Later this afternoon, Fox News will broadcast Bill O'Reilly's interview with the President. To promote the event the network released an excerpt in which the interviewer questions Trump's desire for better relations with Vladimir Putin, whom O'Reilly calls a 'killer.' The President's answer is a challenge: doesn't O'Reilly think we have plenty of killers here in the U.S.? Does he think we're so innocent?
In context, Trump doesn't seem to be referring to the criminal killers who plague Chicago and other places. His fairly clear meaning, I think, is that the U.S. has played dirty (Trump might prefer 'tough') in geopolitics, as Russia has, if not also in the domestic sphere, as Putin is assumed to do. There is self-evident truth in the President's comment, but a CNN host was not wrong this morning to tell an uncomfortable Majority Leader McConnell that had the previous President said the same words Republicans would have condemned him. Yet there is this difference: there was always a note of apology, albeit only inferred sometimes, when Obama raised these subjects.Republicans and other jingoists still despise him for his so-called apology tour. I doubt whether the current President really means anything accusatory when he questions American innocence. Instead, he probably means to challenge people who think we're too good to associate with Putin, or that we'd debase ourselves by working with him. Trump may know that when Hitler invaded Russia Churchill said he'd be willing to make an alliance with the devil to beat the Nazis, and so would gladly work with Stalin. To this day, of course, many people regret that Churchill and FDR had to work with Stalin -- the price of working with Russia usually ends up being the subjugation of Eastern Europe -- but none would rather have conceded anything to Hitler to spite the Bolsheviks.
Today, we can guess that Trump is willing to pay some price to get Russian cooperation against Islamic terrorism that others here are unwilling to pay, but a willingness to pay, even if other countries end up paying the real price, is probably better than a refusal to bargain from a dubious position of moral superiority. For all we know, Putin might be able to teach Trump something about geopolitical pragmatism. After all, allying with Russia against the self-styled Islamic State really should be an easy call. The real challenge to American self-righteousness would be to build a coalition against Sunni terrorism by reconciling with Russia's friends and the Shiite superpower of the region, the Iranians. So far Trump shows no sign of such pragmatism, but he still has plenty of time to learn.
In context, Trump doesn't seem to be referring to the criminal killers who plague Chicago and other places. His fairly clear meaning, I think, is that the U.S. has played dirty (Trump might prefer 'tough') in geopolitics, as Russia has, if not also in the domestic sphere, as Putin is assumed to do. There is self-evident truth in the President's comment, but a CNN host was not wrong this morning to tell an uncomfortable Majority Leader McConnell that had the previous President said the same words Republicans would have condemned him. Yet there is this difference: there was always a note of apology, albeit only inferred sometimes, when Obama raised these subjects.Republicans and other jingoists still despise him for his so-called apology tour. I doubt whether the current President really means anything accusatory when he questions American innocence. Instead, he probably means to challenge people who think we're too good to associate with Putin, or that we'd debase ourselves by working with him. Trump may know that when Hitler invaded Russia Churchill said he'd be willing to make an alliance with the devil to beat the Nazis, and so would gladly work with Stalin. To this day, of course, many people regret that Churchill and FDR had to work with Stalin -- the price of working with Russia usually ends up being the subjugation of Eastern Europe -- but none would rather have conceded anything to Hitler to spite the Bolsheviks.
Today, we can guess that Trump is willing to pay some price to get Russian cooperation against Islamic terrorism that others here are unwilling to pay, but a willingness to pay, even if other countries end up paying the real price, is probably better than a refusal to bargain from a dubious position of moral superiority. For all we know, Putin might be able to teach Trump something about geopolitical pragmatism. After all, allying with Russia against the self-styled Islamic State really should be an easy call. The real challenge to American self-righteousness would be to build a coalition against Sunni terrorism by reconciling with Russia's friends and the Shiite superpower of the region, the Iranians. So far Trump shows no sign of such pragmatism, but he still has plenty of time to learn.
4 comments:
It seems to me that when dealing with international politics, all notions of "morality" should be left at the door.
Hard to do in a democracy, or among ideologues.
Yes, the idealogues are the problem, since none of them actually agree on a single morality, and none of them follow the morality they espouse if it means losing an election. Hence, may as well be honest and eliminate morality.
The ideal isn't necessarily amoral but definitely should be more dispassionate, with fewer knee-jerk reactions in any direction.
Post a Comment