What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[garbon]

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/rex-tillerson-state-department/521793/

The Silence of Rex Tillerson

Sooner or later, someone needs to explain what Trump's foreign policy is. But the secretary of state does not seem to understand his job.

One would not expect the secretary of defense routinely to inspect the sentries and walk point on patrols, but, in effect, that is what the secretary of state has to do. He is the chief executive of a department numbering in the tens of thousands, and a budget in the tens of billions; but he is also the country's chief diplomat, charged with conducting negotiations and doing much of the detailed work of American foreign policy. Americans expect him as well to serve as the president's senior constitutionally accountable adviser on such matters, and as the expositor of an administration's foreign policy.

It is not unprecedented for a president to install a business executive as secretary of state. After all, George Shultz, one of the outstanding 20th-century occupants of that office, came to Foggy Bottom from Bechtel. But then again, Shultz had a rich array of experiences under his belt in addition to a successful business career—he had taught economics at MIT and the University of Chicago, and served as both secretary of labor and the first director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Tillerson resembles Shultz in what is, by all accounts, sterling character—honest, considerate, soft-spoken, but effective at managing a large business. There is no reason to doubt his integrity or good judgment. But in his first few months as secretary of state his performance suggests both his limits (which he may transcend) and more fundamental proclivities of the Trump administration (which he almost certainly cannot).

During his short tenure the following has happened: His top pick for deputy secretary of state was shot down at the last minute in a bit of palace intrigue; his boss has proposed slashing his department's budget by 29 percent; his press operation at the State Department went dark for several weeks, after which the interim spokesman made a (good) statement in support of Russian demonstrators and was promptly moved; he decided to get rid of the usual press entourage on his inaugural overseas trip to Asia; he nearly skipped a meeting of NATO foreign ministers, pulling back in the nick of time to spend only a few hours on the ground in Brussels; he has been preceded on a visit to Iraq by the princeling of the Trump administration, Jared Kushner, whose remit includes China and Middle East peace, among other things. And on the great issues of American foreign policy—nothing.

It is the conceit of professors that the world could easily be run by academics; of soldiers that generals can sort most things out; of business people that what one most needs is someone who has had to meet a payroll. In the case of the Trump administration the bias seems to be towards military people who the president thinks look like killers or are supposed to have monikers like "mad dog," and for really wealthy folks from the private sector, with an apparent fondness for New York money people.

This is nonsense. The higher offices of state require all kinds of qualities rarely assembled in one individual, among them, yes, basic management skills, but also sensitivity to domestic politics, intellectual depth, a certain degree of vision, substantive knowledge of often recondite issues, interpersonal skills at wheedling, coaxing, intimidating and persuading, and a public persona. Running Exxon Mobil is good preparation for only some of the things a secretary of state must do. And so far, Secretary Tillerson is doing poorly.

...[more in link]

[Berkut]

That system, so far, has failed spectacularly on both counts. Trump is not operating in good faith, and Congress so far has completely failed to challenge him politically.

They did kill his health care bill. That's a pretty big rebuke isn't it?

They killed it because it wasn't stupid enough for them, not because it was too stupid.

[garbon]

That system, so far, has failed spectacularly on both counts. Trump is not operating in good faith, and Congress so far has completely failed to challenge him politically.

They did kill his health care bill. That's a pretty big rebuke isn't it?

They killed it because it wasn't stupid enough for them, not because it was too stupid.

Well it was a mix really. I don't feel like they would have been concerned if they had to go more conservative, only problem is that then they'd lose moderate/centrist Republican support.

[jimmy olsen]

That system, so far, has failed spectacularly on both counts. Trump is not operating in good faith, and Congress so far has completely failed to challenge him politically.

They did kill his health care bill. That's a pretty big rebuke isn't it?

They killed it because it wasn't stupid enough for them, not because it was too stupid.

The was the Freedom Caucus's motive, but around 30 moderates opposed it because it was too conservative as well.

[DGuller]

To be fair, wasn't the healthcare bill not terrible enough because it had to appease the more "moderate" GOP group as well?

[garbon]

To be fair, wasn't the healthcare bill not terrible enough because it had to appease the more "moderate" GOP group as well?

I heard that perhaps the health bill didn't go as conservative as it could have gone as they needed support from middle of the road GOP members.

[The Larch]

"Stolen" from Berry on FB:

'Extreme vetting' would require visitors to US to share contacts and passwords

Trump administration's proposed changes may mean travelers from countries including UK, France, Australia and Japan have to share digital information


Tourists from Britain and other countries visiting the US could be forced to reveal mobile phone contacts, social media passwords and financial data under "extreme vetting" practices being considered by the Trump administration, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Travellers who want to enter the US could also face questioning over their ideology, as Washington moves away from a default position of allowing people in to a more sceptical approach to visitors.

Trump made the "extreme vetting" of foreign nationals to combat terrorism a major theme of his presidential election campaign. But his executive order imposing a travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries has twice been blocked in court. Media reports suggest it has already hurt the tourism industry.

Gene Hamilton, senior counselor to homeland security secretary John Kelly, told the Journal on Tuesday: "If there is any doubt about a person's intentions coming to the United States, they should have to overcome – really and truly prove to our satisfaction – that they are coming for legitimate reasons."

The changes might include visitors from the 38 countries – the UK, France, Australia and Japan among them – that participate in the visa waiver programme, which requires adherence to strict US standards in data sharing, passport control and other factors, one senior official told the Journal.

This could require people to hand over their phones so officials can study their stored contacts and possibly other information. The aim is to "figure out who you are communicating with", a senior Department of Homeland Security official was quoted as saying. "What you can get on the average person's phone can be invaluable."

A second change would ask applicants for their social media handles and passwords, so that officials could see information posted privately in addition to public posts, the Journal said.

Kelly told a House homeland security committee hearing in February: "We want to say for instance, 'What sites do you visit? And give us your passwords,' so that we can see what they do on the internet. If they don't want to give us that information then they don't come."

At the time his comments provoked a swift backlash from a coalition of dozens of human rights and civil liberties groups. They said in a joint statement: "This proposal would enable border officials to invade people's privacy by examining years of private emails, texts, and messages.

"It would expose travelers and everyone in their social networks, including potentially millions of US citizens, to excessive, unjustified scrutiny. And it would discourage people from using online services or taking their devices with them while traveling, and would discourage travel for business, tourism and journalism."

The US issued more than 10 million visas in 2016. According to the Journal report, the administration is also working to implement an idea for an "ideological test" for people coming to the US.

The Journal report said the DHS official working on the review said questions under consideration included whether visa applicants believe in so-called honor killings, how they view the treatment of women in society, whether they value the "sanctity of human life" and who they view as a legitimate target in a military operation.

Such a move would be sure to draw fierce criticism. Broadcaster Joy Reid tweeted on Tuesday: "This is madness."

The New York Times reported last month that diplomatic cables sent by secretary of state Rex Tillerson to all US embassies instructed consular officials to step up security, but those rules did not apply to citizens of the 38 countries under the visa waiver programme.

The Department of Homeland Security acknowledged a request for comment but has not yet provided one.

[Valmy]

IF WE CAN SAVE EVEN ONE CHILD anything is permissible.

[Eddie Teach]

"moderate"

You say that like they're Muslim.

[Barrister]

Sounds like you just don't take your cell phone with you on a trip to the US.  Maybe buy a burner phone when you arrive or something.

[celedhring]

I love all these invasive security measures that any terrorist with half a brain will find trivial to circumvent.

[Valmy]

I love all these invasive security measures that any terrorist with half a brain will find trivial to circumvent.

Fortunately most terrorists lack even that.

But yes. It is mostly there to appear tough.

[The Larch]

Sounds like you just don't take your cell phone with you on a trip to the US.  Maybe buy a burner phone when you arrive or something.

Or your laptop/tablet. Massive pain in the ass for business travellers.

[Berkut]

I love all these invasive security measures that any terrorist with half a brain will find trivial to circumvent.

I don't think the intent there is to catch terrorists. It is to vet potential immigrants and visitors from having political or social views the administration does not like.

This is 100% Bannon ideology.

[Barrister]

I love all these invasive security measures that any terrorist with half a brain will find trivial to circumvent.

I don't think the intent there is to catch terrorists. It is to vet potential immigrants and visitors from having political or social views the administration does not like.

This is 100% Bannon ideology.

Yeah - it's intent is to discourage and harass the wrong people from coming to the US.