I'm in the middle of finishing up a book on the Trump presidency and how the courage and dedication of many career public servants and Trump political appointees kept us from much worse outcomes that Trump and his inner circle thought.
This is true from immigration to COVID to Russia/Ukraine to elections. My thesis based on 30 years of DC experience is that the vast majority of the people in most administrations are fundamentally good and genuinely seek to serve the American people and the country.
But, I will tell you something--looking at what Trump wanted to do (and often was rebuffed from doing) in retrospect is even more shocking than it was at the time. Because, particularly in international affairs, there was a pattern.
He actively wanted to pull the US out of NATO. He actively attacked the alliance. He pushed a plan to pull U.S. troops out of Europe. He pushed plans to pull U.S. troops out of Asia and the Pacific and out of the Middle East.
He effectively sought to hand Syria to the control of Russia and Russia's allies. He pulled out of arms deals that constrained the Russians. He pulled out of an Iran deal that constrained a key ally of Russia.
He pulled out of multiple international organizations and sought to actively weaken the international order that had been created to contain our enemies and promote the rule of law internationally. He tried to block aid to Ukraine. (You may remember he was impeached for that.)
He pushed to stop holding Russia accountable for 2016 election interference. He made it so hard for his staff to raise issues regarding being tough on Russia that they regularly simply by-passed him. And when they did take a tough stance there was often Hell to pay with the boss.
He celebrated Putin publicly and privately. He offered out of his own mouth Putin talking points on key issues such as Crimea "wanting" to be Russian. Even if you did not know that Putin actively tried to help him be elected (as the intel community unanimously concluded),
even if he did not surround himself with pro-Putin lackeys, even if his businesses were not swimming in Russian money, even if he did not try to block measures to make it harder for the government to stop Russian interference in 2018 and 2020, the record is clear and shocking.
The pattern of behavior is undeniable. The consequences were he to have succeeded in pushing his agenda and some of his wild ideas through would have been disastrous for the US and spectacular for Vladimir Putin. And all this was before the first attempted coup in US history.
All this was before Trump tried to blow up the very foundations of America's system and our strength. If you are a Trump supporter you will have stopped reading long ago, the "Russia Hoax" filter in your brain denying you yet again access to the facts.
But if you look at not just what Trump did but what he tried to do (before he was stopped by good patriotic Americans including many who he had appointed to high positions) and you will see that the core and the primary occupation of Trump when it came to foreign policy was...
...to weaken the U.S., to weaken our alliances, to weaken the international system and to strengthen and often defend the position of Russia. Don't take it from me in this thread. Go read the facts. To me, as I finish this book, as familiar as I am with all of it, it is shocking.
p.s. When I said at the top I was finishing up a book, I meant I was finishing up writing a book rather than reading a book. Though...you may want to read the book I'm writing...when it comes out...later this year.
p.p.s. I am a collusionist, ok? I believe Trump colluded w/the Russians to seek help getting elected. But that's NOT what is important. What's important, regardless of the reason he was actively systematically weakening us & advancing the Russian agenda, is that he was doing it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Every single time you engage in the delusion that Trump has a "policy position" on traditional issues you normalize him. Trump has no beliefs, no traditional policy views. For him, policies are like his blue suit & dumb long red ties, a costume he wears to hide who he really is.
He is a terrorist calling himself a freedom fighter. This election is not about his tax policy versus that of Kamala Harris, even if he has proposals in that area. It is about the fact that he is a criminal, a traitor, a fraudster, a liar, the worst president in our history...
...a terrible human being who seeks to reward himself & his friends at the expense of everyone else. Everything he does is first and foremost about what is in it for him and occasionally for his supporters (because he needs to pay them off to get what he wants for himself.)
Given the number of ways that a candidate can communicate directly with voters--the relevance and wisdom of doing so through intermediaries who will filter the news and who often will bend it to suit other agendas has diminished. That seems reasonable to me.
The argument that the press is the objective presenter of facts has been weakened as virtually all media seek to adjust their presentation of content to suit business or political objectives. There are fewer and fewer journalists who can be relied upon to seek objective truth.
Too many are compromised not only by the agenda of their company's owners but by their own history of access journalism or sensationalism or focusing on the trending rather than the important story. They howl at being ignored or bypassed. But they share some of the blame.
The argument that Harris is somehow not speaking enough to the press is ridiculous on several levels: 1.) She actually does speak to the press, 2.) She has been visible constantly since she became the candidate, 3.) She has been clear and detailed about all her policy goals.
4.) She has been readily available to the press for four years. There are few questions about her that have not already been asked and answered. 5.) The goal of the campaign is for her to communicate with voters. So far, they seem to have responded well to what she has said.
6.) Her opponent is actually not campaigning, is primarily speaking to patsies in the press when he does speak to the media, and lies constantly so it doesn't matter what he is asked because he won't answer truthfully.
Folks, if you want a US policy toward Israel and Gaza that is more focused on relieving the suffering the people of Gaza and achieving a lasting, just peace, disrupting the campaign of the one person most likely to deliver that is a bad idea. Especially when...
...she has indicated a willingness to meet with groups that share your views. She may not agree with all of your ideas and suggestions. But she is by far your best and only legitimate hope of change and weakening her is a crazily self-destructive process.
You may not like this reality. But you would like the alternatives--Trump or the status quo--much much much less. You may not feel you can wait for our political processes to work out...but frankly, there is no alternative choice that is available or possible.
To all the geniuses who feel Harris should have picked Shapiro to "win Pennsylvania" I ask, um, when was the last time that was the reason a VP was picked? (Hint: It is seldom if ever the reason a VP candidate was picked.)
Here, let me do some quick math for you. Biden certainly didn't pick Harris to win a contested state. Trump picked neither Vance nor Pence to win contested states. HRC picked Tim Kaine to help in Va., that's true, and he helped. It was an outlier.
Do you think McCain picked Palin to win Alaska? Edwards did not help Kerry win North Carolina. Did Cheney get picked to help Bush in Montana? No. How about Lieberman to help Gore in Connecticut. No. Clinton did win Al Gore's home state of Tennessee...
The recent discussion about Biden has gone through phases. The first was about the debate performance. The second was about whether that was a signal of potential problems to come. But we are now in a third phase which turns more fears about the state of the campaign.
These concerns are largely from political professionals (not commentators). They turn not just on setbacks since the debate but on the fact that the campaign was seemingly spinning its wheels even beforehand. I sense a bunch of it is from worried folks down the ballot.
These conversations seem to be continuing despite Biden's repeated statements that he is definitely running and in it for the long haul and have not been helped by recent polling data, the Cook Report downgrade of Dem battleground prospects, etc.