Trump invoked so-called “principled realism” during his U.N. speech:
We are guided by outcomes, not ideology. We have a policy of principled realism, rooted in shared goals, interests and values.
Trump has shown before that his administration’s “principled realism” is neither principled nor realist, and he did so again earlier this week. Leading realists have been quite vocal in their rejection of the foreign policy he has conducted to date, and they have done so in large part because Trump has been in thrall to the goals of ideologues. Take his antagonism to the nuclear deal with Iran as a prime example.
An administration “guided by outcomes, not ideology” would have no problem with a deal that successfully restricted Iran’s nuclear program. They would have to acknowledge that the deal was working as intended regardless of any reservations they might have about it. It is the ideologue who insists on adding new demands and finding fault with an agreement that everyone else believes to be the best deal available. Trump is inclined to yield to the ideologues in his party because rejecting the deal lines up with his rejection of everything connected with Obama. The consequences of reneging on the deal don’t concern him, just as the benefits of remaining the deal don’t interest him. He wants to vindicate the idea that Obama made a bad deal and that he can do better. It has nothing to do with outcomes and everything to do with proving his predecessor wrong. There is no principle at work here except contempt for compromise and diplomacy. There is no realism anywhere to be found.
Is $60 million really not enough for the Obamas?
In collecting $400,000 from a Wall Street investment firm to make a single speech, Barack Obama is following in the Gucci-clad footsteps of past presidents. Ronald Reagan landed a $2 million speaking gig in Japan. George W. Bush, on his way out, announced it was time to “replenish the ol’ coffers.” Bill and Hillary Clinton reported making more than $235 million after leaving the White House.
But to acknowledge that Obama has plenty of precedent on his side is not to say that his choice is wise. Indeed, it’s unfortunate.
.. It comes after a campaign in which Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speaking fees became a symbol of entitled elitism. So imagine the powerful message Obama would have sent — the reverse precedent — had he chosen to renounce this road to riches.
.. Or, imagine this, had he chosen to speak publicly, at as many places and on as many topics as he liked. Just not behind closed doors, for an amount equivalent to his White House salary — and seven times what the typical household makes in a year.
.. But is this rapaciousness really the image he wants to cultivate — for himself or for fellow Democrats? Having left his party in such terrible condition, does he really have to offer opponents ammunition to attack him as hypocritical?
.. Hogwash. This isn’t about holding the black guy to a higher standard — it’s about trying to hold everyone to a higher standard. Times have changed, and what was once placidly accepted as post-presidential business-as-usual may no longer be.
.. A wise man once said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.
Paul Ryan Failed Because His Bill Was a Dumpster Fire
It was bad policy, not poor tactics or negotiating skills, that doomed the GOP’s efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare.
he and his allies crafted a poorly constructed and radical bill that would sharply cut support to low-income Americans and those with serious health conditions, while enacting big tax cuts for the wealthy.
.. Speaker Ryan’s crafting of AHCA was a slapdash enterprise.
.. even leading health-care experts were confused by the changes. As Timothy Jost noted at Health Affairs: “This comprehensive a repeal of the ACA would have far-ranging consequences for our health care system that can scarcely be described, much less understood, in the hours that remain before a vote.”
.. wondered whether the game plan was just for the House to pass something—anything—and then let the Senate do the real work.
.. So why did Republicans fail? In a word: insincerity.
.. they might have refined another conservative model, such as Avik Roy’s modifications to ACA exchanges, to turn ACA’s exchanges in a more conservative direction.
.. Secure in the knowledge that they would face President Obama’s veto, Republicans rammed through a succession of extreme repeal-and-replace bills that resembled AHCA’s original draft. These bills excited the Republican base, but would have horrified most other Americans if they ever found sufficient reason to look.
.. Congressional Republicans suffered what George W. Bush might call a “catastrophic success” with Donald Trump’s unexpected victory.
.. leaving people in plans where the “deductibles are so high that it’s really not worth much to them.”
.. He vowed to replace the “failing,” “horrific” Obamacare with “something terrific.”
.. Republican plans are designed around higher deductibles and narrower benefits, not to mention more limited Medicaid.
.. smaller financial subsidies for people with chronic health conditions. That was the clear intention, but Ryan refused to admit it.
.. Many in the GOP, above all President Trump, seemed strangely uninterested in the policy details.
.. To the extent Republicans did have an animating passion, it was to puncture President Obama’s legacy—and to avoid looking foolish by failing to honor their “repeal and replace” rhetoric.
.. For all their endless warnings about how Obama’s signature health law was hurting American families, driving up costs and putting us on the path toward socialism, it turns out they didn’t care enough to put in the work.