My Content

Donald Trump

So You Really Want to Defeat the Iranian Regime?

by D.J. McGuire

“A strange game, the only winning move is not to play” – Joshua, War Games

Less than a week after Qasem Soleimani was killed in an American drone attack in Baghdad, the Iranian regime’s military has responded with a dozen-plus missile attacks on two American bases. Thankfully, as of early this morning, there appear to be no American or Iraqi casualties.

That the Khomeinist regime in Tehran is hostile to the United States is not news – and no, said hostility did not start in January 2017. Tehran has been subverting Iraq’s democracy for over a decade. It has played a critical role in Bashar Assad’s bloody repression of the popular uprising in Syria – spearheaded by Soleimani himself before he met his own well-deserved demise. It has continually, and successfully, waylaid attempts by the Lebanese people to escape its influence.

All of these have been swept under the rug by the projectile exchange – including a burgeoning anti-Tehran movement among Iraqi Shiites, as I noted last week. Tehran’s attempt to change the subject worked beautifully. Now, they’re hoping to reap the benefits by relying on outrage at “the Great Satan” to isolated domestic opponents and keep any of the aforementioned anti-Tehran movements from getting more oxygen.

At this moment, Trump can continue military action, or he can move to defeat Tehran in the region. Note, I said or, not and. America can (and should) deliver serious geopolitical defeats to Tehran, but they won’t be delivered via direct military force. What would it entail? As it happens, I provided some of that answer last week:

A broader strategy would have recognized and reached out to the Iraqi protestors (and their counterparts in Iran) and challenged the mullahcracy across all fronts – including Syria and Lebanon. It would go beyond the ridiculous yet stubborn false choice of nothing or full military force. It would work with regional and global allies to press the case for true democracy and the stability that comes with it. It would make clear that the Tehran regime itself is the problem, and that we recognize its behavior is but a feature of its tyranny and the anxiety that always comes from a lack of popular legitimacy.

Contrary to what Tehran would like us to believe, opposition to their influence in Iraq hasn’t gone away. Even as the Shiite parties in the Iraqi parliament voted to demand U.S. troops leave Iraq, the Sunni, Kurdish, and other non-sectarian Shiite parties refused to show up for the vote (Washington Post). Had six more Shiite MPs been unable to attend, the parliament would have lacked a quorum and been unable to vote on anything.

The largest of the parties that did vote for the demand that is led by Muqtada al-Sadr, whose anger at the U.S. is at least matched by his fury at Tehran’s influence in his country. The current Prime Minister there is already on his way out because of the anger of the anti-Tehran Shiite movement. An American president who understood the nuances of the situation would realize we could seriously damage Iran geopolitically without firing a shot.

Meanwhile, we do still have a military presence in eastern Syria, and thus still have an opportunity to build and support Syrians who reject the false choice of Assad or Wahhabism. Of course, that first requires a president who recognizes that to be a false choice. Again, a Syria without Assad would strike a major blow against the Khomeinist regime.

Finally, there is the matter of the dissidents within Iran itself. For all of Trump’s supposed toughness, he has repeatedly insisted he is not looking for regime change in Iran (CNBC). This continues to send the wrong message to the Iranian people – the regime’s first and longest suffering group of victims. Lest we forget, Ronald Reagan gave the Polish Communists fits by supporting the Solidarity movement with words, funds, and communications materials. The Communist regime fell in 1989 without a shot being fired.

The first two objectives, if achieved, would badly defeat the Khomeinist regime; the third would help the Iranian people end it entirely. The problems are these: direct military action against Iran is more likely to damage than to benefit efforts for all three, and Donald Trump has never shown an interest in any of them in the first place.

That is why I have been so critical of his policies in the region. That is why I came up short of three full cheers for the successful dispatching of Soleimani. That butcher’s death would have been very helpful at least regarding the Syria and Iraq objectives, but without said objectives, all we got was a president with a goosed-up ego and the business end of roughly a dozen missiles. That said, it’s not too late to shift gears and “go long” with the aforementioned objectives to actually defeat the Khomeinist regime.

D.J. McGuire – a self-described progressive conservative – has been part of the More Perfect Union Podcast since 2015. He is also a contributor to Bearing Drift.

More Perfect Monologues (Ep. 234)

In this special episode, each of the MPU hosts speaks directly to you about issues that have been on their minds over the Thanksgiving holiday.

Donald Trump Is a Coward

by D.J. McGuire

Over the past year, it has become clear that the Stalinist regime in northern Korea has no intention of slowing – let alone reversing – its build-up of nuclear weapons and missiles. Yet with each act of provocation, Donald Trump responds by backing down or explaining away the danger (Time)…

As Russia continues to grind down Ukraine (Reuters), Trump falls upon the weakened Ukraine to demand it smear the Bidens (CNN)…

As the Chinese Communist regime continues to constrain the people of Hong Kong while slaughtering the people of occupied East Turkestan, Trump refuses to make any criticism (Bloomberg)…

As the anniversary of 9/11 approached, Trump considered a full withdrawal from Afghanistan (New York Times)

Just last week, Trump removed American troops from a position that would have blocked Turkey from invading northeastern Syria …

… and yesterday, when the Turkish invasion was far bloodier and closer to American troops than promised, Trump simply withdrew our troops from northeast Syria entirely (Washington Post).

Much of this could have been chalked up to the president’s narcissism and refusal to acknowledge when things go wrong, or to his long-held isolationist worldview (he’s been like this since the 1980s). More than a few are wondering about Trump’s investments in Turkey – after all, he has himself admitted to “a little conflict of interest” (New York).

There is, however, a simpler explanation: one that explains Trump’s slavish treatment of dictatorships and the continuing retreat of American power under his tenure in office.

I humbly submit before you this proposition: Donald Trump is a coward.

All of his talk about being “tough” is simply that – talk. When push comes to shove, and he has to do more than hire lawyers, lie to the press, or bully elected Republicans, he folds like a cheap suit. Rather than face the consequences of his business mistakes, he sought Russian funding to keep his empire afloat. Rather than acknowledge mistakes and accept the consequences, he lies, sues, and blames others. When he believes he is more powerful, he punches down. But when someone – anyone – appears able to square up against him, he appeases and surrenders, all the while pretending that he isn’t.

As a result, he is manifestly unfit for office. His refusal to acknowledge his own failings has led him to be used by tyrants repeatedly (see above). His psychological need to compensate for that has led to abuses of power and other high crimes.

As for the consequences to the rest of us, Max Boot put it better than I ever could:

Most of the time, the costs of the Trump presidency are inchoate — laws are broken, norms transgressed. But when it came to immigrant children in cages or Kurds in the line of fire, the costs are all too human and horrifying. Are you happy now, Trump supporters?

That last question is not for me to answer, of course, but I also ask it, with an addendum: Did you, Trump supporters, know you were supporting a coward? Is it worth it so long as he is “your” coward?

It will be tempting to presume this is just a debate among Americans – or even just among conservatives. It isn’t. Trump’s cowardice, to the rest of the world, is America’s cowardice. All Americans will share this stain, including brave men and women such as the special forces soldier who told Fox News, “I am ashamed for the first time in my career.”

Americans can wash ourselves clean, but only if we begin by cleansing the office of the presidency. Every day Donald Trump continues in that office incurs greater shame and greater danger. If he survives impeachment and wins re-election, the damage his cowardice will do to American interests, American prestige, and American lives themselves will grow exponentially.

D.J. McGuire – a self-described progressive conservative – has been part of the More Perfect Union Podcast since 2015. He is also a contributor to Bearing Drift.

Donald Trump Should Be Removed From Office

by D.J. McGuire

The opinion expressed in the title of this post is almost certainly a minority position among the Bearing Drift editors and contributors. It is still my view, however. While I have multiple reasons, I will focus on the most recent one to come to light: President Trump’s attempt to strong-arm the popularly elected leader of Ukraine to smear an American political opponent.

That attempt was revealed last week, ironically by the Trump Administration itself, via the Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (via Washington Post). For anyone who grew up in the Tri-State Area (North Jersey, West Connecticut, NYC, Long Island, and Downstate NY) – as Trump did – it reads as a classic Mafioso conversation: Nice country you have there, Volodymyr; be a shame if something happened to it.

What makes this worse – and more obvious – is that something is happening to Ukraine – it’s being invaded by Putinist Russia. Zelensky himself noted his country’s need for military support – right down to the specific missile type he thought would be most helpful for his military. Trump – who had already frozen Congressionally-appropriated aid for Urkaine, over the objections of his own Pentagon (WaPo) – responds with a request for two personal political favors.

The first is a bizarre request to “get to the bottom of” a mythical conspiracy theory involving Ukrainian officials and Democrats supposedly framing his campaign and Putin. David French explains the horror in National Review Online:

In fact, his commitment to this absurd theory is so complete that he apparently tossed aside his advisers’ repeated warnings that it had been debunked and allowed it to taint American diplomacy. This weekend, former Trump homeland-security adviser Thomas Bossert spoke on the record to ABC News and the New York Times and noted that members of the administration had “repeatedly” tried to convince Trump that there was nothing to the notion that a Crowdstrike server in Ukraine held the key to questioning the reality of Russian election interference.

Think of Zelensky’s position. His nation desperately needs American military assistance, and so he makes a direct ask for a key weapons system. Trump responds not with a reasonable request but rather with a question about a conspiracy theory, and then he urges Zelensky to work not just with the proper conduit for investigations of election interference, Attorney General Bill Barr, but also with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani — the same man who Bossert said would “feed” him “all kinds of garbage,” including that conspiracy theory.

Trump was thus placing immense pressure on the government of Ukraine to validate a thoroughly debunked theory, and in so doing to place an even greater strain on American politics.

Amazingly enough, this wasn’t even the worst of the call. After dropping this whopper, Trump went on to smear Joseph Biden – insisting that Biden demanded the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Victor Shokin to stop an investigation into Hunter Biden in 2016. The problems with that assertion are legion and well known: Shokin had stopped probing the owner of the firm for which Biden worked a year prior; the events under investigation were before Hunter Biden came on board; Biden was joined by nearly all the democratic world in demanding Shokin’s ouster (WaPo and Bloomberg).

In other words, the President of the United States used hundreds of millions in taxpayers’ money (in theory in the phone call and in practice by holding up Congressional appropriations) to strong-arm another nation into smearing his political opponents. As Tom Nichols put it (cited by yours truly last week): “If this, in itself, is not impeachable, then the concept has no meaning.”

As if that wasn’t enough, Trump has spent the last week threatening to execute the sources of the information provided in the initial whistleblower complaint on this matter – itself an impeachable offense on multiple fronts, as Nichols noted in USA Today.

I will acknowledge that I am the loudest Trump critic here on Bearing Drift (and, as far as I know, the only conservative Democrat among the editors and contributors). I am also aware that even if the House chooses to impeach the president, the Senate is likely to acquit him. That doesn’t mean the effort shouldn’t be taken. This kind of abuse of power must be resisted with every effort – even if the effort fails.

Donald Trump has attacked – and arguably destroyed – several of the constitutional “guard rails” that were supposed to limit him. He has used a fake national emergency to run roughshod over Congress’ power of the purse. He has defied court orders and Congressional subpoenas on a massive scale. He has used his EPA to cripple states rights in order to score political points against California …

… and now, it has been shown that he has been abusing the power of his office to roll a fellow democracy into smearing his political opponents.

The Founders specifically had behavior like this in mind from a president when they considered the Impeachment and Trial method of removing a president from office. Congress must use the tools given them by the Constitution to remove the threat of further abuses of power. This can only be done by impeaching, convicting, and removing Donald Trump.

D.J. McGuire – a self-described progressive conservative – has been part of the More Perfect Union Podcast since 2015. He is also a contributor to Bearing Drift.

Will Ukraine Shift the Never-Trump Ground on Impeachment?

by D.J. McGuire

House Democrats deciding whether or not to support impeaching President Trump have faced numerous pressures in either direction – usually, folks to their left all but demand, while those to their right forswear it.

One of the loudest impeachment-is-a-bad-idea factions has been the slowly dwindling but still influential group known as Never Trump Conservatives (of which, full disclosure, I still consider myself to be one). Then the Ukraine story hit (Washington Post):

A whistleblower complaint about President Trump made by an intelligence official centers on Ukraine, according to two people familiar with the matter, which has set off a struggle between Congress and the executive branch.

The complaint involved communications with a foreign leader and a “promise” that Trump made, which was so alarming that a U.S. intelligence official who had worked at the White House went to the inspector general of the intelligence community, two former U.S. officials said.

Two and a half weeks before the complaint was filed, Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a comedian and political newcomer who was elected in a landslide in May.

That call is already under investigation by House Democrats who are examining whether Trump and his attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani sought to manipulate the Ukrainian government into helping Trump’s reelection campaign.

In particular, there was concern about whether or not Trump tried to pressure Zelensky to rehash old and disproven charges surrounding the family of Joe Biden. That later became the explicit accusation (WaPo).

President Trump pressed the leader of Ukraine to investigate the son of former vice president Joe Biden in a call between the two leaders that is at the center of an extraordinary whistleblower complaint, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Trump used the July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to pressure the recently elected leader to pursue an investigation that Trump thought would deliver potential political dirt on one of his possible challengers in 2020, the people said.

The descriptions of the call provide the clearest indication to date that Trump sought to use the influence of his office to prod the leader of a country seeking American financial and diplomatic support to provide material that could aid the president’s reelection.

On one level, this was just one more log for the Trumpster-fire, as Trump supporters and opponents took their usual positions…

…except for Never Trump Conservatives, some of whom took the additional step of moving past their previous skepticism about impeachment.

For example, Max Boot (WaPo)…

Until now, I have been willing to accede to the judgment of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to go slow on impeachment proceedings that are unpopular with voters and could imperil the Democratic majority. But if the new scandal involving President Trump and Ukraine is as bad as it seems — and that is, of course, a very big if at this early stage — the House will have no choice but to impeach, consequences be damned.

…George Conway (WaPo)…

To borrow John Dean’s haunting Watergate-era metaphor once again, there is a cancer on the presidency, and cancers, if not removed, only grow. Congress bears the duty to use the tools provided by the Constitution to remove that cancer now, before it’s too late. As Elbridge Gerry put it at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, “A good magistrate will not fear [impeachments]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” By now, Congress should know which one Trump is.

…Tom Nichols (The Atlantic)…

If this, in itself, is not impeachable, then the concept has no meaning. Trump’s grubby commandeering of the presidency’s fearsome and nearly uncheckable powers in foreign policy for his own ends is a gross abuse of power and an affront both to our constitutional order and to the integrity of our elections.

…and none other than Rick Wilson himself, in reaction to ex-Congressman David Jolly’s recommendation for an impeachment inquiry: “We’re in new territory, and this is clearly the only way to move this past the WH/Barr/DNI obstruction.”

I am not going to say we should expect impeachment to happen tomorrow. The Ukraine story is evolving; people are reacting; and where predictions are concerned, I’m terrible.

am saying that one of the redoubts of the impeachment-is-mad argument appears to be coming down. Democrats in the House who have not yet decided to support it are less likely to hear Wilson et al warn against it. Indeed, they might hear encouragement for it from their right.

That makes impeachment more likely today than it was yesterday.

D.J. McGuire – a self-described progressive conservative – has been part of the More Perfect Union Podcast since 2015. He is also a contributor to Bearing Drift.

There They Go Again: Fed Cuts Rates When It Shouldn’t Have

by D.J. McGuire

Well, they didn’t listen to me – or at least most of them didn’t.

Beset by admittedly strong recession concerns but unable to acknowledge loose monetary policy won’t solve the problem, the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee reduced its interest rate again, less than two months after the previous cut (CNBC):

Following its two-day policy meeting, the central bank announced that it would take down its benchmark overnight lending rate to a target range of 1.75 percent to 2 percent. That comes nearly two months after the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee went ahead with its first cut in 11 years.

Major U.S. stock exchanges dropped after the decision was announced.

Note that markets fell afterwards. Why? Because they wanted even deeper cuts. The president echoed the madness.

President Donald Trump, who has called Fed policymakers “boneheads” for not cutting rates enough, tore into Wednesday’s decision, saying Chairman Jay Powell and his colleagues have “no ‘guts.” Trump says the Fed is risking U.S. competitiveness by keeping rates substantially higher than most of the rest of the developed world.

Keep in mind what “competitiveness” means here: Trump is mad at the damaging effects of his trade wars on the American economy. Combined with the end of the Keynesian sugar-high from an ill-conceived tax cut, this has led to serious economic blowback. Trump wants loose money to fix all of that …

… except that it can’t. Expansionary monetary policy can’t fix the higher prices that come from the tariffs (in fact, if it does anything, it will make them worse). It can’t address the fact that the supposedly supply-side tax cuts of 2017 were designed so poorly that no supply-side effect came from them (the tax code is more complex, and the expiration dates on tax reductions created too much uncertainty).

Meanwhile, excessively low interest rates exacerbate the asset bubble and distort risk signals, favoring more risky assets over safer ones. In case you don’t take my word for that, here’s Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren, one of the two FOMC members who opposed both rate cuts:

Additional monetary stimulus is not needed for an economy where labor markets are already tight, and risks further inflating the prices of risky assets and encouraging households and firms to take on too much leverage. While risks clearly exist related to trade and geopolitical concerns, lowering rates to address uncertainty is not costless.

Among the data points Rosengren cites to back him up is a bar chart tracking risky debts via a debt-to-earnings ratio. The ratio is higher than it was in 2007. Lowering rates will simply make that problem worse.

In short, the Fed has – once again – provided the wrong medicine to the American economy, the wisdom of its dissenters (Rosengren and KC President Ester George) notwithstanding. When the recession comes (and this week’s action will not slow it down), it will be much worse than it should be.

D.J. McGuire – a self-described progressive conservative – has been part of the More Perfect Union Podcast since 2015. He is also a contributor to Bearing Drift.

Did the New York Times Just Tilt the Election Scales to the Democrats?

by D.J. McGuire

In an attempt to review a book on Justice Brett Kavanaugh by two of its reporters, The New York Times put up an excerpt that caused quite an uproar – including an omission that left Kavanaugh defenders livid. Margaret Sullivan had the details in the Washington Post.

The book authors, Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, wrote that they had found significant corroboration that Deborah Ramirez — a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s — had experienced an incident in which the future Supreme Court justice thrust his penis at her at a college party.

And they wrote that they had uncovered an account of a different incident involving Kavanaugh. Another classmate — now the prominent lawyer Max Stier — said he saw Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different party, where friends of his “pushed his penis into the hands of a female student.”

What wasn’t in the excerpt was a crucial piece of information: that the woman supposedly involved in the Stier-relayed incident wouldn’t corroborate the story, or be interviewed, and that her friends said she didn’t remember it.


Much of the right-side of Twitter (from Joe Scarborough out) pounced. Trump himself called on Kavanaugh to launch a “liable” suit. More importantly, even a large chunk of the Never-Trump-Conservative movement came to the Justice’s defense, bringing back the spirit of 2018 (of sorts) …

… and that’s where the NYT, by mistake, may have made it much easier for the Democrats to win next year.

It’s no secret that the Republicans have been spinning the Senate results in 2018 as a success. Trump in particular remembers the upper house gains fondly. That narrative relies on the initial Kavanaugh battle re-energizing the Republican base and sparking a rural red wave. Republicans would naturally hope a similar environment in  2020 could provide similar Senate gains (and re-elect the president).

There’s only one problem with that: the state-by-state 2018 results wouldn’t help the GOP in 2020.

By nearly all accounts, the presidential election next year will be decided by six states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Five of those states had Senate elections in 2018. Democrats won four of them. The GOP won Florida by a whisker and North Carolina had no Senate race (although the two parties largely split the House vote). If the Democratic nominee for president repeats that performance, they’ll end up with 290 electoral votes and victory.

Not even the GOP Senate is certain. If the Democrats can win the Senate seats in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina, they can lose Alabama and still reach a 50-50 tie (broken by a Democratic Vice President, in theory). Senate Republicans in 2018 had two things going for them – a cycle heavy in pro-Trump states and a number of first term incumbents who needed Barack Obama’s coattails to win in 2012. In 2020, the map is less friendly, and it will be GOP first-termers who needed the anti-Obama backlash of 2014 to win on the hot seat.

Still, a re-run of the mythical 2018 victories will appeal to Trump and GOP leadership (but I repeat myself). If the NYT error convinces Trump et al to make 2020 a Kavanaugh sequel, it will likely be to the Democrats’ benefit.

D.J. McGuire – a self-described progressive conservative – has been part of the More Perfect Union Podcast since 2015. He is also a contributor to Bearing Drift.

Michael Moore Is Hysterical (And Not In The Funny Way)

by Kevin Kelton

A lot of Democrats are getting downright hysterical about 2020 – but not in the hysterically funny sense. Democrats seem to be losing their collective minds with angst over the upcoming presidential election, none more so than filmmaker Michael Moore.

I’m not a Moore basher; I love his work and agree with him on many policy positions. But his appearance on “Real Time with Bill Maher” this past week rang the looney bell several times.

First, the director of “Capitalism: A Love Story” claimed that even though Elizabeth Warren has called herself a capitalist on many occasions, Moore believes he knows better. “I’m not so sure she believes that,” Moore told Maher.

Excuse me, Mr. Moore, but I think the former Harvard Law professor and two-term United States senator knows what “capitalism” means and knows what she stands for. You may not want her to be known as a capitalist. But let’s allow the esteemed senator from Massachusetts to define her political and economic philosophies without your help.

Then Moore proclaimed that people who have immigrated to the United States from European Socialist nations only came here “because they want to go to Disneyland.” Moore may have been trying to be funny, but he seems seriously incapable of acknowledging any of the many weaknesses of modern-day Democratic Socialism that have driven millions of people away from its home nations.

However, his biggest faux pas was his analysis of the 2020 electorate. Moore said – with zero evidence to back it up – that “if the  election were held tonight, Trump would win.” And Moore made this baseless claim just moments after he said, “with all the polls that we’ve seen, there’s at least four or five of the candidates (who) would beat Trump” and then went on to emphatically state, “Bill, we’re going to beat Trump. We’re going to beat Trump.”

Does anyone else see a slight disconnect in Moore’s thinking on this point?

But let’s look at his dire warning and see how it compares to reality. I cannot tell you what will happen in November 2020. No one has a crystal ball. But I know this: if there had been a national presidential election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden this past Friday, September 13, 2019, Biden would have won easily, and probably in a landslide.

Oh, I can hear the Biden Bashers now: “That’s what you said about Hillary!”

What the skeptics don’t get is that today is a very different world than November 2016. First off, the November 2016 polls were much closer than they are today, and the trend was toward Trump.

Today, Biden and the other top-tier Democratic candidates are solidly ahead both nationally and in swing state pollsincluding even Texas!, and the electorate is trending away from Trump. Let me repeat, I am not saying what would or could happen 13 months from now. I’m talking about if the election were held today. You don’t run 12-16 points ahead in national polls and then lose the election that same day. I don’t care how skeptical you are about the science of polling. A 12-16 point lead doesn’t dissipate in 24 hours.

But the greater point is, there is an hysteria setting into Democrats’ mindset that is destructive to the task at hand. Moore’s “Chicken Little” performance on Real Time is emblematic of that.

Let’s all calm down, take a few breaths and refocus, keeping these salient points in mind:

  • Donald Trump is not undefeatable. He won one general election and it was a fluke of history, a conflagration of multiple unanticipated events (the Comey letter, Russian election interference, the DNC emails, increased third party voting, decreased black turnout) that are highly unlikely to be replicated in 2020. The blue wave of 2018 really did happen, and the national electorate will be just as motivated to vote against Trumpism next year as they were last year. Maybe more.
  • Joe Biden is not Hillary Clinton. The claim that Biden is Hillary2.0 is a meaningless talking point. He (or whoever gets the Democratic nomination) will win or lose on their own merits. Just because neither of them are extreme leftists does not make them the same person with the same political fate.
  • There is no perfect candidate to go up agains Donald Trump. They all come with inherent faults and built-in risks. Bernie would be labeled a crazy socialist. Pete would be hit for being too inexperienced and unsympathetic to the concerns of blacks. Liz has about a dozen red flares that could explode over Pennsylvania and the rustbelt. And, no, Harris fans, a black female candidate is not assured of replicating the Obama coalition, as the polls have clearly demonstrated. We simply have to chose from those candidates we have. Stop looking for the next FDR or JFK or Barack Obama. They are not in this field.
  • Don’t take Trump’s bait every time he tweets something controversial. He wants you to be running around with your hair on fire. He laughs when you do that. So stop giving him the attention he so craves. Who cares what he says or tweets? He’s a fluke of history, and he will be a relic of history in 16 months.
  • Obviously, we should not be overconfident to the point of complacency. We must motivate voters to the polls and make sure our turnout is high. But we also don’t want to do anything that could significantly boost Trump’s turnout. That means not running on issues like single-payer Medicare For All, decriminalizing illegal immigration, or gun confiscation that might spike conservative turnout in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, or Wisconsin. Remember, adding millions of progressive votes in California, New York, Colorado, and Massachusetts gets us nothing… not a single extra electoral college vote! Regardless of how well single-payer Medicare For All may play in decidedly blue states, if polling tells us it could cost us even a single swing state, it’s a high-risk gamble we should not take. There is no margin for error in Pennsylvania or the rest of the rustbelt. Don’t run a fearful campaign, but don’t run a dumb one, either.
  • Trump is not “staying forever” if he loses the election. This is a sack of mass hysteria nonsense people like Bill Maher keep repeating and spreading ad nauseam. If a Democrat, say Elizabeth Warren, wins the electoral college vote and is certified the winner in the United States Congress, she will be sworn in on 01/20/2021 by Chief Justice John Roberts and at that moment she will become President of the United States. It won’t matter if Donald J. Trump refuses to leave the White House. A street address does not dictate who controls the levers of power in this country. President Warren (or Buttigieg/Sanders/Biden/whoever) will be certified and widely accepted as the new president, and any public tantrums Trump may throw will not undo that reality. The military will not stay with him, and neither will the FBI, CIA, Congress, Supreme Court, or anyone else sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States. So stop worrying. The worst that can happen would be an elongated reality show in which Trump would finally and humiliatingly be voted off the island. Trust me, Donald Trump is not overthrowing the constitution or the tens of millions of people sworn to uphold it.

Lastly, if you listen to nothing else in this article, take this one piece of advice. No one can predict with any certainty what will happen in November 2020, but we all have lives to lead until then, and going bonkers on a daily basis for the next 13 months will not help you or our cause. Turn off the news (and even “Real Time”), enjoy your life, vote in your state primary, and then work passionately and positively to elect whoever becomes the Democratic nominee. That is all you need to do to defeat Trump. Everything else is aggravation and excess. Enjoy life. Politics will work themselves out.

I cannot promise Trump will lose his bid for re-election. But I can promise that if you don’t calm down and approach this election rationally, you will lose your mind before a single vote is cast.


Kevin Kelton is a former SNL writer and a cohost of The More Perfect Union podcast.


Spy Games (Ep. 222)


This episode covers the fallout from the burned U.S. spy who had to be extracted from Russia, how the Trump administration is dangerously rewriting the norms of federal agency independence, and what to look for (and not look for) in the upcoming Democratic primary debate.

If Trump’s Cancelled Meeting with the Taliban Makes You Angry…

by D.J. McGuire

If you saw the President tweet about his plans to meet with the Taliban at Camp David and it angered you, that meant you recognized the Taliban as the enemy. That’s a good thing.

If you marveled at his naiveté in thinking we could make peace with the shelterers and allies of al Qaeda, than you and I are in agreement here. That’s a good thing.

If you responded to this by insisting – to yourself or to anyone else – “But the Taliban are terrorists” – then you recognize that they must be defeated, period. That is a good thing.

If you accept the logical conclusion that we cannot truly negotiate with the Taliban and expect anything but a complete de facto surrender to them, then you recognize we need to recommit to defeating them and bringing Afghanistan permanently into the democratic world. That isn’t simple, but it is a good thing.

If you recognize that we need to bring Afghanistan permanently into the democratic world, then you recognize we need to acknowledge our mistakes (letting Hamid Karzai steal the 2009 election is one of the big political ones). That, too, is a good thing.

If you recognize that the Taliban are a tough enemy, then you accept that the war against them must continue – its current length notwithstanding – until they are defeated. That may be difficult to accept, but it is also a good thing.

If, by contrast, you cannot bring yourself to accept that commitment – if you’d rather the war just “end” – then Trump inviting the Taliban to Washington to sign a “peace” deal is the inevitable alternative. That is not a good thing.

If, however, you are ready to accept the hard truth from which your outrage flows – that defeating the Taliban and liberating Afghanistan are right and necessary things to do – then you must ensure both the president and his would-be Democratic challengers know it, too. You must make clear that any promise to “end the war” without winning it is, in fact, losing it. You must remind Biden, Sanders, Warren, et al, that any claim to be the antithesis of Donald Trump is badly undermined if they agree with his isolationism in Afghanistan, and that would not be a good thing.

If you really, truly, are upset by what the president nearly did, you will want to make sure neither he nor his successor try to do it again, for that would not be a good thing at all.

If that anger, disappointment, and frustration are still with you, then you know the war in Afghanistan must be won rather than ended. That won’t be easy, but it is a good thing.

D.J. McGuire – a self-described progressive conservative – has been part of the More Perfect Union Podcast since 2015. He is also a contributor to Bearing Drift.

Another Premature Withdrawal Leads to Another Terrorist Rebound

by D.J. McGuire

“Stop us if this sounds familiar” – Ed Morrisey, Hot Air

That particular quote begins Morrisey’s examination of a new report from the lead inspector general for Operation Inherent Resolve (the name for the anti-Daesh operation in the nations of Syria and Iraq). Here’s the rest of the opening paragraph.

The US declares victory and goes home after a massive victory against an insurgency, only to see it metastasize in the vacuum left by our departure. That’s how we got ISIS in the first place after Barack Obama’s pullout from Iraq in 2011, and according to a new Pentagon report, that’s how we’re getting them again.

In this case, “again” refers to Syria, where “(t)he reduction of US forces has decreased the support available for Syrian partner forces at a time when their forces need more training and equipping to respond to the ISIS resurgence” (Glenn Fine, Principal Deputy IG, via CNN).

In other words, while Trump was declaring victory (as late as last month) and continuing a withdrawal that was so wrong-headed it cost him Jim Mattis as Secretary of Defense, Daesh “solidified its insurgent capabilities in Iraq, and was re-surging in Syria.”

Or, as Morrisey put it (emphasis in original): “There’s not much to say other than we told you so. (Or even more accurately, James Mattis told Trump so.)” For what it’s worth, similar sentiments came from yours truly back then.

Today, our allies in Syria are facing a “re-surging” Daesh and a triumphalists Ba’athist tyranny while Donald Trump pulls our forces out and pretends he’s won.

For those unaware, this was the issue that led me to vote for Clinton, the first – and to date, still only – vote for a Democratic presidential nominee I ever cast. I was convinced Trump would abandon the Syria people.

No one told me how bad being right would feel.

D.J. McGuire – a self-described progressive conservative – has been part of the More Perfect Union Podcast since 2015. He is also a contributor to Bearing Drift.

Confronting an Icon’s Flaw

by D.J. McGuire

The day after the United Nations General Assembly voted to declare the Chinese Communist regime to be the rightful holder of the Chinese seat at the United Nations (removing the Chiang Kai-shek regime of Taiwan), President Richard Nixon took a call from Ronald Reagan, then Governor of California. Tim Naftali reported on a particularly odious piece of the call in The Atlantic.

The day after the United Nations voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China, then–California Governor Ronald Reagan phoned President Richard Nixon at the White House and vented his frustration at the delegates who had sided against the United States. “Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,” Reagan said. “Yeah,” Nixon interjected. Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” Nixon gave a huge laugh.

The particular reference was aimed at a delegation from Tanzania which, according to Naftali, “started dancing in the General Assembly” when the body voted as it did.

When an icon is revealed to be flawed – and, being human, we’re all flawed – the first instinct is to ignore it, then to minimize it. For those of us who see Ronald Reagan as a successful president – and I still do – these are mistakes which would compound on Reagan’s 1971 error. There are three reasons in particular.

First, minimization makes no sense. Unless there is another recording somewhere in which Reagan called Pierre Trudeau a “frog” or aimed ethnic epithets at the European nations that also enabled the CCP to seize the seat (Naftali notes that Nixon’s own State Department pointed the finger at Britain and France), then this particular criticism was not only racist, but particularly racist toward Africans. It is an odious statement and should be called as such. It is a stain on Reagan’s legacy and a sign of his flaws.

Secondly, it can inform on Reagan’s foreign policy – and not in a good way. Reagan’s anti-Communism galvanized the democratic world and enabled the Cold War to be won with minimal actual conflict. That doesn’t mean it was mistake-free. The Reagan Administration badly underestimated Nelson Mandela – who, contrary to the panicked assertions of the apartheid regime in South Africa, marginalized and effectively froze out the South African Communists. Historians need to examine – if they haven’t already – how much of our Angola policy could have been different had we paid more attention on the ground, rather than look to the first anti-Communist with South African backing. Is it possible a different anti-Communist leader could have been more effective in transitioning to a political battle in the 1990s, rather than maintaining the civil war?

Such lack of attention is obvious in other Cold War flashpoints outside of Europe. In Afghanistan, the reliance on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia propped up unreliable faction leaders such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar rather than Ahmed Shah Massoud. The former enabled the Taliban to take power and al-Qaeda to establish a presence there in the 1990s. The latter fought the Taliban-al Qaeda alliance until the day they killed him – September 9, 2001. Reagan was out of office when Nicaragua was able to vote out Manuel Ortega, but his successor largely abandoned Central America to its own devices, allowing Ortega to retake power in 2006. He is still there as Nicaragua slides into tyranny and destabilizes its neighbors again.

We now know that democracy and freedom were just as important to anti-Communists in Africa, in Asia, and in Latin America as in Europe. Many knew then, too – including folks in the Reagan Administration like Jeane Kirkpatrick and Elliot Abrams. This 1971 conversation should force us to ask how much that was reflected at the top.

Finally, it has vital importance to the arguments we have today. For nearly all Never Trump conservatives (including myself), Reagan is the political model of what Trump is not: optimistic rather than cynical, opposed to tyranny rather than admiring it, welcoming to immigrants rather than fearful of them. This incident, even from 48 years away, gives supporters of Trump the chance to claim a piece of Reagan’s mantle. The more conservatives outside of Trump’s orbit refuse to condemn the racist statement, the easier that claim will be.

For all of Ronald Reagan’s successes, whitewashing his mistakes is never worth it. That Trump backers could use his predecessor’s private racist statement to validate his own public racist statements and policies simply makes the price of ignoring the past all the more unacceptable.

D.J. McGuire – a self-described progressive conservative – has been part of the More Perfect Union Podcast since 2015. He is also a contributor to Bearing Drift.