North Korea

Usually, I like being right. 

Especially about predictions because making predictions is hard.  As the wise Yogi Berra once said, “It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.”  Consequently, I try not to make too many of them, and, having learned a thing or two from my brothers and sisters in the field of economics, I usually hedge them when I make them.

It was especially difficult to make predictions about Donald Trump, a sometimes impulsive and outsider to the Washington game.  But I did make two.  I predicted that on many dimensions, African Americans as a group would be better off under a Trump administration than they were under Obama.  My second prediction was that after 8 years of American acquiescence and withdrawal from the world stage, he would be tested early in his term.  While the first prediction has yet to be determined, the international test came earlier and with more at stake than I would have thought.  Hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of lives are on the line as North Korea has revealed its nuclear capability.  North Korea has apparently achieved the ability to miniaturize a warhead (this ability was known to Obama since 2013) and possesses more warheads than was previously thought to be the case.  Kim Jung Un continues to issue threats to the U.S. and, as of this writing, have threatened to fire missiles at or near Guam by mid-August.  The situation presents Donald Trump with the most serious crisis since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 (for an excellent analysis of the decisions by the Kennedy Administration read Essence of Decision by Graham Allison).

Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice (and others) have criticized Donald Trump for his clear, direct, and unequivocal threats against North Korea.  She further asserts that we could tolerate a nuclear North Korea, and rely on deterrence.

She couldn’t be more wrong.

The U.S. has kicked this can down the road as far as it can be kicked.  As I warned in my blog post of April 16, I think we are in the most dangerous period since the 1930’s and I don’t see a feasible deal with the North Koreans.  Kim Jung Un will not give up his nuclear weapons.  Susan Rice is dead wrong.  We cannot live with them.  A nuclear North Korean regime must end one way or the other and it must happen within the next few months.

I am loath to criticize prior administrations for not wanting to make the hard decisions sooner.  The horrible calculus always involved a tremendous loss of life.   The North Korean artillery would certainly inflict 50,000-100,000 casualties in Seoul and no American leader has been able to stomach the sentencing of South Korean civilians to death in those numbers.

So we skated along with the Agreed Accord which the Norks violated.  Then Bush tried to appease them by sending cash and aid in exchange for shutting down their reactor, and even took North Korea off the list of state sponsors of terror.  They predictably took the cash and aid and restarted.  The North Koreans continued to test under Barack Obama (4 tests), who put more sanctions in place that did nothing to deter the North Koreans program.  Obama at least took a more aggressive stance and launched a cyberwar against their program.

But here we are.   Kim Jung Un has an arsenal of approximately 60 warheads and at least 2 legs of the nuclear triad at his disposal--- ICBM’s and submarine capability (although his submarines are generally older and more trackable, he has 70). He has threatened to launch against the mainland and has unveiled a plan to fire missiles at Guam.

No, Ms. Rice, we cannot tolerate a nuclear North Korea.  This Lucy, Charlie Brown and football charade needs to end now.  This crisis takes us way beyond the vacuous policies of “leading from behind,” and “strategic patience.”   There are several reasons why tolerating a nuclear North Korea is folly.   Aside from the risks associated with relying on Mutual Assured Destruction (which one may argue prevented nuclear catastrophe in the Cold War) with a small nation that is not a peer power, there is the risk that North Korea will become a manufacturer, distributor and licensor of nuclear materials.  Always starved for cash, North Korea would be tempted to sell warheads or know-how to a willing purchaser, whether it be ISIS, the mullahs in Iran or Al-Qaeda.  There is already quite a bit of evidence that Iran and North Korea are cooperating on missile technology.  “Tolerating” a nuclear North Korea is tantamount to “tolerating” a nuclear Iran, which has the destruction of the Great Satan and destruction of the Little Satan written into its charter. Furthermore, permitting North Korea to retain a limited nuclear arsenal is unacceptable because of the risk associated with the electromagnetic pulse (EMP).  A single warhead detonated over the U.S. could wreak havoc and have dire consequences.  Trump was absolutely correct to reject the initial bid of China to propose a nuclear freeze.

Kim Jung Un must not be permitted to remain in power with his nuclear toys.   Period.  He has now changed the risk matrix, making a violent outcome –the unthinkable more thinkable.

The conventional wisdom is that China hold the key to solving the North Korea problem.  That is true and more than we even know and at many levels.  North Korea is an important client state of China.  It exists in its hostile bellicose posture toward the U.S.  because that is exactly what China wants.  China is not our friend.  It seeks to overtake the U.S. and become a dominant world power.  Its actions in the South China Sea over the past few years belie its intent.  North Korea is a useful client state.   North Korea continuously challenges the U.S. and that is of value to the Chinese, because it gives the Chinese plausible deniability.   Moreover, North Korea gives the Chinese a “free look” at our military exercises and our responses on the South Korean peninsula.   General Jack Keane said outright that the Chinese are not only complicit in the North Korean nuclear program, the speed at which the North Koreans advanced their program suggests that the Chinese supplied some of the parts and technology.   The fact that Chinese trade with North Korea actually expanded during this period says a great deal.  As I wrote in my prior blog post—follow the money. I’m sure that they secretly hope that we decide to attempt to knock down the next North Korean missile test.  The Chinese would love to see how our systems respond under battlefield conditions.    All the while the Chinese are shrugging their shoulders, claiming that their influence over the North Korean dictator is limited.   The status quo exists because China likes it this way.

Those that criticize Trump for his rhetoric are mistaken.  Kim Jung Un needs to be told clearly and publicly that an attack on U.S. soil or one of our allies will end his regime.  Trump is doing his best to send this message personally and through General Mattis.  We’ll see if it actually sinks in.  Kim Jung Un may conclude that the U.S. draws false “red lines” and that he has the upper hand.  It would be a miscalculation of historic proportions.  But it is a miscalculation that Saddam Hussein made.

War in the Korean Peninsula would be horrific and would entail massive loss of life.  And unlike our wars with Iraq, in which the Iraqi army did not put up much of a fight, our experiences in Asia have been quite different.  In WWII, the first Korean War and in Vietnam, we learned that Asians will fight and will fight until the end.   We have 1 win, 1 loss and 1 draw in Asia and we won against Japan by going nuclear.  In order to save Seoul, we might very well be forced to go nuclear in Asia again.  On the plus side, unlike 9/11 where we were caught by surprise, we have been preparing, scenario planning and war gaming a war with North Korea for over half a century. 

If there is a diplomatic way out, it is by bargaining directly with China.  I would consider offering this bargain to China:  Kim Jung Un goes.  His nuclear program goes.  The artillery gets pulled back from the DMZ.  You may install a puppet government more or less to your liking.   We would offer to pull back a certain amount of our troops, take out the THAAD system and put a moratorium on war games on the peninsula for a period of time- say three years.   I would also point out to the Chinese that they would not tolerate a threat such as North Korea against them, and that the alternative is either (1) a catastrophic war on the peninsula or at best (2) a massive deterrence that includes arming up the South Koreans and Japanese and that arming up may include nuclear forces.   But any bargain cannot include maintaining North Korea as a nuclear power.

Where this ends, I cannot predict.  Since China has said that they will defend the Norks if we act pre-emptively, I suspect that Kim Jung Un will test that line in an ambiguous way by firing missiles in the direction of Guam but not close enough to cause casualties or damage property.  I also suspect that there will be some form of military engagement before it is over.  This crisis will come to the brink before it is resolved—one way or another.

The crisis with North Korea must be seen in conjunction with Trump's actions in Syria.  Leon Panetta's statement that "this is not a reality show" is irresponsible and misguided.  What we are seeing emerge is a form of a Trump doctrine in foreign policy.  And it is this, "IF YOU USE WMD AGAINST ANYONE OR THREATEN TO USE WMD AGAINST US OR OUR ALLIES, THERE WILL BE AN IMMEDIATE, FORCEFUL AND UNAMBIGUOUS RESPONSE."  

This is a deadly serious chess game.  So far, Trump is playing it correctly by messaging the Chinese as well as the North Koreans that we will respond if the situation requires it.

Follow the Money

Money is fungible ….and finite.  It appears that the political class either doesn’t understand that or is willfully blind to those realities. 

As someone that reviews and assesses budgets in my professional life, I understand that cash is like oxygen to an organization.  If you want to understand what an organization’s priorities are and where it is really going, follow the cash.  It tells you everything about where an organization is headed. This concept applies in government as well as in business.  And in both places, people will often go to great lengths to obscure where money is really flowing.

To understand some of the Obama deals that Trump is unwinding, and to know exactly what the Obama Administration was up to, all you need to do is follow the money.   Often, the Obama deals were thinly veiled redistribution efforts; others used public funds to finance left wing groups; still others astonishingly funded terror operations and tyranny.  When you add it all up, it paints a disturbing picture of what the Obama Administration was attempting to accomplish- all outside the bounds of the intent of the Founders, who intended Congress to maintain power of the purse.

Number One.  The Paris Climate Accord.  Thankfully, dahling, we’ll never have Paris.  The pundits shrieked and stamped their feet after Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would not abide by the Paris Accord,  complaining about the abdication of U.S. leadership by pulling out.  The Paris Accord followed the Obama blueprint for international deals.  The U.S.  grants concessions and provides cash in the hopes that others will act beneficently later with no meaningful enforcement or remedy provisions in the deal.  But if you follow the commitments, you would see that the U.S. committed to reductions in carbon emissions now (with the loss of approximately 1 million jobs), but reductions by the other major emitters – India and China—would not start until the year 2030.  What do you think would be likely to happen when we ring the doorbell of the Chinese in the year and remind them of their commitment?  Only the hopelessly naïve would trust that the Chinese would live up to their end of the bargain.

But an even more odious aspect of the Paris Accord was the “green fund” under which the U.S. committed $1 billion (not appropriated by Congress) while India and China committed nothing.  These funds were to be used to finance “green projects” in developing nations.  The Chinese would not fund directly but since we are borrowing (much from the Chinese) to fund our deficit, we would be borrowing from the Chinese to hand money over to an international body which would, in turn, finance “green projects” in countries run by tinpot dictators like Maduro of Venezuela.  What could possibly go wrong?  Think 1,000 points of Solyndra.

Number Two. Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).  The deal with Iran preceded the Paris Accord.  Trump has not yet abrogated it but has “put Iran on notice” and initiated additional sanctions.  JPCOA was structured similarly to the Paris Accord.  We provide cash up front, permit the Iranians to self-monitor and there would be no real remedies or penalties if Iran is caught violating the deal.  Obama detached this deal from all other aspects of the relationship, including missile technology development.  As part of the deal, the Obama administration released Iranian funds held since the Iranian Revolution and shipped the mullahs $400 million in cash.  Not surprisingly, Iran and Hezbollah have since gone on a military spending spree, and Iran continues apace with its missile program.  Even John Kerry and Susan Rice admitted at the time that part of the funds would finance terrorism.  Of course it would.  Money is fungible.  Iran has some sort of governmental budgeting process.  The additional windfall of cash will be used to finance terror and Iran’s military.  The U.S. may be the only nation in history to finance the military buildup of a sworn enemy.

Number Three.  Government financing of leftist groups. Attorney General Jeff Sessions finally ended the Obama practice of using funds garnered from fines and settlement amounts levied against banks and diverting these funds to favored left leaning groups instead of back into Treasury where they belong.  This end around Congress was a clever Constitutional avoidance maneuver, designed to circumvent Congressional spending power.  The government threatened to sue large banks over transgressions related to the ’08 real estate debacle and purported racial bias.  Rather than face protracted litigation and trials, banks settled these claims.  Bank settlements totaled in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The Obama Administration sprinkled these funds to various “community group” instead of sending the money back to Treasury.   Of course, no vote by Congress was taken to appropriate these funds.

Number Four.  Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood is fond of spouting out its misleading claim that only 3% of its services go toward abortion.  The reality is that Planned Parenthood is responsible for approximately one third of the abortions performed in the U.S.  Whether you agree with Roe v Wade or not, abortion is a pretty nasty business and Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths to distort its business and suppress the callousness with which the organization and abortion providers view these “services.”    Planned Parenthood was caught on videotape dickering over the price of fetus body parts, and in another recent video taken at a conference of abortionists, the speakers glibly  talked about fetuses being “tough little buggers” and even guffawed at some of the practices.   It’s easy to see that some people do not want their tax dollars flowing to these activities.  But even worse, Planned Parenthood donated $730,000 to the losing Democratic candidate in the 6^th Congressional District in Georgia.  Since money is fungible, taxpayers are funding a Democratic candidate’s campaign.  If Planned Parenthood so desperately needs taxpayer funds to finance their services, then how can Planned Parenthood be financing the candidacy of a politician?

Fourth is NATO.  Trump was blistered in the press for chiding Angela Merkel for Germany’s failure to live up to its commitment to spend 2% of its GDP on defense.   Internationalists like Richard Haass were horrified at Trump’s blunt criticism of Merkel (and other NATO members) for not stepping up to THE COMMITMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE.  But why should the U.S. taxpayer continue to underwrite Europe’s security, especially when Merkel has opened Europe’s borders to Islamic immigration (which will add hundreds of thousands of dependents on the European welfare state).  Merkel won’t have to make hard budgetary and policy choices as long as the U.S. is footing a disproportionate share of its security.   With the U.S. budget in permanent structural deficit, this is simply no longer possible.  The situation is made worse by the Obama administration’s decision to end the “two war policy” –that is the policy of maintaining sufficient readiness to fight two major conflicts simultaneously.   Obama ended this policy just as risk of needing to fight two simultaneous conflicts has dramatically increased.  The U.S. is being challenged daily by Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and radical Islam.  Now, more than at any time since WWII, Europe needs to choose more guns than butter if it wishes to defend itself. 

Which brings me to Number Five and this one is local.  The Illinois legislature, led by Democratic boss Mike Madigan corralled enough Republicans to override Governor Bruce Rauner’s veto and passed a 32% tax increase with no structural changes in operations.  The entire tax increase will be eaten up by required pension payments.  But remember that money is fungible.   The tax increase is a transfer of money that would otherwise be available for taxpayers to fund their own retirement accounts to the pensions of state employees, many of whom retired 10 years earlier than workers in the private sector.  The net result is that private sector workers are slaving away to pay for the comfortable leisurely retirement of others.  And since higher education (education is preparing the young for the future) in Illinois is one area that is being asked to tighten its belt to provide for public sector pensioners (the past), the state legislature is effectively robbing the future to pay for the past.  In both instances, state government is taking resources from currently  productive people and businesses and future productive people to make payments to past political cronies to whom they have overcommitted.  Illinois politicians have figured out how to steal from our children’s piggybanks.

When you take the time to watch where money is moving, you will see that Western governments are underwriting Islamic immigration to the West, shortchanging the defense of Europe, financing the killing of fetuses and leftist groups,  draining education and productive workers to pay for fat pensions for state workers, and most hideously and perversely, financing terror.

If you want to truly understand where politicians are taking us, always follow the money.  The money trail will tell the tale.  And this is, in part, behind the blind hatred of Donald Trump on the left.  He has figured this out and is in the process of stopping the self-destructive horrible deals that have been crafted by the political establishment.

Happy 200th

A little over 3 ½ decades ago, I sat quietly on a large rock overlooking a glassy, peaceful pond in rural central Maine, scribbling away at a draft of my summer mid-term paper for my American Literature course taught by the distinguished Robert Streeter (now deceased).  The paper was to be on the transcendentalists Emerson and Thoreau.  Professor Streeter had such an unbridled enthusiasm for American Literature that he nearly resurrected these authors for the summer—Franklin, Hawthorne, Melville, Anne Bradstreet.  To this day, I can recite the first paragraph of “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by heart.  But I have always had a special connection to Thoreau.

That day in Maine was one of the peak experiences in my life—how perfect it was to write about Thoreau on a pond on the East Coast.  I still remember that day—bright and sunny, with a few puffs of clouds in the sky, the croaking frogs, the cattails and the reeds, the dragonflies dancing over the tops of them.

Henry David Thoreau is my favorite American essayist, a foundational member of the American canon in literature.  There have been few writers that at one time have captured the essence of nature, the American spirit, and helped define man’s relationship to society and nature.  It is fitting that the Library of America’s volume entitled American Earth begins with Thoreau’s works.

Last summer I attended an outdoor play Nature at the Morton Arboretum, which was a walking play about Emerson and Thoreau and their relationship.   Held in the elements, nature fittingly became a participant in the production.   The part of Emerson was in fact played by a descendant of Ralph Waldo Emerson.   It was one of the most innovative and enrapturing productions I have ever seen.

Earlier this summer I attended a presentation by Laura Dassow Walls, a professor at Notre Dame, whose new biography on Thoreau is being released in connection with his birthday celebration.   I had an opportunity to meet and chat with Ms. Walls and look forward to reading her book.  I had hoped to join the celebration of his birthday in Concord which is being marked by a weeklong series of events put on by the Thoreau Society (thoreausociety.org) but alas, life did not cooperate.  Walden Pond will need to remain on my bucket list for now.  

But here’s to the writer that has helped shaped my thinking in many ways—about life, and being human and government.   And here are a couple of my favorite Thoreauisms:

• ·         Simplify, simplify.
• ·         Most men live lives of quiet desperation.
• ·         Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not the fish they are after.
• ·         Men have become tools of their tools [did he foresee the smartphone?]
• ·         That government that governs best governs least.

This weekend I gave a nod to Mr. Thoreau during my weekly golf game.  I told my partners that I was going to lock my phone in my bag and ban discussion of Donald Trump during our game.  Instead, I focused on the natural surroundings and sights, sounds, and smells of the course. I paid attention to the trees, the long grasses, the cry of the hawk that patrols the 5^th hole, the scream of blue jays, the sound of the water.  I soaked in the sunshine and turned it into a sensual experience.  It was the most enjoyable round I’ve had in years.  I still enjoyed the time with my group (Thoreau was not an anti-social guy), but it was an entirely different experience staying in the moment without distractions.

Since I can’t go to Concord, I will celebrate his birthday by doing the next best thing.  I will take a volume of his writings to the Chicago Botanic Garden Wednesday evening and find a place to read quietly.  

Thoreau, in part, inspired me to regularly keep a journal throughout my entire adult life, which has been a great source of pleasure and reflection, raw material for other writing as well as a source of history for my family.

Happy birthday, Henry David.  I am grateful for the ways in which you have enriched my life.

                              

Road Warrior

“Home field advantage” often conveys a big edge in performance in most team sports.   Hockey, basketball and football teams compete for an entire season to gain a higher seed and , therefore, home field advantage throughout the playoffs.  But occasionally there is that anomalous team that actually does better on the road.

Donald Trump is that kind of guy.

It seems that when he is at home, he gets tangled up in Twitter wars with this or that Trump bashing pundit that distracts from his agenda.  Perhaps when he  preparing to meet foreign leaders, he is too busy to have his thumbs on his smartphone.

This week in Warsaw, Trump gave the best speech abroad since Reagan’s “Tear down this wall”  speech over 30 years ago.  He abandoned his “America first” focus and delivered a full throated defense of Western Civilization and made a case of why it is worth defending.  The speech was in direct contrast to the speeches abroad given by Barack Obama (most notably the Cairo speech, in which he spent much of his time apologizing to the world for the West’s arrogance.  Lost in the fetish of multiculturalism are the wonderful attributes of Western Civilization—respect for individual rights, individual liberty, consent of the governed, free speech, equality under the law, innovation, wealth creation.   Advancing those virtues abroad were largely absent during the Obama years.  They are what set us apart from the Chinese tyranny, the Russian oligarchy, and the Middle East dictatorships.   These values are what make us superior and are worth fighting to defend.

It was fitting that the speech was made in Warsaw.  Poland was caught between two dictatorships during WWII—Hitler and Stalin and it suffered under Soviet rule for 45 years.

The Poles know tyranny.  Yet they endured.  And the Russian bear remain  at their doorstep.  The , Poles along with the Czechs and the Hungarians are resisting the EU dictates to take more Islamic immigrants. They are not afraid to defend their culture and do not accept terrorism as “part and parcel of modern life.” 

His speech was stirring, acknowledging the durability of the Poles, the importance of religion and warned of the threats from within and without (including excessive regulation) that threaten Western culture.   The Poles loved it and the throng chanted “USA” on several occasions.

Trump has been derided as bigoted and sneered at because of his America first foreign policy.

But his Middle East speech and his Warsaw speech showed something quite different.  His Middle East speech laid out a vision for what Islamic culture could be if it expunged the plague of terrorism.  In Poland, he challenged the West and asked if it had the will to survive.  In both places, he talked about the greatness of those people, their accomplishments and their civilizations. 

I found it puzzling that Richard Haass found the speech “tired and tedious.”  I found it stirring and so did the Poles.  It was almost as if Haass and I had read two different texts.

I found the speech inspiring, and it would be terribly ironic if Trump became a great foreign policy president.

Political Violence

It seems only a couple of short weeks ago that I wrote an essay entitled, “Civil Discourse” that recounted the civilized debates and exchange of ideas between David Axelrod and Tom Cotton and between Roger Meyerson and Casey Mulligan.   In both cases, the opponents actually listened to each other, responded with reasoned and data backed retorts and were not subjected to catcalls, disruptions, or actual or implied threats from the audiences.   The debates were lively, engaging and entertaining and even laced with humor.

That blissful condition was shattered this as a deranged Bernie Sanders volunteer opened fire on a group of Republicans practicing for the annual Democrat/Republican baseball game.  As of this writing, Steve Scalise remains hospitalized, after having been seriously wounded.  A review of his social media accounts and his statements before the attack show that this was clearly a politically motivated attack and that it was only the Capitol police and his bad aim that kept the assault from becoming a massacre.

We are seeing an escalation in political violence, and it is coming from the Left.  And the Left does it in two ways—by actual violence or by disruption and threat of violence.   This week’s  is not really new.  The Left’s intimidation, threats, tolerance of violence and actual violence has been building for some time as its political power has been steadily eroding since 2010.  The new tactic seems to be, “If we can’t win at the ballot box, we will win in the streets.”  This modus operandi has been explicitly or implicitly supported by liberal politicians, higher education, and media and entertainment.

Universities have given a nod to political violence by permitting thugs to overrun their institutions and use force to silence points of view that run counter to liberal orthodoxy.   The Berkeley riots, the disruptions and threats against Charles Murray at Middlebury, and Heather MacDonald at McKenna College without repercussion demonstrate higher ed’s complicity in the shutdown, by force if necessary, conservative voices.   Most disturbing was the mob action against the professor at Evergreen State when he refused to go along with the student demands that whites leave campus for a day.  Higher ed has also hired former terrorists that should have been relegated to jobs at 7-11-- Bill Ayers and Kathy Boudin obtained faculty positions despite their connections with the Weather Underground (Boudin actually did time, which Columbia University whitewashed).

The media and Hollywood are in on this, too.  Undeterred by the shock of Kathy Griffin’s hideous ISIS-like pose with the head of Donald Trump, Madonna’s fantasy of blowing up the White House, and the performance in NY of Julius Caesar depicting the assassination of Trump, Johnny Depp joked about “the last time a president was assassinated.”  These are thinly veiled incitements hiding behind comedy and artistic license and go beyond anything we have seen before.   The Griffin episode was particularly disturbing since the image of a beheaded Trump  was unmistakably similar to the barbaric images we have seen from ISIS and, along with the black, face covered garb of Antifa, symbolically cements a relationship between radical Islam and the Left (think Linda Sarsour).  Even more disturbingly, Scott Pelley asserted that the assassination attempt on Scott Scalise was, “to some degree self-inflicted.”

Most shockingly, political violence on the Left has been encouraged by our elected officials through their statements….and sometimes through their silent assent.   Tim Kaine implored Democrats to “fight in the streets against Trump.”  Loretta Lynch asserted that the “most effective response to terrorism is love” but used phrases like “taking to the streets” and “bleeding and dying” when she talked about opposing Trump. 

Which brings me to Barack Obama and his tacit approval of political violence.  He piously called for “civility in discourse,” after the shooting of Gabby Giffords (even though we now know that rhetoric had absolutely nothing to do with the attack).

His embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood was unnerving.   But most disconcerting was his support of the Black Lives Matter movement AFTER they  openly chanted for the deaths of law enforcement officers (“pig in a blanket; fry ‘em like bacon,” and “what do we want? Dead cops.  When do we want it? Now.”).  Whatever their complaint about police officers, no group advocating violence should have been accorded respect by the White House.  

But an even more conspicuous indication of his support for political violence is what he didn’t say.  Barack Obama has never been bashful about sharing his views—whether it was about local incidents like the Cambridge police run in with Henry Louis Gates to the Trayvon Martin matter to the NCAA tournament.  And unlike most ex-presidents, he has been a vocal critic of his successor from the start. Yet when protests turned violent after November’s election, Obama stood silent.  And most tellingly, after the Scalise shooting, Obama was mute, not a word, a statement or a tweet (and none from Hillary Clinton or Chelsea either).  The man whose oft repeated phrase, “that’s not who we are” somehow could even find those words after the assault on Republicans.

When the Baltimore mayor gives rioters “room to destroy,” when a college like Middlebury or Evergreen State fails to take tough action against a mob, when leaders either in words or in action either encourage or fail to condemn violence, and when leaders embrace groups that use violence, we are headed down a slippery slope. 

And this is all coming from the Left. And it’s scary.

Making Literature in Chicago Great Again

Chicago is beset by a host of problems.   It now has a global reputation for violence that rivals its reputation of the days of Al Capone.  The city is in a fiscal mess (on top of the near bankrupt state of the State of Illinois).  Its school system is in a fiscal crisis and it had to borrow to finish the school year.  The city continues to lose population and most worrisome, African Americans (especially working class and professional class) are fleeing the city.  Politicians are desperately exploring new forms of taxation. One entrepreneur intimated to me a couple of weeks ago, “You’d have to be crazy to start a business in Chicago.”  It is not an altogether pretty picture.

Yet, amidst some of the gloom, Chicago has asserted itself as a mecca for literature.  In addition to two world class universities (and some other very good ones), Chicago is now home to a trifecta of literature--- The Poetry Foundation, the Newberry Library and the newly opened American Writers Museum.

I waited with anticipation all winter for the museum to open its doors and toured the museum on opening day in May at its North Michigan Avenue location.  It is the only museum of its kind in the country, with a wonderful walk through historical galley of banners of American authors—from Thoreau and Hawthorne to Cather and E.B. White to Frederick Douglas and James Baldwin.   It has several interactive stations with video of scholars speaking on the works of certain authors.  My personal favorite exhibits were the “American Voices” galley and the “Surprise Bookshelf” that displays samples of great American writing.   Chicago is the perfect location for a national museum as it has its own strong literary history—Gwendolyn Brooks, Studs Terkel, Nelson Algren, Theodore Dreiser, James T. Farrell, Ernest Hemmingway and Saul Bellow among others, are rooted in Chicago and provide the backbone of a Chicago literary tradition.

The American Writers Museum adds a third leg to the city’s literary stool.  The Newberry Library also has transformed itself from a sleepy, dusty old research library to a vibrant intellectual center with a wonderful array of programs and celebrations.  I attended one a couple of years ago that marked the 100^th anniversary of Carl Sandburg’s poem Chicago, which, in addition to a dramatic reading of the play had several speakers, including one that talked about Sandburg’s influence on Bob Dylan, who last year won the Nobel Prize in literature.  And next year, The Newberry Library is undergoing a major renovation that will certainly enhance its standing as an intellectual center.   The American Writer’s Museum together with the Poetry Foundation,  and the rejuvenated Newberry Library makes Chicago a true literary center.   It will be marvelous if the leadership of each of these institutions can find ways to jointly work on some events and programs to magnify their presence in the city’s cultural life.

Coming on the heels of the grand opening of the American Writers Museum is one of the finest summer literary festivals in the country.  The Printers Row Lit Fest, held in early June, is an extravaganza of booksellers, authors, and writer’s that converge in the South Loop for two days.  This year, I had the opportunity to listen to, and chat with, Mary Dearborn, author of the new biography of Ernest Hemmingway and Laura Dassow Walls, author of a new biography of Henry David Thoreau, due out on Thoreau’s 200^th birthday in July.   If you have never been to the Printer’s Row Lit Fest, you are missing a wonderful day (if you are a book lover).

Yes, Chicago has its struggles and challenges.  It is easy to get a bit morose about its prospects, but institutions like the American Writers Museum, remind us that Chicago still has a rich vibrant intellectual and literary foundation, and I applaud the founders for making this museum a reality.

Civil Discourse

It seems like a long time ago since Barack Obama called for civility in discourse after the shooting of Gabby Giffords in 2011.  Since then, there has been a marked deterioration in public discourse in the media, among politicians and the polity at large.  At American universities, public debate has been shut down entirely. Conservative, libertarian and classical liberal voices have been stifled, smothered, shamed and disrupted.  “Safe spaces,” “trigger warnings,” and “white privilege,” havw gotten traction at many universities.  In the most troubling cases, mobs have taken over such places as Middlebury, Berkeley, and most egregiously at Evergreen State.  The deterioration of discourse, its coarseness and crudeness  hit absolute rock bottom with the antics of Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher and Kathy Griffin.

I am proud to have graduated from a place that has been able to stave off these terrible trends.  The University of Chicago is a place where people engage in in public and private debate continuously, where ideas are challenged, premises are attacked, and data are recast, and few, if any, get offended .  It views this process as integral to the development of the excellent minds that the school churns out.  The University of Chicago was the only university to send letters to incoming freshmen, letting them know that the school doesn’t do “safe spaces” or “trigger  warnings.”  It is a place for free and open inquiry.  In contrast, Morton Shapiro, president of Northwestern labelled those that oppose safe spaces as “idiots,” and “morons.”

I attended two engaging debates/conversations this weekend at The University of Chicago that probably could not have happened at another university.   The first was between former Obama chief of staff David Axelrod and conservative senator Tom Cotton.  The second was between self- described knee jerk liberal and Nobel Prize winner Roger Myerson and “habitual skeptic on government spending” Casey Mulligan.  In both cases, it would be hard to pair up opponents farther apart on policy matters.

I will list below a handful of the bullet points/takeaways from the debates.  But the real takeaway is THAT THESE CIVILIZED DEBATES ACTUALLY HAPPENED ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS, without disruption, interruption, harsh words or invective.   The exchanges were spirited, but civil.  Barbs were traded with good humor.  And most astonishingly, the audiences were generally polite, and well mannered.  The questions asked were challenging, yet not preachy or nasty.   Tom Cotton was subjected to derisive laughter a couple of times but at no time was any of the speakers heckled or disrupted.   It is what public debate should be. I was especially impressed with the Axelrod/Cotton exchange.  Here are two men that experienced political life at opposite ends of the spectrum and I thought both made excellent points, actually listened to each other, and both were very witty. 

Here are a few of the punchlines.

Cotton:  I went to Harvard Law [instead of Chicago] because I didn’t want to work that hard.
Axelrod: Stop pandering, Tom [laughter]

Cotton:  The Republican Party stand for free soil, free men, natural rights as described in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  Give people the greatest freedom of action that you can.  Just what Lincoln envisioned.

Axelrod:  But Lincoln also stood for strong federal government: railroad infrastructure, land grant colleges, and the national science foundation.  Government needed to play a role in peoples’ lives. 

Axelrod:  You supported withdrawal from the Paris Accord.

Cotton: The climate is changing and human activity is a factor.  But where I differed was the remedy.  I support an “all of the above” strategy: natural gas, new coal plants, fracking.  It doesn’t take government mandates to do this.  It’s better to invest in basic scientific research.  Democrats view Paris Accord as alternatively 1.  Voluntary or 2.  Our last chance at salvation.  Activism didn’t solve our energy problems getting off whale oil. Rockefeller did.

Axelrod: Russia?
Cotton.  Russia is an adversary.  The Cold War didn’t end.  It was just halftime. Obama reset happened six months after Putin invaded Georgia.  Obama refused to arm the Ukrainians.  We should stop compartmentalizing our relationships with Iran and Russia and take a much tougher line.

Axelrod:  Obama imposed withering sanctions on Russia.
Cotton:  They were not withering.

Axelrod:  How has Trump handled things so far?
Cotton:  He could have been more disciplined and focused on his agenda.
Axelrod:  Well that was a diplomatic, disciplined and focused answer.

Cotton:  If you listened, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were speaking to the same anxieties and said many of the same things. 

Axelrod:  What about immigration?
Cotton:  Politicians need to address it or fringe parties will.

Mulligan:  [shows chart]  This displays how much of the recovery hasn’t happened.  Economic recovery was not an Obama priority.   Climate change and health care reform were.

Myerson:  Withdrawal from the Paris Accord was a major event.  Obama regulated carbon when he should have taxed it.

Myerson:  [on income inequality] the bottom 10% and median wages stagnated while the top 10% increased dramatically.  It is not a terrible crisis if the top 10% is growing.

Mulligan:  Trump doesn’t know much but his instincts are to go 180 degrees from Obama. 

Myerson:  Employment statistics will improve if taxes are cut.  It will be good for the stock market and improve labor conditions.   Inflation will surface shortly.

Mulligan:  Inflation is very hard to predict.

Meyerson:  I worry about the reliability of the U.S. and the marketability of U.S. debt.

Meyerson:  Companies should not be given tax concessions in small towns that they can walk away from.  States and local governments should be given a share of equity.

Mulligan:  Policy distorts decisions and is biased against small towns.  A $15/hour minimum wage doesn’t make sense in rural Illinois.  Rural hospitals can’t comply with regulations.

Mulligan:  Studies show that recipients value Medicaid at $.33 on the $1.  We should just give them the money.

Myerson:  I advocate a carbon fuel tax of 2-5% of GDP to make up for lowering corporate rates.  Lowering corporate rates and closing loopholes is sensible.

Myerson:  The success of the country depends on immigration.  U.S. growth is supplied by immigrants.  I predict that immigration policy will not be as extreme as Trump rhetoric.

Mulligan:  We have laws that we don’t enforce.  No Man’s Land is the worst place to be.  A mafia type approach is not good.

Myerson:  ISIS strategy is to provoke a military response that destroys the overall structure of a society that creates opportunity.  Bush and Obama said they wouldn’t nation build, but they did.  I like McMaster.  He brought in someone that understands how important building a stable society is.

Mulligan:  The best thing you could do is take a Zippo lighter and Obamacare and unite them.

Myerson:  There is no theory, no model that shows that competition works in health insurance markets because of the adverse selection problem.

Mulligan:  [addressing how the Republicans will do in the near future] I did my PhD thesis on regression to the mean.

Myerson:  Never support someone that has not held power under the Constitution or one of the separate states.