May, 2017 archive

Meanwhile, Josh Marshall tries to make sense of the backchannel to Russia and comes to this conclusion (follow the link for his extended discussion of why he so concluded):

The most plausible ‘bad’ story behind the Trump/Russia mystery has always been some kind of financial preferment to members of the Trump family in exchange for lifting the sanctions put in place after the Russian annexation of Crimea and subsequent low-intensity incursions into eastern Ukraine.

Via Job’s Anger.

In a thoughtful article in The Charlotte Observer, mulls the the implications of “freedom from.” I’m not sure that I agree with everything he says–certainly not his reflexive retreat into bothsiderism, when it is one side that relies on the politics of fear and division, whereas the other side, with some few exceptions spurns them–but I do recommend his article to your attention.

Here’s a snippet (I’ve italicized the phrase “freedom from” for the sake of clarity where I thought it appropriate):

Ours, however, has always been a culture that places a high priority on individual freedom – and, over the last several decades, pressures from both the left and the right (note the bothersiderism–ed.) have steadily weakened the ties that bind us together. Freedom from traditional sources of authority and moral truth. Freedom from the responsibility to contribute to what our Constitution calls the general welfare. These are but a few examples.

I’m not suggesting that the expansion of individual freedom has been a bad thing. I am suggesting that it has come at a cost, which we are only beginning to appreciate. A society in which the greatest good is a citizen’s freedom from will cease to function as a society in any real sense of the word and, instead, become a collection of disconnected individuals who, either by design or by default, have as little to do with one another as possible.

Der Spiegel parses Angela Merkel’s speech about the relationship between Europe and the Trumpled States of America. They ask and attempt to answer four questions. Here’s one question and answer (emphasis in the original–follow the link for the rest):

1. Why did her comments cause such a stir around the world?

On the eve of Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia, Israel and Europe, heads of state and government around the world were eager to put on a veneer of harmony. That effort, though, is over — and Merkel is one significant reason why. Since Trump’s victory last November, many see the German chancellor as the leader of the free world and her appearance on Sunday was a sharp break with the careful Trump-related rhetoric she had thus far employed. To be sure, she reminded him in her congratulatory message after he won the election of the values that form the basis for the trans-Atlantic relationship, but she had nevertheless consistently sought to emphasize commonalities rather than divisions. Merkel’s comments on Sunday are a turning point because she cast doubt on past convictions — and provided a clear indication that she is losing hope that she can ever work constructively together with Trump. Or — a slightly different interpretation — she is now willing to express those doubts that have been building for some time. Either way, she did so in a manner which was, for her, unusually blunt.

In related news, Josh Marshall attempts to understand the change in tone by Europe’s leaders. Here’s the crucial bit (emphasis added):

Trump’s speech alone is likely a sufficient explanation. But I suspect there’s an additional element. Most of the major European and NATO leaders had already met Trump in Washington – Merkel, May, Gentiloni, Trudeau and others. But I suspect in meeting as a group, over a more extended period and in a context specifically focused on Europe and NATO there was a further realization that what they are watching from across the Atlantic is no act. Indeed, Trump appears more impulsive and erratic in person than on TV. Rather than growing into the job he’s growing into the role of aggressor.