"Pittsburgh, Not Paris"

What we have here is a failure to communicate.   Two very different things are happening at once.

Trump spoke announced withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords.  The Accords, and US withdrawal, are all symbolic, just national body language.  The action steps were expressions of intent and goal, not enforceable, and they were agreed to by President Obama by executive authority, not law, so they could be withdrawn from equally simply.

But as this blog has reiterated body language is how the really important communication happens.   It was a big signal of America's role in the world.  It signaled that the USA was a global leader regarding climate, carbon, and the energy future.  It showed global concerns.  It showed our concern for low lying countries where sea levels were a threat.  It signaled a commitment toward fuel efficiency and renewables.

The shove:  body language

In the past week, with his scolding of NATO members for being cheapskates, his shoving of the Montenegro Prime Minister, his separating himself from others by the being lone person to ride in a golf cart, and now the Paris Accord withdrawal Trump sent unmistakable signals: the USA is going to look out for America's interests, not lead global partnerships.   We are first, we are going to take care of ourselves, we are alone and happy to be alone because the old global partnership arrangement disadvantaged us, and that is over.

The buzz around the world confirmed that the message was heard.  Germany, Russia, China, India, France all got the message.   The details do not matter.  The fine print of the Accords don't matter.  It was a big, body-language signal sent and received.  America is charting a new role in the world.

Big power alliances and tilts have life and death consequences, but they tend to show up over ten or twenty years or longer, not immediately.   France and Russia were traditional enemies after Napoleon, and France and the UK had been enemies for centuries, but in the early 20th Century France planted seeds of alliance with both, which set up the warring blocs in World Wars One and Two.  Dynastically and geopolitically there was at least as much reason for Britain to ally with Germany against France and Russia, but Germany took subtle actions that frightened Britain (built some large warships, to send a message that they, too, could afford a navy.)  Britain therefore tilted toward France. Those tilts were subtle when they were made, but by 1916 and 1942 they were matters of life and death.

The alliance ended, Japan responded.

Britain and Japan had been friendly following World War One, but Britain ended its alliance.   Japan realized it had a grave problem: the British navy could stop Japan from getting oil from Dutch Indonesia anytime they wanted.  Japan read the signal:  they could no longer count on a benign Britain; that changed everything.   Japan started a response that led to eventual war with the US over control of the western Pacific.

Centuries of US intervention in Latin America established a pre-disposition for pushback against American influence--"Yankee Go Home"-- which has set the stage for increased Chinese economic influence as they concentrate on economic integration rather than political meddling.   The relationship between the USA and Latin America fifty years from now is being established right now.

Patrick Von Bargen wrote again today, sending links to mainstream news sources that described this overseas trip as one of the great defining moments in American history, a reversal of seventy years of policy and an extraordinary boon to China.  China, not the US, has claimed world leadership.   He says the solution is for Congress to claim back control of foreign policy.  This Congress will not do it, not yet, but Von Bargen says there is a need for the kind of broad public consensus that would come about only after serious debate and sufficient votes to pass a treaty.

Meanwhile, Thad Guyer looks at the politics of it and shows why such a national debate is impossible and unnecessary for Trump.  Trump has won the message war with the people he needs, his rock solid base of 40%, plus Fox News, plus talk radio.   Voters in older manufacturing states love hearing they have an advocate.  Trump says he is bringing jobs back, the old familiar jobs in coal, steel, and assembly of big heavy things. Trump identified an enemy: foreign sponges who laugh at our weakness.  Trump's bullying behavior is not a bug; it is a feature.  Trump pushed aside the nuisances of European multilateralism and did it with body language.

Here is Von Bargen's thought.  The reform is important, but currently impossible.  Von Bargen wants to put the bully in handcuffs, but Trump is popular where it matters, the GOP base voters:   

Patrick Von Bargen

Another Thought on the Trump Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement--By Patrick Von Bargen.

What I have always worried about most in a Trump presidency was his potential conduct or foreign and military affairs, and the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is a prime example of what I feared. 

The writing and repealing of domestic policies is largely conscribed by sets of rules by which Trump must play.  To repeal an act of Congress or get one passed, he has to play by long-established processes: committee hearings, Congressional Budget Office scoring, getting a majority in the House, referring it to the Senate, probably more committee hearings, and then generally surviving the 60-vote filibuster test on the floor.  To enact or repeal a regulation, his agencies have to follow the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires a published draft rule, a significant public comment period, the presentation of evidence to support the rule, and the publication of final rule – that is then subject to review by the courts.

In contrast, there are precious few procedures or rules that limit a president’s actions in the conduct of foreign policy and military affairs.  He can act on his own, generally speaking, and that gives Trump enormous latitude to do what he wants.  In the case of the Paris Agreement, his stated reasons for withdrawal are largely unsupported by any evidence (I will let others speculate on the true reasons why he did withdraw), but there is no set of procedures to require that the presidential decision-making process be more transparent or more thoughtful or slower.   

Members of Congress might want to think now about enacting – as part of must-pass legislation like the appropriations acts or the annual defense bill – requirements that the Administration must follow before final action is taken on a matter of foreign relations.  With respect to abrogating any existing foreign obligation of the United States, for example, the law could require that the Administration make public a tentative decision and the reasoning for such a decision at least 60 days before the decision could be final.  That would allow the Congress and the public time to examine the decision and bring forth expert arguments on whether the decision is in the best interests of the country or not.

                                                           x      x      x     x


Von Bargen speaks of "expert arguments."   The premise of this blog is that voters rejected expert arguments.  Experts gave us job losses, wars in the Middle East, ascendent China, scary North Korea,  concentrated wealth at the top, illegal immigration, and boring hearings on CSPAN.  Heck with experts.

Trump gives us exciting plain talk, and a simple solution:  America first so that America is great again.  Trump says the experts are fake.

Von Bargen's argument is the Article One prescription for foreign policy, but it is no longer the practice and the politics aren't there for it to happen, not yet.


Thad Guyer gives a warning and an alternative view.  Guyer says not to believe what you may be reading in the NY Times or Washington Post about what a disaster the trip was.  Donald Trump was triumphant.  He showed he was OUR bully, OUR advocate, OUR president.

Media Promotes Trump as a Hero to His Base--by Thad Guyer

Thad Guyer

As the media decries Trump’s Climate Accord destruction, gutting Obamacare, NATO bashing, mass deportations, nationalist trade policies, and on and on, one powerful message is sent: Trump delivers on his promises.  To the left it’s a nightmare, to his base, it’s a hero president.  In demeaning Trump’s battle cry that he represents “Pittsburg not Paris”, Democrats and the media are backhandedly giving him giant credit for small-scale promise keeping.

In reality, the Paris Climate Accord was yet another fragile Obama executive order swept away by an easy Trump signature.  Had Obama submitted the Accord to Congress as an enforceable “treaty” in 2015, it would have been dead on arrival. To meet U.S. greenhouse gas reduction goals without Congressional approval, Obama’s EPA issued sweeping regulations that were quickly blocked by the Supreme Court. See, “U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Obama's Clean Power Plan”, Scientific American, (Feb 9, 2016, https://goo.gl/gm5pKY). Obama couldn’t appropriate money, so the U.S. share of the pledged $100 billion yearly in climate aid to poor (and largely corrupt) countries could not be paid. That’s what Trump killed—an unenforceable, judicially crippled, unfunded feel good “I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing” Coca Cola commercial.  Yet, Trump gets outsized credit with his base as the media and Democrats go into full rhetorical meltdown. Trump scores a promise kept. 

Trump is lambasted for unraveling the Western world because he tells Germany and NATO members they are deadbeats for defaulting on dues, and gives tepid support for the mythical “an attack on one is an attack on all” Article V pledge.  Yet the treaty does not require an armed reaction to such attacks, but only “consultation”. NATO’s effectiveness is based on beefy militaries that rich European countries (and mega-rich Germany) don’t have because they spend the money on single payer health care, early retirements and big social safety nets—i.e. things non-elite Americans don’t have. Trump just said “pay up losers”, but the media melts down as if he pulled out of NATO abandoning helpless allies. The result again is undue credit for Trump with his base: promise kept. See, “Europe Reckons With Its Depleted Armies” (WSJ June 1, 2017, https://goo.gl/GO0ZjJ).

Trump pressured the Republican Congress to “repeal and replace” Obamacare in what amounts mostly to a proposed and likely undeliverable giant Medicaid cut to the near-poor.  Obamacare barely reached 50% of the target sign-up for actual “insurance”, and grossly failed in the promised prices for that insurance. The House bill is a watered down version of the Republican “repeal” nightmare, and the Senate will water it down far more, if it does anything at all.  Yet, Democrats and the media treat these legislative non-accomplishments as though Trump is on the verge of destroying a non-existent “healthcare for all”.  His supporters hear “Trump makes herculean efforts to keep another promise”. See, “The GOP is going nowhere on health care”, Wash Post (May 25, 2017, https://goo.gl/hdHCax).

Trump scuttles an unenforceable unfunded climate pledge, insults delinquent Europeans, and huffs and puffs about failing Obamacare, yet is “credited” to his base with dismantling national and global establishments.  Six weeks ago this scoop-obsessed media reported Bannon was finished, yet now claims Bannon is ascendant without the slightest apology for the misreporting. See, “Trump Undercuts Bannon, Whose Job May Be in Danger”, NYT (Apr 12, 2017, https://goo.gl/F1T3MP). “All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance”, said Will Rogers.  The solution, ironically, is taught to us by Donald Trump: Democrats must nominate a candidate who can create and drive a media narrative, not follow it; and churn out lines like “Pittsburg not Paris”.