Tim Talks Politics - The Weekly Brief, June 28, 2019
The Weekly Brief - June 28, 2019
Readddyyy…. fight!
The back to back debates of the massive field of Democratic aspirants to the party’s presidential nomination absolutely dominated by news feeds this week, so why wouldn’t I include some comment on it?
First, the summary: the women had a good night. In the first debate, Elizabeth Warren seemed to hold sway, but Tulsi Gabbard shot to the fore of public attention after making some very astute and pathos-laden comments on (refreshingly) foreign policy. In the second debate, Kamala Harris seems to have had the breakout moment at the expense of nominal front runner Joe Biden. What does that mean? Nothing much at this point.
Second, the consequences: There’s still a long race to run here, so the objectives in this debate were to not screw up if you were in the top five, and to make it to the next debate if you weren’t. Other than that, talk of winners and losers is minimally helpful. However, a more subtle set of consequences should be considered: How what was said in the debates could influence a general election.
Third, the big question: How far to the left will the Democrats go? Presidential elections often are determined by the fabled “political center.” So, the big question is how far left has that “mainstream” moved? Based on the debates, many of the candidates seem to think it’s shifted decisively left.
Finally, a complaint: with the welcome exception of Rep. Gabbard’s comments on America’s war in Afghanistan, foreign policy was largely missing from the debates as the candidates opted to stump for pet policy projects. However, considering the very active foreign policy week the Trump administration has had (more on that below), the external challenges America faces, and the Executive’s constitutional mandate to run the country’s foreign policy, the lack of such a discussion in the primaries is odd to say the least.
Back to the Art of the Deal?
North Korea and Iran were temporarily back burnered as the Trump administration hosted the long anticipated Bahrain economic summit that unrolled the opening phase of its equally anticipated and ballyhooed Middle East peace/economic plan.
Given the lack of outreach to Palestinian leadership in the formation of the plan, it’s no surprise that it was met with initial rejection by Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority. However, Brookings indicates that with a plan for economic development now on the table, the PA will have to do more than merely reject, but seize the opportunity to present a counter plan.
This may be what the Trump administration and the Arab nations also in attendance are hoping for as a way of jumpstarting dialog around something all parties can agree on: improving the economic well being of Palestinians.
The peace plan is almost entirely focused on improving the economic picture for the Palestinians, but in a conflict that is undeniably dominated by political considerations, an economic plan may be a hard sell to more than just the PA. Still, the angled as opposed to head on approach the Trump administration has taken to this intractable crisis is worth considering.
Responding to Iran
Last week, we were left in doubt in terms of the American response to Iranian actions in the Persian Gulf. The President had called off a military strike, but to what end?
That picture became more clear this week as the Trump administration hit the Iranian Supreme Leader with additional sanctions, and announced that countermeasures had been taken against Iran via cyberattacks.
Though the Iranian leaders appeared to laugh off the fresh sanctions and even declared them a diplomacy deal breaker, it’s interesting to note that the Gulf has been surprisingly quiet this week with the IRGC (whom the Trump administration has declared a terrorist group, remember) more or less taking military confrontation off the table. Developments like this are leading AEI to suggest that the Trump approach to Iran may be working and that there may be a more subtle game afoot.
It may be too early to take a victory lap though because one thing still remains uncertain: Just what is Iran’s end game here?
G20 ... hit or miss?
This weekend, Japan will host the G20 summit, a meeting of heads of state from the 20 largest economies in the world. It’s a fresh opportunity for China and America to meet on (mostly) neutral ground to discuss alleviating and/or ending their trade war.
Beyond that, though, the summit takes place against a rather paradoxical backdrop. On the one hand, the global economy and the people who work in are significantly wealthier from 50 years ago. On the other hand, the China-America trade war could upend a significant portion of that progress as it extends beyond trade to technology.
The Atlantic believes that Trump is likely to get the worst of whatever negotiations take place at the summit, but historian Niall Ferguson argues that underestimating Trump’s approach to foreign policy is premature.
The beckoning border
Immigration factored large in the Democratic debates this week after the viral and tragic photo of a drowned father and child at the border underscored the undeniable crisis there.
The inability of either party to continue to posture in the face of such evident suffering seems to have temporarily broken through gridlock as House Speaker Pelosi has rounded up enough votes to pass a Senate bill authorizing emergency funding for the border.
The move, however, was met with disdain from the progressive backbenchers in the House, and will likely influence how the Democrats talk about immigration within their unfolding primaries. Politico suggests such a siloed debate could bode ill in a general election.
The forgotten war weighs in
The simmering war in Afghanistan once again broke into the American consciousness via the announcement of the death of 2 American soldiers in a Taliban ambush. Details are not very clear, but the attack underscores the Taliban’s continuing presence in Afghanistan as the US continues to work on a negotiated settlement to end the war.
SCOTUS and SQUO (status quo)
Last week, I noted that the Supreme Court had a couple a major cases on its docket that could play a role in the 2020 election: gerrymandering and a census questions on citizenship. The court handed down rulings on both issues this week to decidedly mixed reviews.
On gerrymandering, the court made a narrow 5-4 decision that more or less set gerrymandering outside judicial oversight… for now. The decision, and the response, both largely break along ideological lines. However, what both conservatives and liberals seem to agree on is that gerrymandering is a problem that does not speak well of American democracy. The difference of opinion largely seems to be on solutions and which institutions should be involved.
On the citizenship question on the census, the Court roundly rebuked the Trump administration’s push to add such a question by sending the case back down to lower courts. It doesn’t solve every problem facing the counting of America’s vast population, but at least it blocks what could have introduced a significant data skew.
NOW it’s “Mueller Time”.... ?
Something to look forward to (?) next month: Robert Mueller will be offering public testimony to Congress.