Struggling With Trump vs Clinton

Don’t blame me for Donald Trump getting the Republican Presidential nomination. I said the man was a idiot. But he did win and now American voters have a choice: Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton. Joy.

Many (conservative) Americans are convinced that another Democratic Presidency would be a disaster for America. I believe that both liberals and conservatives bring important ideas and convictions to the political table. Thus my own feeling has been that after Obama a Republican President would be best for correcting the mistakes, excesses, and missteps of Obama, just as Obama in his first term did a good job doing the same vis a vis his predecessor in international affairs. I had hoped this person would be John Kasich. However, the Republican voters of this country have deemed that Donald Trump is the best man to represent them and their interests. So is Trump the right man for the job? Would Clinton really be a disaster if he is not?

Clinton first. The last thing this country needs is a Clinton agenda on gun control. Or Clinton stacking the Supreme Court with liberal judges. Or another dysfunctional relationship between the White House and Congress. She of course holds liberal views on abortion, LGBT issues, discrimination, and associated issues that can be broadly lumped together as the American Culture Wars. That is fine to some extent, but will be at best unhelpful in trying to protect freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. Liberal victory in the current iteration of the Culture Wars has meant that those freedoms are under attack by a portion of the victors, and Clinton is not going to defend those freedoms. She will not help business much, but is also unlikely to harm it significantly. She is overly harsh on fossil fuels without having good alternatives yet.

More seriously, she is fit to be a reasonable but not brilliant leader of US foreign policy. She is experienced in this regard. However, she is opposed to free trade, which means that she would undermine the TPP, which is the new cornerstone of US free trade and Pacific economic policy. This opposition is a populist pander, though her liberal inclinations almost certainly weigh in and will in the future. It will harm the economy and American foreign policy.

Clinton will almost certainly raise taxes and increase money for education, equality initiatives, Social Security, healthcare, and other domestic spending targets. I would characterize her as a reasonable candidate who will fail to implement needed reforms to healthcare, Social Security, and other domestic expenses in favor of throwing money at them at the expense of businesses and the military. Her gun control position is most problematic, but her likelihood to preside over stifling of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and economic growth are also troubling.

Donald Trump is harder to nail down on the issues. As a naked populist, he appeals to the fears of the lowest common denominator of the electorate in order to accrue power. In my opinion, he is the closest thing to the opposite of George Washington to ever have a good shot at the White House. When considering Trump, it is most useful to examine his worldview and inclinations in order to understand his responses to issues and potential situations. He is very much a zero-sum believer and a practitioner of identity politics. His group is pro-choice so he is pro-choice and everyone who disagrees is an outside and an idiot and will see themselves subjected to identity politics and the sort of loathsome ideology of dehumanization that drives genocide. In Trump’s case the result is less dehumanization than a devaluing of the Other as meaningful contributor to the discussion or political debate, but the thought process is not dissimilar. Trump would be better placed in a therapist’s office than an oval one.

His foreign policy approach is execrable. He would do just fine playing the “Great Game” in Europe over a century ago, or as a king having his servants fawn over him, his domestic enemies beheaded, and his soldiers used as gambling chips to expand the territory under his personal rule. And by “fine,” I mean he would be comfortable with the situation. I do not claim he would do it with any skill or success. In the modern era, he has promised to destroy the international liberal order America has fought for over the course of over a century and replace it with some sort of mercantilist system. He has alienated every nation south of Texas with his attacks on Hispanics and Mexicans. He is about as subtle as a 9-year old throwing a temper tantrum, and his policies might as well have came from the same place. He promises everything to his insiders while being able to deliver nothing, save by claiming Mexico will pay to build a big, big wall – essentially, it is a magic wall, paid for by magic. Because if I was Mexico there is one thing I would never do, and that is pay for Trump’s wall. And Mexico, or at least its president, agrees.

Businesses would presumably benefit from a Republican business-background president, but Trump’s populist stance, anti-free trade positions, alienation of Muslims and Hispanics, and predatory intent towards America’s allies combine to convince me that a Trump victory would harm the American economy far more than it could help. Nor was he a particularly good businessman, though he is a skilled showman. His tribal and micromanaging approach to business would also prevent him from using good management practice to run the country. He can also be relied upon to utilize every tool at his disposal to punish his enemies and reward his insiders. At times it seems as if a crackpot would-be dictator has parachuted in from some Central European reality television show and Americans are too mesmerized by his total lack of self-conscience and commitment to saying whatever his first thought is to realize what an appallingly poor leader he would be.

However, he is the conservative candidate and there is no way around it. So Americans are given two mediocre choices to be President. Most Republicans have been falling into line. I have been considering it. Trump would be a horrible President in my opinion, but I have to acknowledge I could be wrong. Maybe the millions of Republicans who voted for him know something I don’t. Maybe he will be a savior for the party and put America back on the right path where individual rights and responsibility are maintained as core American values. Or decades of learning and observation are correct and he would be everything I fear him to be. Hilary Clinton will mean four years of pain for conservative values, to be sure. But I think there is a reason Trump is popular in Russia and North Korea. It is not because they think he is someone they can talk with, though – it is because he could wreck the global order of trade and rules and law. Maybe they could talk to him, but I doubt it.

So I am going to follow my conscience and reject Donald Trump. He is a populist, racist, egotistical blowhard who does not belong in the White House. I don’t want Clinton in there (again) either. I will vote for a third-party candidate. Yes, it will be “throwing my vote away.” Or will it? If it sends a message of rejection of Trumpism, then it will be worth it. If I had a 35-year old turtle and got it registered as a national candidate it would probably beat either Trump or Clinton. Over the next four years, I want to work on electoral reform. People deserve the government they get, and I very much hope the party of Lincoln is better than Trump.

A Plea To Republicans

Please stop voting for Donald Trump. The man is an idiot. He is hot-tempered, abrasive, vindictive, and a mediocre businessman. He is running well based on his ability as a showman. That is pretty useless once in office. His only real asset, in my opinion, is his ability to negotiate. That skill is of limited value to a President. Negotiations at this level last years, typically. No President is going to have much of anything to do with direct negotiations unless he cloned himself. In other words, he would be a bad chief executive.

Fortunately there is one man still running on the Republican side who combines praiseworthy leadership experience with sensibility worthy of an American President: John Kasich. Marco Rubio does not have the leadership experience; Ted Cruz is little better. Hillary Clinton would easily lead a government better than either. Where she would lead it is another question, but at least she would do so with reasonable success.

In my opinion, every primary vote for Trump and Cruz is a vote for Clinton in the general election. Rubio may be electable. But Kasich definitely is, and he is the best standing candidate with the skills to govern America. He is certainly the only one with a chance at reducing the partisanship that currently plagues the country, long shot that that may be.

However, just because John Kasich is the best person to govern the country in my opinion does not mean you ought to vote for him. I have not laid out a full analysis to support that.

But please, please stop voting for Trump.

Apple’s Scars and FBI Overreach

The controversy over Apple’s refusal to help unlock the San Bernardino killer’s iPhone is not surprising. Ever since Edward Snowden revealed that the agencies that America pays to keep tabs on what is going on in the world actually do their jobs, technology companies have been at pains to divorce themselves from any involvement with these agencies. There is a simple rationale: if a company is shown to assist the US government, it is exposed to backlash from those who do not want the US government to have access to their information or who do not like the idea of the government having such access. There are also additional concerns about having any sort of backdoor in a system. The more doors in a system, the more vulnerable that system is. Either concern could cost a company. If competitors arise that protect consumer information significantly better than others, it will certainly be at an advantage compared to those that permit a group like the FBI information access.

So now we are at a point where the major tech companies are choosing to refuse to help the US government in any way in the search for consumer data. Specifically Apple, obviously, but this case could set the new paradigm. Apple is already working on an OS update that will block even itself from any data access. Others will follow.

It is important to point out at this point that the actual FBI request is flawed severely, and should not be acceded to. I suggest reading this post by Jonathan Zdziarski for the details of why what the FBI requests and the way they want it is probably very dangerous. However, let us pretend for the sake of the privacy vs security concept that what they are requesting was not flawed and disingenuous. What then?

The issue then would be if Apple helps now, they will be expected to help in the future. Other governments in other countries will know the FBI OS version exists and may order Apple to provide it to them too. But Apple and the big tech companies don’t want to help the government at all. They don’t want to have to deal with this issue ever again. One Snowden revelation was enough trama to their public image. Additionally, they don’t want ANY government to ask for their help. Thus, the line in the sand by Apple.

I think that sand has more imagery to use in this public debate. That of burying one’s head in the sand. That is what I think Apple and the tech world is trying to do here. They want out of being involved. But they are involved and always will be involved. Government needs to be a part of wherever the people who elect it are. Today, that includes the interconnected internet of things and phones and PC’s and just about everything else. I like making individuals more responsible for their own lives, but some things we as a nation need to work together and share burdens in a universal and organized manner, and so we make those organizations and keep them regulated and we call the whole bunch of organizations we have done this with our government. And if Apple or any other company thinks they get a free pass to duck civic involvement they are wrong. We accord corporations extensive rights and liberties; the corollary is the responsibility that goes with it.

What if we favor the privacy side? If all communications and digital information becomes locked off from the reach of the law and government as privacy outpaces decryption, will those who won the debate take responsibility for the results? Terrorist attacks coordinated in perfect secrecy? Child pornography shared without significant risk? And when the incidents and the deaths and the tragedies accumulate, people will shout at the agencies they entrusted to fight such things and they will just shrug and say, “you took away our ability to do our job. Too bad.”

Then there is the security side. We could also go and say that, well, gee, that sounds awful, so give these agencies anything they want. And then you have 50 devices you use in your home every day 20 years in the future – and every one of them is monitoring your every waking minute. Clearly that is not good either. Absolutely not, no thanks.

The best solution is somewhere in the middle. A company like Apple should engage with the FBI to bring justice for a killer’s victims. It should also not be subject to fishing expeditions from zealous agents. Apple should not compromise the security of every Apple user to make an agency’s life easier. But it should also not pretend it can say “we’ve made our OS so secure no one can ever find out anything stored on an Apple product. Oh, there’s a nuclear bomb hidden in the city strapped to an iPhone? Let’s put our hands over our ears, la la la, we can’t hear these bad things, la la la…”

I invite you as a reader to do a similar thought experiment. Go ahead and think of the things that a tech company ought to be able to, whether every day or in extremis, with the products it makes. Think of what the FBI ought to be able to access and not access. Consider those lists. Think of where they clash. Think of where they harmonize. Then compare that to the future alternatives outlined above. I would imagine that, like me, you will lean more towards a middle path. I like privacy, but closing the tech world off from government is a bridge too far. When it is suggested that this issue needs to be settled in Congress, well, that sounds about right. The FBI has not helped themselves with the details of their request. In fairness, they seem at a loss for another way to get at the phone data, even though the legal requirements that accompany what they want torpedo its reasonableness. But Apple is not doing itself many favors with an “absolute privacy” stance either. This is a national issue, and needs to be settled by Congress.

US Approach to Syria: Wait, What?

The United States approach to the Syrian conflict is not one that anyone should look back upon with pride. At best, it will be noted that no one has really done much of anything to help end the Syrian civil war, thus spreading the blame, such as it is. Ultimately the right to determine the future of one’s people – even at the cost of war – is fundamental and the right of the Syrian people, but even something as simple as setting up a border security zone near NATO member and aspiring EU member Turkey has yet to be done. And when Turkey does anything, its actions appear to be more about self-interested bombing of the Kurdish PKK than actually helping Syria. Regional support inside Syria has thus far had a decidedly sectarian motivation: Iran and Hezbollah support Assad and Shiites, Saudis and other Sunnis support Sunnis. And when the US made a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons and Assad broke it, Obama happily stepped down on the ladder placed by Mr. Putin and Assad. While the removal of chemical weapons from Syria was a wonderful thing, one is fully justified in questioning if Obama going back on the word of the United States to do so will ultimately do more harm in the world than good.

There have been many proposals over the past years of conflict for America to do something. Arm Syrian rebels. Bomb Assad. Suppress Islamic extremists in Syria. Provide air support. Establish a no-fly zone. Each has been firmly resisted by the White House. In the meantime, Assad has been carrying out a rather good plan. He focused on the Syrian moderates that could potentially receive Western backing while allowing Islamic extremists that would never pose that threat to thrive. Thus, ISIS. Once ISIS became a threat, he has enjoyed the development of a de facto partnership between his regime and the West in which Western powers and their allies bomb Islamic extremist groups (primarily ISIS, but also groups that sometimes cooperate with moderate Syrian rebels against Assad). Assad does his part. The Pentagon has pointed out before that use of American air power against Assad would require the elimination of Syrian air defenses. This was cited as the reason not to bomb Assad’s forces or impose a no-fly zone to prevent him from bombing Syrian rebels and civilians. Of course, when the targets in question are in fact Assad’s enemies, he has no reason to use his missile batteries.

This all makes sense. No necessarily intelligent for those objecting to Assad, but at least things have gone according to some plan. Assad’s plan, but still, it is something that makes sense. Except…

The Pentagon has announced that a vetted force of Syrian rebels has been through a program to train and equip them to fight ISIS, and they will be backed by the US, including receiving US air cover and close air support against ISIS and any group that attacks them, including the forces of the Assad regime. Wait, what? What happened to not risking US planes against Syrian air defenses? Or escalating? Isn’t this inserting a proxy army into Syria? Before the air support announcement it was simply a program to help the rebels, but if we are going to defend them as well, some people will argue this is now a proxy army. To fight ISIS, sure. I think everyone against ISIS can agree that is a good thing. But it is still a major policy shift.

Additionally, if these fighters are actually well trained and well equipped then they should enjoy good success against ISIS with close air support. And then? I rather doubt that they have forsaken their rebellion against Assad. Unless Assad is confident that the New Syrian Forces army will be stalemated against ISIS or be willing to come to terms with him after pushing ISIS out of Syria, he cannot help but see this as the threat he schemed so hard to forestall.

On the other hand, the “New Syrian Forces” army apparently consisted of 60 guys. The target number is 5,000, but obviously they have a long way to go. I am not sure which is more shocking, that the US is suddenly abandoning years of non-interventionist arguments and risking an air war against Assad’s army by supporting a de facto proxy army in Syrian, or that that army is so pathetically small? Sure, call it a cadre, but it still started out with 60 guys. Reports are that this number has been cut in half with their commander captured by al-Nusra, so one must question the training this program is providing. One would think that such a tiny “army” would have focused on securing its own headquarters, knowing that Islamists would consider it a prime target. So perhaps Assad won’t consider this a threat after all.

Perhaps the saddest thing is to imagine if this program was started three or four years ago. Before Syrian moderates had been so heavily targeted and there were still many thousands of moderates without disqualifying exposure to the most effective fight forces in Syria, which are the extremist organizations. Of course, that was before ISIS rose to take over vast parts or Syria and Iraq, and without such a malign organization to compel some sort of action this program would never have made it out of the White House. In its current form, it will be surprising if enough “vetted” Syrians can even be found to make this program accomplish much. Too bad.

Listen to this Speech to Tsipras by MEP Guy Verhofstadt

This speech by Liberal MEP Guy Verhofstadt is an absolute standout, and I encourage everyone interested in what is happening in Greece to listen to it.

Greece’s Ongoing Crisis

Short Observation:

I find it amusing that back in June I was of the opinion that Grexit was going to happen and most felt it would not. Now that the majority of political and economic leaders asked by the media are quick to opine that Grexit is likely to happen, I am more inclined to believe it will not. In any event, the story of the Greek financial crisis has been one of mismanagement and interesting shifts in political opinions and calculations. Thus, nothing should be ruled out. If the Greek government of Alexander Tsipras decides to play hardball and stick to its guns, so to speak, it will find itself with little to show for all the drama the world has seen these past weeks. However, if the proposal expected tomorrow is focused on economic growth and not simply a rejection of austerity and reform, I expect an agreement. My only fear against an agreement at this point is that stupidity could once again rear its head, as it so often does. While I still feel Greece would be better off in the long run with its own currency, I cannot recommend the pain of adjustment that such a move would entail. Especially when other countries are willing to lend one money to reform – assuming a growth-oriented proposal comes out tomorrow. Fingers crossed, eh.

Forget What I Just Said

Greeks have rejected the bailout terms in Sunday’s vote. With the Eurogroup members making clear they are open to continued negotiation, Alex Tsipras may be about to prove wrong those who doubted his approach. It depends on how much the Eurozone and IMF are willing to compromise. The latest proposal from the Greek government agreed to all but three points of the last creditor proposal. The points are trifling things in wider context, so an agreement should be well within reach on Monday. Not to dismiss the possibility of intangibility on both sides, but the probability is for an agreement soon.

Grexit Cancelled

Short Post:

I believe the past week of bank closure and warnings from Eurozone leaders have done the work of convincing the Greek people to vote yes and accept the bailout conditions on the table. Prime Minister Tsipras and his government also seem to be chastened if the latest proposal from them accepting all but a few conditions is any indicator. They clearly see the way the winds are blowing and if the populist alliance loses power, they are unlikely to get it back. However, Germany and other Eurogroup members have made it clear there will be no negotiations until the vote, which is a useful lesson in not making an enemy of your negotiation partner when you still need their help. If Tsipras keeps his word, the Syriza government will resign after the probable yes vote on Sunday, and a new Greek government will accept the bailout conditions. Overall, good drama, bad governing.

Grexit Update

Short Post:

Greece has requested a 29.1 billion euro loan from the European Stability Mechanism. Given that such a loan would probably take more than a month to negotiate, require similar conditions to the ones Greece is currently rejecting, and the debt payment is due today… I think it is safe to call this a red herring.

What is all the more remarkable is how uniformly people across Europe and Greece are against Grexit. Virtually no one outside of members of a few conservative groups have come out for it. The pain Greece would feel from Grexit would be great. And yet, this seems to be where we are headed. I suppose the saying that a committee can make a decision dumber than any of it members comes to mind…

The options should be Greek reform underwritten by billions of euros from the Eurozone, or Greek reform underwritten by Greek hardship. The second gives Greece the right to chose its own system and removes the Europe-wide uncertainty we are experiencing. The former would certainly be more comfortable for Greeks and likely force more reform, if not the right kind of growth-enhancing reform Greece needs. But sometimes the hard road is necessary. Hard roads for hard heads, I suppose. And there are a lot of hard heads currently making decisions in Athens.

On the popular opinion front I am impressed with the level of recognition we are seeing in the European media that the Eurozone loans were largely wasted and will never be fully repaid, but I still feel the train wreck that Alex Tsipras has set in motion will prevail. It sets the agenda, if you will, and leaves a choice of yes or no. That does not leave much room for further negotiation. It leaves none, and based on media reporting Greeks do not sound as worried about the implications of a no vote as they should. What should be a referendum expressing a nation’s rejection of austerity in favor of a more effective prescription (growth-enhancing reforms and investments such as cutting red tape, reducing inefficiencies, and fostering entrepreneurship) is instead an in/out vote on the euro, framed by the Tsipras government as a negotiation tactic. Clearly there is a great deal of foolishness to go around in this saga. At least Grexit will force the hard choices that Tsipras currently rejects making. What will be especially interesting is what happens after the first default. As several economists have pointed out, there is no actual mechanism to force a country out of the euro. Tsipras does not actually want to go. It could get messy.

Grexit: It’s Happening

Short Post:

When one party becomes fed up with the other party in a relationship, cooperation becomes difficult. When said offending party is convinced that he or she need only play a better game of Chicken and the other party will fold, and this is not the case… well, let’s review the game. In Chicken, two cars are driven straight at the each other and the first driver to blink/swerve away is the loser. In this game between the (solvent) nations of the Eurozone and Greece, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has effectively decided that unbolting the steering wheel and tossing it out the window will bring Greece victory over its creditors. While a bold strategy, it unfortunately ignores the reality that what the Eurozone leaders are in fact driving is a train.

Little details like that are important when you play games at this level.

I suppose it is possible that the Greek voters will chose to accept the offered terms on July 5th. However, that does not seem to be the national mood. Everyone wants done with this unpleasant state of austerity and brinkmanship, Eurogroup leaders included. Greece cannot repay the hundreds of billions of euros she owes. While an argument can be made that five years of austerity politics and no growth have done an adequate job of reducing Greek wages for Greece to be economically competitive, a Greece running its own currency would do still better. As long as Greece is in the Euro, it will lack a key fiscal tool its economy needs. Nor is Greece willing to accept control of its public policy in exchange for the massive cash injections it would need to remain in the Eurozone. Unless the unpleasantness of the next week after the June 30th IMF default is enough to make Greeks change their minds or European public opinion leads the Eurogroup to blink, on June 6th Greeks will return to the drachma. For a preview of that, Iceland in 2009 shows how things could look. Or worse – Iceland just owed a lot of money. Greece has more fundamental systemic issues to deal with as well.

I doubt that Greece will exit the EU, though. There is no reason outside of spite for that. Greek should be in the EU. It should never have been in the Eurozone. This will be a harsh corrective, but as the saying goes, there is no time like the present.