Here’s a recent round-up of a few of his recent meetings:

• attended an event for “National Skills Week” and “National Entrepreneurship and Technical and Vocational Training Day” in which Aref praised the resilience of the Iranian people in resisting “the U.S.-led hegemonic system.”

• attending the closing of the 39th Gathering of Heads of Education Countrywide.

• calling for a strategic approach to engaging with Africa.

• meeting Tajikistan’s Minister of Energy and Water Resources where Reza Aref called for a union of Persian speaking states. (This last courtesy of the insightful and funny Paul Musgrave—you should subscribe to his substack: Systematic Hatreds.)

There’s more. A lot, lot more. He also makes a lot of statements of government policy and initiatives. It calls to mind Nikita Khrushchev’s observation, “Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge, even when there is no river.”

Reading about VP Aref’s doings, one is struck by the banality of political life and how similar it is to that of U.S. politicians. Here are photos from a conference for “National Journalists’ Day” which VP Aref chaired. Government confabs resemble one another worldwide and the looks on the faces of the participants are universal.

The last meeting however, is interesting. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey recently established an alliance, a hedge against rising Israeli power. But it isn’t great news for Iran. The Islamic Republic is friend-challenged on the global stage. A new alliance with Tajikistan, a poor country with a population of about 11 million, isn’t going to fix this, but the other nations that could plausibly join a union of Persian speaking nations are Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan. This would make inroads into Central Asia. Also, Tajikistan is closely linked to both Russia and China. Iran strengthening ties with Tajikistan puts it more fully in the Chinese and Russian orbit. This is not a global realignment, but it is the sort of initiative that is very vice presidential.

Veeps in Latin America

In Bolivia, Vice President Edmand Lara has emerged as the government’s leading critic. The competition for this role is fierce as large parts of the country including the capital La Paz are effectively under siege. President Rodrigo Paz inherited a devastated economy and has responded with solid macroeconomic policies of ending fuel subsidies and floating the currency. These are major accomplishments, and appear to be working on the macro-level. But on the ground they are very unpopular. He has already reshuffled his cabinet several times, including pushing out the Justice Minister who was close to VP Lara. The government is also bedeviled by a weird scandal involving Fernando Cerimedo, an Argentine political consultant who works with Paz. He allegedly put a hit on his pregnant girlfriend. VP Lara highlighted Cerimedo’s power in the government. Lara came to national attention as an anti-corruption crusader, so these kinds of scandals play into his hands. (My go-to for all things Bolivia is Casey Cagley’s Bolivia Brief.)

In Peru, Keiko Fujimori, daughter of the late president Alberto Fujimori, is kind of popular, for now—which is surprising given her very narrow victory. Peru is also in a multipronged economic, security, and political crisis. Peru has also become a sort of parliamentary oligarchy, with the legislature tossing out presidents on a fairly regular basis. Given the intractability of Peru’s crisis, this could be Fujimori’s fate as well, in which case her vice presidents start to matter. Vice presidents? Nope, that’s not a typo. Peru has two. Several Latin American countries have eliminated the position because it was a source of political instability. Peru went the other way. We’ll look at this and the two VPs in a future post. (As always, my key source on Latin America is Boz’s Latin American Risk Report.)

Vance is Losing Allies

I know this is what you are really here for. All this talk about vice presidents around the world is interesting, but Vance news is where it’s at. And since most of my readers don’t like the guy, you want bad news. Well, I’ve got some.

Personally, I’m not in love with Vance’s politics and I think he’s a lousy campaigner. But, I also think he is sincerely wrestling with ideas. I don’t like where he comes out, but I also don’t think his journey is complete. He is trying to play a constructive role in a chaotic administration, and on some issues (like Iran) he was right. On other issues (like Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, he is abominable.)

Vance has been losing allies in the administration. There is always turnover in administrations around the midterms. But, as we’ve written before, Vance is losing key allies. The White House director of legislative affairs, James Braid, is taking off. He was JD Vance’s legislative affairs director when he was Senator. He is an interesting figure because he is emblematic of the rising generation of MAGA staffers. In Trump’s first term there were very few experienced DC hands who were aligned with MAGA. Now there is a decent cadre. Being White House legislative affairs director after the likely midterm Blue Wave probably won’t be much fun, so it’s easy to see why Braid is heading for the exit. But it isn’t great for Vance’s ability to influence policy.

The Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll is also leaving. He was at Yale Law with Vance. Driscoll was getting pretty good reviews for his efforts to bring the Army into the age of drones. Driscoll also did a bit of diplomacy in Ukraine, which isn’t normally the Army Secretary’s role. Not clear if this was a power grab, or just reflected the chaos of the Trump administration. As Secretary of Defense Hegseth floundered, there was talk of Driscoll replacing him.

Whatever one thinks of Hegseth, he is an absolute monster about protecting himself and eliminating opposition. (His personal attorney is a real knife-fighter who is both serving as a special advisor to Hegseth and representing military clients.) Hegseth has been regularly pushing out generals and admirals he doesn’t like—either for personal reasons (disagreeing with him) or policy reasons (too much emphasis on DEI.)1 Hegseth also seems to be toying with running for president (otherwise its pretty weird for a Secretary of Defense in the middle of a war to be stumping for a candidate in Iowa.) Here’s a decent take by Dan Drezner on all of the Hegseth oriented wackiness over at the Pentagon—my summary barely scratched the surface.

Driscoll’s days were numbered when Hegseth forced out Army Chief of Staff General Randy George—with whom Driscoll had established a strong working relationship.

The story that has surfaced is that Army Chief of Staff was forced out for investigating the Kid Rock flyover. Gen. George’s replacement, Gen. LaNeve was the one who urged George to drop the probe.) No doubt, Driscoll has seen the writing on the wall.

What isn’t clear is whether Vance tried to intervene and was overruled or if Vance kept his powder dry. Either way, Vance didn’t have the juice to protect a friend, which isn’t a great sign of vice presidential influence.

My fellow Veepologist, Reb Brownell, just wrote a paper asking if the vice presidency is in decline. Between Pence, Harris, and now Vance it certainly appears that way.

But there’s another question: does any of this matter for Vance’s 2028 aspirations?

More on both questions coming soon!

Eight years ago I wrote about Trump using tariffs to bully Canada. Eight fucking years ago! Everything I said then stands, except that Canada is now prepared to fight back. On Canada—and many things life—I come back to the great Canadian novelist Robertson Davies. He observed that the U.S. was the world’s most extroverted and nation and Canada its most introverted. We Americans mistake that introversion for meekness. We are foolish to do so. Push them enough and they will stand up for themselves.

To what I wrote below, I’ll emphasize one point. Relationships exist in time and space. Canada will be on the U.S. border tomorrow, in a year, a decade, in a century. Pissing them off today fundamentally changes that relationship and they aren’t going anywhere. I have an inkling about what Trumpism is really trying to achieve—note not Trump, but Trumpism. In that context, making pissing of Canada actually makes sense. I’ll get into it another time.

Stay tuned, tomorrow I have some Veepology coming with a look at Iran’s VP, some other VPs around the world, and of course more Vance updates.

Bullying Friends: On Tariffs, Norms, and Canada

• Originally posted March 19, 2018

I started this post last week, then life and events overtook it. Foreign affairs world went nuts with the ousting of Tillerson and McMaster. Daniel Drezner, of course, said the same thing I say below, but better. He was more analytical than I am. I’m more emotional, and kind of upset about this, so I’m posting it anyway.

Michael Corleone followed the dictum, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”

This administration has inverted the strategy to: Suck up to your enemies, and piss off your friends.

The administration’s tariffs are terrible economics, terrible foreign policy, and awful for our security policy. I won’t reiterate the arguments on the economic front; others have made them. On foreign policy more broadly, besides annoying friends, tariffs could spark a trade war which will hurt workers, and it undermines the World Trade Organization – the linchpin of a global trade order that the U.S. established. Finally, trade relationships underpin and strengthen security relationships.

Saying that the tariffs are bad for our relationships with allies is a bit vague. These relationships are not simply a two-dimensional thermometer – how much do they like us? These relationships are complex and multi-dimensional. It isn’t that this drives the temperature down, rather, it breaks the thermometer.

Consider Canada

I am generally and genuinely interested in Canada. Regular readers (should I have any) will know that my favorite novelist, the late Robertson Davies is Canadian. I don’t read him for his thoughts on world affairs or even Canadian politics, but it has given me some modest insight into the national character of our great neighbor to the north.

This has led me to muse on Canadian history a bit, granted, through an American lens. On a visit to Ottawa, I went to the Canadian War Museum and got a bit of the alternative perspective.

When the President announced tariffs on steel and aluminum, the impact would have fallen disproportionately on Canada (in great part because the U.S. and Canadian economy are so tightly integrated.) Faced with blowback, the White House announced an exemption for Canada and Mexico – with the caveat that Canada and Mexico renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.

So the U.S. will play hardball, using the steel tariffs as leverage in the NAFTA negotiations. There are a lot of specific problems with this strategy. First, we claimed the tariffs on a rarely used national security basis. Using them as leverage in a trade deal undercuts our case before the WTO. Second, it may not be a terribly effective negotiating tactic. NAFTA is hugely complicated and will take some time to re-work, so a gun to the head is not helpful. Further steel is not that big of a component to the Canadian economy (or ours) so if forced to, Canada will take a hit on steel on behalf of other industries that have more at stake.

But something bigger and more unpleasant is going on.

Partnership or Vassal

Imagine a firm with two partners. One partner is wealthier and a bigger part of the firm than the other, but it is still a partnership. The lesser partner is a valuable contributor. The two partners work out most issues equitably. The issues aren’t just financial. They work side-by-side so all kinds of things would come up and have to be dealt with. At the same time, with such proximity, there are warm personal relations between the two partners. They help each other with non-business issues. When there are contentious issues, say profit distributions, the two sides agree to an independent arbitrator – precisely to avoid tough negotiations that could add ill will to their relationship.

Now imagine the bigger partner suddenly starts playing hardball with the lesser partner. How will the lesser partner feel. Will that make other issues between them difficult? Will they start squabbling over cleaning the office kitchen or parking spaces? Maybe the lesser partner has few options and will remain, but bitter, less cooperative.

Would that be worth it?

Canada Looks South

My parents were just up in NYC and saw the Tony award winning play Come From Away. It is about the town of Gander, Newfoundland that took in over 6000 passengers on 9/11 when U.S. airspace was shut down. My parents were deeply moved and reported that the applause was thunderous. Canada has our back. Remember the movie Argo, how Canadian diplomats rescued Americans during the Iran hostage crisis?

This is not to say that we don’t do good things for Canada too. Every year the city of Halifax sends a Christmas tree to Boston to honor the aid sent after a 1917 explosion in Halifax Harbour killed 2000 and devastated the city.

More than that, on a personal level, at least on the surface, Americans and Canadians share vast cultural affinities. If one delves deeper, differences emerge, but there is enough commonality for an easy relationship.

At the same time, it is not all sweetness and light between us. The close relationship between the U.S. and Canada took time to build. The U.S. invaded Canada – twice. First in the Revolutionary War and second in the War of 1812, in which we sought to liberate Canada from the yoke of tyrannical England. The Canadians preferred to choose their own yoke, and defeated the American expedition. The War of 1812 is fundamental to Canada’s national narrative. Yet, the Canadians were courteous enough to send ships to Baltimore Harbor for the 200th anniversary of that war. At the Canadian War Museum, the exhibit on the War of 1812 notes that the United States had legitimate grievances with the United Kingdom.

It isn’t just a threat of state invasion that concerns Canada, they are also worried about stuff that bubbles up from their great neighbor to the south. While the U.S. worries about Islamist terrorists infiltrating from Canada (and this happened.) The Canadians are pretty concerned about living next to a giant open air firearms market. Worries about U.S. weaponry wreaking havoc are a serious concern for Canadian security analysts. It also pops up in Canadian fiction.

It is not a hypothetical concern. After the U.S. Civil War, Irish veterans formed the Fenians, a secret society that sought to take Canada by force and hold it hostage for Irish independence. Between 1866 and 1871 the Fenians carried out a number of raids and fought pitched battles with hastily formed Canadian militias. Efforts to coordinate the response hastened the establishment of the Canadian confederation.

Deep in their hearts, Canada has a certain distrust of the United States. We should have no illusions and not simply take Canadian good will for granted. But that is exactly what we are doing.

Trust and Justice

The U.S. and Canada have a – perhaps the – model of international comity. Despite its massive power, the United States does not simply force its will on Canada. Our relationship is cooperative. This is the U.S. at its best. The U.S. that built the modern liberal international order, that surrenders some of its own power in order to win allies and become yet more powerful.

In The Republic, Thrasymachus states that strong was what the strong say it is. Plato, speaking through Socrates, says that there is justice and ultimately those who claim it but do not practice it will suffer consequences. At its best – and we are not always at our best – the U.S. embodies this. In our bullying Canada, we take a step towards our worst selves and that is the America the world will see and remember.

Is that who we are? Is that who we want to be?

It is neither smart nor nice and it is not the U.S. I want.

First up is the departure of Vance’s national security advisor Andrew Baker. Then we’ll look at former VP Kamala Harris, who got some pushback from Alaska Senate hopeful Mary Peltola. Finally, VP Pence’s CIA briefer was a transgender woman who, in a recent article about being drummed out of the government by the Trump administration, had nothing but praise for Pence!

Vance Suffers a Personnel Loss

Andrew Baker, dual-hatted as VP Vance’s national security adviser (VPNSA) and deputy national security adviser (DNSA), is leaving the White House. He’ll be joining Robert O’Brien’s consulting firm America Global Strategies. O’Brien was the longest lasting National Security Adviser (NSA) from Trump’s first term.1

We’ve written about Baker quite a bit—even suggesting he could be Vance’s Kissinger. Our PhD focused specifically on the national security role of the VP, so the VPNSA is a position of some interest. Baker is an interesting character. He has a PhD as well as working experience at the State Department. He signed on with Vance early and was his foreign policy staffer in the Senate. Baker’s most notable publicly known role in the administration was joining Vance in the negotiations with the Iranians to end the war.

If there are figures capable of developing a post-Trump foreign policy of restraint, Baker is among them.

Cliff Sims, on the other hand, who will be replacing Baker as Vance’s VPNSA is much less of a foreign policy hand. Sims is a skilled operator and communicator. For the hyper-online Vance, that may be what the VP wants.

Michael Needham will be the sole DNSA. Needham is another interesting figure. He worked with Russell Vought at Heritage Action for American for eight years. In 2018, when Marco Rubio made a strategic pivot towards Trumpism, he recruited Needham as his chief of staff. When Rubio became Secretary of State, Needham became Rubio’s counselor there, then chief of staff, and then director policy planning. When Rubio was also named NSA, Needham became Rubio’s “stand-in” at State. Clearly a skilled player, Needham has the trust and confidence of his boss.

One of the greatest bureaucratic warriors of all time, James Baker2 said that personnel is policy. Seeing who is filling key positions gives an indication of how the process is working and who makes the key decisions. Given the idiosyncratic process of the Trump administration, tracking who is doing what at the NSC matter less than usual. Normally, Baker’s departure would be a weakening of Vance’s position but most reports state that Vance and Rubio have a solid working relationship. Baker’s absence probably won’t lead Vance to be cut out of the process (such as it is.)

When Harris staffers left her office, there were charges that her office was in disorder and that she was a difficult boss. I wrote that there are a lot of reasons why people leave these jobs. Vance people have left or are leaving. This has not been accompanied by stories about an office in disorder. I’ll just reiterate that they are burnout jobs. If you have children, these jobs are simply awful. Outside of government, you can make a lot more money for a lot less work. The advantage of working in the White House is that you might make a difference. But Vance lost the internal debates on the Iran war, is somehow being blamed for losing the war he opposed, and this opposition is driving a wedge between Vance and Trump. Vance staffers might question whether they are having much policy influence. The potential of a blue wave in November, which would almost certainly bring extensive Congressional investigations with it, is possibly another factor for some White House figures moving on to greener pastures.

VP Harris: Fishing in Alaska

Speaking of Kamala Harris, her PAC sent out a fundraising appeal urging supporters to “stand behind Mary” Peltola, the Democratic pro-fish Senate candidate in Alaska. Although Alaska is a red state, Peltola had previously won a surprise victory in a special state-wide election for Alaska’s only House seat and given Trump’s general unpopularity she has a real chance of winning the Senate race.

Republicans used this email to tie Peltola to Harris, who lost Alaska by 14 points in 2024.

The Peltola campaign replied, “Mary isn’t seeking endorsements from anyone from the Lower 48.”

As Peltola’s statement makes clear, Alaska is a world of its own. One shouldn’t make too much of the fact that the Democratic Senate candidate in Alaska, where Harris has never been popular, is distancing herself from the former VP.

Still, there is no interpretation of this that looks good for Harris. It’d be neat if Harris endorsed Peltola, so Peltola could reject her to build her own position. But when have the Democrats been able to pull off anything this Machiavellian?

It probably indicates bad staff work. This was a fundraising email for Harris’ PAC, so this incident is not a great look or a indicator of a capable team.

Harris is clearly thinking about a 2028 run. She is very popular with some core Democratic constituencies—particularly African-American women. But she lost. Losing nominees coming back for another crack at the presidency do not have a great record of success. They might win the nomination, but they tend to lose the general. Adlai Stevenson and Thomas Dewey are the first that come to mind. Going farther back, there was 3-time loser William Jennings Bryan. Nixon is the great exception, but he was in the wilderness for eight years and his engine ran on deep personal wounds. Harris might take heart that of the multiple losers, only Nixon had been VP. But Nixon was VP to a very popular president. Nixon also lost—barely—to the glamourous JFK. Harris lost to Trump.

Another Side to VP Pence

Julia Curlee’s recent story in The Atlantic provides a look at VP Mike Pence that is rather different than his public image. Curlee, a transgender CIA analyst, briefed VP Pence and was later forced out in the second Trump administration. The latter point is the center of the story and it is a sad one. But, Ms. Curlee spoke very highly of Vice President Pence. He was very engaged in his intelligence briefings, paying close attention and hitting her with follow-up questions. He was also personally gracious and accepting of Ms. Curlee and her identity.

Pence has a lousy—and well-earned—reputation on LGBTQ+ issues. He held standard Christian right views on LGBTQ+ issues during his career in radio and in Congress. In 2015, as governor of Indiana, he signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which quickly became a national LGBTQ+ issue. Pence was angered by the criticism and took it personally. Pence’s responses, including a disastrous appearance on ABC’s The Week with George Stephanopoulos, focused on the media and coastal elites besmirching Indiana. His responses only made things worse. Other states began threatening to boycott Indiana. The state’s business community was extremely distressed. When the state legislature amended the act, Pence quietly signed it.3 Pence, at least in his own mind, had been looking towards the White House. After this, he was dead in the water, facing an internal revolt by Indiana’s GOP, probably becoming a one-term governor. His career was “rescued” when Trump selected him4

Having been burned on LGBTQ+ issues, Pence had every incentive to never be caught out again either in his personal and public life. It is also possible that, whatever his failings, Pence is personally gracious and pleasant.

Mike Pence is not my cup of tea politically, but from everything I saw he strove to be a normal politician as VP. He played the role of vice president in the same manner as his predecessors. He exercised political influence where he could. His statements on ceremonial things were generally normal. Michael Wolff’s profile of the Trump White House described Pence’s office as an island of normalcy, where calls were returned and meetings were held at scheduled times, in an otherwise chaotic Trump White House. Pence, who bridged the worlds of evangelical Christian politics and libertarian Koch economics, was on the far right. But as Trump blew up our politics, Pence suddenly seemed kind of normal.

So I thought for Throwback Thursday I’d re-up an old piece from my old daddy blog For Fathers Only about first days. This one is from 2011 when my kids (referred to as the little Goofs) were still in elementary school and a friend asked me to share some of my parenting wisdom as her daughter headed into kindergarten.

My little girl is an adult (so is my fantastic son), but there will always be first days, and I hope to be with her for hers for as long as I’m here.

Perilous First Days

Originally posted August 30, 2011!

Mommy Blogger extraordinaire (and real life friend) Not Ever Still invited me to do a guest post about first days, in honor of her daughter E starting kindergarten. She was hoping for some fatherly wisdom since I’ve been through it twice and I did my best. She posted it this morning, now I am reposting below. If you already read my first day post, skip down to the bottom and I can tell you how my morning went.

Life is full of first days, you have to get used to it.

I thought of this as I dropped by E’s kindergarten class to see her and my friend and lunch partner and her husband. I was visiting with my two, who despite being old hands at this school with extensive familiarity with the social and physical layout had their own anxieties. GoofBoy was worried about his math teacher, especially since she is a Steelers fan while he roots for the Ravens. Sometimes with boys, the depths of the shallows are unfathomable. (She set GoofBoy at ease quickly, explaining that she gives Ravens fans a break because she felt so sorry for them – methinks she’s faced this challenge before.)

GoofGirl was concerned because there is a girl in her class she doesn’t like (GoofGirl claims this girl is “mean to her for no reason.”) I told her, bluntly, “There isn’t anything I can do about it.”

Of course, I could call the school and complain, but I don’t want to be THAT parent, and if I were the school I would tell me to buzz off. If it were a class of bullies or some other intolerable situation, I would go to the mat for GoofGirl. But this is one kid. She can try to get along with her, and if that doesn’t work, just stay away. If she wants to let one kid ruin her time, then she frankly deserves her fate. That is a central lesson in life; there are terrible situation and great situations. Most, almost all, fall somewhere in the middle and they are what one makes of them.

I am lucky enough to know E, both in person and via her online persona. She is a neat little girl, who once ambushed me and made me to tell her the story of Pegasus and Bellerophon (my classical education serves me well). The little Goofs love playing older sibling to her. So I thought I’d swing by and check-in, plus I knew other kids in the class. When I saw her standing in the middle of the room with her fingers stuck in her ears, I sympathized. It was loud and crazy – no surprise with a dozen five year olds running around.

I chatted with E’s Dad a bit, we agreed that whatever her anxieties, E was going to have to go and make the best of it. I mused on this for a while. Kindergarten is a big deal, because suddenly the game changes. It isn’t just about you and your child. There is another player – the state, society itself. Pre-school is optional (at least in theory). So is summer camp. But kindergarten is not, you have to go.

I am not advocating conformity, but part of growing up is learning how to “deal,” that is handle what life throws at you. For some this comes easier then others, but regardless, children need to be prepared for the wider world. This is why the Talmud instructs parents to teach their children to swim, not just as a skill but as a metaphor for getting by in the world.

“Moms may tear themselves up inside over letting their little ones go, but Dads get this,” I thought to myself confidently.

Or Do They?

GoofGirl has an ongoing problem with fire drills. Once, in pre-school the fire alarm went off and there was some problem getting it to stop blaring even after the fire drill was done. GoofGirl (who apparently inherited my super hearing) couldn’t stand it. For months, she spent the mornings wheedling and negotiating to keep me from taking her to pre-school. Since I work at home, this was actually pretty easy – lots of visits to the coffee shop or park and very late arrivals at pre-school. Finally, a wise parent took a piece of paper and taped it over the offending fire alarm. That was that, sort of. But she still gets anxious about fire drills. “Will my camp have fire drills” was an early question. I write it on her school forms and let the teachers know.

We are all dog paddling in the ocean, and sometimes we all need a set of water wings.

And now the rest of the story

Father Goof readers will see that we are just back from LA. I haven’t written that we apparently brought some sort of plague back with us - like the Black Death, but worse. I spent the weekend out, and now Mama Goof is down for the count. I’m back up, sort of, but not 100%. Preparations for the first day of school went unevenly. The house is short of food, school supplies were not purchased, and sleep took priority over everything (well, except blogging of course.)

I should add, that I am not good at logistical matters, where Mama Goof excels. I wouldn’t hate it if we had a traditional home where I worked and she minded the house. Unfortunately, this is not a viable plan, MamaGoof has an advanced degree in “hard math stuff” and is far more valuable to society than yours truly. I often wonder what I bring to the table. But I can get the kids out the door in the morning, still, I wasn’t too focused on speed - it’s just the first day, how much will they miss?

GoofGirl had a crisis of hating her shoes, her hair, and her outfit. I am poorly equipped to deal with this particular problem, first of all because I think GoofGirl is adorable, and secondly because I don’t know much about shoes, hair, or clothes. GoofBoy was chipper, telling me non-stop about baseball scores while I fumbled around for school supplies. GoofGirl’s marble composition book is actually the book I used to translate Catullus over a decade ago (I only got a few pages in.)

A few words from Mama Goof and GoofGirl settled down, but suddenly GoofBoy was antsy. “We are going to be late, I’m going to get into trouble!” He kept repeating.

“Buddy, it’s the first day, don’t worry about it. It is on me, I’ll talk to your teachers.”

But GoofBoy’s mood had soured.

When I dropped them off, late, the front desk person explained, his teacher lets the kids who get there early pick on the first day pick their desk for the year.

If only I had known. Of course, Mama Goof knew, he had mentioned it - once! He has no problem bugging me constantly about other things (like his allowance), but something like this he mentions once and is upset that I forget it. Of course I have nothing else to concentrate on, like GoofGirl’s hair, getting their lunches together - despite the school’s endless food restrictions, my job (I do work), and of course writing a blog entry about all of this.

I feel bad about starting GoofBoy off on the wrong foot, but not that badly. This is a lesson he has to learn, the fine art of reminding without nagging. First day of school and he is already learning something.

I think my intuition was guiding me, because it links to what I posted yesterday, about understanding where others are coming from. The U.S. and China do not understand one another well and often talk past each other. But even with close allies like the U.K., misunderstandings are all too possible and frequent.

There are no VPs in the Skybolt affair however, so we’ll also do a Veeply Roundup!

Veeply Roundup

A lengthy article in The New York Times explained how Secretary of State/National Security Adviser Marco Rubio is Trump’s viceroy of Venezuela. Venezuelan export revenues (mostly from oil) go through the U.S. Treasury, so Rubio can direct how Venezuela spends its money. He also controls sanctions, which defines who gets to do business with the U.S. Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s vice president, discusses everything with Rubio, including major appointments and public appearances. The vice president of Venezuela is actually more akin to a prime minister. Rather than being acting president, Rodríguez is effectively still vice president.

The impeachment trial of Sara Duterte, VP of the Philippines continues. The Supreme Court has dismissed the VP’s petitions that the impeachment was procedurally flawed. Her attorneys are also arguing that she doesn’t have to provide records of her expenditure of her office’s confidential funds. Misappropriation of these funds is central to the case against her.

Share

Closer to home, all eyes were on the Michigan Senate primary this week. While interested, the Michigan primary that caught my attention occurred earlier this year. Michigan Lt. Governor Garlin Gilchrist dropped out of the governor’s race to run for Secretary of State. He was nominated at the party convention in April. He is promising to protect Michigan from potential Trump efforts to undermine the state’s election system. The Secretary of State does not look like a particularly significant office, but it does oversee elections (along with motor vehicle registration and some other licensing). And the nominee for governor, who played a role in knocking Gilchrist out of that race, is currently Secretary of State. Gilchrist, a 6’ 8” software engineer and Michigan’s first African-American Lt. Gov., has a technocratic background. Unlike most Lt. Governors, Gilchrist appears to have done some substantial work in office (although the GOP has dinged him for only rarely presiding over the state Senate.) Gilchrist ran a Task Force on Juvenile Justice Reform, which led to legislation recently signed into law. He also led the Michigan Coronavirus Racial Disparities Task Force, which worked to reduce health inequities that had been exacerbated by Covid-19, which narrowed disparities in Covid infection rates and became a case study for effective government action. The Whitmer-Gilchrist administration may be a model for an effective Governor-Lt. Governor partnership.

Finally, Trump reportedly told GOP donors that they need to get Vance elected. Trump enjoys the reality TV aspect of choosing his successor and often asks who would be better: Vance or Rubio. Vance is feeling the pressure, and is somehow being blamed for the administration’s biggest fuck-up, the Iran war—even though he argued against it. So this endorsement by Trump must come as a bit of relief. But, Trump is mercurial. His support is not a constant. I still think Vance may opt out of the 2028 race, using his newborn as an excuse.

Skybolt: A Historic Case of Pressuring an Ally

Originally posted on March 22, 2016.

There has been much discussion about how the United States is carrying its allies and needs them to step up to the plate. I won’t mention any specific presidential candidates so as not to violate a certain self-imposed rule. But our relationships with our allies are a complex web of dependencies. Nothing is simple and there are no easy gains. The recent discussion has inspired to me write about…

Skybolt!

Skybolt was an air-launched ballistic missile that the United States started developing with the United Kingdom in the 1950s. Under JFK, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara determined Skybolt was a boondoggle that was much too expensive. The sensible thing to do was kill it.

But for the British Skybolt was very important. It was their path to maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent. There was an alternative, the Polaris submarine launched ballistic missile, but the U.S. didn’t want the U.K. to have it because this would upend European politics. The issue was playing out up and down the U.S. and British national security bureaucracies until, at a summit at Nassau in the Bahamas, JFK was blindsided on this issue.

Kennedy was not happy and had the distinguished scholar of the presidency Professor Richard Neustadt write a report to understand what happened. Neustadt handed in his report on November 15. Kennedy read it over the weekend and handed the report to the First Lady and said, “If you want to know what my life is like, read this.”

Sadly, that was the only feedback Neustadt received. The President travelled to Dallas on November 22, the rest of the story is well-known.

The Report

Having survived the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962, Kennedy looked forward to his meeting with Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. Then, as now, British Prime Ministers and U.S. Presidents were often friends – as much as any two politicians can be friends.

But the British delegation was not in good humour, and they demanded a resolution on Skybolt. The discussion continued, the Americans were unwilling to continue the program and sought formulae in which the British would be part of a joint NATO nuclear force. But this was unacceptable for a proud nation. There must be Skybolt or the British must have Polaris.

Finally, Macmillan hit Kennedy right between the eyes. Neustadt quotes extensively from the notes National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy took of Macmillan’s appeal and so will I:

Churchill had told him in 1940 that in logic it was impossible to win the war, but they had gone on. There were lots of people in Britain would would like to chuck it, which would enable them to have better pensions and a more satisfactory life. The….alternative [to a POLARIS agreement] was to say this is a complicated system – The Americans won’t give it to us – we will go and make it eventually and be free. This would be better than putting a British sailor aboard a ship to have tea with the Portuguese. To give up would mean that Britain was not the nation that had gone through its previous history. We should consider that if the people who wanted to give up in Britain came to power, who would make the better ally? Those were the ones we were supporting in Britain by our policies….

Either Britain must stay in the nuclear club or he would resign and we would have a permanent series of Gaitskells [British Labour leader].

He would not engage in anything petty. We could stay at Holy Loch [nuclear submarine base]….Britain could make submarines – not nuclear ones – to carry missiles. This could be accomplished…but costs would have to be compensated elsewhere….They would have to tax their people more as well. Such a course would lead to a deep rift with the United States. He said he would not accuse America….

After that, Kennedy relented and agreed to share the Polaris with the U.K. It led a great expansion of the special friendship.

Macmillan made his appeal a smart combination of emotional and hard political points. U.K. too had its history and values, which could not simply be ignored. At the same time, there would be an impact on British domestic politics that would not be favorable to the United States. It was not just about getting a deal. There is a relationship between the countries that continues on in time and space.

But perhaps I should just let the words speak for themselves. Allow me to quote another eloquent Englishman who predated Macmillan by a few centuries:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

When you push countries around, expect to be pushed back.

They relished the chance to study in the United States. I couldn’t help but be charmed by their respect for their teachers. They brought me little gifts and applauded at the end of my lectures. At their graduation, everyone wanted a picture with me. I felt like a celebrity. Their pride and joy at their achievement was infectious.1

I didn’t try to convince them that U.S. foreign policy is always wise and well-intentioned. (Hell, I don’t believe that!) But I tried to teach them to see the world through American eyes. Our actions in the world come from places—hard national interest, domestic constituencies, and ideas about ourselves and the world—that need to be understood and respected.

Note: There’s a bit of Veepology at the end!

Lenses for Examining American Foreign Policy

In teaching American foreign policy, I don’t just tell stories, describe events, or highlight trends. I try to provide my students with lenses to better understand what the U.S. is doing and why. Two particular approaches are favorites of mine. The first is universal and applies to international affairs and foreign policy globally. They other is more specifically American.

Wheels within Wheels

One my my revelatory moments studying for my PhD came reading the classic Essence of Decision. In it Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow examine the Cuban missile crisis at three different levels. First they look at it as a geopolitical chess match between two nation-states. But they also examine how the organizational processes of the two states shaped the decision-making. The way in which intelligence was collected and processed affected what leaders knew and when they knew it. The fact that the U.S. Navy had a viable blockade plan, whereas the Air Force’s plans for bombing Cuba weren’t workable, shaped the final decision. Finally, the authors examined the bureaucratic politics level, the push and pull between Kennedy’s national security advisors. This concept of wheels within wheels shaping the decision-making and implementation of policy fascinated me and was central to my own dissertation.

In his Interpreting NAFTA: The Science and Art of Political Analysis, Frederick Mayer blew up the Allison and Zelikow three-levels of analysis into a 3x3 table to examine the negotiations and passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement. 2x2 tables are ubiquitous in social science but 3x3s…) There are three levels, but there are also three modes.

Rational choice is about maximizing utility or efficiency. At the top level, nations pursue their national interests in calculating manner. Organizations seek the most efficient means of achieving their ends (think corporations maximizing profit). Individuals pursue their preferences.

Institutional process is about how institutions (which include organizations but can also refer to long-standing arrangements)2 shape behavior. Individuals too, under class economic theory, seeks to get more of what they want and less of what they don’t want. Nations may enter treaties that limit the pursuit of their interests. Organizations (particularly government agencies) often operate in conditions of uncertainty where the optimal path to achieving objectives is unclear. Instead they develop and rely on standard operating procedures. Individuals too, have internal processes known as heuristics, to make rapid decisions under conditions of uncertainty.

Finally, symbolic processes is about ideals and identity. Nations have unique ways of viewing the world and their place in it. Organizations may have an organizational culture that shapes who joins, who leaves, and how the organization defines its procedures and goals. Individuals too, have unique ideas about the world. Things happen when enough people embrace a particular idea or group of ideas to bring about changes.

Despite the neatness of the table, the lines are not hard and fast. The concepts bleed into one another. None has perfect explanatory power for world events, but having this menu of explanations can be useful to understand different facets of a major issue or event. The point is not to always get the “right answer,” about which level and mode applies, but rather to better understand complex situations by understanding the many factors at play.

Competing Schools

The second lens provided is from Walter Russell Mead’s Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World. Mead argues that there are four major schools of American foreign policy, each of which has been preeminent at different times in U.S. history. Each has virtues and weaknesses, but the tension between the schools has made American foreign policy more effective overall and allowed the U.S. to advance its goals effectively.

Hamiltonians are named for Alexander Hamilton and are advocates for commerce and trade. They are also advocates of a strong military to protect American commercial and political interests around the globe. Overall this has probably been the dominant school of U.S. foreign policy. At its best it advances a worldview of “win-win,” instead of viewing international relations as a zero-sum game. The relentless focus on trade and commerce can have costs that the Hamiltonians don’t recognize, including domestic losers from free trade. They are also too ready to cozy up to unsavory regimes in pursuit of markets and opportunities.

Wilsonians are named for Woodrow Wilson, but pre-date him. They are the idealists, they want to advance human rights and increase cooperation among nations. Wilson is not a well-regarded figure now for many reasons, including his own racism. His idealism could lead to ill-conceived international agreements or adventures. At its worst, this worldview becomes a figleaf for imperialism. Nonetheless, the U.S. has, at times, advanced human rights and its core values of freedom and equality, which in turn has burnished the nation’s reputation as more than just another great power on the world stage.

The Jacksonians, named for Andrew Jackson, are nuts and bolts patriots. They treasure personal freedom and want a strong United States. They are very skeptical of elites and mistrust grand global ambitions. Mead describes Trump’s rise in terms of being a “Jacksonian Revolt,” in probably the best single article on Trumpism. J.D. Vance’s recent rhetoric can be seen in this light as well. Dismissed by many, the Jacksonians treasure personal dignity and independence. They are ready to defend the nation and are the backbone of the U.S. military.

Finally the Jeffersonians, while not isolationist, view too much intercourse with the world as a threat to American democracy. War creates the need for strong militaries and intelligence services. Trade fosters powerful business elites. All of these things can undermine individual liberty and government of the people, by the people, and for the people—the very cornerstone of the United States. Mead notes the Jeffersonian virtues, unlike the other schools they are cautious in their approach to the world and modest in their ambitions. Some of the greatest figures in U.S. foreign policy such as John Quincy Adams and George Kennan were Jeffersonians (according to Mead). Jeffersonians can tend to isolationism, which proved a grave mistake in the decade before World War II.

Again, these schools aren’t strict delineations. Most Americans engaged in foreign policy have ideas and tendencies pulling from multiple schools. The point is not to strictly categorize different figures or strategies. Rather, it is too understand these different viewpoints and how they are deeply rooted in American history and identity and how they then shape U.S. foreign policy.

Giving Away Secrets or Building Relationships

If we are competing with China, should I be teaching them about U.S. foreign policy? I’ll answer with a resounding yes! Nothing I teach is secret or even secret adjacent. But better they hear about the U.S. and its role in the world from me than from a professor in China who may have their own deep biases. Better we understand each other as people. Maybe our competition will be fierce, maybe Cold War is unavoidable. But all of these things will be worse if we cannot understand each other and our differing worldviews.

I didn’t sugarcoat things. The U.S. has real issues with China, some of which are about our interests (like many trade issues), while others deeply rooted in our values (like human rights for the Uighurs).

One of my core themes in teaching is that—whatever the situation, whether it’s within a government agency or an international negotiation—the other players are coming from somewhere. They have their own internal politics, concerns, organizational procedures, identity, etc. They are as driven by circumstances out of their control as you are.

Better to understand this and be able to see the world through the eyes of others.

Veeps of China

I told my students about my particular interest in vice presidents, and they humored me. They asked me questions and even provided me some background about the vice presidency of China!

For the first half-century of the Communist regime, the presidency and vice presidency either didn’t exist or were figureheads. Real power was in the hands of the party chiefs. But over time symbolic and party positions were increasingly held by the same person, first under President Jiang Zemin, then President Hu Jintao, and now under President Xi Jinping. The first two stepped down after two terms as president. Jiang Zemin’s second vice president was Hu Jintao and his appointment to the vice presidency was a signal that he had been designated the successor. Similarly Hu Jintao’s second vice president was Xi Jinping. As VP, Xi took on substantial roles—particularly liaising with then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.

Xi is now in an unprecedented third-term as president and his vice presidents have gone back to the symbolic roles of most of their predecessors. The current VP Han Zheng was appointed to the role after stepping down from the all-powerful Politburo Standing Committee, clarifying that he was not a potential president. Like other VPs, Zheng does take on symbolic roles like receiving foreign heads of state and attending the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum to expound on joint Russo-Chinese efforts to establish a new world order.

Applying the analyses above, it is easy to characterize Zheng’s speech as further evidence of China’s grand plans to displace the U.S. on the world stage. But China’s efforts to build this alternate international order haven’t amounted to much—despite U.S. mistepts. This rhetoric could just as easily reflect China’s fear of how much the U.S. dominates the world stage. Neither position is absolutely correct. In understanding China both possible positions should be considered to understand where China is coming from and what they are doing. That’s the type of thing I am trying to teach.

On a surface level, it’s because this portion is read during the summer, so it’s a perfect time to revisit my thoughts. On a deeper level, I understood the story of Balaam as being about the power of language and words. Earlier this week I wrote about our vice president’s increasingly strange public statements. His verbiage is alienating many, but inflaming some. Words are energy that, thrown out at the world, can move us.

Finally, I was corresponding with people on social media about the virtues of donkeys, which are social, empathic, and smarter than their reputation. In studying national security decision-making, rapid shooting from the hip can be counter-productive. Better to take time to consider options and understand the situation. Donkeys (at least compared to horses) tend to do that, as Balaam’s donkey demonstrates.

Lessons of Balaam

• July 9, 2012

Yesterday, synagogue attending Jews the world over heard the story of Balaam. About 200 years ago when I had my own bar mitzvah it was my parsha (portion of the Torah I was assigned to read). I believe that one’s parsha is not an accident, and thus this story has a special meaning for me.

The Story of Balaam

Balak, a Canaanite king, sees the nation of Israel (which was just about done it’s four decades of wandering in the desert) coming and worries that he will be swamped and over-run by them. So he tries to hire Balaam, a prominent n non-Jewish prophet, to curse the Israelites. Balaam wants to do it, because he will be well-paid. But Hashem (Hebrew for The Name, a respectful traditional term for the big boss upstairs) tells him not to do it. Balaam really wants the money, and keeps asking. Finally Hashem gives Balaam permission.

As he travels to Balak an angel wielding a sword appears before him. He doesn’t see it, but the donkey he is riding sees it and refuses to go forward. Balaam beats it in frustration. Suddenly the donkey is given the power of speech and castigates Balaam for not seeing the angel and for the beating. She tells Balaam that she has always served him faithfully and just saved his life.

Share

When the angel is revealed to Balaam, it tells him he can go and do the sacrifices and curse Israel. But, when Balaam tries to level a curse, only blessings issue from his mouth.

The Power of Words

The first take is that a talking donkey is comedy gold. It gave me the opportunity in my bar mitzvah speech to use another word for donkey right in front of the whole congregation!

But I also took it as a parable on the power of words. It is difficult with our modern sensibilities to take seriously the idea that Balaam is a sorcerer. Maybe he was more a spin artist/PR master hired to make the Israelites look bad. Balak was carrying out an early disinformation campaign. Even in reducing Balaam from sorcerer to spin doctor, the appearance of the talking donkey emphasizes the power of words. The ability to transfer complex ideas and profound feeling: language is an incredible thing – ephemeral and powerful at the same time.

Language IS magic.

Maybe this had some impact on me, since I’m a writer.

More Lessons from the Donkey’s Mouth

Another fascinating feature of this parsha is how, alone, among all of the Old Testament it focuses on “the other guys.” It is like the scene in Star Wars when Vader and Tarkin are discussing their next move. It is interesting that this particular type of plot turn occurs at that point in the narrative.

I’ve spent much of my career trying to understand what adversaries are up to, somehow that doesn’t seem like an accident.

Subscribe now

Finally, Balaam himself is a sell out. He has tremendous powers – after all he can speak with Hashem. But he uses them for little more than worldly gain. Is that what why we are given talents, to achieve wealth and honor at the expense of values?

I was blessed with a parsha that provides much food for thought for now and the rest of my life.

Meanwhile, the GOP is increasingly unpopular and the Trump coalition is fracturing, splits that further undermine Vance’s position. It must be a source of huge frustration for Vance that on two of the big issues roiling the Trump coalition, the Iran war (which Vance opposed) and the Epstein files (which Vance wanted released), Vance was probably right, but his advice went unheeded. Vance also has to go out to the public and support these positions and even, in the case of Iran negotiations, try to clean up the mess. Such is life for a vice president.

But the VP is also saying a lot of weird shit.

From the Mouth of the Veep

Vance is doing a lot of media to promote his book,1 and saying strange stuff. My personal favorite example is how, in his White House press conference Vance said:

I have seen some progressive criticisms of me personally saying what experience does the vice president of the United States have with hostile high stakes negotiations and I would point those progressive critics to the fact that just two days ago I spent over an hour on The View. So I actually have great experience in very hostile negotiations, and I’ve used that. I mean look Joy Behar is way tougher than the Iranians and she and I are best friends now.

The joke didn’t land in the White House briefing room. It echoes a joke Vance made at the Munich Security Conference in 2025 when he told the Europeans:

And trust me, I say this with all humor, if American democracy can survive 10 years of Greta Thunberg’s scolding, you guys can survive a few months of Elon Musk.

Jokes are an important marker of how people see the world. These jokes equate outspoken women with powerful and dangerous men—so now we know what these guys are truly afraid of. For MAGA, all issues are gender issues.

But there are so many more examples of Vance weirdness.

Promoting his book at the Nixon Library, Vance said Watergate would have been “like a 12-hour news story” if it happened today. I suppose this is true, given the sheer volume of the current administration’s misdeeds.2 Vance blamed Nixon’s downfall on “the deep state” and compared himself to Nixon. Usually presidents want to be linked to the most popular president in living memory, not the least popular. But you do you JD!

Vance has gone on about extraterrestrials and demons.

Vance is saying things to appeal to his base in preparation for 2028. His recent interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast3 was the epitome of these awkward efforts. He revisited the discussion on aliens and demons and talked about how Biden looked creepy eating ice cream. For good measure, Vance stated that Epstein may have been responsible for wokeness in academia and that Epstein was plugged into the Mossad. The late Robert Maxwell, British media magnate and father to Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine, was also rumored to have Mossad connections.

One wonders what Vance’s former chief of staff, Jacob Reses would say? Reses is an observant Jew who was also all in on Vance’s Christian nationalism. He left his position recently on the birth of a child.

Does Vance Believe What He Says?

The mystery with Vance is: does he believe this shit? He’s not 100% cynical nor a 100% true believer, but which way does he trend and is it a strong trend or a weak one? And does it really matter?

Vance trashed Trump, called him America’s Hitler, and then wooed him to become his vice president. That’s a big point for cynicism. There’s also Vance’s readiness to support Trump endeavors which go against everything he has said he stands for, like foreign military adventures. Vance appears all too ready to pander to the audience, whether it is the conspiracy-minded young men listening to Rogan or Orange County Republican grandees at the Nixon Library. That explains some of Vance’s verbal effluvia.

But there is a real strangeness to Vance. He argues Catholic doctrine with the Pope—with the Pope! In his railing about threats to European and American culture or his worries about the decline in birth rates, Vance seems to see the world in terms of epic clashes between mystical forces. He is in the orbit of the bizarre tech magnate Peter Thiel, who keeps talking about the antiChrist. The literature that influenced Vance (and many Silicon Valley types) is Lord of the Rings (LOTR).4 This points to a worldview of being among the knowing few who must save the world from the rising darkness. Vance’s own personal journey, which started in a dysfunctional working class family in middle America and took him—extremely rapidly—to the vice presidency might lead him to believe he is Frodo or Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker. That makes Peter Thiel Obi-Wan, Gandalf, or Dumbledore. If you reverse the alignments though, Vance is Damien in The Omen.

There is direct evidence that Vance is a true believer. He has admitted a bend towards the conspiratorial. Others have noted it as well. In Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan write that after his good friend Charlie Kirk was murdered, Vance went down a bunch of internet conspiracy rabbit holes. His wife was worried about him. Perhaps most damning is White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, in an on-the-record interview with Vanity Fair, describing Vance as “a conspiracy theorist for a decade.”

Vance, like all political figures, has to be a bit cynical. But deep down, I think he is a true believer.

Does it matter?

A cynical Vance will be pivot when political winds shift, whereas a true-believer Vance might be more dangerous as he tries to instantiate his world view. We really don’t need politicians living out their Jungian vision quests in office. But maybe it doesn’t matter too much.

Trump is a sickly old man and Vance could be president sooner than expected. Despite what I’ve written, a President Vance would be an improvement over Trump. First, whatever his world view, Vance is not erratic. He will consider risks and benefits and think through decisions. Second, Vance isn’t Trump. Even if Vance believes in and seeks to advance his grand visions, he will find it tough going. Republicans in Congress will not fear Vance the way they fear Trump. He will not inspire loyalty among the base. The decline of Charlie Kirk’s TPUSA since his murder is a harbinger. Erika Kirk, his wife and successor at TPUSA, simply doesn’t have the charisma needed to maintain and advance the organization. That will be Vance, trying to lead the GOP after Trump.

In 2016 I wrote something sadly prescient about Trump. Ted Cruz was still in the primaries and I wrote that I would support Cruz over Trump because:

My fear with Trump is that if frustrated with Congress, he will summon a mob….

Do I believe that Cruz is a secret insider who will turn establishment where Trump will not? Hardly, rather I think he will suck at trying to upend the system. His appeals for action will be less effective.

In that sense, Vance is preferable to Trump. Vance may very well call a mob, but unlike Trump, the mob won’t come.

Love him or hate him, Vance is an extraordinary man. But Trump is a force of nature. The former can be managed, the latter brings destruction and chaos.

Today is Tisha B’Av, we read the Book of Lamentations (tradition states it was written by the prophet Jeremiah), which describes in terrible terms a city conquered and laid waste.

It is impossible to read the Book of Lamentations and not think of Gaza:

My eyes are spent with tears,
My heart is in tumult,
My being melts away^-
Over the ruin of my poor people,
As babes and sucklings languish
In the squares of the city.

They keep asking their mothers,
“Where is bread and wine?”
As they languish like battle-wounded
In the squares of the town,
As their life runs out
In their mothers’ bosoms.

As a Jew and Zionist, I want Israel to thrive and be a light upon the nations. Israeli actions in Gaza are not fulfilling this vision. I hope that Israel can be restored.

It should be stated first that Hamas is ultimately responsible. They started this war with atrocities of their own. Their entire political project is to destroy Israel, which requires preventing any kind of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Throughout their history they have carried out murderous attacks that undermined peace.

If the situation were reversed and Hamas had the massive military advantage, have no illusions. What they would have done to the Israelis would have been magnitudes worse than what Israel has done in Gaza.

This does not absolve Israel of responsibility.

In many cases the Israeli military conducted itself admirably. But the war has gone on too long. The military victories have been achieved. Time and again, Israel has squandered military advantage with poor political decision-making.

From the beginning of this war there was no indication of a longer-term Israeli strategy to reduce Hamas’ support and elevate pragmatic Palestinians. Israel has been, throughout its history, terrible at political warfare, preferring military means—winning the war and losing the peace.

Hamas, in its conduct, does terrible things. They embed themselves among civilians, divert humanitarian aid, hide in hospitals, and lie and distort. The deaths of their own people are a boon to their cause. In starting this war and prosecuting it, Hamas has cynically pressed its own people towards death and suffering.

But none of this is a surprise.

Israel has been battling Hamas for nearly four decades. It’s ideology and strategy were no mystery. Israel could and should have been planning for all of this from the beginning. They did not. The operational planning for managing the humanitarian tragedies in Gaza was clearly inadequate. The strategy for a post-war Gaza was never developed. Israel squandered an outpouring of global support, falling into the political trap Hamas had set.

I won’t do a full analysis of the complex causes of Israel’s choices. But at the very core is a venal politician desperate to remain in power.

In my post from eight years ago, I meditate on whether our entire edifice of civilization could collapse, bringing the whole world to the state described in the Book of Lamentations.

Our world is seeing a rise in such venal leaders, unchecked by institutions, driving us to ruin.

Mourning in America: Tisha B’Av Thoughts

• August 15, 2016

Today is Tisha B’Av, the saddest day of the Jewish year.

Tisha B’Av remembers the day the First and then the Second Temples were destroyed (according to legend this occurred on the same day, separating by hundreds of years – round one was the Babylonians, round two was the Romans.)

In both cases the city of Jerusalem was besieged and sacked. The people were forced into exile. The suffering was immense. (We read the Book of Lamentations by the Prophet Jeremiah.)

The religious theme is that the Jewish people were not faithful to the Lord, but with a return to faith and observance will come redemption. It ends on a hopeful note. Especially now that the great exile is over and there is a Jewish state.

But my mind went elsewhere.

In Lamentations, Jeremiah discusses people – kings and priests even – dying by sword and plague. Mothers cannot feed their children and jackals emerge. A great vibrant city full of life is no more.

Civilization, this vast edifice, appears strong. But so it appeared to the Romans until the Goths burst through. In some profound ways it is built on thin, weak bonds. Our financial system (to take one example) is based on the word of the United States government. When it comes to it, so much of our civilization is based on words – the weakest bond and yet the strongest.

What if it isn’t robust? True, that as horrible as the World Wars were, civilization survived. But there were bastions far removed from the fighting to preserve it. That same interconnected world that makes it all seem strong, would allow contagion to spread blindingly fast.

Could a few bad policy decisions start to undo all that has been built, allowing the jackals to emerge?

I would like to think not. The Jewish people survived that and much, much more, and our culture is built on words.

But many other great civilizations fell and disappeared into the dust.

The physical infrastructure that preserves lightning communications is pretty extensive. The resources and expertise to preserve would remain, too much depends on it. They are far stronger bonds than the old Roman roads. But of course the Romans couldn’t imagine their world coming to end and bringing on the Dark Ages either.

Mining Shapiro’s memoir, Where We Keep the Light, and the numerous profiles of this extraordinary political athlete (Kamala Harris’ words), we get a sense of the skills that have propelled him forward.

The most revealing bit of Shapiro’s memoir was on page 58, where he talks about being captain of his high school basketball team:

I didn’t shoot as much as other starters, though it has to be said that I did contribute sixteen points in the championship game. I became known on the team as “The General,” because I set the tone for the team when we were on the court. I called the plays and told my teammates where to be. I was usually able to see how things were going to play out on the court before they happened.

…I knew I could lead and create plays. And I wanted to. I always just wanted the ball in my hands. On the court and in my life and career. When there are two minutes left in the game, I want the ball in my hands and I want to call the play…

Shapiro, by the way, is 5’8.” The talent, drive, confidence, and self-aggrandizement all come through in these lines. Keep them in mind, as you read on.

But first…

The Jewish Question… and the Israel Thing

Let’s get the biggest issue around Shapiro’s potential candidacy for president in 2028 out of the way. He’s Jewish and pro-Israel. Will that make him unelectable in the general or the primary?

A clever politician, which Shapiro certainly is, may be able to convert these perceived weaknesses into strengths.

In 1960, during the presidential campaign, JFK gave a speech firmly rebutting questions about his Catholic faith distorting his decisions as president.

Since Kennedy we’ve had two Catholic presidential candidates (John Kerry and Joe Biden), a Catholic president (Joe Biden) and two Catholic VPs (Biden and Vance.) The top two 2028 GOP contenders (Vance and Rubio) are both Catholic. Their religious backgrounds have not been factors to the electorate.

The first (and so far, only) major party Jewish nominee was Joe Lieberman. When he was nominated for vice president in 2000, Lieberman was generally well-regarded and seen as a sober choice.1 Lieberman’s religious background was not a consequential issue. Nor did anyone hold Lieberman as responsible for Gore’s loss.

While anti-Catholic sentiment seems to be fading, anti-Semitism is headed the opposite way (statements below on anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment are also based on the attached poll). Anti-Semitism has made inroads into both the American right and the American left. Young people are showing increasing tendencies and sympathy for anti-Semitism.

Shapiro himself was a victim. He opens his memoir describing the arson attack on the Pennsylvania Governor’s Residence on the first night of Passover, while his family slept. The perpetrator had also intended to murder Shapiro with a hammer.

I may be foolish on this point, but the United States is not the Eastern Europe my great-grandparents fled (thanks for that btw.) The United States is different (I hope and believe.) Violent anti-Semitism and vitriol will repel most Americans. It will flourish in some corners and places, as it always has. Anti-Semitic violence may thereby increase, but public abhorrence of it will also increase.

Hopefully, this will nullify issues around the religious beliefs of Jewish candidates. But that isn’t the real problem…

And Israel?

Israel is a bigger challenge, and Shapiro will need to rebut accusations of loyalty to Israel over the U.S., just as JFK had to address an alleged fealty to the Vatican.

Shapiro may not be as vulnerable as portrayed. Support for Israel in the United States has collapsed and the relationship is changing. The former is unfortunate, but the latter is necessary. Cost-free U.S. support has enabled the very worst elements of Israeli politics and allowed Israel to focus on the military aspects of problems at the expense of politics.

For Shapiro this creates an opportunity. He can frame the debate in terms of changing Israel’s behavior vs. changing its existence. He can offer pragmatic approaches to pressuring and inducing Israel towards a future of living at peace with its neighbors. If the opposition is focused on yelling, “from the river to the sea” and talking about Israel being a neo-colonialist project—Shapiro will win. He can argue that this maximalist approach only condemns the Palestinians and the region to more war and suffering. There are still plenty of people who do support Israel (and they vote!) and few deeply oppose its existence. Israel may be the top issue for the very online, but very few Americans care that much. And strong ideological arguments will probably not appeal to Americans, who tend to be a pragmatic bunch.

There is at least the potential for a skilled communicator like Shapiro to reframe the discussion and put opponents on the backfoot.

At least that’s what I’m hoping.

Politicking and Governing

A successful politician needs to be able to do three things and they need to do them all at the same time and understand how they interact. Politicians need to make decent policy decisions, work with other politicians, and win over voters. Shapiro has a strong record at all three.

Getting Shit Done

Shortly after taking office, a chunk of I-95 in Philadelphia collapsed. Shapiro was on it, and got the highway restored in 12 days. He said this represented his approach to governing: “Getting shit done.”

More substantially, in his first term as governor of Pennsylvania, Shapiro has overhauled the state’s bureaucracy. When Shapiro took office, Pennsylvania had a reputation as a lousy state for business, where everything was mired in red tape. Shapiro did what DOGE should have done. Shapiro’s approach examined processes, looked for logjams and redundancies, and smoothed them out. They set reasonable goals with realistic timelines and had a solid feedback loop to see what was working and what wasn’t. The improvements have been massive.

Playmaker

The inside game is about working with other politicians. This is important if you want to “get shit done.” When Shapiro was a new state representative the Democrats, after a long time as a minority, had secured a one-vote majority in the state house. The corrupt old Republican speaker, however, had pulled a couple of Democrats away so he could retain power. Shapiro came up with a plan. He approached a moderate Republican (such things existed then) and proposed that he become speaker. The House Democratic leader would become the Majority leader and hold de facto power. The moderate Republican brought along his faction and the plan worked.

In his next political role, as a Montgomery County Commissioner,2 the Republican member of the three-person commission said, “The job of commissioner is a total pain in the ass, and Josh was by far the best person I’ve ever seen do it.”

Campaigning

The outside game is persuading voters to vote for you. In some polities, where machine politics dominates, this is not as crucial. Shapiro won his first election to the Pennsylvania state house, defeating a well-known former congressman, by “knocking on 10,000 doors.” In another campaign, he arranged a write-in campaign for himself for the GOP primary, so he won the nomination of both parties. Shapiro has won three state-wide elections in the largest purple state and is cruising to a strong victory in 2026.

He’s not perfect. Shapiro has made enemies (although not being on speaking terms with Sen. Fetterman may be a plus, both personally and electorally.) There are questions about policy and personnel decisions. As governor, Shapiro hasn’t been terribly successful working with the Pennsylvania state legislature. His efforts to be all things to all people have at time backfired.

Shapiro has also acquired a reputation as being willing to stab people in the back. He plays political hardball, backing a GOP candidate for state treasurer over the Democrat with whom he had beef. This may not be such a vice, don’t we want a president who can be devious, who can give someone the shiv when needed?

Finally, as this profile suggests, in our age of animus and agitation, Shapiro’s talent at normal politics may be irrelevant.

A Lousy Veep

We’ve written before about Harris’ consideration of Shapiro as her running mate. His recent book adds some details that are of interest, but examining Shapiro’s career, the reasons Harris made her decision not to choose him are evident.

Shapiro writes that he wanted to be in the room for the big decisions and to have his position heard. He stated that he understood that the president would make the final decision, but he hoped to be a governing partner just as his Lt. Gov Austin Davis was to him. (This comparison would have been stronger if he’d mentioned particular contributions by Davis.) Harris stated that as VP, Shapiro would primarily answer to the chief of staff, not her—this would be a huge come-down for the vice presidency as an institution.

Harris had received letters from Pennsylvania politicians saying not to pick Shapiro. In their meeting, according to Shapiro, Harris told him that his job was not to be a problem for the president. Kamala Harris sized up Shapiro. She knew she had to interview him. But she didn’t want to pick him. Vice President Shapiro would have been a problem.

The VP is not the White House playmaker, but not having what it takes to be VP is no a disqualification for the presidency.

Shapiro’s Shiv

Here’s where it gets fun: the way in which Shapiro writes about Harris is not flattering. It isn’t a direct hit. But he states that based on their conversations, Harris didn’t play a big role in the Biden White House. Shapiro’s description of his treatment by her team shows them in a bad light. He reports being asked awkward questions, like, “Have you ever communicated with an undercover agent of Israel?” He also mentioned how Harris aide Dana Remus highlighted that the vice presidency would be a financial setback and that Shapiro would have to buy his wife new clothes and pay for hair and makeup specialists.

Should Harris run in 2028 (I like her, but hope she opts out) Shapiro has laid the groundwork for countering her argument that she has the experience needed. Painting her team in a less that flattering light will play into the ongoing stories about Harris’ staffing difficulties.

I stand by my argument: Shapiro wanted to be considered for the vice presidency. But he didn’t actually want to be picked.

Coda: Playmaker in an Expanded Presidency

Trump has changed the presidency. By throwing out norms and pursuing his ends at all costs, he has made the presidency more powerful. To some extent nearly all presidents do, but Trump has done so on a scale comparable to FDR or Andrew Jackson.

When Trump departs the scene, Congress will probably reassert itself. But things will not return to the status quo ante. This new presidency is here to stay. Someone with Shapiro’s skills would make the most of this expanded presidential power. He might make a show of reducing presidential power in some domains, for political optics, while retaining key parts needed to make key plays.

And he will make big plays.

Colombia has elected Abelardo Gabriel de la Espriella, a true political outsider, as president. Here in the U.S. that would usually translate to a prominent role for the technocratic insider vice president-elect, José Manuel Restrepo. Colombia is in a state of polycrisis and so far, de la Espriella has indicated that VP Restrepo will be playing a central role in the administration.

These crises and de la Espriella’s outsider status could lead to political instability. If the new president comes under pressure to step down, the vice president could become a figure of even greater significance. If the administration’s political fortunes wane, the president may blame the VP.

There are incentives for the president to bring the VP close and at the same time there could be incentives for the president and VP to distance themselves from one another. Watching what the VP is doing and the president-vice president relationship will say a lot about Colombian politics.

Colombia’s Trump

In Colombia, popular disgust with Gustavo Petro’s left-leaning government brought to power right-wing candidate Abelardo Gabriel de la Espriella. But here’s the thing, he only won by about 1% over Petro’s hand-picked successor, Iván Cepeda. This suggests a lot of ambivalence about de la Espriella. This ambivalence is well-placed since he has no formal political experience, has been a mercenary attorney for much of his career (literally, he has represented numerous unsavory clients including Colombian paramilitaries), and has been all over the map politically. His campaign rhetoric was hard-right, echoing Trump’s regional allies Argentina’s Milei and El Salvador’s Bukele. Trump, who feuded with outgoing President Petro, endorsed de la Espriella. My go-to for all things Latin America, the Latin America Risk Report, suggests that de la Espriella could make Trump look like a paragon of lawfulness.

A Technocrat for Vice President

Vice President-elect José Manuel Restrepo is a political professional with experience as a senior civil servant, Minister of Commerce, Industry, and Tourism (2018-2021), Minister of Finance and Public Credit (2021-2022), and as a university administrator (a role that has lots of overlap with politics.) As Finance Minister, Restrepo received plaudits for managing the economic crisis that accompanied the pandemic.

When de la Espriella announced Restrepo as his running mate he stated:

The choice of my vice president has not been driven by political calculations or anyone’s recommendations. I firmly believe that Colombia needs to surround itself with people better than oneself in order to rebuild the country….

I have seen my running mate four times in my life. Despite that, from the moment I announced my candidacy I was clear that a reputable academic, a very well-rated former minister, would be the best travel companion in this patriotic contest…

My vice president will handle the international agenda, while I conduct business from each of the 32 departments, resolving Colombia’s problems….

I have said it and I stand by it: I must surround myself with people better than myself. That is how the cabinet will be, too.

During the campaign, the candidates indicated that as president de la Espriella would focus on domestic policy and security, while Restrepo would lead on the economy and international affairs. (This is sort of the Bush-Cheney arrangement.) Restrepo has stated that he will not be a ceremonial figure, but will execute policy.

Restrepo is aligned with Colombia’s center-right, even being described as the “Colombian Marco Rubio,” His selection was a signal to Colombian voters that de la Espriella would appoint qualified, sober officials. Overall, this has proven to be the case. Restrepo can also serve as a liaison to Colombia’s business community and traditional political class.

Even before taking office, Restrepo is playing a prominent role. He is leading the transition process, his prominent role in the process speaks to the president-elect’s confidence in his running mate and willingness to bring technocrats into the process. Of course, Mike Pence led the transition for Trump’s first term and it didn’t really translate into much influence.

Restrepo is playing an active role in other areas as well. He is making the rounds in Washington, where he has met with Marco Rubio and gave a speech at the Atlantic Council (where he was a non-resident fellow), and spoke to multilateral lenders.

Colombia’s Polycrisis

A polycrisis is when there are multiple crises that occur together and interact with one another. The world is in one, but Colombia has a number of local and regional issues that complicate things further. On the global front, the Iran War has driven energy and food prices up, damaging Colombia’s economy. The predicted terrible weather will only make things worse. Regionally, Colombia’s next-door neighbor is Venezuela—Colombia has accepted huge numbers of Venezuelan refugees over the past two decades. It is possible that the situation in Venezuela will improve: refugees will return home, Venezuelan energy production will increase1, and a recovering Venezuela will become a market for Colombia exports. All of this is possible. But things in Venezuela could also get worse.

Then there are a host of internal problems specific to Colombia:

• While the global economic situation is lousy, the outgoing administration spent down reserves and borrowed to mitigate the effects. The new administration will have to undertake austerity measures, while the Central Bank will raise rates.

• Colombia is also facing blackouts and has a massive healthcare crisis (hospitals around the country are going bankrupt).

• Colombia has long suffered from internal violence from far-left insurgents and paramilitaries. In the 1990s the security situation was dire and has improved exponentially, leading to a peace process. But violence is on the uptick, at least in part due to the outgoing administration’s “Total Peace” plan that emphasized carrots over sticks.

• The new administration is not coming in with a mandate and the losing party has promised not to be cooperative. The outgoing president, Gustavo Petro, right out of Trump’s playbook, has claimed that the election results were illegitimate. In response de la Espriella is boycotting the transition process, refusing to sit with Petro and his team.2

• Finally, Colombia is a central nexus for international drug trafficking, putting them square in the Trump administration’s crosshairs.

The new Colombian administration’s primary asset is a willingness to align firmly with the United States. That could bring financial and security assistance that could help stabilize the situation and buy time for their policies to take effect.

Where’s the Veep?

The Latin America Risk Report examines a number of possible scenarios for the incoming Colombian administration. The best case is that they manage the country’s problems reasonably well and do it without undermining Colombia’s democratic institutions. A good working relationship between the president and vice president makes this scenario more likely. If the new government is successful, but the VP gets too much credit—the president will have incentives to cut the VP down to size. Alternately, if the administration has little luck addressing Colombia’s problems, the president can blame the vice president and isolate him from the administration.

Boz worries that de la Espriella will, Trump-like, turn on the democratic institutions of Colombia. These institutions are pretty robust, Colombia remained democratic throughout its decades of brutal civil war. In his speech at the Atlantic Council, Restrepo stated that it was the past administration that undermined Colombia’s democratic institutions, while de la Espriella is committed to maintaining them. If this does not hold true, Restrepo will have hard decisions (Pence-like) to make. The VP may also be in a difficult position if there are efforts to remove de la Espriella from power.

Restrepo’s predecessor, Francia Márquez Mina, was a charismatic figure with her own political following. Petro did not bring her into his inner circle, weighed her down with establishing a new ministry (Colombian VPs can also lead a department), and ultimately isolated her. Restrepo has no real political standing and hence is not a rival to de la Espriella. This may be an asset, as it gives the president fewer incentives to push Restrepo away.

A specific move to watch for is if Restrepo is assigned either a new ministry or a minor one. If that’s the case, de la Espriella could be getting the troublesome VP out of the way with busywork. If Restrepo takes over a major portfolio, that may be a sign of confidence, but also an indicator that the government is having difficulty managing its crises.

The new Colombia, an important U.S. ally, faces an array of complex problems and the new VP could be an asset. VP Restrepo’s doings and relationship with the president will indicate a great deal about Colombia’s trajectory.

In honor of Argentina’s victory in the World Cup semi-finals over hated rival England, I thought I’d re-up an article from July 23, 2025 about Argentina’s vice president. Besides the post’s immediate relevance, looking at Argentina’s vice presidency provides some insight into the politics and history of that fascinating country.

When this was initially posted, President Milei and Vice President Villarruel were feuding. It’s only gotten worse. They are in open war. The VP will not be Milei’s running mate in 2027. She is openly criticizing the administration’s corruption scandals and economic policies (with some justification). She is brawling online with Milei’s political allies and made a high-profile appearance with the Chinese ambassador—a big deal since Milei has made a point of allying closely with Trump. The administration, which is trying to manage the economic fallout of the Iran war, has darkly hinted that the VP is involved in a conspiracy against the President.

Don’t Cry for the Veep Argentina

It’s not that weird, by the standards of Argentine politics, for the president to call the VP “stupid” and the VP to tell the president to “grow up.” Argentina is a weird place.1

Argentina’s president Javier Milei was a surprise victor in the nation’s 2023 presidential elections. A hardline libertarian economist, he was propelled to power by the collapse of Argentina’s main political parties and another bout of Argentina’s endless economic problems.2

Milei has had some successes. By cutting social services and welfare and firing government employees, Milei managed a budgetary surplus and tamed Argentina’s rampant inflation. Economic policy success in Argentina is often short-lived, but for the moment Milei is polling reasonably well. His political inexperience, however, is starting to cost him—particularly given that his own political party is tiny, so he needs broad support from other players to accomplish anything.

As a political outsider, Milei might benefit from an insider VP who could advise on and manage some of these political issues. But that isn’t what he got.

Blast from the Past

As his running mate, Milei chose Victoria Villarruel. She had only been elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 2021, but she was a rising star in Argentina’s reactionary circles. She is embedded in a network of far-right foundations and advocacy groups, with links to international partners on the far-right such as Bolsonaro in Brazil and Vox in Spain. Villarruel is a devout Catholic. She opposes abortion and LGBT+ rights (both of which are broadly accepted in Argentina), advocates for a return to traditional values, and opposes “political correctness.” Also, she’s into guns.

The daughter and niece of military officers, the issue with which Villarruel is most associated is advocating on behalf of the military officers who have been imprisoned for human rights violations during Argentina’s Dirty War against left-wing terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s.

One of her claims is that the left-wing organizations that sparked the military crackdown were far more dangerous than has been portrayed and that the military crackdown was far less deadly and violent than is generally reported.

As a terrorism analyst I can see Villarruel’s point. While pikers compared to al-Qaeda and its spawn, the left-wing terrorist groups of Argentina did spread terror throughout the 1970s. They killed well over 1000 people, mostly police and military, and targeted business executives and military leaders for assassination and kidnapping. In a few cases they kidnapped, tried, and executed top military leaders. Some of their attacks had the potential to become mass casualty events. In 1975 there were nightly gun battles in Buenos Aires between security forces and the terrorists.

Terrorists seek to make things worse, which galvanizes an overwhelming state response, which in turn makes things even worse and drives more people to the terrorist cause. On their initial goal, the leftwing terrorists succeeded. In 1976 Argentina’s military overthrew the elected government and responded with massive state terror. People were seized, held without charges, tortured, and disappeared. Thousands were put on flights and pushed to their death over the open ocean. Newborns were taken from the disappeared and given to military families. The repercussions of this dirty war continue to haunt Argentina.

The military junta collapsed in 1983 after losing an ill-advised and poorly conducted war with the United Kingdom. The junta’s depredations sparked the Madres de Plaza de Mayo, a mass protest movement of mothers and grandmothers seeking the return of their children and grandchildren. Argentina’s new civilian government held trials for those accused of committing crimes during the dictatorship. This work has continues with ongoing investigations, education, and monuments throughout the country. The condemnation of the crimes of the military dictatorship has been jointly embraced by Argentina’s leading political parties and is a source of national unity and pride.

As a political analyst, it seems that defending the military regime and downplaying its excesses is a weird hill to die on. But it worked. Villarruel and Milei have rejected the national consensus on the evils of the military dictatorship. This rejection attracted support from older generations, those on the far right, and rural voters.

This may unleash the old demons from the dark past.

Villarruel in Office: Poor Match or an Unhappy Triangle?

The Vice President of Argentina is similar to the American Vice President. They have little formal power, although they do preside over the Senate. Vice President Cristina Kirchner (also a former president and First Lady) was an exception to the generally limited relevance of Argentine VPs, primarily because she controlled the levers of power in the Peronist movement.

Milei promised Villarruel lead on defense and security issues, including a major uptick in defense spending. In office, however, Milei has reformed the military and increased spending, but Villarruel has not been a key player. Patricia Bullrich, who had been the mainstream right candidate for president, and previously served as Minister of Security, was appointed to that position again by Milei. Bullrich’s running mate, Luis Petri was named Minister of Defense. With two experienced politicians running the national security portfolios, Villarruel was boxed out. Bullrich and Petri came in third in the first round of Argentina’s elections, eliminating them from the second round, which Milei won. Bringing his former opponents into his cabinet may also allow Milei to co-opt the tattered remnants of Argentina’s mainstream right and potentially build a stronger party.

Private feuding between the president and vice president probably began immediately, but it became public just months into their term. Milei’s closest advisor is his younger sister Karina. In an interview in March 2024, Villarruel said: “Karina has a big personality, but so do I, and we both love Javier and we both want the best for Javier.” Then she added that they come into conflict and, “in the middle is Javier. Poor little ham.”

Belittling your boss as a hen-pecked little boy caught between powerful women seems unwise. When your boss is the president of a country, a gig that tends to go to people with huge egos, it seems really dumb.

In November, just a year into their term in office, Milei, in a TV interview, stated that the VP, “has no influence whatsoever in decision-making,” does not attend cabinet meetings, and that he barely speaks with her. Milei was only making public what was an open secret among Argentina’s political class.

Just last week, the Senate approved a number of bills that increase pensions and disability support. Milei has been long been frustrated with Villarruel failure to advance his agenda in the Senate.3 These bills threatened Milei’s libertarian economic agenda and he called his VP a “traitor” in a speech. Villarruel wrote on Instagram that Milei should, “speak and act like an adult.”

So what?

Can the President and Vice President Trust One Another?

In general vice presidents want to become president. In the U.S. the wisest path is to be VP to a successful president, so a VP is heavily invested in the president’s success. They will advise and try to help. A VP might try to distance themselves from an unpopular president, but it usually doesn’t work. As we saw the other day, Francia Márquez of Colombia has remained publicly loyal to Gustavo Petro—despite his unpopularity and his poor treatment of her.

But Argentina is different.

Having been cut out of real power, Villarruel may have judged that Milei will implode. His austerity programs have worked so far, but consistent economic performance has been elusive in Argentina over the past several decades. Further, austerity means cuts to public services and social welfare, which will drag down Milei’s approval ratings.

If this happens, distancing herself from an unpopular president and even opposing some of his most disliked initiatives, could position Villarruel for her own run at the top job. (She also lambasted a potential agreement between Argentina and the UK over the disputed Falkland/Malvinas Islands, which are a deeply emotional issue for many Argentines.)

Leading a country is hard, ideally vice presidents can help. Presidents are often inclined to mentor their VPs as successors. But the nation’s politics and institutions need to enable this level of trust. As we saw in the earlier look at Colombia’s VP and now Argentina’s VP, the political conditions for this trust are not present.4 Some of this is rooted in the complicated personalities of the national leaders. But at least some of it is institutional. Could the general status of president-vice president relations be an indicator of a nation’s political health? It’s a question worth considering.

Trump’s “orders” would have not have any standing, and this is a good thing.

When the president departs the scene, the vice president becomes president and assumes all of the powers of the presidency. The new president can reverse their predecessor’s policies. There is no legal obligation to govern in the manner of their deceased or departed predecessor.

There are good reasons to not have a “dead man’s switch.” Whatever one thinks of a particular office-holder, human judgment will be preferable to an automated system. This is the lesson of Dr. Strangelove and World War I. Vast automated systems intended to deter, can lead to disaster when activated. (Food for thought as we deploy AI in the national security sector.)

There are situations that call for a rapid response, and this instinct is deeply wired into human behavior. But good decisions usually require time and consideration. This approach can have its own costs: missed opportunities, inaction being perceived as weakness, and “paralysis by analysis.” Neither “shooting from the hip” or deep reflection is always the correct response, but as Aristotle advises, since the Golden Mean is rarely clear it is best to steer towards the lesser evil. In an age characterized by “gut players,” caution and consideration is the lesser evil.

Any given decision-maker may or may not choose a cautious path, but a “dead man’s switch” removes even the possibility.

The response to a state-sponsored assassination of the president is not obvious. First, the ultimate attribution may not be clear. While vice presidents have been targeted by actors with clear political motives, many presidential assassins were obviously disturbed individuals. Bombing a country because of a tenuous or perceived connection to an attack is unwise.

Even when the perpetrator is known, the president should have options and not be constrained. Right now, Iran appears to be divided into multiple factions. It might make more sense to conduct a response targeted to that faction, rather than inflict further suffering on the entire nation.

Trump’s warning could serve as a deterrent, but surely the Iranians know that the U.S. would respond. They have been at the receiving end of U.S. military strikes for months now. What additional purpose is served by Trump’s threat?

The Personalized the Presidency

Presidents and other national leaders are human (believe it or not) and their personal pique is a factor in governance. There is no way around it, and frankly a politician who had no personal and deeply human reactions would be unappealing and possibly non-functional.

But Trump takes this to the extreme. For him, everything is personal. The threat of a response to an Iranian assassination has to come from him personally, not from the nation as a whole.

Oddly, Trump’s statements echo the situation in the Philippines. We wrote about it last week: the Philippine vice president is being impeached for threatening the president. VP Sara Duterte stated:

Don’t worry about my safety. I have talked to a person and I said, if I get killed, go kill BBM [Marcos], [First Lady] Liza Araneta, and [Speaker] Martin Romualdez. No joke. No joke. I said, do not stop until you kill them and he said yes.

There is a norm against states targeting leaders and high-ranking officials of other states. There are good reasons for this norm to exist. Even when it protects loathsome figures such as IRGC chief Qassem Soleimani, Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, or Venezuela’s Maduro (who was captured rather than killed.)

It is Trump who threatens international leaders. He is all too ready to spread violence, yet angered when it comes back on him.

In her memoirs, Michelle Obama wrote that Trump’s loud embrace of the “birther conspiracy,” that Obama had been born outside of the United States, led to increased threats against her family. That Trump was so willing to inflame these passions for his own ends, but so sensitive when it is turned on him, encapsulates who he is and how he sees the world.

For in-depth coverage and background check out The Rappler.

The initial impeachment of Duterte was in February last year. Duterte said she had arranged for the president to be assassinated if anything happened to her.2 That was considered a threat against the president and grounds for impeachment. This says it all about the relationship between the first and second offices of the Philippines. There are also charges of financial malfeasance, particularly related to her role at Secretary of Education (in the Philippines the VP can also hold a cabinet position).

When we started following this issue, we noted that the institutional issue that the president and VP are elected separately and the president only serves a single six-year term. Even their offices are on the other sides of town, so there is little incentive for the two to cooperate. Still Bongbong Marcos and Sara Duterte ran together in a political marriage of convenience. Both were the offspring of former presidents. Duterte’s father, Rodrigo, is currently being tried by the ICC for crimes against humanity during his presidency. Marcos had initially said he wouldn’t hand Duterte père over to the ICC. But when Marcos fell out with the VP, he had her father arrested and transferred to the custody of the ICC in The Hague.

Marcos’ father, Ferdinand, was the dictator of the Philippines for several decades and engaged in industrial strength corruption. Politics in the Philippines are very much a family affair.

Impeachment Redux

Duterte was impeached twice in 2025 but the Supreme Court ruled that she couldn’t be impeached multiple times in a single year, so the impeachment was “archived.” The House has chosen to take up the impeachment again and is presenting its case to the Senate. In the meantime, Duterte has announced that she is running for president in 2028.

If Duterte is convicted she will be removed from office and barred from holding public office. Conviction requires 2/3 of the Senate’s 24 votes. There was some controversy around this because three Senators are not able to participate in the proceedings because of criminal charges against them. The question was whether a conviction required 2/3 of the sitting Senators or 2/3 of the entire Senate. The presiding officer has ruled the latter.

Initial handicapping indicates that Duterte has a solid body of hard no votes so that conviction is unlikely. So why is the opposition is proceeding?

The obvious reason is (as the U.S. saw in 2019) that pursuing the rule of law is the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not it will be successful. It is possible that a well-presented case could sway some Duterte supporters. It is also possible that the dirty laundry aired in the trial will damage Duterte’s reputation and her campaign for the presidency. This may not be likely, Duterte’s approval ratings are fairly high and the voters in the Philippines love an underdog. They know their political class is corrupt, so anyone targeted by the political class (even a member, like VP Duterte) is probably on their side.

The other possibility is a backroom deal in which Marcos has promised a position or other inducements to flip Senators allied with Duterte.

Who Cares?

We don’t just follow VPs because they are interesting. The institution, the person serving as vice president, and the vice president’s doings can all provide insight into a country’s politics and history.

This President-VP feud has potential geopolitical implications.

The Philippines are part of the first island chain which hampers China from reaching the wider Pacific and are thus under pressure from China. The two nations have an ongoing maritime dispute and the Chinese Coast Guard vessels regularly harass ships operating within the territorial waters of the Philippines. Marcos has aligned with the U.S. and increasingly Japan, while Duterte is more inclined to China. The Philippine Defense Secretary, Gilberto Theodoro, has been sanctioned by China for his statements criticizing China. This is in response to a new defense agreement between Japan and the Philippines, as well as a statement by Marcos that his country would support Taiwan in a conflict with China.

If the impeachment prevents Duterte from running a pro-American alignment is likely to continue. If the impeachment makes Duterte a stronger candidate, then the U.S. and its allies should be prepared for a potential reversal in the Philippines geopolitical orientation.

But there’s more. The Philippines were just named an upper middle income nation by the World Bank. This status goes to nations in which the per capita GDP is between $4500 and $14000. The Philippines just cleared the mark, decades after nearby Malaysia and a decade after Thailand. The Philippines economy is not truly robust. Increases in food and fuel prices have sparked inflation and slowed growth.

So far the conflict between the U.S. and Iran has not sparked a global economic meltdown. But lingering effects will fall disproportionately on weaker economies.

Political disorder in Manilla will undermine efforts to attract needed foreign investment or manage economic fallout.

But there’s more. There are extreme weather emerging in the Pacific. Super Typhoon INDAY is hitting the Philippine now and that’s just the beginning. The Philippines already struggles to manage natural disasters. One of the Senators unable to join the impeachment trial is under criminal charges for corruption relating to flood abatement.

The dangers to the Philippines, and many other nations, from extreme weather isn’t only direct. Extreme weather could lead to reduced crop yields and an increase in global food prices. This is on top of the impacts of war in the Middle East.

The Philippines political class has not covered itself in glory in the best of times. In the face of natural disasters and economic crises, they may prove inept. The political divides will only make this worse and potentially create opportunities for subversion by China or other malevolent actors. This has important geopolitical implications, but also bodes poorly for the people of the Philippines.

But…

In 2014, when the U.S. lost to Belgium in the World Cup I wrote this short piece about how it’s good for the U.S. to lose on occasion. Not being good at something the world loves helps the world deal with the overwhelming power and stature of the United States. So I had to re-up it after last night’s loss to Belgium.

In some particulars, this piece has aged poorly. The overwhelming sentiment holds, particularly given Trump’s bullying FIFA to reverse a call against the U.S. Also, this is about men’s soccer. The U.S. women’s soccer team are already absolute world-beaters!

Winning by Losing: U.S. & the World Cup

• July 5, 2014

It was good for Belgium to beat the United States at soccer (or football, as the rest of the world insists on calling it.) Not because a loss to a tiny European country that in population and area is smaller than Pennsylvania will force the United States to really invest in soccer and build a strong program – quite the opposite.

Let the rest of the world have soccer – the United States is the greatest country ever. I mean great in its true sense, great – big – large. We do things on a bigger scale, whatever it may be, than anyone ever has before. We also are, on the whole, pretty good (or at least we try.) We are most certainly not perfect, but I would argue that we are the least bad great power ever. Few would seriously trade American hegemony for the alternatives. We get into trouble when we press the point too far. Unfortunately it is in our national character, our fatal flaw if you will, to do exactly that. The late Robertson Davies, a Canadian novelist, in speaking against NAFTA observed:

…the extravert is one who derives his energy from his contacts with the external world; for him everything lies outside and he moves outward toward it, often without much sensitivity to the response of that toward which he moves…. The extraversion of the United States is easy to see. It assumes that it must dominate, that its political and moral views are superior to all others, and that it is justified in interference with countries it thinks undemocratic, meaning unlike itself. It has also the unhappy extravert characteristic of seeing all evil as exterior to itself, and resistance to that evil as a primary national duty. Americans are generous to a fault…the Americans [are] charming, extraverted, certain of their acceptance everywhere…

Aaron, you cite a Canadian novelist on international affairs a lot, which is odd, particularly since Davies himself had so little interest in politics which he called “external things: only a fool gives his soul to them.”

Me: True, and that’s kind of the point, Davies was interested in what really mattered and sometimes those things are not subject to traditional analysis, not what truly moves us.

The point here is that the United States is enormously powerful and rich and – on the whole – a force for good in the world. I’m writing this under an American flag, waving on my front porch – I think the US is awesome.

However, imagine if, in your own life, you had a supremely talented, charming, and wealthy friend. This friend helps you all the time, while also regularly besting you at most things (and perhaps is less than humble about all of it). Might you not resent this friend just a bit? In fact, the fact that the friend is so generous makes your own resentment grow. You might begin to suspect your friend’s motives. You might, alternatively, tell yourself that your more modest, but well-appointed home is much more comfortable and pleasant than your friend’s rather gaudy mansion. You might convince yourself your friend, for all of their outward success, has no interior life and is not truly happy. You might focus on your friend’s failings.

You will almost certainly gather with other acquaintances and gossip about the overbearing friend – focusing on all of these things and reinforcing your resentments.

You might also, REALLY, REALLY enjoy seeing this friend lose or fail at something – especially if they lose to you.

That’s us and, if we can be objective, we can see why other countries – even ones with which we have innumerable shared interests – might resent us on occasion.

Having some failings and weaknesses makes the U.S. easier to take.

In the big picture, losing to Belgium – a small, lovely country with a rich history and complex identity of its own, that also makes fantastic beer and chocolate – is a sort of win.

Vance vs. the Creed

Vice President Vance made news, big news (at least to me), this week by challenging the founding principles of the United States of America. We’ll discuss the arguments, but from a Veepology standpoint it is interesting to see the vice president quarterbacking the intellectual project accompanying the presidency.1

The Claremont Institute, the “nerve center” for MAGA intellectuals, gave Vance its award for statesmanship. In his acceptance speech, the VP spends a lot of time railing against Zohran Mamdani, the then Democratic party nominee for mayor of New York. But the core part of his speech is here (this transcript is taken from the YouTube video and the emphasis is added):

It’s a beautiful and wonderful founding vision, but it's not enough by itself. If you think about it, identifying America just with agreeing with the principles, let's say, of the Declaration of Independence, that's a definition that is way overinclusive and underinclusive at the same time. What do I mean by that? Well, first of all, it would include hundreds of millions, maybe billions of foreign citizens who agree with the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

Must we admit all of them tomorrow?

If you follow that logic of America as a purely Creedal nation, America purely as an idea, that is where it would lead you. But at the same time, that answer would also reject a lot of people that the ADL would label as domestic extremists, even though those very Americans had their ancestors fight in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. And I happen to think that it's absurd and the modern left seems dedicated to doing this to saying you don't belong in America unless you agree with progressive liberalism in 2025. I think the people whose ancestors fought in the Civil War have a hell of a lot more claim over America than the people who say they don't belong.

So, I believe one of the most pressing problems for us to face as statesmen is to redefine the meaning of American citizenship in the 21st century. I think we’ve got to do a better job at articulating exactly what that means.

Vance is calling for an intellectual project, but he’s arguing against a strawman. The American Creed is open to all, but it hardly requires the United States to invite everyone in the world to live here. The Creed is the first principle both of the case for American independence from Britain and the eventual foundation of an American government. I may not agree, but I am sympathetic to the argument about restricting immigration. It has had costs, economic costs to be sure, but also harder to articulate social costs. None of that requires questioning the American Creed itself, which is one of the best things about the United States (I write a bit about this in more detail below.)

The vast majority of American politicians place their policies and views within the Creed. Bernie Sanders would argue that for Americans to exercise their basic rights, the American Creed requires a social welfare system. Barry Goldwater, in the 1960s, argued that unelected bureaucrats were able to restrict the ability of Americans to exercise their basic rights. Different parties and interests in the U.S. may focus on different interpretations of the American Creed or different threats to it. But almost across the spectrum American politics embraces the American Creed.

On that basis a case for more restrictive immigration policies can also be made that the presence of huge numbers of undocumented immigrants is interfering with the sacred rights due Americans. Fair enough. So why is Vance actually attacking the American Creed itself?

Here are a pair of analyses that consider this issue, the latter refers to the former. Vance’s alternative definition focuses on ancestry and shared history rather than shared values as the basis of American identity. It can, darkly, be seen as a “blood and soil” understanding of Americanness.

The second analysis, by the brilliant John Ganz notes (as did I) that Vance specifically refers to the ADL (the Anti-Defamation League), a Jewish community organization that monitors extremist groups and combats anti-Semitism. To me the American Creed is a sacred thing so Vance’s remarks already put me on edge. But Vance specifically calling out a Jewish organization as somehow denying Americans the rights of their citizenship is downright creepy. Anti-Semitism nearly always includes dark conspiracy theories about “cosmopolitan” Jews undermining the nation, the people, das volk.

Jacksonian Rhetoric

The best single article on Trumpism (as opposed to Trump) is Walter Russell Mead’s The Jacksonian Revolt. The Jacksonian trend in U.S. politics, exemplified by President Andrew Jackson, are the basic patriots. They aren’t interested in big ideas or foreign affairs. They support their country and appreciate the freedom and equality the U.S. provides. Jacksonians expect leaders to have their back and look out for their interests. With the decline of industry, harrowing financial crises, the engagement in forever wars, the rise of illegal immigration, and the perception of limits on essential personal freedoms (particularly the right to bear arms), the Jacksonians lost faith in the traditional leaders on both sides of the aisle. For many it appeared that American elites were not merely ignoring the problems of facing Americans but actually making them worse for their own ends. Given all of this, it is little surprise that they turned to Trump.

With that, let’s look at some of Vance’s remarks about Mamdani:

Now, the person who wishes to lead our largest city had, according to multiple media reports, never once publicly mentioned America's Independence Day in earnest. But when he did so this year, this is what he said. And this is an actual quote. Quote, "America is beautiful, contradictory, unfinished. I am proud of our country, even as we constantly strive to make it better." End quote. There is no gratitude in those words. No sense of owing something to this land and the people who turned its wilderness into the most powerful nation on earth.

To me, Mamdani’s statement is dead on.

Vance, instead, indulges his fetish for demanding gratitude. Here again, Walter Russell Mead provides insight. As various groups of hyphenated Americans have received acknowledgement for their contributions to building the United States, the largest single group of generically white Americans are left out. In fact the term white-American is deemed offensive to non-whites. White Americans see other groups express pride in their identity and receive benefits for their identity—while being lectured about white privilege and the evils that white people did in building the United States.

For Vance, if the U.S. is so great, why can’t the people who did so much to build it get acknowledgment for their efforts and sacrifice. Immigrants like Mamdani should at the least show gratitude for the benefits of being in this nation—which others have built.

There is much to argue with Vance’s statements, but the sentiments have mobilized millions. Donald Trump saw a bunch of people milling around and through intuition and force of personality made it a party. Trump has no interest or aptitude for formalizing the movement. That is Vance’s project, developing an intellectual framework for Trumpism.2

Veeps as Intellectuals

The American founding fathers were true intellectuals, but in general politicians are not intellectuals, they are practical people of affairs. Sometimes they really like intellectuals or find them useful. JFK had a real knack for charming intellectuals and getting them on his side. Intellectuals however, in American politics, are often not particularly helpful allies.

Intellectuals are not necessarily smarter than politicians, technocrats, or other figures. Their brains do different things. Intellectuals try to ask bigger questions like: what kind of society do we want? In terms of mental capacity, implementing and overseeing the complex systems on which our society depends may be far more demanding, but intellectually narrower.

Few presidents had ambitions that required intellectuals. Those presidents that did usually drew from a deep well of existing discourse. Reagan articulated and enacted conservative ideas that had been brewing for decades. Lincoln tapped into the broad abolitionist movement—although he turned out to be no slouch as a thinker in his own right. FDR’s vast changes were improvised and he had his Brain Trust for intellectual firepower. The president who remade American politics and was his own intellectual was probably Thomas Jefferson (with a strong assist from his Secretary of State and successor James Madison.) A century later Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson brought both an effort to re-order American politics and an intellectual aptitude to define their work (although neither succeeded to the extent of Jefferson.) There were presidents who had (or thought they had) the intellectual aptitude but lacked either the will or moment, such as the Adamses and perhaps Barack Obama.

If there weren’t many presidents who served as the intellectual architect of their program, a vice president as intellectual leader is extremely unlikely. But I’m not sure the J.D. Vance would be the first.

Andrew Jackson (see above) was a major figure in American politics (in living memory he was still revered.) His ascent broke the patrician system in which notables effectively ran the country, replacing it with the party system. His so-called spoils system was, at least in theory, an effort to dislodge elites from government sinecures. Jackson pioneered the use of the veto as an expression of presidential political power. Previous presidents had used the veto when they were concerned that a bill was not Constitutional. Jackson vetoed things because he simply didn’t agree with them. Jackson killed the Bank of the United States, which was a national institution exercising great and unaccountable power. This last was probably not to the good. A well-run central bank might have helped reduce the regular financial crises the U.S. faced throughout the 19^th century. Jackson was a slaveholder and did terrible things, including the forced removal of Native American communities. Still, Jackson had a major political project, some of which was born from his instincts and tapped into deep American feelings about power and inequality.

Jackson’s two vice presidents were thoughtful men. Jackson’s first vice president, John Calhoun, wrote thoughtful arguments about the importance of state’s rights and their importance for protecting fundamental liberties. Calhoun of course, was a South Carolina planter and fundamentally these arguments defended slavery and helped build the intellectual framework supporting that monstrous institution. Calhoun got into a political conflict with Jackson and resigned from the vice presidency, foreshadowing the fate of Vice President Pence.

Calhoun’s successor, Martin van Buren, was also a political thinker. He recognized the need for stable political parties to prevent a national slide into factionalism and regionalism. He saw Jackson as a charismatic figure around whom a political party could be established. Jackson was an active participant in this effort, but van Buren was a political operator par excellence who built the Democratic Party. This, perhaps, is Vance’s model.

I’ve written in the past about how this decade is a unique time in which deep cycles in American history meet. The other time these cycles met was during the Jacksonian era. There are big picture parallels with today, but these detailed similarities are eerie.

Now, here’s your Throwback Thursday, with some thoughts on the American Creed.

Pursuit of Happiness

• July 5, 2013

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Jefferson was unquestionably a great politician. He may not have been a political philosopher of the first order—in politics there is a vast gulf between practice and theory. Of course being a first-rate politician, natural scientist and writer, and a second-rate philosopher, architect, and inventor still puts one solidly in the polymath club.

The basic ideas of the Declaration of Independence were cribbed from Locke, who wrote:

Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty, and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of the law in others…

A political philosopher must be precise and define terms carefully. A politician has the freedom to paint with a broad-brush and inspire the polity. Where Locke is precise, Jefferson is elegant. But I am most struck by the shift from “estate” to “happiness.” Perhaps it was merely an inspirational turn of phrase, but its impact is profound.

Jefferson himself was a man of property, but with little interest in it – except as a means to support his research and writing. It makes me think of Aristotle who, in The Nicomachean Ethics. an exploration of character, goodness, and happiness. writes:

Every art and every investigation, and similarly every action and pursuit is considered to aim at some good…. If, then, our activities have some end which we want for its own sake, and for the sake of which we want all the other ends – if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for this will involve an infinite progression, so that our aim will be pointless and ineffectual) – it is clear that this must be the Good, that is the supreme good.

Aristotle dismisses money as this ultimate end:

As for the life of the business man, it does not give him much freedom of action. Besides, wealth is obviously not the good that we are seeking, because it serves only as a means; i.e. for getting something else.

Jefferson evolves Locke’s framework and inserts it into our political DNA. We do not merely have a government to protect our property. Property, particularly Locke’s “estate” is the necessary means. But Jefferson wants to inspire us to seek our end, to pursue happiness.

There are no promises that we can be happy, but rather that this is the point of the whole exercise. To quote another great American, Yaakov Smirnoff, “What a country!”

It is fair to say that the United States, like every nation, is founded upon piles of bones. We have a government that, at times, has systematically prevented individuals from the pursuit of happiness in a profound way. But on July 4 we also recall the words of Lincoln, a match for Jefferson as a writer and politician, and his tremendous efforts to set right that great injustice.

But that will have to be a post for another time. I have some happiness to pursue.

Since then many things have changed with both relationships. The U.S. has a president who doesn’t particularly want to have his British counterpart as a friend—although he emphasizes his relations with foreign leaders. Britain post Brexit needs the United States more than before economically but is also questioning its intelligence cooperation with the U.S.

On the Israel-U.S. front, Netanyahu has acted entitled to bottomless American support. This has brought few benefits to his American counterparts, who for the most part have accommodated him. When U.S. presidents didn’t accommodate Netanyahu, he openly engaged with the opposing party. This has devastated U.S. popular goodwill towards Israel.

To Understand the U.S., English isn’t Enough

Netanyahu spent a good chunk of his life in the U.S. and speaks excellent English. He criticized Gadi Eisenkot, another candidate for prime minister for his poor English. Given the importance of the relationship with the U.S. to Israel’s national security, it is fair to argue that the PM should speak fluent English.

But the late Morrie Amitay, who built AIPAC into a lobbying powerhouse in the 1970s, noted that Israelis who speak English really well tend to overestimate how well they understand the United States. He compared Menachem Begin, who spoke accented but still excellent English, with Yitchak Rabin whose English was heavily accented and at best serviceable. But Morrie found Rabin was more adept in Washington, having spent five years as Israel’s ambassador to the United States.

Exemplifying this arrogance, when Sen. Ted Cruz warned Netanyahu about the rapid growth of anti-Semitism on the political right a year ago, Netanyahu brushed it off. He told Cruz, “That’s Qatar, that’s Iran, that’s astroturf that’s paid for.”

Netanyahu’s blindness on the realities of American politics is going to hurt his country, a lot.

Bush & Blair vs Bibi & Barack: Not Best Friends

• July 31, 2015

Be his friend. Be his best friend. Be the guy he turns to.

That was the advice Bill Clinton gave to Tony Blair about how to work with incoming President George W. Bush. It was interesting advice. It may not have worked for Blair. He did establish a close relationship with Bush, but it is not clear what he gained from it. Blair could occasionally moderate policies that perturbed the rest of Europe. Some of Blair’s pet initiatives were adopted by Washington.

It is, now that I think about it, an oddly vice presidential relationship. (Would I like to write a book on this – you bet!)

Blair, in building the “special relationship” did not seek to bargain with the president – hard-edged balancing of interests, the horse-trading that is politics and diplomacy. Instead, like a vice president, Blair sought to build a relationship, demonstrate that they were on the same side, and generally be helpful.

The strategy was that Britain could best play a role on the world stage by influencing the United States: like a Senator taking the VP slot. A Senator can do some things on their own, but there are limits. An influential vice president can do a great deal more. It is an interesting question as to whether or not it is an effective strategy. Blair got wrapped up in Iraq, tarnishing his legacy. But that was his choice, he believed in the mission himself.

Blair did have some achievements (detailed in the link above), and also what did he really need? Britain is a 1st world economy with extensive and well-established trade and financial inter-connections with the U.S. There may have been some areas in which the U.S. could be helpful, but Blair was hardly dependent on U.S. for his nation’s economic fate. Britain also did not face any true existential security threats. On lower level issues, terrorism, intelligence sharing, and military cooperation links were well-established. Blair did get some support on some diplomatic issues, a modest win.

It was an interesting gamble, the gamble a vice president makes. VPs know that serving a successful president gives them their best shot at the presidency. If Bush’s foreign policy had been successful and Blair was his partner the PM would have gone down in history as a great statesman – a Churchill. Didn’t work out, but you can see the strategy. (Lest all of this seem too calculated – Blair, and most VPs – are striving to do what they think is right.)

From Blair to Bibi

Israel is not Britain. They are a small country in a very bad neighborhood. There are innumerable ways in which the United States can make Israel’s life easier. Both countries have intimate, complex relations with the United States. But Britain is about a fifth the size of the U.S., whereas Israel is more like a fortieth. When the U.S. shifts Britain has a bit more ballast. Israel – a pariah state whose very existence is opposed by many in its neighborhood – has a lot of stuff to worry about.

Israeli Prime Ministers have had to stand up to U.S. presidents in the past. Even during periods of strong relations (say between President Bush and PM Sharon) there were sparks. Israel does not have the option of adopting Blair’s strategy. They have real interests that need to be protected.

Some students of politics and international affairs emphasize personal relations between key players (like my dissertation). It makes for a good story, but often there are big structural factors that shape events and outcomes.

That being said, Blair’s “Hug them close” strategy is not without merit. When Clinton told Blair to be his successor’s friend, Clinton knew the president needs friends. Knowing that conflict is likely, the prime minister should think pretty deeply about what he or she can do to make the president’s life easier.

And this is where we get to Bibi. He and President Obama do not have warm relations. Obama comes in for a great deal of criticism from pro-Israel circles.1

But, who is the big power and who is the lesser power here?

Israeli leaders ask a lot of the United States. But how often does an Israeli leader call the president with a solution to a problem? Everyone in the world wants something from the president, not so many think about what the president needs. Did Bibi think about how to help President Obama? How hard did Bibi work to ensure that the President didn’t absolutely dread their meetings and calls?

I think the record shows how that has gone.

Some tensions between the U.S. and Israel are inevitable. It is the nature of the beast and Israeli leaders sometimes need to stand up to the president. But trying to be the president’s friend is a good strategy for any world leader, a way of building capital when conflicts arise.

But for a time, our lives revolved around the minivan.

Beyond the endless carpools, there were regular weekend adventures and longer trips to Boston, Ocean City, Philadelphia. Once we saw a car on fire on the Jersey Turnpike. When a wave wrecked my knee in Ocean City, I could stretch all the way out in the back. When we went to visit my brother near Philadelphia there was room for all of us, and my parents.

For one birthday, I surprised my daughter, taking her and a bunch of her friends to an alpaca farm.

There was where the minivan took us, but also the getting there.

With my kids we listened to audiobooks: Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Anne of Green Gables, Peter and the Starcatchers, the exquisite novels of Clare Vanderpool.

We were listening to one book and suddenly my son, who I thought might be getting too cool for “kids books” exclaimed, “This book is SOOO good.”

I took my son to my brother’s to watch (for his first time) Return of the Jedi on my brother’s big screen. We listened to Harry Potter all the way up and discussed archetypes and parallels between Harry Potter and Star Wars.

We carpooled with another family and were closely involved with one another’s lives. On morning and afternoon carpool the kids didn’t like my books or the news and I didn’t like their music. So I went through a country phase and my daughter and her best friend were singing Johnny Cash to themselves. A rarity at a Jewish Day School.

We also listened to feeds of age appropriate stand-up in the minivan. Jim Gaffigan, Brian Regan, Jerry Seinfeld, and many others. With my own limited background, I gave some pointers about how bits worked. We had endless carpool shticks. The bossy GPS, the bad kid (one of my son’s friends) who was responsible for everything wrong, and Monk-watch. The last because my kids went to a camp next to a Buddhist monastery, so seeing figures clad in saffron robes was no rarity but still a source of wonder.

As the least gainfully employed of the parents in our circle, I often drove kids to practices and events. I got to know their friends. More than a few of my son’s friends have great memories of my driving them home from late bar mitzvah parties, joking around. I was probably the least successful parent professionally, but the most notable personality.

I taught my kids to drive. I started them in the minivan, figuring that if they could manage this big vehicle, our smaller car would be no problem. One of my proudest life achievements was teaching my kids to drive with a minimum of yelling. 

The minivan’s service didn’t end when carpool did. It became my son’s car while he was in college. Because of it, he became the team driver for The Space Bastards, the University of Maryland’s ultimate frisbee team. It also made the long-distance relationship with his wonderful girlfriend work!

In his first real job, my son became the aide-de-camp to a candidate for Congress. The minivan became the official campaign vehicle. A “donation” I was happy to make!

The furniture of your childhood home becomes the landscape of youthful memories. The minivan too was furniture, even bigger than the couch or dining room table. Selling it means their childhood is done. That set of memories is formed.

But, fatherhood doesn’t end. Nor would I want it to. But now, I’m not the driver of my kids’ lives. I can relax, sit in the backseat, and enjoy the ride.

Five years ago, even though we were still coming out of the pandemic, there was optimism. It felt like Trump and Trumpism were discredited and dead. I’ve written a lot about how we are in an age of Creedal Passion that would be driven by progressive causes. That appears more muddled now.

But the case for reparations stands.

One note, besides small grammatical corrections, the original post had some rough calculations of values in dollars over time. I’ve updated them from 2021 to reflect current values.

July 4 Thoughts about Juneteenth and Reparations

Originally posted: July 4, 2021

It’s July 4, one of our oldest national holidays, but I keep thinking about our newest national holiday – Juneteenth – and how the two fit together. July 4^th celebrates the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the United States as a new nation. Juneteenth represents a small step in rectifying the distance between our grand ideals and our reality. There are many more and greater steps to be taken.

The historic consequence of the founding of the United States cannot be overstated. The concept of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people was – and is – revolutionary. The organizing principle of the U.S. is that governments exist for the protection of individual rights and to allow people to live their lives as they see fit: exercising the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

It is no secret that the U.S. has not lived up to these values, often denying people the opportunity to exercise their rights. When the nation was founded the rights only applied to white male landowners – although this was more liberal than nearly anywhere else on earth at the time. Slavery was the darker stain, which Frederick Douglas eloquently argued gave lie to these very values.

July 4 and Juneteenth

Recognizing Juneteenth as a national holiday does not, as some argued, undermine the ideals celebrated on July 4. Rather, it represents a step towards their completion. It also connects to Memorial Day, which was established to honor the Civil War dead. The United States may be fundamentally flawed because of slavery. But the high price in blood paid to end slavery is reminder that Americans pay more than lip service to their ideals.

Alas, the sin at the founding of the United States has not been fully expiated. The liberation of the slaves was not complete with the Civil War, as segregation descended over the South. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s may have ended the legal architecture of segregation, but inequality and injustice have remained.

Making Juneteenth a national holiday is an important gesture, symbols are important. The fact that it was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support is particularly heartening. In terms of addressing the long-standing issues of racial injustice, however, the action is in reparations.

Considering Reparations

During the second age of Creedal Passion (1820s and 1830s) the issue of abolitionism moved from the fringe to the mainstream. The seeds of the Civil War were sown. Today, in the fifth age of Creedal Passion, the focus is on institutional racism. Reparations have moved from being little discussed to a pressing question. While reparations may not be undertaken for decades, they will come.

The moral case for reparations is strong, on a fundamental level incontestable. National wealth was built by African-American slave labor, for which the creators of that wealth have never been compensated. Further, even after emancipation, a host of racist policies prevented African-Americans from fully engaging the American Dream and building familial wealth. My own take away from Isabel Wilkerson’s magisterial The Warmth of Other Suns, is that considering their treatment it is an amazing thing that African-Americans did not turn to large-scale terrorism. (As a one-time student of terrorism and insurgency, the various violent black liberation movements in the U.S. were tiny compared to serious insurgencies or even compared to violent leftist and separatist groups in Western Europe.)

To take one specific example of embedded economic inequality from Wilkerson, an African-American high school principal in Louisiana in the early part of the 20^th century was paid $500 a year less than his white counterparts. For a back of the envelope calculation $500 over 40 years is $20,000. Based on 1940 value of the dollar, that $20,000 would be worth about a half a million dollars today. And that ignores the lost opportunities that this money might have afforded. Given even modest growth beyond inflation, the principal’s descendents are due over a million dollars. And this is one very specific incident. There are millions other cases, ranging from harms done by violence to denied opportunities to build wealth, to say nothing of decades of endless humiliation and mistreatment. The numbers involved are staggering, tens of trillions of dollars. U.S. social programs – many of which were discriminatory in their own right – are nowhere near addressing this national debt.1

Reparations: A Cost Benefit Analysis

I’m not interested in debating the moral question of reparations, the case seems clear-cut (Ta-Nehisi Coates does it better than I could possibly hope to).2 I’m interested in the practical case: are reparations a wise public investment?

I write this as a privileged upper middle-class white person. I, or (given my projected timeframe) my heirs will almost certainly end up paying for any reparations policy. I’m also not interested in the details, although social science research is finding that giving people money is more effective than targeting programs with specific intentions. Let people make their own decisions about what they need.

A fundamental assumption of the case is that money can solve problems. The classic conservative argument is that social issues in the African-American community are due to culture (or more darkly genetics.) On the former, there is some merit. Money will not remove all problems. At the same time, any account of American poverty highlights how draining it is, how people with limited resources often make poor decisions because of the cognitive demands of constantly making difficult decisions. Put another way: people aren’t poor because they make poor decisions. They make poor decisions because they are poor.

The Bible tells us: man does not live by bread alone…

One interpretation is that there is more to our lives than mere physical needs, true enough. But without bread, we cannot live at all. The debate between culture and resources (like the debate of nature vs. nurture) has no certain solution. We are coming out of an era that emphasized culture and moving into one focusing on resources.

I’m considering reparations from a hard-nosed pragmatic aspect, not whether it is right – I readily grant that it is. I am asking whether or not it can be considered a good investment of public money.

The case can be made.

First, the externalities of endemic African-American poverty are significant. Prisons, emergency health-case, are all a drain on the public purse and feed dysfunctional politics. There are, sadly, interest groups that prosper due to these dysfunctions. Correctional facilities have been economic boons to the rural communities where they are built. Nonetheless, the costs of African-American impoverishment are high.

Second, reparations would be an investment. More resources would unleash the creative and entrepreneurial energies of African-Americans. The United States is richer, not just financially but in every sense, because of the achievements and contributions of African-Americans. Yet, this dynamic component of our society has been chronically under-resourced. The racial wealth gap continues, with the median white household about a quarter million dollars wealthier than the median African-American household. Closing that gap would be an economic boon, from which all American would prosper – as the African-American community generated new businesses, had greater purchasing power, and could pay more taxes.

Finally, there is a smart foreign policy argument for reparations. During the Sixties, some of the leading advocates for ending segregation were the ardent Cold Warriors. Many were moved by the immorality of segregation, but others saw it as handing a propaganda victory to the Soviets. Many around the world are inspired by the ideals of the United States – those ideals we celebrate on July 4. Those who fear these ideals (tyrants and oligarchs) use our failures to live up to these ideals to discredit us. The reality of history is that every nation is founded on a pile of bones. Even peace-loving and tolerant Canada has darkness in its past. What is important is not minimizing these failings, but addressing and rectifying them. In paying reparations, the United States would send the world a signal that, in keeping with its ideals, it was able to reckon with its past. The world needs a United States actively striving to live up to its ideals,3 it will deliver us friends and allies among governments and people around the world.

On this July 4 I’m celebrating the establishment of this great nation and considering how to make it better. Reparations for slavery, besides righting a past wrong, will improve the economic and social health of the nation and be foreign policy masterstroke. The United States is at its best, such as rebuilding Europe after World War 2 when the right thing is also the smart thing. Reparations for slavery is both the right thing and the smart thing.

But at the office, not so good.

Anyone with a toxic boss will recognize Vance’s situation. The boss made a really terrible decision to start a war with Iran. Vance made it known that he didn’t think it was a great idea, but the boss is the boss.

The war went badly and the boss has agreed to a humiliating deal to end it. But he has assigned the VP to work out the details, most of which are up in the air. Since the U.S. is tired of war and the high gas prices that have come with it, Vance won’t have any leverage. We’ve lost the war, there is no appetite to start fighting again, so threats to Iran will ring hollow.

Throughout this war the U.S. has been hampered by relying on amateur diplomats like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner who negotiated without the support of experts who know the issues. According to Politico’s Nahal Toosi, every indication is that this situation will continue to be the case.

Vance is going into negotiations without leverage and without deep expertise and background. Imagine buying a car and being so desperate that you can’t walk away and you know nothing about the details of comparable car prices or financing. You’re gonna get got. That’s Vance’s new assignment.

It gets worse.

The boss is set to retire in 2028 and Vance wants to replace him. On the one hand, ending the war to bring down energy prices and reduce inflation is a must if the GOP is to have any chance in the mid-terms or in 2028. At the same time, key elements of the GOP are still super-hawkish about Iran and will see the inevitable bad agreement as a betrayal.

South Carolina Senator and uber-hawk Lindsey Graham posted:

I am somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming.

Under our law, any nuclear deal with Iran will be sent to Congress for review and a vote. I look forward to reviewing the final product and I believe it is imperative that the architect of the deal, Vice President Vance and his negotiating partners, be part of the process in presenting the final deal to Congress.

I added the emphasis. Graham, with a re-election campaign to run, dare not cross Trump so he’ll pin responsibility for the foreign policy fiasco on Vance.

JD Vance will be stuck selling a bad deal to his fickle boss, a divided Congress and party, and an American public that is no longer buying what this White House is selling.

I am not the first to observe that being a politician is eating a heaping helping of shit, over and over and over again.

Vice Presidential Humiliations Past

The vice presidency is an inherently humiliating job. But most presidents did not explicitly humiliate their VPs. For the most part, the vice president wasn’t important enough to bother humiliating—at least not publicly. As the Vice Presidency has risen in stature, they increasingly have been put in humiliating, or at least difficult positions.

Many difficult moments for vice presidents came when they had tough assignments or were defending a president in crisis. On the former, VP Harris had a tough time on immigration. But President Biden gave her that assignment because the administration needed help on a serious problem.

In the 1980 primaries, President Carter faced a challenge from Sen. Ted Kennedy. He had also placed an embargo on grain sales to the Soviet Union in response to their invasion of Afghanistan. VP Mondale opposed the embargo both because he felt it wouldn’t make a difference (grain sales are fungible) and because he was worried about the Iowa primaries. Carter thought the embargo was necessary to show U.S. allies that an American president could make a politically costly decision when needed in the face of Soviet aggression. (Carter was right.) Mondale dutifully campaigned in Iowa, one of many tough jobs he took on for Carter.

Gerald Ford played loyal vice president during Watergate. This had an element of humiliation as the walls closed in on Nixon, but Nixon wasn’t purposefully doing it to Ford. The same goes for Clinton and Gore, who had a warm president-vice president relationship through most of the administration. But, when Clinton was being impeached and tried, Gore had to be a loyal defender of some presidential tawdriness. Again, this was not purposeful humiliation.

Eisenhower went back and forth on Nixon. In his heart of hearts, Eisenhower didn’t like him, but Nixon was Nixon and remained persistent, eventually winning some measure of Eisenhower’s respect.

At an August 1960 press conference, when Nixon was running for President, Eisenhower was asked about Nixon’s contributions to the administration. Eisenhower responded, “If you give me a week, I might think of one. I don’t remember.”

Eisenhower apologized to Nixon and it occurred in the context of a weekly press briefing, so in fact Eisenhower was saying that he’d bring them answers next time they met. (I’m not sure that he did though.)

I don’t think Eisenhower was purposely humiliating Nixon here, but subconsciously he never really liked Nixon and it came out.

LBJ was a monster and readily took out his enormous rage on Vice President Hubert Humphrey. It was bad enough that the songwriter-humorist-math professor Tom Lehrer wrote a song about it.

Pence: VP Abased

The VP who can most relate to Vance’s humiliation as Trump’s VP is probably Pence. The most notable instance was Trump forcing Pence to leave an Indianapolis Colts game if players chose to kneel during the national anthem. Pence loved his Colts, but Pence showed his obeisance, and continued to do so to almost the very end.

Vance might consider how that turned out.