator from Kentucky, Republican Rand Paul (VIN) |
You would think that the President had initialed World War
III just by the sheer volume of his critics. Let alone the degree of their criticism.
What was all that
criticism about? Is it legitimate? And why are Democrats more critical? Another
phrase comes to mind. ‘V’nahafechu’. This is a phrase commonalty associated with Purim. It refers to the idea that we
are supposed to become so intoxicated that we end up confusing the hero,
Mordechai, with the evil Haman. It has traditionally been Republicans that saw Russia as the ‘Evil Empire’. But now the Democrats are tripping all over each other to see who can condemn the ‘Evil Empire’ more. What ever happened to the ‘Reset Button’?
It was Democrat Hillary Clinton Clinton who coined that phrase trying to reset the US relationship with Russia by making it more positive. I guess the ‘Evil Empire’ has returned because of who the President is.
The issue all the criticism is based on is Russian tampering with our democracy via a
cyber attack undermining the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. It has been
determined by the intelligence community that not only have they done that, it
was at the behest of Putin himself. Putin has vehemently denied this. What has
outraged so many of Trump’s critics is that the President seems to believe Putin over his own
intelligence establishment. Even in the face of the recent indictments of 12 Russian nationals
for their sustained effort at hacking Democratic Party e-mails and computer networks.
This criticism comes shortly after the President’s attack against our NATO allies (Canada, the UK,
France and Germany, among others). The President wanted these countries to
pay their fair share of the NATO budget - which they have never done. The US has carried the lion’s share of that. Trump’s critics were heard saying things like, ‘Is
this how we treat our friends?’ ‘It is unheard of!’ ‘The US benefits greatly by
NATO’. ‘Any threat to dissolve NATO would be a blow to world peace’. ‘How dare he threaten
to leave it over money?’
And then there are the trade wars with friend and foe alike.
The President’s greatest achievement is a vastly improved US economy with the lowest unemployment
numbers in decades. That is being undermined by tariffs on imported goods that has
not only raised consumer prices on many goods, it has caused some companies to establish branches
in those countries to avoid the tariffs on material used by them imported from those countries. That has also impacted negatively on jobs in the US. Free trade is the cornerstone of a free market
economy. Tariffs stifle that.
Is all this criticism fair? I think it is. But I also think
it is overblown because of who the President is. It is no secret that he is
one of the most hated Presidents in American history. Mostly by the liberal side of the political spectrum. He has a 90% approval rating among Republican voters. But the current criticism is from both sides of the political aisle.
While it is legitimate, I believe the intensity of that criticism is more about his character and personality then it is about his policies.
The President is not one to mince words. To say he is not a politician
is an understatement. As it is an understatement to say that he is politically incorrect. It is also no secret that he thinks a lot of
himself. So why is he doing and saying those things? And why the harsh reactions
even from members pf his own party?
Let us examine some possibilities.
Why did he so strongly criticize our allies while fawning
over perhaps our greatest adversary? I think its because he knew that we can be
frank with our friends and tell them if we think they are taking advantage of us. His point being that just because you
are a friend doesn’t mean you take advantage of us. The president pointed this out in 2
ways.
One is in the unfair trade practices that have been completely ignored by
past administrations. American made products are taxed in foreign countries to discourage their citizens from buying them. So that they will instead buy products manufactured in their own country. The US hadn’t done
that to them. This benefited consumers enabling theme to buy foreign products a
lot cheaper than comparable American made products. Products made more cheaply
in foreign countries because of much lower labor costs.
That hurt American companies.
The President wanted simply to equalize the
playing field by doing to them what they have been doing to us all along.
While I believe that doing this was counterproductive since it would ultimately hurt the consumer and thereby the economy, I don’t think the President was all that wrong.
I believe that he should have ‘left well enough alone’. But that would not make it
right. The President proposed that all countries drop all taxes on American exports and the US would drop tariffs on theirs. So far - no takers. They have been completely deaf to
that proposal and instead continue their trade war with the US. How this ends up
– no one knows. I oppose the tariffs. But I get Trump’s logic here.
What about his complaints about NATO? Did his rhetoric endanger the most successful military alliance since World War II?
I doubt it, although I’m sure that is what he wanted our NATO allies to believe. What the President really wanted was for them to pay their
fair share. He has mostly gotten them to do that by instilling that fear
into their hearts. NATO protects them as much - or more - than it does us. They are after all in closer proximity to potential adversaries than we are. If anything they should be paying more, not less than us.
The strategy there worked. We are in no more danger of
alienating out allies than we were before. Only now they are no longer taking advantage of us.
What about all the fawning praise of Putin? Shouldn’t the President be treating our
adversaries with at least the same contempt he seems to have had for our
allies? Is he not doing the opposite?
The answer is yes, he is. But as he said, having a good
relationship with an adversary is far better than having a bad one. That is why
he is bending over backwards to show Putin that we are his friend, not his
enemy. Trump simply wants to push his own restart button on US/Russia relations.
That reduces the possibility of conflict with a the world second biggest
superpower that has nuclear weapons on par with the US. And it increases economic cooperation that will better serve both countries.
Does that mean that he should fawn all over Putin as though
he was some kind of superstar? No. I agree that the President has been
duped by Putin. The smirk on Putin’s face during the joint press conference spoke
louder than any words.
But antagonizing Putin was not the right response
either. We know what he did. We have indicted Russian nationals. Calling Putin a liar to his face serves no one. Increasing sanctions might better convince them to stop than calling him a liar to his face.
In my view Trump should have trusted his
intelligence community and not fawned all over Putin. But Trump’s outsize ego got the better of him. As it always does. He truly believes
that he can size up an individual better than
any intelligence report can. He met with Putin for 2 hours and believes that Putin
was telling the truth when he vehemently denied any Russian involvement with
our political system. Trump may be a good judge of character. But he is way out of his
league when it comes to sizing up practiced liars like Putin.
It should also be noted that most of the Russian people support Putin
by a very wide margin over those that don’t. Antagonizing him would not put the US in good stead with the Russian people. They love Putin there. They support his takeover of Crimea.
Even though it violated international law and was condemned by the entire world.
Putin, his nation, and the vast majority people living in Crimea see things
differently. That Trump did not complain to Putin about this - does not mean
Putin will start attacking other countries. I doubt very strongly that he will. He knows how we and the rest of the world feel about what he did. He also knows that Trump is an unpredictable President who might start world war III if he felt like it.
One final thought. I am sure that I will be attacked for defending the
President when virtually everyone else has strongly criticized him. But I am not really defending him as much as I am trying to understand where he is coming from. His goals are not all that unreasonable. And perhaps some of his methods aren’t all that unreasonable either.
This view was articulated more or less by another critic frequent critic of Trump, Senator Rand Paul. I think he got it
right when he said the following about Trump’s meeting with Putin:
(I)t’s important for the U.S. to keep an open dialogue with its adversaries, especially if it hopes to motivate them to change their behavior.
Paul tells The Associated Press, “We should look for ways to make the dialogue better.”
He says lawmakers and former intelligence officials criticizing Trump include those from both parties who are opposed to his presidency. He calls it “Trump derangement syndrome.”
Paul says, “I think these people are mistaken.”
