Let us not forget that Trump views the White House as a means of collecting money from anyone, foreign or domestic, who is willing to pay and now, thanks to the Supreme Court, is free of any criminal liability for his actions, including selling America’s secrets and those of our allies to the highest bidder.
Bingo!! The strongest evidence of this is that he appointed Tillerson to SoS who is essentially a member of the Qatari royal family…and then Trump sided with MBS on a blockade of Qatar. And we obviously know that Trump and Kushner ended up getting billions from MBS.
I've subscribed to The Atlantic for years. I couldn't read Cohen's piece just because of the title! So I appreciate your doing that. I say, NO! What world are you in? This is how democracy dies!! Expect tRump to have foreign policy??
You mentioned the ability of the President to act without Congress. I grew up in the post-WWII peiriod so that struck me strange. IIRC the expectation then was that the President would always talk to Congress. It seemed he had to. Ike's fight over the Bricker Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment) was hard-fought.
What has changed? Could be that the decline of Southern control of Senate committees has been important. The South was always more into foreign affairs than the rest of the country. The one-party South and the seniority rule meant Southern senators had seniority and thus were committee chairs--Russell and Fulbright for example. Because they had safe seats, they could spend time on policy and operations of the executive, rather than wasting it on fund-raising and protecting their flanks. It also was true that committees had more power in Congress than they have now. So there was a combination of power and interest which is lacking today. It might also be important that Republicans have term limited their chairs.. So while Reed and Wicker, Cardin and Risch might perhaps be as capable as their predecessors, they don't have the same institutional assets.
A question: is the rise of executive agreements and the decline of treaties as important instruments in foreign policy a cause of the decline of Congress, or simply an indicator of the decline?
The southern senators were Cold Warriors. So in Vance’s asinine acceptance speech he blamed a lot of things on Senator Biden that were actually Republican initiatives. One was PNTR with China…Bush’s lackey actually spearheaded that bill in the House but a few of the southern senators voted against it because China was communist.
Thank you for tearing Cohen’s argument apart. I felt completely disoriented when I read it because *did someone hit Eliot on the head or something?* was the first thing that went through my mind. How many times do these guys have to get played for suckers before they realize once and for all that Donald is going to do whatever the fuck he wants to do and not a single person is going to stop him. Legacy? Hilarious. He. Is. A. Cult. Leader!
Here's what I don't understand. (Actually, I understand it, it's just that the crass stupidity/naked subjection of it forces me to bat my eyes and say but but I don't understand.)
I don't understand how foreign policy tough-guys and pragmatists who would scream bloody murder if a foreign adversary said "We are friends now! All is good! No bad things!" and someone in the foreign policy establishment said "This time they mean it! We can trust them! Make agreements, no conditionalities!"
I guess what we're seeing is what people like Eliot Cohen are like when they don't think they're holding the whip hand, and that's a depressing summary of US foreign policy generally--that people with the alleged skill set of being good diplomats turn into a pile of goo when they don't think they can order an airstrike, embargo a country, or dictate terms in a negotiation. So much for those skills being portable when you're up against a power that could care less what you want from it--it turns out that all these American old-GOPers who fashioned themselves as tough and realistic negotiators instantly morph into Neville Chamberlain.
This is a clear-eyed assessment of the foreign policy implications of a second T administration. Hoping TFG would change into "a real boy" (i.e., a rational, functioning emotionally mature, empathetic and selfless leader) by "growing into the job" or "feeling the weight of history" have been strongly and repeatedly dashed by the reailty of his actions. He is not just a completely self-centered, egotistical, malignant narcissist (reflecting NPD/ASPD characteristics - see Counter Narcissist Intelligence and Mary Trump's columns on Substack), but has been proven to be a business fraud, serial sexual assailant, misogynistic racist and fascist (or fascist-adjacent) mess of a human species member. Id.
Where is Eliot Cohen's brain - has he memory-holed the entire past 8+ years of the DJT Experience? Sadly, his blind, naive, reality-denying assessment is emblematic of so much of the MSM's fuzzy-headed, upside down portrayals of TFG in general and the hate fest that was the R convrntion in particular (not forgetting their unwarranted and unprovoked blood feud with Joe Biden). The perceived need to deny the truth of the threat to sane government presented by TFG, Project 2025, the X-tian nationalist pathology, and the parade of felons topping the R party in an effort to "preserve access" is not only destructive, but misguided. The Rs need to provide access as much as the MSM needs to receive it. Being cowed into submission ("approving in advance") in response to stochastic denials of press passes to one or a few (never all) straight shooters in the mainstream press cannot become the general reaction, otherwise "freedom of the press" becomes wholly unmoored from its ontological foundation and we ate left with nothing but unreliable narrators of both contemporary events and their interpretation over time. See Orwell, 1984.
None of us is as strong as all of us. None of us is as strong as all of us. None of us is as strong as all of us. None of us is as strong as all of us. None of us is as strong as all of us. None of us is as strong as all of us. None of us is as strong as all of us. The Democratic Party has a job to do, and we know what we’re up against. There is a lot of dirt and trash to clear out, and none of us can do it as well as all of us.
On the money. I would add Cohen ignores incoherence among top GOP -- Trump sees himself as a dealmaker, totally transactional. He might try to trade Taiwan for China concessions, or revisit Kim Jong Un, and greenlight whatever deal Putin wants. Vance, et all lean toward full decouple, prepare for war over Taiwan, Euros on their own, etc.
"Trump and the GOP don’t really have well-formed foreign policy views" Probably his most distinctive views are his foreign policy views. He's been very clear about being an isolationist. Whether you agree or disagree, there's no question where he stands.
Before Trump surrendered to the Taliban he escalated Afghanistan. He also gave MBS carte blanche in Yemen. When push came to shove Speaker Johnson supported aid to Ukraine because that war has been great for the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry is 99% Republican and Trump will do whatever they want with respect to foreign policy.
I first noted the dynamic we're seeing here, oh, back in grade school. The one kid in class who was WAY more terrible. Or, later, the girl shift manager at McDonald's, who was god-awful terrible, and everyone knew was stealing money. BECAUSE they were so terrible, but the teacher/boss either had no agency (or convinced themselves they didn't), they eventually talked themselves into "this person is reforming," and became MORE supportive. Both, of course, never changed one bit (hell, they never even FAKED that they were. It was 100% in the teacher/boss's head). Honestly, I think it's a coping mechanism--yes, even for Eliot Cohen.
Cohen drank the koolaid. I read his piece linked here in the WaPo.
Why would he change his mind so completely with 8 yrs of evidence from tRump to the contrary?!
Cohen is living in a fantasy world.
Great piece addressing Trump and his foreign policy.
Let us not forget that Trump views the White House as a means of collecting money from anyone, foreign or domestic, who is willing to pay and now, thanks to the Supreme Court, is free of any criminal liability for his actions, including selling America’s secrets and those of our allies to the highest bidder.
Bingo!! The strongest evidence of this is that he appointed Tillerson to SoS who is essentially a member of the Qatari royal family…and then Trump sided with MBS on a blockade of Qatar. And we obviously know that Trump and Kushner ended up getting billions from MBS.
I've subscribed to The Atlantic for years. I couldn't read Cohen's piece just because of the title! So I appreciate your doing that. I say, NO! What world are you in? This is how democracy dies!! Expect tRump to have foreign policy??
You mentioned the ability of the President to act without Congress. I grew up in the post-WWII peiriod so that struck me strange. IIRC the expectation then was that the President would always talk to Congress. It seemed he had to. Ike's fight over the Bricker Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment) was hard-fought.
What has changed? Could be that the decline of Southern control of Senate committees has been important. The South was always more into foreign affairs than the rest of the country. The one-party South and the seniority rule meant Southern senators had seniority and thus were committee chairs--Russell and Fulbright for example. Because they had safe seats, they could spend time on policy and operations of the executive, rather than wasting it on fund-raising and protecting their flanks. It also was true that committees had more power in Congress than they have now. So there was a combination of power and interest which is lacking today. It might also be important that Republicans have term limited their chairs.. So while Reed and Wicker, Cardin and Risch might perhaps be as capable as their predecessors, they don't have the same institutional assets.
A question: is the rise of executive agreements and the decline of treaties as important instruments in foreign policy a cause of the decline of Congress, or simply an indicator of the decline?
The southern senators were Cold Warriors. So in Vance’s asinine acceptance speech he blamed a lot of things on Senator Biden that were actually Republican initiatives. One was PNTR with China…Bush’s lackey actually spearheaded that bill in the House but a few of the southern senators voted against it because China was communist.
Thank you for tearing Cohen’s argument apart. I felt completely disoriented when I read it because *did someone hit Eliot on the head or something?* was the first thing that went through my mind. How many times do these guys have to get played for suckers before they realize once and for all that Donald is going to do whatever the fuck he wants to do and not a single person is going to stop him. Legacy? Hilarious. He. Is. A. Cult. Leader!
Eliot Cohen is hopefully going through the stages of reawakening that Nate Silver went through during Donald’s speech at the RNC. https://x.com/davidfolkenflik/status/1814150312501862463
Here's what I don't understand. (Actually, I understand it, it's just that the crass stupidity/naked subjection of it forces me to bat my eyes and say but but I don't understand.)
I don't understand how foreign policy tough-guys and pragmatists who would scream bloody murder if a foreign adversary said "We are friends now! All is good! No bad things!" and someone in the foreign policy establishment said "This time they mean it! We can trust them! Make agreements, no conditionalities!"
I guess what we're seeing is what people like Eliot Cohen are like when they don't think they're holding the whip hand, and that's a depressing summary of US foreign policy generally--that people with the alleged skill set of being good diplomats turn into a pile of goo when they don't think they can order an airstrike, embargo a country, or dictate terms in a negotiation. So much for those skills being portable when you're up against a power that could care less what you want from it--it turns out that all these American old-GOPers who fashioned themselves as tough and realistic negotiators instantly morph into Neville Chamberlain.
This is a clear-eyed assessment of the foreign policy implications of a second T administration. Hoping TFG would change into "a real boy" (i.e., a rational, functioning emotionally mature, empathetic and selfless leader) by "growing into the job" or "feeling the weight of history" have been strongly and repeatedly dashed by the reailty of his actions. He is not just a completely self-centered, egotistical, malignant narcissist (reflecting NPD/ASPD characteristics - see Counter Narcissist Intelligence and Mary Trump's columns on Substack), but has been proven to be a business fraud, serial sexual assailant, misogynistic racist and fascist (or fascist-adjacent) mess of a human species member. Id.
Where is Eliot Cohen's brain - has he memory-holed the entire past 8+ years of the DJT Experience? Sadly, his blind, naive, reality-denying assessment is emblematic of so much of the MSM's fuzzy-headed, upside down portrayals of TFG in general and the hate fest that was the R convrntion in particular (not forgetting their unwarranted and unprovoked blood feud with Joe Biden). The perceived need to deny the truth of the threat to sane government presented by TFG, Project 2025, the X-tian nationalist pathology, and the parade of felons topping the R party in an effort to "preserve access" is not only destructive, but misguided. The Rs need to provide access as much as the MSM needs to receive it. Being cowed into submission ("approving in advance") in response to stochastic denials of press passes to one or a few (never all) straight shooters in the mainstream press cannot become the general reaction, otherwise "freedom of the press" becomes wholly unmoored from its ontological foundation and we ate left with nothing but unreliable narrators of both contemporary events and their interpretation over time. See Orwell, 1984.
Enough.
100%
None of us is as strong as all of us. None of us is as strong as all of us. None of us is as strong as all of us. None of us is as strong as all of us. None of us is as strong as all of us. None of us is as strong as all of us. None of us is as strong as all of us. The Democratic Party has a job to do, and we know what we’re up against. There is a lot of dirt and trash to clear out, and none of us can do it as well as all of us.
On the money. I would add Cohen ignores incoherence among top GOP -- Trump sees himself as a dealmaker, totally transactional. He might try to trade Taiwan for China concessions, or revisit Kim Jong Un, and greenlight whatever deal Putin wants. Vance, et all lean toward full decouple, prepare for war over Taiwan, Euros on their own, etc.
Vance is all over the place—in his acceptance speech he blamed Iraq and China in the WTO on Biden ignoring that Bush was president.
"Trump and the GOP don’t really have well-formed foreign policy views" Probably his most distinctive views are his foreign policy views. He's been very clear about being an isolationist. Whether you agree or disagree, there's no question where he stands.
Before Trump surrendered to the Taliban he escalated Afghanistan. He also gave MBS carte blanche in Yemen. When push came to shove Speaker Johnson supported aid to Ukraine because that war has been great for the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry is 99% Republican and Trump will do whatever they want with respect to foreign policy.
I first noted the dynamic we're seeing here, oh, back in grade school. The one kid in class who was WAY more terrible. Or, later, the girl shift manager at McDonald's, who was god-awful terrible, and everyone knew was stealing money. BECAUSE they were so terrible, but the teacher/boss either had no agency (or convinced themselves they didn't), they eventually talked themselves into "this person is reforming," and became MORE supportive. Both, of course, never changed one bit (hell, they never even FAKED that they were. It was 100% in the teacher/boss's head). Honestly, I think it's a coping mechanism--yes, even for Eliot Cohen.
In the US, we’re all still in high school for the rest of our lives.
Thanks for exposing the idiocy of anyone who thinks “it won’t be that bad…”. This magical thinking has to be called out every time.