The dominant political news of the week was the dismissal of Lt. Michael Flynn (ret.), President Trump’s first National Security Advisor. His abrupt departure brought back a few issues that should have been answered during the fall campaign, but weren’t. In a multi-part series, I’ll be examining the following:
1. Were the leaks that led to Flynn’s ouster justified? Are leaks ever justified?
2. Is the President’s Russophilia damaging to his Presidency and the nation writ large?
3. Should career civil servants place greater emphasis on conscience or policy?
It’s been a nagging question for something like 18 months now: what is the relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin? The questions first arose during the campaign, when Trump seemed to be sending public love notes to Putin. The questions reappeared after President Trump, rather than accept that Putin is a diabolical dictator, preferred to argue that the US government operates in the same nefarious manner as the Russian. And they roared into prominence this week, with the revelations about former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn’s tête-à-tête with the Russian ambassador and the leaks about the Trump campaign’s contacts with the Russian SVR.
The President’s conduct towards Russia and Vladimir Putin certainly engender some questions.
1. Why is Trump so reluctant to condemn Russia and Vladimir Putin in particular?
I’ve given this some thought, and I have a sort of good news/bad news idea about the subject. The good news: I do not think President Trump is being blackmailed by, or in any other way criminally beholden to the Russian Federation. Do I think he has business interests there? It would be ludicrous to think a man who once held a beauty pageant in Moscow and has at least minority interests in resort properties around the world doesn’t have some sort of similar arrangements in Russia. Do I think those holdings are substantial enough that the Russian government could leverage them to their advantage? No. Not even someone as vain as Donald Trump would be willingly complicit in treason over a few hotel rooms. If he is, then we’ve plumbed new depths of depravity.
I suspect the reason is simpler, but far more disturbing. Based on public statements going back nearly 30 years, I believe our President wants to be Vladimir Putin. He admires and respects the way Putin handles things, with an autocratic iron fist wrapped in a cement glove. Killing political opponents? Perfectly fine (remember, Trump once praised the Chinese for running down dissenters with tanks). Invading foreign countries and plundering them? It’s cool – just keep the oil. Operating above, below and in conflict with established law? From abusing eminent domain in the 1980’s to his “so-called judges” remarks in the last few weeks, Trump has consistently demonstrated that he thinks laws apply to everyone BUT him. Even Stephen Miller’s outburst last Sunday (“the President’s authority will not be questioned!”) demonstrates a very totalitarian view of government, the kind of government prevented by our Constitution. That he’s constrained by the Constitution and its provisions against executive overreach galls Trump (and, sadly, his supporters) to no end. Putin has no such constraints and when he did, he was able to just ignore them until the Russian constitution was changed.
2. Why was his campaign in “constant” contact with Russian officials?
This is, of course, still unproven. However, the fact is that there is an investigation into the likelihood of contact between the SVR and the Make America Great Again campaign, and that it’s been partially leaked, suggest there’s more than just smoke to this question. As for why it would have occurred, see the above conclusion that Donald J. Trump stars in “Crazy about Vladdy.” The one thing that nobody seems to recall is that Vladimir Putin actually won a democratic election in 2000, on a platform eerily similar to the one Donald Trump ran on in 2016. If the person you venerate over all others might be in a position to offer advice and encouragement, any of us would seek their counsel.
3. Why didn’t Trump tell Vice President Pence that former national security adviser Mike Flynn wasn’t being honest about the nature of his conversations with the Russian ambassador?
3a. Why wasn’t Flynn fired the second Trump learned he was deceiving the vice president?
Once again, if the President is attempting to model his administration on that of his favorite Russian dictator, neither of these questions is difficult to answer. In fact, they both have the same answer: Flynn was ordered to lie to Pence by Trump. As to why Trump would have Pence lied to, there are two reasons. The first is that Trump was certainly aware that having Flynn reach out to the Russian ambassador regarding the latest Obama sanctions was a clear violation of the Logan Act. He also knows that despite decades in public office, nobody has ever accused Mike Pence of malfeasance or corruption. He knew then that Pence’s reaction would, at best, be another tepid endorsement of the President’s orders and Flynn’s duplicity in carrying them out.
The other thing to remember on this point is that part of Vlad’s governing style, and one that has thus far proven true of Trump’s, is a dedication to the idea of equal but rival teams in open competition. Pence is the de facto leader of the ‘establishment’ group. Flynn was very much part of the ‘apocalyptic’ group. In effect, Trump was already pitting those two groups against each other before he even took office. That he waited nearly 72 hours before firing Flynn after the first revelations about that phone call, and Flynn’s duplicity towards Pence, looks for all the world like Trump was waiting to see if there would be any blow-back on Pence. After all, Trump is also aware that of all the people in his administration, the two most admired on Capitol Hill are Mike Pence and James Mattis. Pence, being his Constitutionally appointed successor should he be unable to complete his term, therefore presents a clear and pressing danger. The fact that unlike Obama with Joe Biden, or George HW Bush with Dan Qualyle, his VP is considered one of the few sane members of his inner circle poses the threat, essentially giving cover to Democrats if they decide to implement clause 4 of the 25th Amendment.
The larger question that needs to be answered is: does the President’s infatuation with Russian style politics and deep admiration of authoritarianism endanger the nation? So far, the answer is not in any lasting way. The Constitution was written by men who were intimately familiar with being ruled by a tyrant and designed to ensure that no one person could unilaterally impose his will on the government. As they intended, the structures they built have soundly defeated Trump’s every move to emulate his idol’s governing style, much to his chagrin. The separation of powers works.
That is not to say Trump cannot inflict serious damage, at least on the United States and the western democracies strategic position. But dealing a fatal blow to the Constitution does appear to be beyond his scope.
There are other questions, but we don’t have enough information to speculate on the answers. For instance, who in the campaign was speaking to the Russians? Are they now in the administration? Were any of those people responsible for the leaks to the Washington Post that started this ball of wax? The President could, of course, put an end to all this by issuing a statement that answers those questions.
But then again, we know Trump isn’t about to do that. He’ll continue his current method of dealing with this crisis, attacking the press for asking the questions and attacking the leaks themselves. Because, after all, that’s what Vladimir would do.
Noob (n.): A person who attempts to make themselves look good in society by demonstrating a desirable trait, despite not actually possessing that trait. (var. n00b)
Hello, everyone. Meet Bill Oesterle. Who is Bill Oesterle, you might ask? Chances are, if you aren’t a resident of Indiana, you have no idea who he is. But you’ve probably heard of the company he founded, Angie’s List. And if you do live in Indiana, you know that Bill Oesterle has been a behind-the-scenes political mover for the past twenty years. While his name didn’t come to national prominence during the recent hullaboo over Indiana’s RFRC dust-up, he certainly injected his company into the fray in a big way.
Oesterle made headlines on March 28 when he announced that Angie’s List, the company he founded and of which he was CEO, was “rethinking” a proposed $40 million expansion of the company’s Indianapolis headquarters, potentially nixing 1100 jobs, because of the controversial law. Democrats seized upon the news with fervor, saying the RFRC was costing the city and state good jobs. Bill Oesterle was an instant hero to the left: here was a big-company CEO putting his money in concert with his beliefs and punishing the evil-doers on the right. That Oesterle has been a player in the state’s Republican Party didn’t hurt, either. After all, if a good, stalwart Republican was denouncing the RFRC with such vehemency, what the hell was the law doing, anyway?
And now, as Paul Harvey used to say, for the rest of the story.
Angie’s List may be a behemoth in Indianapolis and Bill Oesterle may be big-time player in Indiana politics, but Angie’s List is a company in serious trouble. Since peaking at around $28 two years ago, share prices have plummeted to around $6 today. Under Oesterle’s leadership, the company has gone 241 consecutive quarters without turning a profit. The company’s investors are beyond nervous. Google and Amazon are eating away at Angie’s List market share, forcing Angie to rethink their entire subscription-based strategy.
As for that $40 million expansion? 3 1/2 weeks before Oesterle made his announcement about shelving the project, the Indianapolis City Council and Indiana legislature shelved it for him. Seems the state and city have a few reservations and weren’t quite so sure it was a good deal for the taxpayers. Why? The city and state were expected to pick up $25 million of the $40 million project. It was, like most of Oesterle’s business deals, good for Angie’s List and good for Bill Oesterle, but kind of meh for an investor. The city council has essentially told Angie, show us a the money – and for a company that’s only expecting $30 million in revenue this year, that’s a tall order.
All of this duplicity finally caught up to Oesterle on Monday. He resigned/was forced out as CEO of the company he founded, replaced with…nobody. I guess the investors simply got tired of paying the guy a salary north of $800,000 for no return on their investment.
Not too worry about him, though. Oesterle has already got his next gig lined up, or at least he hopes he does. 11 years ago he chaired former Indiana governor Mitch Daniel’s campaign. Three years ago, he raised over $1.3 million for Mike Pence’s campaign. Now, he plans on running his own campaign for governor.
So, connect the dots. Your job is in trouble; deep, deep trouble. You need an escape hatch. Wait – GOT IT! The only thing, other than legally scamming people out of money, you’ve ever done well is politics. Problem is, a friend currently occupies the only job you want. But friends, shmends. He just signed a law that is causing the latest teapot tempest. If you can take advantage of that, do something to knock him down a few rungs while building yourself up as the sainted avenger – GOT IT! That expansion deal that went south. Shout from the rooftops with all your might that your company is killing the deal because your friend is an evil man. Play it up. And when the axe falls, tell everyone that you’ll make a fine governor, the perfect man to “begin the long process of repairing” the state’s image.
Congratulations, Bill. For playing the hero when the reality is you’re one of the most cowardly CEOs and politicians of the past decade, you’ve won the Noob of the Month award.