U.S. Surrender In Afghanistan

By Paolo von Schirach – 

WASHINGTON – The historic news is buried in short articles inside major newspapers. If you did not pay attention, you probably would not even notice that the American war in Afghanistan –the longest American war– is finally coming to an (unhappy) end. America is negotiating its departure from Afghanistan. A draft deal sketching a timeline for US troops withdrawal and subsequent Afghan Government-Taliban negotiations has been hammered by US Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and the Taliban.

Good news? Not really. This is a U.S. withdrawal following defeat, not victory. Let’s be clear. America has not come to this point after negotiations from a position of strength with a badly bruised, demoralized Taliban. America negotiated an exit from a war that it could not win against a relentless enemy. Make no mistake, whatever the wording of the final agreement, in essence this is a U.S. surrender.

Inglorious
end

Indeed, it
is clear to all observers that America is negotiating with the Taliban from a
position of extreme weakness. The other side, the Taliban, is winning on the
ground, and we simply cannot take this nightmare of daily attacks followed by
feeble and ineffective Afghan responses anymore.

Sadly, this is the inglorious end to a terribly ill-advised October 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, followed by an ill-conceived military occupation, and an even worse economic development strategy concocted under the assumption (bordering on lunacy) that America and its NATO Allies had the resources, the will and the skills to transform an extremely backward, war-torn Afghanistan into an at least passable modern, working democracy.  

A
bad idea

Sadly,
this negotiation with the Taliban is the end of the American poorly planned and
poorly executed adventure in Afghanistan. The occupation of Afghanistan was and
is a bad idea doggedly pursued for almost 20 years by national leaders who
should have known better; or who at least, after a few years of failures, could
have paused and thought the whole thing over again.

Foreign
policy mistakes unfortunately happen. But Afghanistan is much worse. This is
about hatching a completely unrealistic plan and then clinging to its mistaken
assumptions and failed policies, year after year, in the vain hope that
–maybe—someday things will improve, without any evidence whatsoever that the
situation on the ground was getting any better.

It
all started after 9/11

Let’s go
back to the beginning of this sad story, and that is 9/11. After it became
clear that this major terror attack against the US homeland had been directed
by Osama bin Laden, the founder of al Qaeda who had found sanctuary in
Afghanistan, the Bush administration decided “to
go get him”.
However, Washington almost immediately decided
also on a much more ambitious agenda. Indeed, the Bush administration decided
that it had to punish not just the al Qaeda leadership, but also its Afghan
willing hosts, that is the Taliban government.

Therefore
the more narrowly focused “punitive
expedition against Osama and al Qaeda”
almost immediately morphed
into “regime change”
for Afghanistan. This rather grandiose objective was in fact an act of
vainglorious superficiality. In so doing, Washington, while trying to get Osama
who was hiding somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan, (without any success,
by the way!), at the same time declared to the world that it needed to “fix” Afghanistan once
and for all, so that in the future this sorry country would become a
responsible, modern democracy, and no longer the friendly home of terrorists.

Insane
policy

In
principle, this may sound sensible: “Clean
up the place and engage in a bottom up make-over”
so that in the
future Afghanistan will not be used as a base for Islamic terrorists. In practice, anybody
with a brain at the time would have been able to see that this –“fixing Afghanistan”–
was a next to impossible task, at least within any reasonable time frame.

Anybody
with an even scant knowledge of decades of failure in trying to promote
sustainable development in Africa and other underdeveloped regions of the world
through large amounts of outside assistance could have pointed out that this
was mission impossible.

Indeed, if promoting development in Africa is extremely challenging even under “normal” circumstances, it should have been clear to all top decision-makers in Washington that engaging in a development effort in an extremely poor, and completely ruined post-conflict Afghanistan would take extraordinary resources, and many, many decades.

A
dauntingly tall agenda, by the way, even assuming peace and a cooperative
society willing to buy into this rapid modernization strategy hatched and
dished out by outside experts.

Impossible
goals

Again, everybody knew or should have known that at the end of 2001 Afghanistan was an incredibly backward, tribal country that lacked almost all the underpinnings necessary to even start moving on a development agenda. And the basic underpinnings would include: some meaningful productive activities, (no, poppy cultivation and heroin should not be on this list), at least some basic infrastructure, a modicum of electricity generation capacity and transmission lines, at least some reasonably modern health care facilities, some functioning schools, a somewhat educated middle class, and a reasonably competent government and public administration.

Sadly, at the end of 2001 Afghanistan had almost none of these prerequisites. On top of that, the country was exhausted. it had suffered for years under a communist dictatorship, then it had to endure the Soviet invasion which was followed by a bloody war against the Soviets, and then civil strife, followed by the truly medieval Taliban regime.

A
record of failure

Anyway, in
the end the whole US-led Afghanistan enterprise that began at the end of 2001
failed –miserably. This is well documented. A key feature of this systemic
failure is that, to this day, the US government has no idea of what happened to
billions of dollars targeted for development in Afghanistan. The money simply
vanished.

The biggest failure was and is in the strong resurgence of the Taliban and the utter inability of the US-trained and equipped Afghan military and police to even hold their ground –let alone go after the Taliban insurgents and defeat them.

Right now, the Kabul government is unable to guarantee even a modicum of security almost anywhere in the country. Up to the signing of the recent preliminary agreement and semi-ceasefire that should lead to the finalization of the final peace agreement, The Taliban could hit almost any city, including well defended targets in Kabul itself.

On top of that, in the last few years, other extremists and terror groups have found fertile ground in Afghanistan. On a daily basis, there are attacks, bombs, suicide missions, and what not. And this is happening after 19 years of American and NATO military assistance to the Afghan Government, combined with gigantic development packages aimed at building a modern government, and eventually new prosperity.

The
negotiations with the Taliban

I guess this is why the Trump administration FINALLY decided to cut America’s losses and get the residual US troops home. The fig leaf here are the almost concluded bilateral “peace negotiations” with the Taliban. Through this charade hosted by Qatar, Washington would like to convey to the world that this is no “cut and run”. On the contrary, Washington will implement an orderly and careful incremental drawdown of US forces –but only if and when the Taliban will meet certain non-negotiable conditions.

The public message is: “This is no unilateral withdrawal. We are negotiating an honorable and sound peace agreement. We Americans shall make sure that the interests of the Afghan people are protected. We shall also make sure that the new (and still fragile) Afghan democratic institutions will be safeguarded and will continue to define the country long after the last American soldier has departed”.

Of course,
this is pure fiction.

Whatever they may say now, the Taliban leaders deep down do not believe in either democracy or power sharing. The notion of a well-functioning future coalition government featuring the current (extremely fractured, by the way) Afghan leadership and the Taliban –all working together for the benefit of the Afghan people– is ridiculous. Which is to say that these US-Taliban negotiations are only about saving face. Whatever you may want to call this process, in essence this is an American surrender. America failed –in a spectacular way– and now we are finally leaving an impossible situation that cost US taxpayers hundreds of billions, not to mention the dead and the wounded U.S. troops. No more good money after bad.

What
do we make of all this?

So, what do we make of this absurd tragedy?

Sadly, the only plausible conclusion is that in the highly charged, emotional days after 9/11 our national leaders literally lost their minds. There is no doubt that the terror attack America suffered on September 11, 2001 was unprecedented in scale and loss of American lives.

But 9/11
was not the end of the world. The notion that America, in order to prevent
future attacks and be safe, had to “redo
Afghanistan”
was megalomaniac, vainglorious and stupid. Going after
the bad guys, the masterminds of 9/11, was absolutely justified. But the notion
that creating a new country in Afghanistan was necessary in order to guarantee
future US security was fatally flawed.

And,
by the way, let’s not forget: even the more focused mission of capturing or
killing the al Qaeda senior leadership responsible for 9/11 FAILED, TOTALLY.
The US forces were there, on the ground in Afghanistan. Osama and his cohorts
were on the run. And still we failed to capture Osama, for more than a decade.

That said,
the Afghanistan operation was the beginning of the “War on Terror”, an ill-defined, grandiose
strategy that created what was ultimately an unreachable goal: identifying,
pursuing and neutralizing all terror organizations around the world.

“War
on Terror” does not mean anything

Terrorism is not“a place” you can attack and conquer or a clearly identifiable enemy located in one place. Terrorism is a modus operandi that can be and is adopted by several small groups, or even isolated individuals all over the world. Terrorism is about dramatic violent actions that will gain a great deal of publicity. It can spring almost anywhere, without any notice.

If you call this fight “a war”, how do you “win” this war? How can you ensure that all the bad guys, and the would-be bad guys, have been apprehended or killed? This is impossible. You can and should do your best to monitor and infiltrate terror cells. You should prevent possible acts of terror, and go after the bad guys when something bad tragically happened.

But this is mostly about doing your best to manage an elusive threat using intelligence services and special forces. You cannot “win” this conflict once and for all; just as police forces, even the best ones, cannot inflict a final defeat on all criminals and all criminal activities.

There are more than 7 and half billion people on this planet. Even if the smallest fraction of this large world population engages in terror plots, you still have a terror problem. And yet this open-ended, grandiose goal –Fighting and Winning the War on Terror— became the fundamental pillar of U.S. foreign policy under President George W. Bush. America was committed to fight this Global War on Terror to the very end, and we would not rest until the last terrorist had been killed or apprehended. This was and is an impractical, in fact fatuous goal.

No doubt,
terrorism is serious business, to be treated seriously. And this is why we have
sophisticated intelligence services and trained Special Forces. But terrorism
is not an existential threat that justifies making it into our number one
national security priority, engaging in a global war in which the entire world,
by the way, had to actively participate in order to show that they are with us.

Wrong
policies continued under Obama

But here is the thing. The stupidity of this Bush administration policy did not disappear when President Bush left office. What is bizarre and unexplainable is that, even though George W. Bush left the stage in January 2009, and no one talked about his War on Terror anymore, the failed Afghanistan project that was an integral part of the initial War on Terror strategy kept going, and going.

Indeed, President Obama declared that the war in Afghanistan was the “good war” of necessity that had to be fought, as opposed to the “bad war” in Iraq that was discretionary and ill-advised. And so Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, kept going and going in Afghanistan even though, based on years of failures, he and his national security team should have known better.

After all, they were not bound to justify and continue on the basis of a flawed commitment created by the previous Republican administration. And it took Trump, the president elected with the open pledge to end all the stupid “endless wars” started and continued by his predecessors, more than two years to finally come to grips with the need to end this madness.

Taking
stock

So, here is the balance sheet. It took more than 18 years to finally recognize a colossal foreign and security policy mistake. How could America be so wrong for such a long time without any serious debate on this record of failure followed by more failure? How could this happen?

I am not entirely sure. Still, as a minimum we need to recognize that there is a nefarious inertia, combined with mental laziness, enveloping the upper layers of the analytical and decision-making centers of this nation.

Alright, we can allow for mistakes. But bad policy judgment and errors could explain only the beginning of the problem. However, after a few years, how can we explain and justify that Washington, despite a solid record of failure in Afghanistan, kept going and going, year after year, without anybody in a position of power and responsibility pausing and asking the most elementary question: “Is this really working as intended?”

American policy-makers lost the ability to reflect

In Afghanistan, America started something big and expensive with all the wrong assumptions regarding the size and scope of the undertaking and without a realistic time frame to achieve the stated goals.

Here is my
conclusion. As a nation, notwithstanding hundreds of billions of dollars spent
every year on intelligence gathering, scenario planning, and war games, not to
mention the largest defense budget in the world, we seem to have lost even a
modicum of self-reflection ability.

An outside observer looking into this mess might find this record of systemic failure by the leaders of the most advanced country on Earth, and the attendant epic waste of resources stemming from totally misguided policies, quite funny.

But it is in fact tragic. In the end, finally getting out of an untenable situation in Afghanistan is a good thing. But I am not sure that America’s leaders learnt any enduring lessons.

 




Trivializing Impeachment

By Paolo von Schirach

WASHINGTON – The Democrats who hold the majority in the US
House of Representatives did their best to present their vote leading to the
start of an impeachment process, potentially leading to the removal of
President Donald Trump from office, as a solemn and sad moment dictated by the
gravity of the charges and the urgency of the constitutional crisis created by
a criminal president.

Solemn moment

With solemn voices accompanied by serious demeanor they told the nation that
while impeaching Trump is the last thing they wanted to do, they simply “had
to”
. The gravity of the situation left them no choice. They recognize
the profound implications of this move. They are fully aware that the US
Constitution contemplates impeachment as an extreme remedy for extreme
circumstances in which a president must be removed from power, without waiting
for the end of his four years mandate. But they had no choice.

Guardians of the Constitution

As they told America, in their constitutional role as guardians of our
institutions, the House Democrats could not ignore a president who has
deliberately and consciously broken his Oath of Office. On this Ukrainian
matter, he clearly abused his power as president, this way acting in open
disregard of the Constitution. And so the Democrats in the House, conscious of
their solemn constitutional obligations as public servants, simply had
to act.

Swift action

Furthermore, they had to act swiftly; because the evidence shows that this
president is busy engaging in unconstitutional conduct on a daily basis. He is
such a menace that he needs to be stopped, now, lest he
destroys the entire fabric of our cherished democratic institutions.

Exaggeration

Well, this narrative presented by the House Democrats is outlandishly
exaggerated. By inventing this notion of Trump as a monstrous creature living
in the White House, intent on shredding our American Constitution, the House
Democrats have turned this impeachment process into a farce. Many Americans
(may be most) have seen through this manufactured drama and concluded that this
impeachment process is nothing but “politics”, and not a
serious constitutional crisis, and so they have tuned out.

Real charges against Trump

Let me be clear. This is not an invented story. Ample evidence, now
corroborated by multiple witnesses who have first knowledge of the “Ukraine
military and economic aid matter”
conclusively proves that President
Trump tried to twist the arm of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, (by
threatening to withhold aid for Ukraine already voted by Congress), so that
Zelensky would commit to dig up dirt on Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, this way
helping Trump’s to get re-elected.

All this is beyond dispute. And it is bad. Really bad. It is most
inappropriate for any US President to mix the foreign policy of the United
States with personal electoral politics. President Trump acted most
inappropriately; and in so doing he tarnished his office.

Impeachable offense?

So, something bad happened and the president did it. However –and this is
the critical question– is this an “impeachable offense“?
The country is deeply divided on this. Most Democrats hate Trump as a matter of
course, and so they would like to see him gone, whatever it takes. Most
Republicans believe he is OK. The independents are divided.

That said, notwithstanding the anti-Trump media hype, most Americans who
live outside of the Washington, DC bubble do not care much about the complex
constitutional arguments dished out by legal experts appearing non stop on
cable TV.

The charge of “abuse of power” against this president for
most people is an abstraction that few are willing to dig into in order to
determine whether or not this particular instance of abuse rises to the level
of an impeachable offense that warrants removing a president from office,
especially when president Trump can be removed from office via regular
elections scheduled to take place this coming November. “You want to get
rid of Trump? Well, vote for the other candidate come November”.

For sure, most Americans would agree that they do not want “a
criminal”
in the White House. However, the “crime”
the president is accused of has to be something most people can relate to.
There is no clear majority that would agree that Trump’s conduct regarding the
whole Ukraine messed up affair clearly constitutes “criminal
behavior”
. Bad behavior, most probably; but not something that rises
to the level of an impeachable offense.

Inflated case against Trump

In other words, it is not that the House Democrats “invented”
a case against Trump. Far from it. There is plenty of evidence that there is a
case. Their political miscalculation has been to inflate the
dimensions of the “Ukraine story” up to ridiculous proportions.

Yes, President Trump behaves in an erratic, often bizarre fashion. He says
plenty of outlandish things. And in this Ukraine case he tried to use the
considerable power of his office to obtain from another head of state something
that would probably benefit him politically by threatening to withhold a large
package of economic and military aid duly approved by Congress that the
Executive Branch was obliged by law to deliver to Ukraine.

But to assert that Trump needs to be removed from office, RIGHT
NOW
, as opposed to allowing the voters decide in the upcoming November
elections, because the future of America as a viable constitutional republic
hangs in the balance, is silly.

No, we are not about to fall into an abyss. You may have plenty of reasons
to dislike Trump; but he is not in the process of dismantling the US
Constitution.

Impeachment trivialized

The end result of this rushed impeachment process based on significant
evidence of serious misconduct which however does not jump at you as obvious
criminal behavior is to have trivialized impeachment. Impeachment should be
viewed by all as an extreme remedy for truly extreme circumstances. And this is
not the case right now.

By labeling Trump’s abuse of power as an impeachable “high
crime”
, the Democrats ended up with the unintended consequence of
trivializing impeachment. Do not be surprised if in the future, whoever will be
in the White House, a hostile House majority will threaten to impeach another
president whom they profoundly disagree with.

I do not believe that the Founders decided to include impeachment provisions
in the US Constitutions as just another tool to fight inevitable political
battles. For that purpose we have free elections held at regular intervals.

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the
President of the Global Policy Institute,
a Washington DC think tank, and Chair of Political Science and International
Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in
Washington, DC.




Raising The Temperature In The Middle East

By Paolo von Schirach –

WASHINGTON – After the unexpected airstrike that killed IRGC General Qassem Soleimani, right outside the Baghdad airport, analysts began speculating what Trump’s end game may be. In other words, is this just an ill-conceived, spur of the moment decision? Or is this targeted assassination of the master mind of all the Iran-led irregular forces operating with impunity in the Middle East part of a carefully orchestrated US “plan”?

Recalculations about America’s will are in order

I have no idea. However, I would say that this brazen attack that eliminated the most significant and most revered leader of Iran’s international mischief will probably cause some rethinking on the part of those who have come to believe that America is a hesitant giant, essentially impotent when targeted by non state actors.

Well, not so impotent, it turns out. I would speculate that Soleimani was killed in some measure because he got used to traveling from Iranian fiefdom to Iranian fiefdom, (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen), without too much concern about his own safety. In other words, being at the head of a victorious and unchallenged unconventional military force, made Soleimani arrogant. It made him believe that he was invincible, that he could safely move around almost anywhere in the region.

Here is the thing. Going forward, the accepted narrative of a rather passive and impotent America, incapable of reacting to stealthy attacks that do not leave clear footprints, no longer applies. Not just Iran, but all America’s enemies should take all this into account.

Making things worse in the Middle East?

Sure enough, this sensational killing caused all sorts of speculations regarding possible reverberations on the volatile Middle East, already torn by conflicts and insurrections. Trump has been accused by Joe Biden, would be Democratic nominee for the presidency, of having thrown a stick of dynamite into a powder keg, or something like that.

Sure, this American action raises the temperature in the region. But the most feared consequence of a major Middle East crisis, sky rocketing oil prices, will not happen. As Holman W. Jenkins noted in a recent piece in The Wall Street Journal, the unrelated American fracking revolution, by substantially increasing US oil production, completely transformed global oil markets.

There is plenty of oil

In other words, today the world should not be overly concerned with any disruption of the flow of oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The difference between 10 0r 15 years ago and today is that America –until not long ago a major oil importer– is now the largest oil producer in the world. Yes, the US produces more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia. While America still imports oil, it buys most of it from Canada, not from the Persian Gulf.

This fantastic increase of America’s oil production has had and will have significant geopolitical consequences. A very big one is to have down graded the strategic importance of the Middle East as an oil producing region, and therefore the possible negative impact of Iranian actions targeting Middle Eastern oil facilities on the world economy.

Nothing happened after Iran attack Saudi oil facilities

If you recall, a few months ago, the Iranians launched a surprise attack against major Saudi oil installations, knocking down with one shot about 50% of Saudi Arabia’s oil output. Well, what happened? Not much. Yes, oil prices went up, for a few days. But then, when the analysts were reassured that there was plenty of extra supply in global energy markets, oil prices went down again.

I am not suggesting that the Middle East has become irrelevant, far from it. What I am suggesting is that Iranian threats and possible attacks against oil are not as dangerous as they used to be in an era of tight supplies and enormous needs for imported oil on the part of the United States.

Iran is not the winning champion

Yes, after the stinging loss of Soleimani, its revered military leader, we should be prepared for something really nasty coming out of Iran. But let us not forget that Iran is not Stalin’s Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany at the height of its power.

Iran is an impoverished police state, stricken by US economic sanctions. It is a country in which an increasingly recalcitarting population, notwithstanding the obvious threats of imprisonment, torture or death, still engage in spontaneous protests against the high cost of food and other basic necessities. While we should not underestimate its resourcefulness, today’s Iran is not exactly an unbeatable champion.

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank and Chair of Political Science and International Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in Washington, DC




War With Iran?

By Paolo von Schirach

WASHINGTON – The killing of General Qassem Soleimani, the legendary head of the Iranian al Quds force, is a game changer in America’s creeping hostilities with Iran. I wrote recently http://schirachreport.com/2020/01/02/iraq-is-lost/ that unless the US wants to engage in a conflict over Iraq, this poor, war-torn country is lost to us, on account of the solid Iranian grip on it. Large pro-Iranian Iraqi Shia military forces and pro-Iran Iraqi political parties make it almost impossible –short of an all out war– to dislodge the Iranians from what is now their vassal state.

Iraq is still lost

The killing of Soleimani changes nothing in this regard. If anything, it will lead to a formal request on the part of the Iraqis that all US forces currently in Iraq, supposedly to guard against any possible ISIL come back, leave immediately. I am not quite sure how this major political crisis with Iraq can be handled by Washington so that it will have a smooth end. Highly unlikely. Forget about working with any Iraqi government on anything at all.

Escalation with Iran

Regarding Iran, with this sensational assassination of the leader of all Iranian terror forces, now Washington has escalated the conflict with Tehran. The loss of Soleimani, a cult figure in Iran, stings badly. Iran will have to do “something” in response to this humiliation, possibly something very big. And this will inevitably cause a US retaliation.

Prior to the killing of Soleimani, notwithstanding countless Iranian provocations, President Trump repeatedly indicated that the US does not want “war” with Iran. But as of now, with this assassination of a key Revolutionary Guard leader, arguably the US is at war with Iran. An undeclared war; but war nonetheless.

Is Washington ready?

And this presents significant challenges for Washington. America is not very good at fighting unconventional conflicts in which our wily adversaries engage in asymmetric warfare. We are rarely proactive, hitting our opponents before they hit us, this way putting them on the defensive.

We are usually waiting for the next hit, whenever our adversary chooses to strike, and then do our best to retaliate. Which means that the other side, the bad guys, always retain the initiative.

The killing of Soleimani represents a major change. For sure the Iranians did not expect this, as they are used to moving around in contested territories with impunity. Does this mean that the US has now taken the initiative? Is America planning more strikes? Not clear at this early stage.

Big question

While the situation is still quite fluid, if we try to piece what we know together, here is the big question. “Is President Trump, in this critical 2020 election year, willing to engage in an undeclared war of attrition with Iran which will inevitably entail more terror attacks, possible disruption of oil flows in the Strait of Hormuz, strikes against Israel, and a lot more?”

Can Trump convince America that he has a good plan?

In other words, is America ready to absorb the blows that will inevitably come from Iran and its proxies, and forcefully retaliate in kind, whatever it takes, for as long as it takes? Furthermore, can the Trump administration present a credible “plan” that includes a clear path to something looking like “victory” against Iran?

Until yesterday, the plan was to exert maximum pressure against Tehran via economic sanctions, hoping that the significant pain inflicted by the sanctions would convince the Iranians to come back to the negotiating table and agree to whatever Washington demands.

Now it is different. After this assassination of a key Iranian military leader, forget about negotiating anything with Tehran. This being the case –open ended hostilities with Iran– if we continue with this tough stand against the Ayatollah’s regime, how is US public opinion going to react to all this? Will this escalation with Iran help Trump get reelected?

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank, and Chair of Political Science and International Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in Washington, DC




US Fiscal Irresponsibility Will Lead to Bankruptcy

WASHINGTON – The Democrats in Congress and Republican President Donald Trump agree practically on nothing. Therefore, it is impossible to think of any major piece of legislation that can be passed between now and November 2020, when Americans will go the polls to pick a new President and a new Congress and new political majorities may be formed.

Sharply divided government

Since the Democratic control the House of Representatives, while the Republicans control the Senate and the White House, and considering the increasingly toxic political climate that makes compromise impossible, we have not just a divided government. We have a sharply divided government. So, do not hold your breath. No significant legislative actions between now and the next presidential and congressional elections in November 2020.

The spending deal

That said, there is a huge exception –and a very shameful one—in this political stalemate. And that is federal spending. Very recently, and very quietly, Republicans and Democrats hammered a major spending deal. There was no fight. No public posturing to defend this plan and attack the other side spending priorities. No grandstanding.

Very quietly
the two arch enemies came rather quickly to a spending agreement. How so?
Because they decided to increase spending across the board. Essentially, the Republicans
got some more money for Defense. The Democrats got a bit of this and that in
other areas of non-defense discretionary spending.

Larger deficits

In case you
were wondering, these increases will not be offset by spending cuts in other
areas. This means that a large and growing US Federal Budget deficit, for
decades now a structural feature of our public finances, will become much bigger
much sooner than expected. Think of a $ 1 trillion billion deficit, (that is 1
thousand billion), year after year, unless something rather drastic is done.

This is a
colossal figure. In simple language, this means that Uncle Sam every year
spends more money –a lot more– than it takes in via tax revenues. In principle,
overspending could be justifiable; but only when the government goes into
overdrive with extraordinary fiscal stimulus in order to counter a major
recession, like the most dreadful one we had beginning in 2008. Borrowing money
could also make sense if the funds are to be invested in important capital
projects, (new highways, ports or airports, for instance), that would improve our
national infrastructure networks this way benefiting the economy. But we are
not doing any of this. Indeed, this is not money borrowed for stimulus or for
financing needed infrastructure. This is mostly money to be used to finance
current spending. In other words, as a nation, we are living beyond our means, while
we obviously think that we can keep our lifestyle by borrowing the difference –indefinitely.

Everybody knows

By the way,
everybody in Washington who is even remotely familiar with federal spending
trends knows this. But the fact is that nobody seems to care. The sad and
worrisome conclusion is that chronic overspending is now accepted by most Washington
policy makers –both left and right– as the normal way to run the government of
America, a major modern country which used to be run according to established
principles of fiscal balance. Namely: in the long run you should not spend more
money than you can raise through taxation. By the same token, if you have
accumulated a large public debt, you must change tax and spending patterns in
order to return to a healthy balance.

The roots of the US deficit and debt

Now, as to
the actual roots of this systemic overspending, obviously they are not in the
deal just struck by the two political parties. This recent deal just made a bad
situation a lot worse.

The roots of
US overspending are in the incremental but steady growth of large entitlement
program that cannot possibly be funded as they are currently structured, unless
taxes will be substantially increased and/or benefits reduced. 

No, US overspending is not about “fraud, waste and abuse”. It is not about too much foreign aid, as many believe. It is mostly rooted in our big federal entitlement programs. Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps and other related programs, absorb about 2/3 (yes, that is a lot more than half!) of the US total federal budget, currently at $ 4.7 trillion (again: a trillion is 1,000 billion).

Good programs designed in a different
era

The problem about these programs (most of them) aimed at providing for our senior citizens is that they were designed in another era, (Social Security goes back to FDR in the 1930s, Medicare goes back to the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson was president).

Clearly that was a different America, with completely different demographics. The programs as designed were solvent and meant to be self-sustaining. But this is no longer the case. The way the system works, the payroll taxes paid by current workers and their employers go directly to fund the benefits for the retirees. The problem is that the US population is slowly shrinking, which means fewer active people are supporting the benefit for a larger number of retirees, while health care costs for seniors have been increasing. Simply stated, the programs are no longer self-sustaining.

Kicking the can down the road

This trend of the growing cost of entitlements, year after year, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the federal budget, is not news. This has been going on for decades. But lawmakers and presidents of both parties simply ignored the problem, in large measure because they believe you cannot tell the truth to the American voters. Even talking about serious reforms that would modify or potentially decrease benefits to retirees is deemed to be political suicide in Washington.

The Debt Commission recommendations went
nowhere

For example, back in 2010, then President Barack Obama created a bipartisan commission to review federal spending and make recommendations on ways to reduce deficits in the future. It became known as “The Debt Commission”.  The two co-chairmen were Erskine Bowles (Democrat), and Alan Simpson (Republican). These two elder statesmen took the job very seriously, without any partisan animosities. This was no Washington wishy-washy anodyne process marked by generalities and obfuscations. Indeed, their 59-page report was entitled “The Moment of Truth”. It included actionable plans to reform entitlements, while also raising taxes; so that these key programs providing needed benefits to millions of American retirees would remain solvent and available to all beneficiaries, now and in the future, without bankrupting the federal government.

Well, nothing, absolutely nothing, happened after the report was issued. President Obama, just like all the other presidents before him, did not want to kill his chances of re-election in 2012 by becoming “The president who killed Social Security and Medicare”. So, notwithstanding the serious work done by these two elder statesmen whom I consider true American patriots, no action to reform entitlements, defense spending and raise some taxes was undertaken under president Obama.

And, by the way, no action whatsoever under President Trump. Trump fully understands that his political is made up mostly of blue-collar white workers. And these are precisely the people who need these programs aimed at low income retirees the most.

How else could we save money?

Well, if we cannot reform costly entitlements, what else could be done to restrain public spending, this way reducing the deficits, and down the line slowing down the monstrous growth of the US national debt? Well, not much. “Oh come on, many would scream. We could start by cutting our gigantic defense budget!” Sure we could. But it would not solve our structural fiscal imbalance.

And by the way, believe or not, US defense spending is now close to a historic low as a percentage of GDP. Yes, while America spends more than $ 700 billion on the Pentagon, this large figure is only 3% of GDP. During the Cold War the US routinely spent close to 10% on the military. Which is to say that current defense spending levels are not an aberration.

While it may be possible to spend less or at least more wisely on defense, contrary to popular opinion, most of the Pentagon budget is not devoted to procuring new super expensive, unnecessary weapons. Most of the money goes to salaries (we must pay for an all-volunteer force), and operations and maintenance. This includes all that is needed to keep at least a percentage of a large force ready. Think of training, housing, food, deployments, fuel for an enormous fleet of vehicles, airplanes and vessels, and a lot more.

While we can and should have a sensible discussion about better ways to spend defense dollars, do not expect even significant savings to make a big difference. Indeed, our federal budget deficits are so huge that even if we abolished the Defense Department altogether, (an unlikely scenario), Uncle Sam would still be in the red.

Well, what about other areas of spending? Where else could we cut in order to achieve big savings? Well, no fat targets out there. As a percentage of total federal spending, transportation, energy, agriculture, commerce, and so on, claim relatively little money. Again, even if we abolished the Departments of Education or Energy, we would still run a large deficit. By the same token, cutting 10% or 15% here and there would impair basic functions without saving much money.

And do not forget another budget line item that keeps growing and cannot be cut. That is the interest on the existing national debt, now about 10% of total federal spending. To put it in perspective, this enormous number is about half of all defense spending.

Not on the verge of bankruptcy

To put all this in perspective, America right now is not –I repeat is not—on the verge of bankruptcy. Investors and foreign governments still eagerly buy our Treasury Bonds. They believe that America will be able to meet all its financial obligations.

Still, unless federal spending is seriously reformed –and by that I mean mostly a serious revision of our key entitlement programs, via a bipartisan agreement– we are definitely headed towards bankruptcy.

More money for everybody

If not today, pretty soon something drastic will have to be done. Either we cut spending, (remember: the fat target is entitlement reform), or we raise taxes, or a combination of both. But, right now, we are going in exactly the opposite direction.

With no public debate, and in a completely irresponsible fashion, our national leaders, in both parties, one year before the 2020 elections have decided that they want to tell voters that the free money party is still on. “Cheer up everybody! More spending, therefore more goodies for everyone: Mid-West farmers and Boeing”.

Deficits do not matter?

One last note. While our elected leaders act myopically to pursue the immediate goals of currying favors with the voters ahead of a major national election, at least some academics have come up with the bizarre “theory” that –guess what— in America federal deficits do not matter. When you have a country like the US that can borrow in its own currency, assuming tame inflation, large deficits are not an issue. According to these economists, Washington can just keep borrowing and borrowing and nothing bad will even happen. There are no limits. Apparently, our growing national debt (the cumulative result of chronic annual deficits) does not have to be paid back. Got that?

I would say
that if this preposterous idea is accepted as a sound foundation for managing
our public finances, then we truly deserve to go bankrupt.




Why Mass Shootings? Heavy Political Rhetoric, Psychopaths, and too many Weapons

WASHINGTON – The El Paso slaughter stunned America. It is human nature that when something completely out of the ordinary happens –an immense tragedy in this case—everybody wants to know “why”. And this case the simple “why” seems to be that the young man who went to the Walmart to kill as many Hispanics as he could did so because of his White Supremacist convictions. Apparently, he strongly believes that Latinos and Hispanics are alien enemies, and therefore they must be eliminated.

The hate crime narrative

Putting all
this together, this mass murder episode becomes yet another tragic episode of
violence motivated by racist hatred –another hate crime. And who is fueling
racist hatred in America these days? But, of course, as we all know, it is the
President himself, Donald Trump. Therefore, it is all finally clear.

And here is
the media-sponsored “official” narrative
that explains the roots of the tragedy and the event itself. President Trump,
with his abrasive and openly anti-immigrant and anti-Latino rhetoric, provided
cover to all those who share his beliefs and are also willing to act to enforce
his vision of a White America finally restored to its appropriate position of
primacy.

Not a good explanation

Of course,
there is a small amount of truth in this “explanation”.
National leaders should never set a bad example by over using inflammatory
language. It is very bad when they publicly and repeatedly disparage ethnic
minorities or any other segment of our society, fingering them as bad,
inferior, criminal or what have you. These messages, coming straight from the
top, are false; and they may give bad ideas to somebody.

Some psychopaths may act

That said, it
takes a psychopath to follow up with a mass shooting of complete strangers
based on the notion that “The President himself
declared that this people are bad news. The clean-up has to start somewhere,
and I may as well do my part”.
If anybody interpreted Trump’s offensive
language against Latinos as a license to get an automatic weapon and start
killing people, it means that they are mentally deranged.

Our national problem

And here is our national conundrum. Sadly, we do have an inflamed political climate –-and no doubt the President has contributed to raising the temperature. But we also have too many non diagnosed psychopaths, or at least mentally disturbed people, many of whom have unhindered access to lethal weapons.

Not to sound too simplistic, here is the thing. When you have extreme ideas that pass for normal political discourse, crazy people who may act on them, and literally millions of legal weapons in circulation, then we cannot be too surprised when one unhinged person does something really horrible. Yes, as the El Paso carnage shows us, just one person armed with a powerful weapon can create an immense human tragedy.

No easy solutions

Fixing all
this will be incredibly complicated. Changing the tone of the national
political debate is difficult enough; but not impossible. Far more complicated
is the effort to identify and place legally binding restrictions on mentally
disturbed people. Finally, limiting access to weapons will be even more
complicated, given the almost religious belief held by millions of Americans in
the absolute right to buy and carry weapons supposedly provided by the Second
Amendment to the US Constitution.

So, here is
the list. Here are the key ingredients for tragedies such as El Paso:  1) crazy ideas that demonize segments of our
society; 2) at least some deranged individuals willing to act to implement them;
3) and plenty of weapons available.

As a society,
we must face the magnitude of the problems confronting us. While it may take a
long time, we must change all this. The penalty for inaction will be more such tragedies. 




North Korea Will Never Give Up Its Nuclear Weapons

 

WASHINGTON – The sudden White House announcement about a May Summit meeting between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has taken Washington and the world by surprise. It is not clear what the American game plan is. Until not too long ago the U.S. policy regarding North Korea seemed to be sanctions, and more sanctions. No talks. In fact, Trump himself, a while ago publicly declared that negotiations would lead nowhere.

Trump “forced” Kim to negotiate? 

Now, the improvised White House narrative is that Mr. Trump’s tough actions –the new round of sanctions, plus threats to destroy North Korea– have “forced” Kim to ask for direct talks which could entail “denuclearization”. If you believe all this, then it follows that Trump managed to bend North Korea.

Do not count on denuclearization 

Still, beyond the surprise announcement of this May Summit, my assessment is that this opening, however startling and significant it may be, (it would be the very first such encounter between the leaders of these two nations, technically still at war with each other), it cannot possibly mean that the North Koreans are truly willing to negotiate the end of their nuclear program.

And for a very simple reason. North Korea is a semi-failed state in which most people are close to starvation. It has no real economy, and no prospect of creating a viable one under this medieval, cruel and bizarre dictatorship.

Korea has nuclear weapons –and nothing else 

The only real asset that North Korea has is its nuclear weapons, now combined with an increasingly more modern panoply of ballistic missiles which may be capable within a short period of time to enable the rogue state to deliver nuclear weapons as far as the East Coast of the United States. America must take notice of North Korea for this very reason. Because it represents a potentially serious national security threat.

Well, precisely for this very reason, nuclear weapons being all that North Korea has to be taken seriously by the rest of the world, I cannot see any scenario under which Kim will give this huge –in fact only– real asset away. He will not, even if promised in return American technologies, food aid, substantial financial aid and all sorts of political reassurances that the US will sign a peace treaty, that America will never attack them, and what not.

Simply stated, North Korea’s standing in the world, such as it is, is due only to its ability to threaten other countries with incredible destruction, including the United States. Without nuclear weapons, North Korea is like Sudan, or the Central African Republic: an inconsequential, impoverished state with no real future and no prospects.

What is the point of this May Summit? 

I have no idea as to what Kim may have in mind by offering these talks with President Trump. Of course, if we just focus on the optics, to be face to face with the leader of the U.S. will be a huge public relations coup for Kim. He will be able to say that finally he is a recognized as the supreme leader of a world power. However, when it comes to what a bilateral negotiation may bring, I am not too optimistic.

Kim will not give up his nuclear arsenal 

America (and the world) wants North Korea to ultimately give up its nuclear weapons, its missiles and all its nuclear facilities. But this is all they got. Even if promised a lot, the North Koreans will not give up their membership in the nuclear club.




Will Washington Give Arms To Ukraine?

WASHINGTON – Back in February 2014, right after a popular rebellion ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanucovych, this way taking over political control in Kiev, the then Obama administration was long on promises of aid and support; but very short on delivering almost anything of real value to the new supposedly pro-American and pro-European Ukrainian government.

Economic basket case

On the economic front, Ukraine was then (and still is today, by the way) a virtual basket case: an impoverished, non competitive, underperforming economy, poisoned by systemic corruption. On the military side, whatever your political preference on who is to blame for the ongoing fighting between government forces and pro-Moscow ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine, back in 2015 it became obvious that Washington was not going to support the new anti-Russian Kiev government in any meaningful way.

Non lethal military aid 

President Obama offered some non lethal equipment, (such as radar, night vision goggles), MREs, (military food rations), blankets, uniforms, and socks, (yes, socks), to the Ukrainian army –but no real weapons.

New Trump approach?

Now, with Trump in the White House, most recently the noises have been changing. It is no accident that U.S. Secretary of Defense Mattis recently made a high-profile visit to Kiev on that country’s Independence Day. During public celebrations which included a military parade, Mattis stood at the side of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Mattis trip to Kiev followed another important visit to Ukraine by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in July.

In public remarks in Kiev Mattis stated that the Pentagon is reviewing options that could include supplying real weapons to Ukraine; including anti-tank Javelin missiles, and possibly antiaircraft missiles.

Of course, Mattis insisted that this American hardware –assuming a US Government decision to send it to Kiev– falls under the category of defensive weapons. America’s stated goal –again, assuming a green light on this– would be to give Ukraine the tools to defend itself from Russian attempts to unilaterally change borders in the East.

Mattis justified any possible U.S. policy shift regarding weapons sales to Ukraine by pointing out that Russia is not living up to its commitments under the Minsk agreements aimed at solving through peaceful means all issues related to the future of ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine.

Policy shift 

Well, should these supplies of U.S. weapons to Ukraine actually take place, this would indicate a major policy shift from the “do nothing” Obama years. For several years, Obama’s deeds (forget his speeches in support of Ukraine) indicated that America would not get involved, even indirectly, in any conflict involving Russia in Eastern Ukraine, a region with deep historic, ethnic and religious ties to the Russian state. With Obama in the White House, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko realized that he was on his own.

Now Donald Trump is President. So, a new more muscular approach to Ukraine in Washington vis-a-vis Russia? We shall see. Despite what Secretary Mattis just said in Kiev, I am inclined to believe that the Trump administration does not want America enmeshed, even if indirectly, in yet another, almost impossible and probably endless conflict, far from home.

A crowded national security agenda

Let’s look at the long “to do” list for the U.S. military, when it comes to hot spots. Washington is and will be engaged in the Middle East, (Iraq and to a lesser extent Syria) for quite some time. The President just announced a more muscular and open-ended policy towards Afghanistan, with the stated goals of defeating the Taliban insurrection. And then you have creeping and potentially explosive crises with North Korea, Iran, and may be with China on the South China Sea. Based on recent Washington moves and public pronouncements, we may also have to add Venezuela to this already long and challenging national security agenda.

Does Washington want to add an insoluble conflict in Eastern Ukraine to the headaches list, while cash strapped America has a hard time keeping up with existing and potential commitments? I do not think so.




Will NAFTA Be Fixed?

WASHINGTON – It is not a bad idea to look at ways to improve NAFTA, the Free Trade Agreement linking Canada, the U.S.A. and Mexico that came into force in 1994. Back then, we had a different world. The Internet was just beginning to blossom; the on line giant Amazon did not exist, and Apple’s future was uncertain. Energy production and possible new cross border investments within North America did not even remotely resemble what we have now. Think of the incredible shale oil and gas revolution in the U.S., large scale oil extracted in Canada from oil sands in Alberta, and then exported to the United States, and the recent liberalization of the energy sector decided upon by Mexico, simply because they are shipped from Mexico.

Make it better?

What is not entirely clear at this early stage in the process is the spirit animating the American negotiators. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump argued that NAFTA is a horrible arrangement that hurt the U.S. economy and workers, a key item within a long list of fatally flawed trade agreements.

So here is the question. Is the goal here to improve NAFTA or to try to kill it? We shall soon find out.

Key issues 

Among the many issues that will be addressed by the U.S., Mexican and Canadian negotiators, “rules of origin”, “dispute resolution” and “government procurement” stand out.

Rules of origin

In order to qualify for the NAFTA free trade preference, (this means no customs duties within the free trade area), goods coming into the United States –say from Mexico– must qualify as “made in Mexico”. For example, they cannot be sneakers or T-shirts made in China, exported to Mexico and then re-exported tariff free to the U.S.A., pretending that they are made in Mexico.

However, in this global economy sustained by global supply chains, how does one establish clear rules aimed at determining the origin of complex products? Think for a moment of automobiles assembled in Mexico. Almost by definition they contain many foreign made parts –parts not originating from other NAFTA countries.

Well, here is the question. What is the limit of foreign (non NAFTA) made components (in terms of value of the components, and in terms of overall percentage of parts) beyond which the car assembled in Mexico no longer qualifies as “originating in Mexico” and therefore not qualifying for the NAFTA preference?

How strict?

How high do you set the bar? Is a car with 30% non NAFTA components still qualifying for tariff-free NAFTA status? Or can the NAFTA negotiators be more lenient and set the bar at 40%? This is a big deal.

More or less stringent rules of origin will affect established trade relations with a global web of suppliers. No wonder the Japanese are following the NAFTA renegotiation issue very closely. The Japanese brands assemble cars in Mexico. Ostensibly those cars are “made in Mexico” and so they can be exported to America customs free, as they benefit from the NAFTA trade preference.

Components made in Japan 

But here is the thing. Everybody knows that these cars contain a large amount of components made in Japan. If adopted by the three partners, more stringent NAFTA rules of origin will inevitably disrupt established supply chains created by the Japanese brands to export components that end up in cars that until today met the minimum NAFTA origin criteria to be considered as “made in Mexico”.

So, here is the issue that will affect the negotiations. America wants much stricter rules of origin, because it does not want what the U.S. considers to be essentially Japanese cars, disguised as “made in Mexico”, to come into the USA tariff free, (because of the NAFTA preference),

Can a compromise be reached regarding what percentage of a finished product must be made of components made in Mexico, Canada or the U.S.A. in order to give this product “NAFTA origin”?

Dispute resolution provisions

The Americans also do not like the “dispute resolution” mechanism included in the original NAFTA Treaty. many in the U.S. look at it as a binding arbitration process which amounts to an infringement of US sovereignty. Americans do not like to be bound by a process whereby non-U.S. judicial bodies decide the outcome of trade disputes. The other two NAFTA countries would like to preserve it this dispute resolution mechanism. Is compromise possible?

Public procurement

Public procurement is another sticky issue. The three countries would like to have free and equal access to public procurement bids (thin of government contracts which may include IT services, or infrastructure projects) put out by their NAFTA partners. Except when they do not.

Especially with President Trump pushing for an “America First” general approach on all trade and non trade issues, when it comes to public procurement, Washington wants to privilege U.S. companies through “Buy American” policies.

And this would include all or most government contracts. This is obviously against the spirit of wide open procurement with a bidding process open to all firms within NAFTA.

Uncertain outcome 

In the final analysis, all these are very complex and technical issues –on a good day. If the parties are willing to compromise, there is an opportunity to improve NAFTA.

But if there is a negative bias against NAFTA, it is relatively  easy to tear apart this free trade area linking the 3 economies of North America.

 

 

 




Is There A Democratic Party Policy Agenda?

WASHINGTON – If you watch most of the cable news channels these days you get a steady diet of endless, in fact almost obsessive, commentary on what President Donald Trump said or twitted today, and what the seasoned analysts around the table think about it.

Endless coverage 

As President Trump relishes being unconventional and breaking all the established “Washington rules”, plenty for the experts to talk about. Fine. Except that this –Trump– is all they talk about. Which is to say that if you watch CNN or MSNBC what passes as “the news” is the endless effort to score the latest Trump outrageous tweet. And as different talk shows follow each other on the same cable news channel, the new anchor picks up exactly where his/her colleague left it and repeats the very same tweet of the day, and asks a different panel of supposedly savvy experts what we should make of it. The variations in all this are limited to the degree of (feigned I believe) amazement and/or outrage.

Again, this is not happening on occasion. This is now the standard offering throughout the 24/7 news cycle. Look, I do understand that the media has a duty to report on what the President of the United States says or tweets. And certainly, since Mr. Trump enjoys being unconventional and controversial, his statements give fodder for talk shows.

Is there a Democratic Party agenda? 

Still, my point here is that there is practically nothing else in the news. The one thing that is missing, probably because it does not really exist, is a thoughtful alternative policy agenda coming from the Democratic Party. Cable news shows do not report on it because most likely there is nothing to report.

And this is truly astonishing. We have an entire news media apparatus supported by scores of pundits who keep telling us that we have a strange President sitting in the White House who says and occasionally does unpredictable things, while the Republican majority in Congress is in (terminal?) disarray. And yet no alternative vision to this (apparently) unsatisfactory state of affairs is presented by the Democrats and discussed by the media.

Sit back and watch the Republican Party implosion

Are we to conclude that the Democratic Party strategy is just to sit back and watch the hoped for Trump implosion and the eventual dissolution of a Republican Party torn apart by incurable internal ideological battles? This may be a clever tactical approach.

But this is not a strategy for a national political force aspiring to govern the United States of America. Let us not forget that the Democratic Party in 2016 lost its momentum and ability to connect with millions of voters. It lost the White House to a complete outsider with zero political or campaign experience, and it failed to regain control of the Senate even though the odds favored it. Some party!

No compelling message in 2016

In 2016 the Democrats best hope was Hillary Clinton, a  shop worn, uninspiring candidate who represented a retread of the tired Clinton Brand. And, notwithstanding the Clinton machine open effort to game the system via the guaranteed support of the super delegates at the Democratic Party Convention, Clinton had to fight until the end against Bernie Sanders, a feisty old socialist whose astonishingly outdated policy agenda was all about redistributing (ill gotten) wealth accumulated by the demonized 1% in a more equitable way. That’s all the Democrats had to offer: Clinton and Sanders.

What’s the alternative?

Today, precisely because the Republican Party policy program seems confused and confusing, the American voters need to hear about a credible and thoughtful Democratic Party alternative agenda. It is OK for the late night comedy shows to use the latest Trump outrage as material for their jokes. This is fine. Political satire is healthy in a vibrant democracy.

Show America how the Democrats will govern

But the news media should stop this obsessive Donald Trump saturation coverage, while the Democratic opposition, instead of relishing the Republicans’ self-inflicted wounds, should rise to the occasion and offer a new and inspiring vision on how they intend to govern America.

As of now, I have seen none of that. And the reason for this, I suspect, is that the Democrats do not have anything new to say. And this is sad. A healthy republic needs a healthy debate on policy alternatives. Right now we have mostly noise.