Reflections on the Future Survival of the Donald Trump Presidency

The Trump presidency has always been a rocky and contentious one, but recent and coming events will try its soul in ways that have not previously been seen.  While repeatedly some speculate that Trump will not make it to the end of his term in 2021, realistically it would take a lot to change for him to be impeached, convicted of a crime, or resign.  What forces and events will impact his presidency in the coming months?

Trump Himself

The Death of President George Herbert Walker Bush points to a significant contrast in personalities and the weakness of Donald Trump as a person.  Bush’s death provides not just a retrospective on the 41st president’s legacy, but it speaks also to the deficiencies of the Trump presidency. 

Bush’s presidency illustrates many legacies–some good  and bad–but psychological temperament and style stand out.  Bush’s career in business and government–especially the latter as CIA director, UN ambassador, member of Congress, and vice-president before becoming president–point to someone with the skills, knowledge, and experience to lead the country.  Bush’s resume was one of understanding how Washington worked. It was also a resume that demonstrated a commitment to diplomacy, knowledge-based decision making, and  a respect for the processes of government.

Bush appointed knowledgeable and competent people to serve him, he approached the world, as in the case of the first Gulf War, with a sense of multilateralism and diplomacy that starkly contrast to what Trump displays.  Additionally, Bush, unlike Trump, was willing to accept responsibility for his actions and he made choices–such as correctly breaking his no new taxes pledge–that demonstrated real leadership and a willingness to compromise.

Whether many realize it or not, the passing of Bush will only highlight so much more the deficiencies of Trump and his presidency. 

Michael Cohen and the Looming Special Prosecutor Report

Perhaps the most significant event affecting the Trump presidency took place last week when Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress.  It was not so much the lying that was the issue, but it was what the lie was about–efforts well into June 2016 to pursue a business deal with Russia.  Why is this significant?

Central to the special prosecutor’s investigation on Russian interference with the 2016 US elections and the role that the Trump campaign had in colluding with them has been ascertaining of motive.  By that, the issue has been to try to explain why Trump and his associates may have wanted to collude with them, or why they seemed even now unwilling to take a hardline with Putin or otherwise condemn the investigation.  The simple answer is that Trump had possible economic ties then and perhaps now with Russia that he did not want to reveal and which may have then and now continue to cloud his judgments as president.

Keep in mind that Trump this week did confirm much of the details of Cohen’s confession about a Russian Trump tower deal.  This fact no longer seems in dispute.  The deal now speaks to how the Trump business empire, his campaign, and now presidency are intertwined, and how there may have been interest or motive to collude with Russians to get a better economic deal for Trump.  There is a possible quid pro quo emerging.  The Russians did not want Clinton elected, Trump wanted a business deal and perhaps a presidency, the art of the deal suggests strike a deal so that everyone gets what they want.  This quid pro quo is perhaps the core of everything which has thus far unfolded, and it goes far beyond accusations that Secretary of State Clinton extended special deals to countries and those who were donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Democratic Control of the House

Democrats taking control of the US House is significant on multiple fronts.  They will pose a policy limit on Trump, they will also be able to do many investigations and perform the oversight of the executive branch and agencies that the Republican House never was willing to do.  But House control by Democrats also closely connects to the special prosecutor’s actions.

One must also read between the lines in the Cohen plea.  It is no surprise that special prosecutor Robert Mueller knows more than the media is reporting.  One can surmise that once the Democrats take control of the House in January Mueller will be able to release a report to them, even if he is fired.  There is little chance that Mueller will indict Trump even if the evidence supports it. Instead, he will follow the March 1, 1974 Justice Department Memorandum which then referred allegations of Nixon’s criminality to the House.  The same will possibly happen here.

One can probably expect the special prosecutor to indict more individuals, especially given Cohen’s plea.  One might also see Trump pardoning many individuals such as Paul Manafort who remain  loyal to him.  But even if all this occurs, the one-two punch of a special prosecutor’s report and Democratic House control will constrain the Trump presidency even more than it has already.

Mounting Personal Lawsuits

Trump faces numerous civil lawsuits in state and federal court that will continue to dog him, and they cannot be halted by presidential pardons or judicial appointments.  These suits involve sexual harassment issues, the Trump Foundation, his business dealings and how they tie into whether he violated the Constitution’s Emolument clause, among others.  President’s cannot issue self-pardons, especially in civil matters, and his authority does not extend to state courts where he cannot control appointments to the federal bench or the Supreme Court.

 
2020 Economic Slowdown

Perhaps the biggest wild card is the economy.  The US is in the middle of one of the longest recoveries and bull markets in history.  But there are many signs that the end is coming.
Internationally, there is a slowing down of world economic growth that will affect US exports.  Also, as a globally interconnected economy, the US will be impacted by what happens elsewhere.  Rising interest rates are impacting an already slowing down housing market that seemed until recently to be overheated. 

The Trump tax cuts, according to analysts, either had little impact on economic growth–especially when most of the tax cuts were taken as profits and not reinvestments–or they have run their course.  The trade wars are beginning to impact many US sectors, including agriculture and the auto industry (as seen by GM’s plans to close facilities), and  the tightening of immigration is leading to labor shortages.

Finally, the Trump administration has failed to address longer term structural problems with the US economy such as the significant racial and economic gaps tht limit opportunities for many, unequal economic development, decaying infrastructure, and an inability to deal with global economic issues such as the increasing competitiveness of China and other major economies. Throw into this also a  growing budget deficit that will force the US to borrow more money at higher interest rates. All told, the recent Wall Street stock jitters highlight what many see as a first or second 2020 economic slowdown that  will impact the presidential race.

But Will the Republicans Abandon Trump?

All of the above forces will serve as manor checks on the remaining Trump presidency.  But does that mean that Republicans in the Senate or his base will abandon him?  As of now there is little sign of that.   It would take a significant combination of the above events for that to happen and for there to be a serious chance of Republicans calling for impeachment, or for there to be support for challenges to Trump were he to run for a second term.  Trump remains more popular among his base than do the rest of the Republicans and until such time as his base leaves him one cannot foresee  this scenario.

The Education of Donald Trump

Slowly but surely the presidency of Donald Trump is being normalized.  By normalized it is

meant that the Trump presidency is increasingly being captured and confined by the institutional powers and realities of American and world politics.  This is something that Steve Bannon feared, and which both Trump’s supporters and distractors should recognize.

There is an old political science and political adage that declares that presidents have more authority and freedom to act internationally than they do domestically.  This is because while the structures of the Constitution–such as checks and balances and separation of powers–limit the domestic power of presidents, they are more free to act internationally, especially with either congressional acquiescence or affirmative grants of power.  This recognition that presidents have more autonomy internationally is rooted in famous Justice Robert Jackson concurrence in the 1952 Supreme Court case Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer.  Yes, in many ways this dicta is correct constitutionally, but it misses something far more powerful when it comes to defining presidential authority; specifically the political and institutional constraints on presidents and how, as Stephen Skowronek argues in Presidential Leadership in Political Time, how history and context defines presidential power.

Back in 2008 during the US presidential elections when lecturing in Europe I was asked how the presidency of Barack Obama would differ from that of George Bush in the area of foreign policy.  I argued that the best predictor of a new president’s foreign policy was to look to his predecessor’s.  Presidents really have far less freedom to depart from the past than many think.  The foreign policy establishment is big and powerful in the US and it largely bipartisan.  Geo-political forces such as  the state of the world economy, the political interests of other nations, and the overall limits on US power and reach too further define what presidents can do.  Yes some may claim some presidents made major shifts–Nixon and China–but the changing geo-political role of China in the world made such a choice inevitable.

Obama proved that.  After making numerous promises, the Obama foreign policy was defined by choices made by Bush. The war on terror continued, troops remained in Afghanistan and Iraq, Gitmo was not closed, drone attacks persisted, and the US did not fundamentally change Middle East politics even after the Arab Spring opening because entrenched support for Israel did not change.  Even Obama’s effort to make an Asian pivot has had mixed results, and he was unsuccessful in making many changes in how to handle Syria and North Korea.  Yes Obama did make some marginal changes, but fundamentally more continuity with Bush than a break.

The same is now true with Trump.   Candidate Trump disagreed with almost all things Obama.  The Iran nuclear deal would be torn up.  Trump pledged a Mexican wall, declare China a currency manipulator and impose tariffs on their products.  NATO was obsolete, the Syrian policy wrong, Putin and Russia a friend,  and global engagement must be retracted to put America first.  Great rhetoric, but the reality is tht slowly the forces that constrained Obama are constraining Trump.  

One now sees a new Trump.  The bombing of Syria, while a departure perhaps from what Obama did, is something that Hillary Clinton and most Republicans and Democrats in Congress support.  It produced a rift with Russia that now leads Trump to muse that perhaps our relations with that country are the worst ever (they are not).    Moreover, despite tough talk, trump’s options with Syria are limited, as they are throughout the Middle East.  Expect no major change in politics toward Egypt and Israel, and do not expect any major break in addressing the Palestinian quest for a homeland.

NATO is good, and China will not be declared a currency manipulator, and, in fact, if they help Trump to contain North Korea’s nuclear program, he will give them a great trade deal.  This statement is recognition that despite the show of force the US is demonstrating in sending ships to North Korea, there is little he can do along to change the politics in that country.  Gitmo will not be closed, the policy toward Cuba not reversed, and even the dropping of MOAB–the mother of all bombs–on Afghanistan–it was a policy in the works under the Obama administration.    Trump’s enhanced deportation policy and extreme vetting looks more and more like a variation of what Obama did–partly courtesy of the federal courts–and there will be no shift in the drone war

Nearly 90 days into the Trump presidency one can already seen more continuity with Obama than breaks.  Yes there are still rough edges, yes there appears to be no Trump grand strategy, but that lives a void to be filled by the bureaucracy and foreign policy establishment.  All this is exacerbated by the fact that Trump has not filled many key State and foreign policy positions, but that only means that the weight of the status quois filling the void.

The real sign of Donald Trump’s education or normalizing was the removal of Steve Bannon from the National Security Council.  Bannon saw the power of the bureaucracy and wanted to smash it.  Instead it smashed him and may soon lead to his ouster from the Trump administration in total.  That was a Trump presidency turning point.

It seemed just a few weeks ago people were talking of a failed Trump presidency, impeachment, or a major international crisis.   Yet increasingly likely is that an incompetent Trump will create the space for the bureaucracy to take over in the realm of foreign policy, for good or bad, and to the fear of delight of his supporters and detractors.

The Weltanschauungen of Obama and Dayton

    The German word “Weltanschauung” refers to a world view. The power of an Weltanschauung was on display last week in two events–one involving President Obama responding to critics of his presidency and specifically his foreign policy, the other in Minnesota Governor  Mark Dayton delivering his State of the State address.  While the media largely covered these stories as political or campaign speeches, they missed the deeper meaning or world views that both contained. 
    First, consider a New York Times article this week where President Obama responds to his critics, especially John McCain, who assail him for his reluctance to use military force to respond to political crises across the world.  McCain and others have criticized Obama for being indecisive in Syria, Iran (and nuclear weapons), the China-Japan dispute, and now again in Ukraine and Russia.  Obama declared: “Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force,” Mr. Obama said, “after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous cost to our troops and to our budget. And what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished?”
    Obama and McCain, as I argued back in 2008 during their presidential contest, are generational politicians, affected by events that helped shape their generation’s view of foreign policy.  For McCain the image of him and his generation is that of 1938–It is British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returning from Munich with an agreement to concede Czechoslovakia to Hitler.  Chamberlain’s speech is infamous, with him declaring “I believe it is peace for our time...”  Soon after this speech Hitler invaded Poland and WW II commenced.
    Chamberlain’s speech is mocked as naivete.  It is a message that many of McCain’s generation took as a message that we should never appease dictators since they cannot be trusted.  All that they understand is force and power.  The message of WW II is that American Military might  succeeded, the failure of Vietnam is that we did not use enough military might, and that the Cold War was won because of American military superiority.  This is the Weltanschauung of McCain.
    Conversely, there is a second video clip–that of US helicopters evacuating the US Embassy  in Saigon in 1975 after the fall of Vietnam.  It is a video about the limits and failures of US military power and about why war and force is not always the answer.  This is the video clip that affected many Baby Boomers and Gen Xers, including Obama.
    To Understand Obama and McCain one needs to understand how appeasement and Saigon  affect their thinking and that of their generation.  Both events are world views, paradigms that define how many people of each of their generations define and interpret the world.    McCain sees Assad  and Putin as Hitlers, negotiation is only appeasement and the only message either of them understand is force.  Obama is thus foolish to think that negotiation with them will solve anything.  Conversely, Obama reacts against war and force, especially unilateral action, seeing it potentially as backfiring.  Obama’s world view is reinforced by Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Both Obama and McCain are blinded by their Weltanschauungen.  Neither can see beyond  their video clips to see when and how negotiation and force (or at least its threat) combine together  to form an effective foreign policy.  Moreover, Obama’s faith in talks and not threats also defines his domestic policy of dealing with Congress–an infinite faith in negotiation and talk.  Obama bristles when negatively compared to Lyndon Johnson, the master president when it comes to strong arming both friends and foes into deals.  Obama is no LBJ and he cannot be one–that is just not his  Weltanschauung about how politics and the world operates.

Mark Dayton’s Minnesota
    Mark Dayton’s State of the State address was widely reported as a campaign speech.  It described what he promised as candidate, what he has done, and what he hopes to do if re-elected.  But reporters missed a deeper meaning.  It was the Weltanschauung of Dayton, a view that defends the role of the state in improving the quality of life of Minnesotans.  To me the most important line in the whole speech came near the beginning.  After describing some of the policies of his administration and the role he sees that they had in job creation, Dayton declares: “
Some people believe there is no role for government in private sector expansion and job creation.  To see that they’re mistaken, just look around Minnesota.”
    Dayton’s speech presented the case for government.  It is the case for how government can make a positive impact in our lives.  It is an ideology that once brought us the Minnesota Miracle, the Good Life of the 1970s that put the state and Governor Anderson on the cover of Time magazine.  His view stands on contrast to his Republican rivals who have a different view.  Kurt Zellers stated his view well: So, that would be my vision, getting government out of the way, off the backs and out of the pockets of all Minnesotans.”  Government does not create jobs, the private sector does.
    Dayton’s speech set up not just a contrast between himself and his opponents but also a contrast between rival views of Minnesota and government.  He sees his Weltanschauung as having state government critical to Minnesota’s good life, while the opponent’s view will not produce the  quality of life Minnesota once knew and which it can have again.  It is a retrospective world view that takes us back in time before Reagan.  For the Republicans, their world view is also retrospective, echoing the spirit of Reagan while perhaps in reality taking us even further back to a pre New Deal era.  Dayton and his Republican opponents have world views that capture their generations, speaking to their visions and beliefs about the worlds they experienced and the one’s they would like to see.
    Weltanschauungen are powerful lenses that define our worlds.  In Obama and Dayton we see great examples of both and how they define their performances and views of the world and state.

An American in Moscow: Reporting on the American Elections from Russia

Moscow State University

Arbat street (Арба́т) Moscow

I file this blog from Moscow, Russia. I am attending a conference entitled “Public Administration in the XXI Century: Traditions and Innovations,” sponsored by the School of Public Administration, Moscow State University, May 29-31 (2012). The conference theme was advice to the new Russian authorities after the election of President Putin. I was asked to give a paper about the American elections and US-Russian elections. My paper was entitled: “The 2012 American Elections and Beyond: Explaining the United States to Russian Authorities.” I have provided an excerpt of the paper below which describes the context of paper along with some of my conclusions.

The conference was very high profile this year. The opening session featured several Russian officials and the US Ambassador to the Russian Federation Michael McFaul. I had a chance to meet him on Tuesday. My talk was the first paper of the conference on Wednesday morning and it was well received with significant discussion. Russians are keenly interested in the USA and out elections.

In case you are wondering, I speak very little Russian and rely on my student interpreters.

This was my fourth trip to Moscow and my third to this conference. I have grown to love the city and its people. I have many former students here and enjoy simply walking the streets, sitting in cafes, or walking the streets with them. I have been to the Kremlin, Red Square, the Bolshoi Theater, and many more places.  I returned yesterday to Arbat street (Арба́т) located in the historic center of Moscow. It is a wonderful street of shops, sidewalk cafes, artists, and just fun.  This is a definite recommendation for anyone. Whatever stereotypes you have of Russia, let me say the people are warm and dear.

Here are my remarks from my paper.

The 2012 American Elections and Beyond: Explaining the United States to Russian Authorities

1. Introduction
   Changing domestic conditions within the Russian Federation present a challenge to its newly elected leaders. These challenges include economic growth and development and responding to changing national demographics and political demands from various constituencies, both old and young. The elections of March 4, 2012 sent important signals to the Russian government regarding the peoples’ expectations for the future, and interpreting and reacting to these electoral demands will be an important task for the authorities.
   
   But the Russian Federation does not live in isolation. It exists in a global economic-political system where it has to react and interact with other international actors such as other states. These states can have a significant impact upon both the international behavior of Russia but also upon domestic politics. For example, a renewed global recession, a decision by Israel to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, or a fluctuation in global energy prices, could impact the domestic Russian economy.
   
   Thus, the 2012 Russian elections are not the only ones the authorities should be concerned about. On 6 November 2012 the United States will be holding national elections. In that election voters will select a new president as well members of it national legislature or Congress. The results of these elections could have a significant impact upon Russia. But for many Russians, the American elections are perplexing (the same may be said for many Americans too!). Even though they do not take place until November 2012, many may wonder who will challenge Barack Obama for president, or what political party will control the Congress, or simply more generally, what the election will mean for the future of the United States and with that, the Russian Federation?
   
   This article briefly describes the current state of American politics and what the 2012 elections may signal for the future of the United States. It seeks to explain the way the American elections operate, the political and economic factors affecting party politics and the elections, and describe possible electoral scenarios and what this might mean for the United States and Russia in 2013 and beyond.  The basic thesis is twofold. First, regardless of the election results in November 2012 there will be significant continuity in American foreign policy, but different election scenarios could produce important changes in American domestic policy that have international consequences, even for Russia. Second, regardless of the election, the United States faces certain long term challenges that will impact it internationally.


2. Possible Political Scenarios
   Barack Obama will not have an easy election. However, polls again suggest that if he were to run against one of the four current Republican presidential candidates, he would win.  But because the economy or gas prices could change quickly, these factors could affect his reelection. The same is true were Israel to bomb Iran. The best prediction right now is the Obama wins reelection.
   
   It seems unlikely at this time that the Democrats will be able to win enough seats to regain control of the House of Representatives. It will probably remain Republican. The partisan or party control of the Senate could rest with either the Republicans or Democrats.
   
   The most likely prediction is that Obama remains president of the United States with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress. This would be divided government. Other scenarios are that Obama wins and the Democrats control one house of Congress and the Republicans the other. The third scenario is Republicans win the presidency and take control of one or both houses of Congress. The least likely scenario is that the Democrats control the presidency and both houses of Congress.
   
   Regardless of whichever of these scenarios occurs, there will be minimal changes in U.S. foreign policy toward Russia. Moreover, unless Republicans win the presidency and both houses of Congress, there will be minimal change in defense and international policy. If Republicans did take control of Congress and the presidency, there might be more willingness to use military options against Syria or to support Israel. Most of the major changes that might occur after the 2012 elections have an impact more on domestic as opposed to foreign policy. However, failure to agree on budget reductions might also impact the US military budget.
   
   
3. Conclusion:  America in 2013 and Beyond
   It is impossible to predict the outcome of the 2012 American elections. Yet regardless of the results, there will be more continuity than change in American foreign policy. There is no expectation that the United States will change its commitments to Israel or Europe. Relations with Russia will not experience a significant change, although with both the Russian and American elections over and campaign rhetoric done, the two countries may be able to work more constructively on common interests, perhaps including Syria and missile defense in Europe. However, if the Republicans do take control of the presidency and Congress, the United States might increase its military budget and take a more militaristic stand on terrorism and reaffirm military commitments in Afghanistan and take a tougher line against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The United States might also take a more aggressive stance on missile defense in Europe.
   
   But the biggest challenges facing the United States are economic. As noted, the country has a very large national debt and budget deficit that needs to be addressed. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest ranking military officer in the United States, describes the national debt of the United States as its “biggest security threat”. Reaching agreement on solutions to address this problem may lead to significant budget and spending cuts, including to the military budget. Moreover, America’s relative economic decline in the world and the potential for China to outpace it as the largest economy in the world may compromise the country’s hegemonic political, military and economic status. In short, whoever takes political power in the United States after the 2012 elections; they will face many challenges to the ability of the country in the long term maintaining its military and political status. Yet despite these challenges, the United States will still remain a major geo-political player that the Russian Federation must address for the foreseeable future.