Month: April 2019

The phrase “drain the swamp” has been around for a while but it’s current usage probably began in 1976 when Ronald Reagan, who was then unsuccessfully running for the Republican Party’s nomination, said, “Sometimes, when you are up to your elbows in alligators, it is hard to remember your original objective was to drain the swamp. I think we can drain the swamp. We can take on the Washington system. We can change from remote control to personal control of our lives.” In 2000, Reform Party presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan revived the phrase, and Nancy Pelosi used it as a theme for her successful bid to take back control of the House of Representatives in the 2006 midterms. Donald Trump made great use of it in his 2016 campaign.

There’s no hard and fast definition of the term. To me, the most glaring examples of swamp-like behavior are seen when retired or ousted lawmakers take positions at lobbying firms or governmental regulators take jobs at companies they were responsible for overseeing.  This is sometimes referred to as the “rotating” or “revolving door.”  The basic problem is that well-connected and wealthy people are able to game the system by usurping the legislative role or capturing the regulatory scheme.  The losers are generally everyone else who doesn’t have special access or high-priced lobbyists.

We can’t ignore campaign finance law and practice, however, when we’re talking about gaming the system.  Lawmakers are required to raise unholy amounts of money, and that makes them solicitous of big donors who can help cut down on the amount of time they have to spend dialing for dollars.  To see an example of how this works, we need no look no further than the freshly minted new chairman of the Senate Banking Committee:

Got $15,000? If so, Sen. Mike Crapo’s campaign invites you and a guest to a dinner with Senate banking subcommittee chairmen.

$10,000 raised or donated gets you one seat. But giving or raising either sum allows access to a good time with Crapo, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, including fishing on the Chesapeake Bay or a fall retreat at the posh Greenbrier Hotel in West Virginia.

“The campaign is quite literally selling access in exchange for money,” said Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at the Campaign Legal Center, a group that advocates for reducing the influence of money in politics.

Neither he nor Paul Ryan, vice president, policy & litigation at Common Cause, saw anything in the Crapo invitation that violates any law, as neither the senator nor anyone else is expressly offering to write or support legislation.

“Clearly the intent is selling access and influence. What it is not doing is selling action,” Ryan said.

But, Fischer added, “Mike Crapo’s constituents are not going to have this opportunity to go fishing with him unless they give him $15,000.”

If you read that carefully, you’ll notice that Sen. Crapo isn’t just selling access to himself, but to all the subcommittee chairs of the Banking Committee. If you’re keeping track, that would include Republicans Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, David Perdue of Georgia and Ben Sasse of Nebraska. McClatchy reporters asked all five for comment and the only response they got was from Sen. Sasse’s office which simply told them to talk to Crapo. Here’s what is for sale:

 

The Crapo invitation was disclosed by Political Party Time, a nonpartisan group that tracks fundraising events.

The invitation gives no details about the subcommittee chairmen dinners, other than it’s to take place in Washington this summer. The fishing trip is scheduled for April 28-29, and the Greenbrier retreat is scheduled for Nov. 15-16.

The invitation offers three packages. Gold members, who give or raise $15,000, can get the chairmen’s dinner, a Washington reception with Crapo, one retreat, “a lunch of dinner of your choice” and two tickets to the “Annual Idaho Potato Fest.”

The silver package, for those giving or raising $10,000, offers much of the same, but only one ticket to the chairmen’s dinner and the potato fest.

A bronze plan, available to those who give or raise $5,000, entitles a person to one of the retreats, the Crapo Washington reception, and the choice of a lunch or the potato fest.

As the article dryly notes, the Banking Committee is extraordinary powerful and “oversees the Federal Reserve Board, writes laws governing financial institution and securities policy and is supposed to be a watchdog and advocate for consumers.” Yet, I doubt anyone who could be defined as a mere “consumer” will be ponying up five, ten or fifteen grand to fund Senator Crapo’s leadership PAC. According to the Federal Election Committee, the maximum allowable contribution to a candidate is $2,700 per election, and $5,000 per calendar year to their Political Action Committee, so I’m not sure how the silver and gold packages are even legal.

One way to drain this kind of swamp to vote the people out of office, but it’s pretty hard to vote Republicans out of office in Idaho, South Carolina, Arkansas and Nebraska. In any case, while this may be a particularly egregious example, this isn’t a strictly partisan problem, Democrats have to raise insane amounts of cash, too,

The single biggest barrier to solving this problem is that every single person in Congress (with the occasional exception of interim replacements in the Senate) has just won an election under the system that exists.  They know how to succeed as politicians in this system so their incentive to change it is muted. They almost universally despise the amount and time and effort it takes to raise money, and many don’t like the compromises they have to make to get it, but most would prefer to keep what works for them if making reforms would potentially make it easier from them to be challenged.

This is one reason why presidential leadership can be critical to any real reform. President Trump wanted to drain the swamp, but I very much doubt he’ll see this article about the Republican senators on the Banking Committee and have anything negative to say about their fundraising effort.

OK I’m going to go way off the reservation here and make some far out predictions based only on the most tenuous of currently observable facts. I do so because I can’t see the Brexit conundrum being resolved within the available universe of conventional solutions, and because I think the retribution of “the people” on those who authored their misfortune will be terrible.

It’s one thing punishing a government for poor performance during an economic downturn which may be little more that a reflection of a global business cycle. But its quite another when your government is almost the sole author of your misfortune, and not only that, has caused you to become the laughing stock of the “civilised” world. People have their pride, too, you know, and hate being made to look foolish.
My first few predictions will be somewhat mundane, but then the fun begins:

1. The May Corbyn talks have already fulfilled their primary function of providing May with a pretext for seeking a further A. 50 extension and giving Corbyn an opportunity to look relatively measured, reasonable, and statesmanlike by comparison. It is in neither leader’s interest to actually come to an agreement, and hardly anyone expects or wants that anyway.
2. Despite Macron playing bad cop the EU will agree May’s request for an extension, but with stern words about coming up with a workable plan, participating fully in the EP elections, and accepting a duty of “sincere cooperation” for as long as the UK remains a member. [Read: Keep Rees-Mogg off our lawn].
3. UKIP and Farage’s new Brexit party will campaign enthusiastically in the EP elections as hating on the EU is their whole raison d’être. As before, no one will quite know where all their funding comes from. The Conservatives will be forced to follow suit despite fearing annihilation and wishing they could pretend the EP elections weren’t really happening and claiming they don’t matter anyway.
4. Corbyn will find it increasingly difficult to ride both Leave and Remain horses at once and will point to the EP elections as an opportunity to “let the people have their say” and that Labour would abide by the result. However as the campaign progresses Labour edges ever closer to the Remain/second referendum position for fear of leaking votes to the Lib Dems and Change UK: The Independent Group party
5. The EP elections will also be a lifeline for the new Change UK: The Independent Group party as most of their members face defeat in a FPTP single seat constituency general election and can only hope to cling on to a political career as MEPs. If elected they will seek to join the EPP so they can claim to be the only UK party in the only European Party grouping which matters much, these days.
6. Both Sinn Fein and the DUP will lose votes in the N. Ireland EP election with the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP in a dogfight for the final seat. The sky will fall in if nationalists win 2 out of the three seats for the first time ever.
7. Tory voters simply won’t show up for the EP elections claiming they are irrelevant as the UK is leaving the EU sooner or later anyway. Other important “influencers” will try to organise a boycott of the elections but will be confounded when the overall poll ends up being almost as high as the 2016 referendum or at least much higher than any previous EP election in the UK.
8. The Tories are decimated receiving c. 15% of the vote, outvoted by both the Lib Dems and UKIP/Brexit party combined. Leave supporting parties are defeated by Remain supporting parties (if you include Labour) by a margin of 2:1. If the poll is high enough this would equate to a victory for Remain by 20 Million votes to 10 Million, eclipsing the 17 Million people who voted Leave in the 2016 referendum. All attempts to proclaim the vote as “meaningless” prove futile in the circumstances.
9. May finally resigns as Tory Leader paving the way for a Tory Leadership election. Jeremy Hunt [“The EU is like the Soviet Union”] wins the Tory Parliamentary party leadership nomination process with Boris Johnson just about obtaining 2nd. place. Although it might be a struggle to imagine such a thing, Hunt is regarded as the “May Lite” candidate, a Remainer at heart who dutifully followed the dictates of “the people”.
10. Dispensing with such nonsense the Tory Party membership (average age 70+, heavily infiltrated by ex UKIP members) proclaim Boris Johnson as their new leader. Unfortunately some Tory MPs fail to reconcile themselves to this prospect and do not vote for Boris as Prime Minister denying him a majority in the House of Commons. When he fails to win a vote for Prime Minister a second time, May (still acting Prime Minister) has no option but to call a general election.
11. Johnson campaigns for a “no deal” Brexit with Labour promising to attempt to “reform” the EU before considering the matter of Brexit again. The Tories are decimated in the general election with Corbyn becoming Prime Minister and the Lib Dems becoming the largest opposition party. The SNP clean up in Scotland, Plaid Cymru do well in Wales, but the DUP retain most of their seats. (Nothing ever changes in Northern Ireland, see: Winston Churchill’s “the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone”).
12. Prime Minister Corbyn more or less forgets the Brexit debacle ever happened and focuses on a domestic policy agenda. Proposals for EU reform are tabled in Brussels but are politely ignored or paid lip service to while the real business of the EU – screwing the little guy – is pursued with renewed vigour. Ireland finds there is a price to be paid for all that EU solidarity and reluctantly agrees some corporate tax reforms including a digital tax on the on-line e-commerce giants.

And then they all lived happily ever after…

I often see a statistic cited that only two percent of the American population is Jewish, and it kind of startles me every time I encounter it because I’ve spent most of my life living in New Jersey (6.1 percent), Los Angeles (4.6 percent) and the Philadelphia area (4.8 percent) where the Jewish population makes up a far higher percentage. When I was going to college in Kalamazoo, Michigan, I got to experience the part of America where Jews are virtually absent, and I saw how that lack of direct contact changed people’s attitudes. I met people in Kalamazoo who watched Seinfeld religiously and still somehow thought all Jews were Hasidic in appearance. The students I interacted with didn’t so much have negative views towards Jews as gigantic misperceptions about them. If I traveled to the eastern part of the state around Detroit, these misperceptions were less common.

In fact, if you live in or around Detroit (1.7 percent), you might think that Michigan is one of a small handful of states where the Jewish population is large enough to have a significant impact on the presidential election. But keep in mind that the Jewish Virtual Library says that Jews constitute only 0.9 percent of Michigan’s population.

Of course, every vote counts equally, so if the Republicans make inroads with the Jewish portion of the electorate, it would be beneficial and potentially decisive in any contested state.

“The Jewish vote will remain and largely loyal Democratic vote because of domestic issues largely, but if there was ever a cycle where Republicans could make inroads it is this cycle,” said Ari Fleischer, a former George W. Bush White House press secretary who now serves as an RJC board member. “If you accept that there are sizeable Jewish populations in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, [and] Michigan, the Jewish vote – if we can make additional inroads – can be very helpful in putting you over the top. The White House knows that.”

As I noted, Michigan’s Jewish population is actually below the national average of two percent. Ohio is well-below the average at 1.3 percent, placing it behind Arizona (1.5 percent). Pennsylvania (2.3 percent) is a better target. Even Florida, despite its reputation as a haven for Jewish retirees, is only at three percent.

It’s hard to move an appreciable number of votes by tinkering with your performance with such a small group of people. The Republicans have been getting between 19 percent (in 2000) and 30 percent of the Jewish vote (in 2012) in recent elections. In 2016, Trump is reported to have carried 24 percent. In Florida, where there are about 630,000 Jewish citizens, many of whom are two young to vote or unregistered, you might be able to net a good catch of votes by moving the needle ten or fifteen percent in your favor. This is less true in other states.

If all 200,000 Pennsylvanian Jews cast a vote and they went for the Democrat 70-30, the Democrat would net 80,000 votes. If the GOP could bring that margin down to 60-40, it would be worth 40,000 votes for the Republicans. In reality, though, the Jewish vote in Pennsylvania will not come close to 200,000 voters, and so the net gain would be substantially less. Given that Donald Trump won Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes, he can use any advantage he can get, and that’s why we’re seeing this:

Republicans are planning a multimillion-dollar offensive aimed at fracturing the Democratic Party’s decades-long stranglehold on the Jewish vote. 

Spearheading the push is the Republican Jewish Coalition, which receives substantial funding from casino mogul and GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson. On Friday morning, the group’s board members — many of them prominent Republican Party donors — gathered in a conference room at Adelson’s Venetian resort, where they were briefed on plans for a $10 million-plus blitz geared toward attracting Jewish support for President Donald Trump. The investment, people familiar with the early discussions say, will far surpass what the group has spent in past presidential elections.

Realistically, there is not a whole lot of potential in this project in terms of total votes, but it makes sense to make the effort anyway. I don’t have a good sense of how Trump is doing with Jewish voters right now. He’s certainly alienated a lot of American Jews on social policy, civil rights, and his attitude toward ethnic and religious minorities. He’s also won the support of some Jews who cheer his generally pro-Israel stances. It’s hard to say how Trump’s gains and losses will shake out, although one problem he has is that there is a growing split between American and Israeli Jews over how the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is perceived. Complicating the picture, divisions among Democrats about how to treat Israel’s government have become more visible this year, which could cause some rightward drift in the Jewish electorate.

One thing to remember is that Romney won 30 percent of the Jewish vote and lost the election badly while Trump won less than one in four Jewish votes and squeaked out an Electoral College win. Trump must improve his performance to even reach Romney’s level. Another obstacle for Trump is that the most conservative Jewish population is concentrated in New York and New Jersey, two states that are almost definitely out of his reach, so he could improve his overall performance with Jews and still do worse with them in the states he’s targeting.

That’s actually what I see as the most likely result of this effort. Trump might get a lot more votes out of Brooklyn and a lot fewer in the Detroit and Philadelphia metro areas, making the whole enterprise self-defeating from a Electoral College point of view.

I awakened early today…as I do most days in these perilous times…and lay in bed considering the state of affairs here.

My own state and that of my country.

Eventually a familiar phrase popped into my mind. “The quality of mercy is not strained.” (From Portia’s speech in Shakespeare’s The Merchant Of Venice.)

And I suddenly realized why I am so taken with Beto O’Rourke’s candidacy and approach.

Of all of the candidates, he most clearly illustrates the unstrained quality of mercy. Almost all of the others are hectoring, accusing, pleading, arguing and in general playing by the mainstream political book of the day. (I except Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Buttigieg from that rubric, but so far I don’t believe that either has even the slightest chance of winning.)

O’Rourke is not playing that game.

Read Portia’s speech. It has to do with rule. Merciful rule…something that has been sorely lacking in this country (and by extension in this world) for most of human memory.

Portia, in William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, Act 4, Scene 1:

The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The thronèd monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptered sway.
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute to God Himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.

Whoever eventually wins the Democratic nomination in 2020 is more than likely going to be going up against the totally merciless Donald Trump…the Ming the Merciless of our time. Trump rules by “dread and fear” alone. Fear is his scepter, his only weapon. He has no other.

The coming presidential election is going to be about this and this alone.

Will we as a people continue to rule…and be ruled…by fear or will the higher power of unstrained mercy win the day?

‘Tis a valid question.

Shakespeare knew.

In Beto O’Rourke’s interactions wth people…and especially in his statements about immigration…his natural tendency towards unstrained mercy shines!!!

He is the anti-Trump, and that…not all of the “issues” as covered in the various partisan media, not the covetous dreams of politicians and controllers of both parties…is going to be the deciding factor in this upcoming election, especially if large segments of the generally non-voting electorate are sufficiently motivated to vote.

Trump or Anti-Trump?

Rule by fear or rule by mercy?

A campaign of fear or a campaign of joy?

We shall see.

Won’t we.

I know in which direction my support and eventual vote are going to go.

Yours?

Let us pray.

Later…

AG
P.S. While I am at it:

The Sermon On the Mount:

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you.

Now…I personally am about as far away from a bible-thumping, U.S.-style white fundamentalist Christian as you can get, but then…they’re the ones most supportive of President Ming The Merciless, who himself is about as far away from the message of The Sermon On The Mount as one can get without dissolving into pure, fully macerated evil and slithering right down into the sewers.

So…

Think about it.

Please!!!

The Speaker of the House is feeling confident. She’s in full #NancySmash mode:

Barely three months into her second turn in charge, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already mapped out a plan to overwhelm Republicans in the 2020 elections.

“I’m going to have our races won by this November,” the California Democrat said….

…By Thanksgiving, if all goes according to her plan, potential GOP challengers will “think twice” about running against Democrats. And then she will deliver a stern warning to Republicans who remain in swing seats.

“We fully intend to win this election, and some of you are vulnerable. It’s going to cost you millions of dollars, to win or lose. And if you win — say you win — you’re in the minority, probably want to teach at the university,” Pelosi said, drawing out every syllable like the daughter of a Baltimore mayor who watched her father stare down rivals. “So we get the A-team, and they get the retirements. That’s my plan.”

She’s had a lot of time to think about how she lost the speakership last time, and she doesn’t plan on losing it the same way again. I’m not sure she’s covered all the contingencies, and she’s sounds almost too confident for my tastes, but she’s got a plan and she’s implementing it.

She’s going to punch back aggressively, keep the caucus disciplined and on message, and make sure people build up intimidating war chests. She wants to deter people from even thinking about running for Congress against Democrats.

I hope she isn’t overestimating her ability to shape events, but part of being intimidating is acting like you have total confidence. So her boastfulness is just part of the plan.

Hello again painting fans.

This week I will be continuing with the Pocomoke City, Maryland painting. The photo that I’m using is seen directly below.  I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a 6×6 inch canvas.

When last seen the painting appeared as it does in the photo seen directly below.

Since that timme I have continued to work on the painting.

I’ve now added some preliminary paint for the sky, foliage, lawn and various paved areas.  Note the brick wall at the sidewalk.  Next week I’ll have some siding and shadows to reveal.

 
The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

I’ll have more progress to show you next week. See you then.

Earlier paintings in this series can be seen here.

Sometimes I think we’re living in a Scooby-Doo episode, but with meddling judges instead of kids.

Greetings photography enthusiasts. It’s Friday, and I am still trying this as a weekly feature. According to Individual-1, the US is full. So this week’s feature photo is devoted to the vast empty spaces around the US.

Please note that this is a reboot of a series that went to seed a few years ago. I know that there are some photo hobbyists like me who post here already. As always, I am hoping to incite a bit more “community behavior” in our community blog. AndiF and BobX used to curate the old foto flog. Others contributed quite regularly. Folks like Hurria, JimF, KNUCKLEHEAD, dada, olivia, ask, tampopo, Man Eegee, and a whole host of others posted photos at one time or another. I am sure I have missed someone in that list.

I don’t use anything especially fancy. My Samsung Galaxy S6 finally died after a very long life. I had it for a fairly long time. Currently, I am using an LG ThinQ40. It has some nifty features that I am still playing around with. One of my offspring has commandeered my old 35mm film camera, so I don’t get to use that one very often. At over 30 years, finding replacement parts when something goes bad on it gets to be a bit tricky. That’s another story for another day.

Some of our regulars have actual professional equipment, and before Photobucket turned into such a drag, we were graced by some absolutely stunning landscape shots, close-ups of flowers and insects, and some abstract photography. I’ve often marveled at the creativity of the folks who have meandered in and out of this community over the years. I use flickr to host my photos for the time being, although given some changes at flickr, that may soon end. I have tried out imgur as well. So far, so good.

Consider this series as a homage to its predecessor, and dedicated to the spirit of its ancestors. Enjoy.

In my last posting, I wrote Trump Doesn’t Understand Game Theory, and I used the current debate in Congress over a disaster relief bill as my example. There were four main critiques of his negotiating style. One was that he doesn’t utilize all the information that is available to him. Another was that he doesn’t closely examine the incentives of other players. The third was that he often operates solo when he is engaged in team activity, like a selfish basketball player more concerned about scoring points than winning games. And the final one was that he cares more about how he perceived by his base than about getting results.

We can see all of this elements in how Trump handled the government shutdown. Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer have an article in Politico that goes into some depth on how the shutdown came about, and there’s a section of it where Trump is having conversations with then-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

For context, these episodes took place in the lame-duck session of Congress, after the GOP had lost control of the House in the midterms but before they actually had to relinquish their power.  The Senate, in coordination with the White House, had already passed a bill to keep the government open, and they had done it with an unrecorded and unanimous voice-vote. Yet, after the Senate bill passed, a lot of people on the right began criticizing the president for giving up on his border wall.  Trump was particularly incensed by the slings and arrows he was taking on Fox News. He called Paul Ryan to tell him that he wasn’t happy and was going to back out of the deal he had made with him to sign the funding bill.

Then Ryan got a call from Trump himself and heard the bad news straight from the president’s mouth: Trump told Ryan he was getting beat up on cable television, didn’t like it and was turning against the spending plan.

Ryan had little patience for this type of bullshit. You always suffered somewhere for making big decisions. Ryan had been a darling of the right wing before he became speaker and gave that up when he got into leadership. That’s just what leaders do, Ryan thought. You take the flak and move on. Trump, in Ryan’s view, was never able to do that.

“That’s how this always works,” Ryan told the president. He explained that a compromise bill to keep the government open would, indeed, anger the talkers on Fox News, but they would eventually get over it. The speaker tried to explain to Trump that a shutdown was not in his interest, but he wasn’t making much progress. “There’s no endgame,” Ryan said of shutting down the government. “You’ll just help the Democrats.”

“OK,” Trump said. “Let’s just talk in the morning.” Ryan hung up the phone feeling a bit better.

Here we see the President responding to criticism from his base. We see Paul Ryan asking for a strategy–some theory of the game he’s being asked to play–and getting nothing in response. The next morning, the House Republicans held a meeting. Ryan and his then-deputy, Kevin McCarthy, wanted to convince at least half of their caucus to vote for the Senate bill because that would allow them to avoid violating the Hastert Rule. It was clear however, that the president and members of the Freedom Caucus had teamed up against them and now they had a mutiny on their hands.

As his fellow Republicans raged, Ryan’s phone rang. It was the president. Ryan stepped out of the meeting and into a small office next to the party’s Capitol meeting room to take the call. It was as if his conversation with Trump from the night before had picked up exactly where it left off: Trump was once again telling Ryan that he was getting killed on television.

Again? Ryan was pissed. He knew that [Rep. Mark] Meadows had gotten to the president. Look, he told Trump, “this is some Fox News people, this is some Freedom Caucus guys and that’s it.” Ryan wanted Trump to see that the opposition was limited. “What’s your endgame?” Ryan quizzed him once again. “How do you get out of this? It’s like you’re shooting yourself in the foot.”

Paul Ryan was doing the normal thing and wondering how shutting down the government was going to get the president what he wanted. He did not understand what he was being asked to do because it would not result in victory or success. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that Trump was less concerned about winning than avoiding the criticism he was seeing on his television.

Trump could have sought some advice. He could have asked Ryan to come up with a strategy that would divide the Democrats and assure that they got the greater half of the blame for the government shutdown. But he doesn’t think about the incentives of the people he’s trying to manipulate. As I said in the prior piece, if his position is strong enough relative to his opponent, he can prevail simply by bullying them, but he doesn’t do well on a more even playing field.

So, Trump made a decision to shut down the government until the Democrats gave him what he wanted, but he had no plan for getting the Democrats to change their position. And it wasn’t just a failure to come up with a strategy that was a problem. Trump didn’t get that he ought to have one. He didn’t know that there were no strategies that would work because he didn’t examine the incentives of the players. Finally, he made the mistake of creating a distinction between his goals and the Republican lawmakers’ incentives. By not taking their needs into consideration, Trump assured that the congresspeople would eventually turn on him and compel him to back down.

Trump makes these mistakes repeatedly, and it definitely drives the Republican leadership crazy.  Just last week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had to tell the president that he was not going to work on writing a replacement for Obamacare despite Trump’s promise to the nation that he would do so.  McConnell wasn’t interested because he knows that Nancy Pelosi controls the House and that he can’t force her to do a damn thing.  Writing  a big health care bill would divide his caucus and demonstrate (again) their inability to replace the Affordable Care Act. It would be a giant and self-injurious waste of his time.

We can see Trump’s failure as a negotiator anywhere we care to look.  It’s most consequential in foreign affairs, particularly on the negotiations over denuclearization with North Korea, but also with Iran and with our trade negotiations with China.  He doesn’t succeed because he doesn’t understand how to do the basics.  You want all the information you can get. You need to know the rules and the motives of every player and all their possible moves. You need to give people a reason to do what you want, and if they have no such reasons then you have to create them.  You need to understand whether you’re playing one-on-one or in a team game.

Paul Ryan must be relieved that he doesn’t have to work with Trump anymore.