Isn’t Trump just proposing “dialogue” with foreign leaders?
And isn’t that good?
I’m so confused.
I thought the left believed in keeping the lines of communication open.
I thought the left believed in dialogue with everyone, even dictators, even enemies.
Actually, I thought the left didn’t believe in the word “enemies,” except to refer to the right.
So why are they so critical of Trump’s willingness to dialogue with dictators such as North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and the Phillipines’ Duterte?
All of these are rhetorical questions, of course. The answer is because he’s Trump and not Obama:
Asked in a 2007 Democratic debate whether he’d be willing to meet “without precondition” with “the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea,” Obama said this:
“I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them–which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration– is ridiculous.” He noted that Ronald Reagan met with Soviet leaders while calling theirs an evil empire.
I have no idea what would happen, good or bad, if Trump were to talk to these dictators. But his suggestion that it might be good idea is hardly preposterous, nor is it evil. Is it narcissistically deluded? I might have said so a year ago. But although I’m still very skeptical, at this point I wouldn’t be too critical of Trump for having confidence in his abilities to schmooze and to persuade, and to accomplish things the world at large pooh-poohs him for thinking he can manage.
Trump knows that attention is a narcotic for Kim Jong Un.
He also knows that it hurts Kim’s prestige — a bit — if he, Kim, is perceived as running away from Trump
President Xi is getting ticked WRT Kim.
Beijing’s thinking — all these decades — has been that North Korea is to remain a vassal state.
Atomics + Iran ==> Kim is no longer a vassal.
The dynamic is compelling Tokyo and Seoul to nuke up.
THAT’S what’s gotten Xi’s attention.
THAAD apparently is able to monitor Red China’s equivalent of Edwards Air Force Base.
It also largely nullifies Beijing’s threat to Tokyo, too.
I strongly suspect that Trump is going to keep Kim on a war-footing so long that North Korea cracks up.
Beijing senses such a possibility.
So Beijing is freaking out.
I think that talks are a good thing and I don’t have a problem with hosting some of these leaders at Trump’s place in Florida or where ever. If it gets them to relax, then that is a good thing.
It can give Trump some bargaining points. He can compare what they say to him vs what they say to their people. Any contradiction and their life gets a bit harder.
Said it before, I recall when the Self Proclaimed Incredibly Wonderful (SPEW) kept saying, “We can at least TALK to the Chinese, can’t we? What’s wrong with that?”
All depends.
About your rhetorical opening: Don’t almost all Democrats have law school training? And what do lawyers do? Tort lawyers make arguments. The arguments don’t have to be particularly good or self consistent; just good enough to dupe one or two out of the 12. Those percentages are also in the range of the movement necessary to win elections.
As an example, consider star defense attny “Racehorse” Haynes from 1978 on how to defend the owner of a dog that bit someone. It’s a bit long; look it up if you wish.
TommyJay:
Most lawyers are Democrats, but most Democrats are not lawyers.
Dialog with the criminally inclined only works out when the certainty of losing is firmly established within the mind of the barbarian. The Politburo was open to dialog after Reagan had 1) jump started the American economy, 2) started the rebuilding of our military and 3) then announced Star Wars. The barbaric only respect a stronger opponent, all others are considered prey. Predators do not negotiate with prey, they consume prey.
If Trump said water was wet, the NYTimes would write a full page editorial tomorrow describing all the ways that statement is wrong.
‘Actually, I thought the left didn’t believe in the word “enemies,” except to refer to the right.’
Reminds me of a wonderful remark by Sheryl Crow regarding the Iraq War: “The way to avoid war is not to have enemies.”
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/10/26/vladimir-putins-christian-faith-in-his-own-words/
Instead of listening to fake news and MSewerM propaganda that people eat up like honey… I go to the source, even if it is a translated one.
Neo,
Hypocrisy and different weights and measures isn’t a problem with just one political party.
To turn this around, how come all the Republicans who blasted Obama when he said he’d meet with disreputable/crazy foreign leaders are OK with Trump saying it?
Remember how BAD it was to “legitimize” people like the Kims of NK?
I never respected Democrats. I used to think Republicans were more or less on the side of the angels. That illusion is now, thankfully blown up as well.
If the point of your post we that the left is hypocritical, fine. But so is the right (about this very issue!). Because our political culture just sucks right now.
Bill,
My initial reaction to Trump’s pronouncement was not positive, perceiving it to be a mistaken attempt to show Kim that Trump is a reasonable man, a useless, counter-productive ploy since Kim is NOT a reasonable manchild.
After further reflection, it acts to serve two purposes; as a preemptive neutering of predictable Democrat accusations of Trump being a warmonger and, as a message to China that Trump is trying to avoid conflict. So if America is forced to act, it was reluctantly and left with no other choice.
I can’t imagine that Trump is optimistic that Kim will respond positively to Trump’s overture.
Why, oh WHY, would you think the left believes in any of those things.
Sam L:
Are you familiar with sarcasm?
That is, however, what the left’s rhetoric states.
Bill:
Actually, I don’t think anyone here would say Republicans can’t be hypocrites at times. Of course they can.
However, the example you cite isn’t really one of those times, for a simple reason: Obama had a history of conceding to those dictators/enemies. There was no reason to trust his firmness or his ability to defend the interests of the US in those negotiations. Say what you will about Trump, but he’s more likely to be both firm and to defend US interests. So his talking to enemies doesn’t have at all the same risks (it may have different ones, of course).
“Say what you will about Trump, but he’s more likely to be both firm and to defend US interests. So his talking to enemies doesn’t have at all the same risks (it may have different ones, of course).”
Yes, of course it will. I didn’t vote for Trump because I see him as a huge risk, particularly in the area of foreign policy. Nothing that’s happened so far has changed my mind on that. We’re still really early on. Hopefully I’m wrong.
But I am not going to give Republicans a pass on this. Yes, of course, Republicans will trust the person they voted for more than the guy they didn’t vote for, but many of the reasons given against Obama meeting with Kim or the leaders of Iran or etc were based (supposedly) on diplomatic principles.
Let me give you another hypothetical. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the AHCA will fail in the senate. It is also not out of the realm of possibility that Trump himself will begin arguing for a single payer, universal health care system (does anyone really think this is implausible based on his past statements?)
Whether that would actually fly, I don’t know. But on queue, Democrats will be condemning it and a bunch of Republicans (including many on these comments threads) will sell out their principles yet again in support of it. Because Trump.
The rhetoric on the right more and more is the same: the Democrats are hypocritics (duh, but so are Republicans), the MSM is biased and unfair (duly noted, for the 1,000,000th time). But for a long time, Republicans at least appeared to hold to some basic principles that were fairly ironclad. They held at least slightly higher ground. I think that since 2012 and the forces unleashed by Romney’s loss that dynamic has shifted. We are all Alinskyites now, and what’s important is not doing what’s best or what’s right, but rather (to quote our leader) “winning”, which is defined as whatever increases one party’s raw power or decreases the other party’s same.
That’s not what I call winning, but I’m in a minority.
Bill:
I believe that if Trump were to advocate single-payer the GOP would turn on him. Not for everything, but for that. It wouldn’t fly. For that reason I don’t see him advocating it to them in any real and serious way. I agree that he leans towards it himself; I mentioned that in some posts during the campaign.
Neo
We’ll see. Hopefully you’re right.