Lasting Peace In Israel: The Ultimate Deal

So far, and largely in keeping with the premise of his “America First” campaign, the Trump presidency has been focused on domestic issues. Foreign policy has of course played a significant role—no president can focus exclusively on one or the other—but apart from military decisions in Syria (which Trump has for the most part outsourced to the Pentagon), crisis-management responses to the latest provocations of North Korea, and some antagonistic dealings with NATO and the G-7, domestic policy has been the centerpiece of the administration to this point. Foreign dealings have focused on a direct relationship to core American interests.

But I fully expect the administration to take on a more active role in world affairs, for the simple reason that America is still the most powerful nation and will inevitably be drawn into any major international dispute. And in the most well-known international dispute in modern times—the ongoing clashes between Israel and the Palestinians—expect Trump to get personally involved and make a strong push for a successful resolution. Contingent, as always, on domestic politics, I think Trump will be unable to resist making an Israeli-Palestinian deal a major focal point of his presidency.

For the man who campaigned on making deals, the author of The Art of the Deal who blasted “stupid politicians” making “bad deals”, the chance to solve the centerpoint of so much violence in the Middle East will be nearly impossible to resist. It would be the ultimate chance to prove himself on the world stage.

Whether anything would come of the negotiations is a different matter entirely. U.S. presidents have been trying for decades, with no permanent, satisfactory resolution to show for it. But, again contingent on the realities of domestic politics, look for Trump to make a significant push on the issue, perhaps after the midterms next year.

It is hard to imagine a man with the ego and love of deal-making such as Trump, given the power and influence of the office of the American Presidency, attempting anything less.

Summer In Trump's Washington

Summers in Washington, D.C. are hot and humid. Particularly in August, it becomes easy to remember that two centuries ago, the city was literally built in a swamp, which was drained to make way for the new capital. Donald Trump’s campaign cry, perhaps unwittingly, mirrors the call of late eighteenth-century construction workers.

Heat and humidity can make people both lazy and irritable, and it seems like that is shaping up to be a perfect reflection of the mood inside D.C., as the first summer of the presidency of Donald Trump slowly progresses. Lazy, in that nothing much continues to happen in terms of fulfilling major campaign promises such as Obamacare repeal and tax reform. And irritable, in the sense of continuing investigations into collusion with the Russians (some justified, to be sure), and marches of “the Resistance.”

Something major could always change, just as the heat and humidity can give way to sudden thunderstorms and flash floods, but as of now it seems unlikely. The status quo will probably continue through the summer, with much sniping and little being accomplished. Such is the standard in modern Washington, and this summer looks set to exacerbate the trend.

White House Drama Would Be Fine If It Actually Got Results

There are reports that Reince Priebus, former chair of the Republican National Committee and currently Donald Trump’s chief of staff, may be on his way out. This follows months of maneuvering and jockeying for power among the upper levels of Trump’s White House staff, which in turn followed the well-documented power struggles within the staff of Trump’s presidential campaign.

Many have argued that this behavior, implicitly encouraged by Trump, is no way to run a country. But it wouldn’t be so bad if it actually got results. If the Trump administration at this point, more than one hundred days in, was an unqualified success, if Obamacare repeal had passed Congress and tax reform was on its way to becoming law, then the power plays and shifting allegiances would be a worthy price for getting results. But the fact is that those goals are nowhere close to being met, and it seems improbable that the current mode of administration is particularly well-suited to meeting them in the near future.

The current system simply isn’t working. The White House needs to get rid of the infighting, build a team consensus, and get to work.

Build That Wall

Unlike many other Trump critics during the 2016 primary and general election seasons, I was never opposed in principle to the idea of a wall along the southern border. Trump’s presentation of the idea was ridiculous, to be sure, as was his suggestion that Mexico would pay for it. But the concept of a wall itself was a good one, for both practical and psychological reasons. There can be no doubt that the border was far from secure during Barack Obama’s tenure in the White House, and though things have improved somewhat since then, much work remains.

But Trump’s spotty record of keeping his promises and staying consistent on the issues, from his professional life to his public political statements, made it seem at the time that his pledge to build a wall would likely be quickly forgotten, should he ever achieve the presidency. There was no evidence that Trump, beneath all his bluster, had the ability to fight both the Democrats and the bipartisan caucus of limitless-immigration advocates in Washington, to the point necessary to change the border situation to any meaningful degree.

That situation has improved, to be sure, more than we had reason to hope. But that improvement is only temporary, unless the Trump administration can find a way to make a large-scale, tangible, and permanent change at the southern border. Something big and beautiful, maybe.

The wall seems to have faded in priority within the Trump administration. Aside from it being politically stupid for the administration to let such a major campaign promise go unfulfilled, it would be a border enforcement measure that future administrations would find next to impossible to reverse. It needn’t stretch along the entire border, either—just an added, highly visible security measure along the most troublesome portions. But it would send a clear message to all those who seek to enter the country illegally: America is a country of law and order.

Trump Withdraws From The Paris Agreement; Keeps Embassy In Tel Aviv

Yesterday, in typical deal-making mode, President Trump made two major decisions, one certain to please conservatives and the other just as certain to assuage liberals. He announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, negotiated by the Obama administration in 2015; and, earlier in the day, signed a waiver that kept the American embassy in Israel in Tel Aviv, rather than moving it to the Israeli capital in Jerusalem, as he had promised repeatedly during the presidential campaign.

So, one promise kept, another broken. Sounds like a typical day in the presidency of Donald Trump.

I agree with the conservative conventional wisdom that the Paris agreement was a bad deal for the country, and that the embassy should move to Jerusalem immediately. Persuasive arguments for both positions are fairly easy to find, and I won’t rehash them now. But what I find interesting is that the announcements of both decisions occurred on the same day, fitting what has become a pattern for this administration: bad news is regularly paired with good, or, more specifically, the announcement of one policy guaranteed to find favor with those on the Right is always paired with the announcement of another guaranteed to unsettle conservatives.

In general, this isn’t an unusual strategy in politics, or for that matter in any business involved in public relations. But I find it interesting how closely the Trump administration has been keeping to this form of one good thing for the Right, coupled with one bad. Before the Paris withdrawal and the keeping of the embassy in Tel Aviv, it was the (good) federal budget blueprint, coupled with the (bad) push for the American Health Care Act. The pattern even dates back to Trump’s cabinet announcements from the transition period, where one pick that might be greeted unenthusiastically by many Republicans was often announced alongside another guaranteed to excite the base. And there have been many other examples of the same basic pattern over the course of the Trump presidency to date.

So the next time the administration makes an announcement that is cause for celebration, wait to see what the bad news is going to be. Conversely, if there is an announcement of a policy conservatives are guaranteed to disagree with, expect some good news to emerge soon after. On this, at least, the Trump White House seems to operate like clockwork.

America Has Survived Worse Than Donald Trump

The United States of America was founded in the midst of a bloody revolution, fighting a war against the most powerful nation on Earth. Thirty years later, that same enemy was boarding American ships, bombarding a major port city, and burning the nation’s capital to the ground. And fifty years after that, over half a million people died in a brutal civil war, the political and economic effects of which continued to haunt America for decades.

The point is that the United States has faced many struggles in its two centuries of existence, from wars the likes of which the planet had never seen before, to economic collapse, the threat of nuclear war, and a succession of power-hungry politicians. Through it all, the country has made it through battered but alive, and ultimately stronger than before. When compared with these seismic historical events, the election of Donald Trump as President can hardly be deemed a mortal threat to the survival of the country, even if you disagree with his every policy proposal and despise the man personally.

The rhetoric of many on the Left has become increasingly hysterical, and it is no longer uncommon for them to suggest that the end of the United States as we know it is at hand (see, for instance, the many liberal reviews of The Handmaid’s Tale). But it is ridiculous. Is Trump a different sort of president from what we’ve seen before? Absolutely. But to suggest that he and the Russians are engaged in some sort of secret plot to bring about Russian world domination is at least as stupid as suggesting that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11.

There are many valid criticisms of this White House. It has lurched from one crisis to the next with no sense of greater purpose. Trump himself has routinely shot himself in the foot, threatening to derail the entire Republican agenda, and if he can’t get a handle on these (avoidable) crises soon, my past suggestion stands—though the hurricane of bad news that was the past couple weeks seems to have subsided somewhat, at least for now. But the available evidence suggests less a nefarious plot to destroy the country than simple incompetence.

Of course, a full investigation could lead to a different conclusion, which is why such an investigation, led by a special prosecutor, is necessary. But at present, deranged talk of treason and the impending end of civilization does nothing to further the very serious conversations about classified information and the firing of James Comey.

Thanks To Trump, 2018 Is Now Anyone's Guess

On paper, 2018 should be a banner year for Republicans. Following the solid Democratic years of 2006 and 2012, Senate Democrats are overextended in red states, to a point rarely seen in modern partisan politics. Democrats in Indiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, and Missouri are all up for reelection—all states that went for Donald Trump in 2016 by double digit margins. Winning seats in just those five states (while successfully defending the eight seats they hold that are up for reelection) should put Republicans within reach of a filibuster-proof majority. Winning elections in those states, plus in even a few of the swing states that Trump won by single-digit margins, would give the GOP its first legislative supermajority in the Senate in nearly a century.

The gubernatorial map is more difficult, mainly because whereas the Senate class up for reelection next year comes off two successive elections that solidly favored Democrats, the governors up for reelection were elected and reelected in the Republican waves of 2010 and 2014. Additionally, many more governors than senators will be leaving office next year, leading to more open seats that will make it easier for the opposition party to post victories. Still, it should not be impossible for Republican governors nationally to hold their own in terms of total numbers.

But all this, of course, ignores the Trump effect. Maps and data were next to useless in 2016, and their effectiveness will not likely improve with President Trump in office. Despite the convention wisdom about midterm elections being uniformly bad for the party in power, that outcome is not foreordained. Republicans made gains in Congress in 2002, and Democrats broke even in 1998. If Republicans are successful at leading a unified government, voters will reward them.

So far, of course, they haven’t been, due again to the Trump effect. The administration currently lurches from one crisis to the next, with no clear plan for enacting any sort of ambitious reform agenda. The government elected in 2016 has certainly not been a status quo government, but neither has it been one to deliver many meaningful results.

We are now faced with a reversal in hopes from the 2016 election. Republicans now hope that the maps and data are correct, and count on the “Great Red Wall” of the South and West. Democrats, meanwhile, hope for grassroots anger to defy the odds and retake Congress. Whichever party ends up being right, the outcome of 2018 largely depends on the President and his administration getting their act together.

If This Keeps Up, Maybe Trump Should Resign

Every day seems to bring a new chapter in the unfolding drama of fired FBI chiefs, Russian investigations, and seeming administration turmoil. And concurrently, every day seems to bring us another step further from passing into law a meaningful conservative reform agenda. Paul Ryan’s “Better Way” legislative package, which for a short time after Trump’s inauguration seemed poised to become reality, now seems to fade further into the background by the day. Apart from repealing some regulations and confirming Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (to be sure, no small accomplishments), nothing much has permanently changed in Washington after the first few months of unified Republican control.

Talk of impeachment is still incredibly premature, so much so that it is hardly even worth discussing. But resignation, on the other hand, is not an idea that should be rejected out of hand. Trump himself has said that he was happier in his old life, on the outside, than actually dealing with the business of being president.

There’s still a way for him to return to that life, on his own terms. He won the general election, proving all the naysayers wrong. At this point in his administration, he has shown that he is either temperamentally unsuited for the presidency, or else requires such a long adjustment period that it will make the achievement of many of his signature policy promises almost impossible. Trump was always going to have a hard time building the wall, but every time he makes another ill-advised comment about the Russian investigation, or treads on the messaging of his own administration his goals become that much more difficult to achieve.

There is a way out for Trump, to further his agenda while returning to his old life. Not that I expect him to take it. But it is something he might consider, particularly if the whirlwind that has been the past few weeks continues into the summer.

Why Can't Trump Treat The Rest of His Presidency Like His Judicial Nominations?

Amid all the turmoil surrounding the Trump White House, there has been one area in which the president has consistently delivered: making solid judicial nominations. The confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court remains the highlight of Trump’s presidency so far, and Trump has recently begun nominating candidates to fill the numerous vacancies on federal circuit courts around the country, as well. All the nominations have so far proceeded with a minimum of fuss and no major missteps.

The reason is simple. Trump, for whatever reason, has never really seemed to care much about judicial nominations (even though the task is one of the greatest legacies any president will leave), and so far has largely left the process of selecting nominees, and promoting those nominees, to his advisers. In the realm of judicial vacancies, he seems poised to remain a remarkably hands-off president.

What this proves is that when Trump listens to his advisers, avoids inflammatory public statements (or really any public statements at all), and otherwise takes a hands-off approach, his agenda has a much greater chance of success. When, on the other hand, he becomes involved, ignores counsel, and sends early-morning tweets about any given subject, his agenda in that area is far more likely to derail.

If Trump could just take his model of the presidency as it pertained to judicial nominations, and expand it to other issues, he might begin to see a much greater rate of success.

President Trump, Get It Together. Now.

People voted for Donald Trump for a multitude of reasons. Some wanted him to build that “big, beautiful wall”. Others were hoping for a couple solid Supreme Court nominations, or to finally have a chance at repealing Obamacare. Still others thought that by withdrawing from free-trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or NAFTA, Trump would bring back American jobs.

But I guarantee that no intelligent person voted for Trump so that we could see a White House in chaos, a legislative agenda in limbo, and endless investigations and speculation of Russian collusion.

The last time Republicans had unified control of the federal government was for four years during George W. Bush’s presidency, from 2003 until early 2007. Before that, it was two years during the Eisenhower administration. This is only the third time the GOP has enjoyed full control of the government since the Great Depression.

And thanks to Trump, we’re wasting precious time, time which could be spent advancing a conservative agenda that has no hope of becoming law during periods of divided government, talking about Russian collusion, administration shakeups, and the firing of the FBI director. These opportunities of unified party control of government don’t come along often, particularly for Republicans, and when they do they are usually short, lasting no more than one or two election cycles. They are an opportunity not to be squandered.

Yes, the Democrats are being dramatic and grandstanding for “The Resistance”, and the media has it out for Trump and any Republican. But much of the current mess is of the President’s own making, and did not have to be as big of a deal as it now is.

Mr. President, get it together. Please. Stop undercutting your own employees, listen to your advisers, and rise above the insults. Make your presidency memorable for more than just scandal and controversy.

Who Should Be Trump's Next Supreme Court Nominee?

Yesterday I offered some speculation about future vacancies on the Supreme Court, and the way Trump’s nominations to fill those vacancies could impact the ideological balance of the Court. Today, I wanted to briefly discuss the specific kind of person Trump should name to the Court.

The obvious example for Trump to follow in choosing a future nominee is now-Justice Neil Gorsuch. The Gorsuch nomination was universally well-received by the Right on its announcement, and Gorsuch satisfied all three of the criteria vital to a successful Trump Supreme Court pick—ideology, age, and placement on the Trump campaign’s list of possible nominees. A potential second pick should fit those three criteria just as well.

The most important qualification will obviously be that of judicial philosophy, and the vetting process should actively seek out every available piece of evidence to determine how each potential nominee feels about past major cases, as well as issues such as federalism, separation of powers, and an expansive versus originalist view of the Constitution. This attention to detail is particularly important in light of the recent history of Republican judicial nominees, and their varying degrees of adherence to the original meaning and text of the Constitution. For every Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch nominated to the Court, there has been an Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, or John Roberts.

The age factor is perhaps the most underappreciated of the many that go into determining who the next Supreme Court justice might be, but it is also one of the most important, and Trump should nominate someone who is in their 50's or even 40's, and could be expected to serve on the Court for many years to come. Again, Gorsuch should be the model here—at 49, he is by far the youngest Justice currently on the Court, and absent any unforeseen circumstances should still be capable of deciding cases twenty or even thirty years from now.

Finally, Trump should choose a nominee from the list of possible Supreme Court appointments he released during the campaign. That list provided a guarantee that the nominee would be a reliable conservative, and was a key campaign promise. Though it was understood at the time to primarily apply to the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia, Trump also said that he would use the list to choose future nominees as well, should further vacancies arise during his time in office.  The list is replete with individuals who would make fantastic Supreme Court justices, and it would be a mistake for Trump to begin the process of selecting a second nominee by looking anywhere else.

Gaming Out The Future of Supreme Court Vacancies

Since Ronald Reagan, every President of the United States has seen at least two successful nominations to the Supreme Court. Reagan had three; both Bushes, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama have each filled two vacancies. Donald Trump, only one hundred days into his first term in office, has already had one successful nomination, the only time in recent history that has occurred.

And Trump could soon get another chance to leave his mark on the Supreme Court. Rumors are swirling that Anthony Kennedy, the moderate swing vote on the Court and eighty years old, could retire this summer. If he does, and Trump has the opportunity to make a second nomination, it will be an historic event for a president to fill two seats on the Court so early in his term.

As I’ve said before, this is when the real battle for the future of the Supreme Court will take place. Gorsuch’s nomination merely replaced one conservative—Antonin Scalia—with another. But if Trump replaces Kennedy with another name from his list of potential justices, any of whom would be a solid conservative pick, the current balance of power would shift definitively toward the Right.

And it might not end there. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the leader of the current Court’s liberal wing, is 84 years old and has suffered several health issues in recent years, including cancer. She would certainly like to delay retirement until the next liberal president is elected, whether in four or eight years, but if any justice is likely to be forced into retirement due to worsening health problems, it would be her. Stephen Breyer, another veteran liberal, is currently 78 years old, and may well decide to leave the Court before another Democrat is elected, particularly was Trump to win reelection in 2020.

In contrast, with Scalia’s death, Clarence Thomas is now the oldest conservative member of the Court, who at 68 is still fairly young by judicial standards.

With his first Supreme Court nomination, Trump has all but guaranteed the current delicate balance of power between conservatives and liberals. With his next pick, should Kennedy indeed choose retire within the next year or two, Trump has the opportunity to give the Court its first fully conservative majority since the early 1930’s. And, should more vacancies arise after that, he could well solidify a conservative supermajority on the Court that would last for decades to come.

The Handling of Comey's Firing Was Worse Than The Act Itself

I have mixed feelings about the surprise firing of FBI director James Comey. On the one hand, Comey always struck me as an honorable man, trying to do what he thought was right—whether that meant deciding not to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton with regard to the email investigation, reopening that investigation days before the general election, or pursuing a separate investigation of Russian election tampering. On the other, however, there is little question that his decision not to indict Clinton was politically motivated, a favor he would not have granted to any person not named Hillary Clinton who had handled classified information in an identical way, and his continued tenure at the FBI only served to deepen the politicization of the department.

That being said, Trump’s true mistake in handling the Comey affair was not the decision he reached—to remove Comey from office—but the way he implemented that decision. When news broke, it apparently caught everyone off guard, even staffers at the FBI and in the White House. Comey himself was speaking at an FBI office in California, and learned about his firing from watching TV. There was no advance notice, or even a hint that this was coming. How would you like to be let go from your job in such a way?

Maybe the firing was deserved; maybe not. I’ll leave that to others to debate, although in personnel matters like this one, I’m inclined to give the president some benefit of the doubt. But the manner in which the decision was executed was stupid, ill-advised, and unnecessary, and Trump will likely pay a political price for it.

Is Populism Dead, Or Has It Already Won?

As everyone knows, 2016 was a banner year for populism in the West. Voters in the United Kingdom stunned the politicians, the polls, and the financial markets by voting to leave the European Union. Not six months later, across the Atlantic, American voters elected Donald Trump as the 45^th President, in what has been described as the greatest political upset in U.S. history. In between, nationalist (here I use the terms interchangeably) parties gained strength in many parts of Europe, including Austria, where a populist leader came tantalizingly close to winning the presidency, and Hungary, where voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of a referendum limiting immigration (though low turnout meant that the measure was not adopted).

But 2017 has so far seemed to be a year of setbacks for populist candidates. Geert Wilders’ party in the Netherlands had a disappointing finish in that country’s parliamentary elections. The main populist party in Germany seems to be struggling, as well. And, though Marine Le Pen made it to the runoff in the French presidential elections, the current polls suggest she will lose in a landslide (though that lead may be dwindling).

I’m not going to make any predictions about whether the polls are right and Le Pen will actually go down in embarrassing defeat. Last year’s presidential polls are still fresh in my mind. But the record already seems to suggest that populism has struggled to gain additional traction since the banner year of 2016.

Has it? Geert Wilders may not be the Dutch prime minister, but he remains a major player in Dutch politics, and his campaign forced the major parties to shift to the right and adopt some of his anti-Islam, anti-immigration arguments. A similar phenomenon has played out in Germany, where Angela Merkel is no longer nearly as pro-open borders and pro-immigration as she once was. And Le Pen is already set to turn in the best performance ever by a National Front politician in the presidential election, and her opponent’s lead, while still in double digits, is closing by the day.

Politicians across the West, even those who have campaigned most strenuously against the rise of populism, have gradually been forced by political reality to adopt a few of the populists’ key demands—greater national sovereignty, stricter immigration controls, and the like. Even the leadership of the European Union is now saying that they may back off some of their most strident calls for greater European integration, made in haste over the past few years. The twin blows of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are still causing shockwaves through the system, shockwaves most noticeable in Europe.

They will recede in time, absent other populist victories, but for now the assorted nationalist movements across the West are gaining policy victories even without major triumphs at the ballot box. They may not have achieved total victory, but the assorted components of the current nationalist-populist movement are far from finished.

Trump's Right About The Ninth Circuit

On the campaign trail, Trump would sometimes discuss his desire to “break up the Ninth Circuit”, dividing the federal circuit court based in California into two smaller bodies. He recently affirmed this desire in an interview, following a 60 Minutes segment which also touched on the subject.

He’s right, but not for the reason some conservatives are giving.

Yes, the Ninth Circuit is infamous for its liberal bias. And yes, the court is one of the most-reversed appeals court in the nation, with roughly 80% of decisions being reversed by the Supreme Court upon review. But these facts by themselves should not be sufficient grounds for fundamentally reshaping the structure of the nation’s judiciary.

The simple fact is that from a logistical standpoint, the current structure of the Ninth Circuit in relation to the other eleven federal circuit courts is ridiculous. The Ninth Circuit has more than twice the number of active judges as the next largest appeals court, with 29, and the states and territories which make up the circuit’s jurisdiction comprise 20% of the entire U.S. population. For logistical reasons alone, the court should be split in two—a fact recognized by Justices Thomas and Kennedy ten years ago.

The logistical reasons alone for splitting the Ninth Circuit are important enough, and if conservatives hope to have any meaningful chance of actually reforming the judiciary, with bipartisan support, they would do well to focus on the more technical arguments of the issue. Otherwise, should Republicans make the ideological makeup of the court as much a part of the conversation as its unwieldy size, Democrats could well get it in their head to attempt to meddle with the structure of more conservative circuit courts, such as the Third Circuit, in hopes of creating conditions more favorable to judicial activism and concepts of a “living Constitution”. The related yet separate problem of the Ninth Circuit’s judicial overreach is one better answered by prudent use of the President’s nomination power, and the Senate’s review of those nominations.

Evaluating Trump, 100 Days In

I’ve never been a fan of the narrative, espoused by so many in the media, that the “first one hundred days” of a President’s term is in any way meaningful or an accurate reflection on the success of his presidency. Is it fair to judge a President as a failure for not achieving anything of significance in the first hundred days, but instead using that time to negotiate and plan, and set up a great milestone on day 150? The entire concept reeks more of liberal FDR-worship than any meaningful attempt to quantify the success of a presidency.

That being said, Trump has now been in office for just over 100 days, and now’s as good a time as any to check in on his successes and failures—remembering that a lot can still happen in the 3 ½ years left in his term.

Unfortunately for Trump, the two highlights of his first hundred days that first come to mind are the travel ban (suspended by a federal judge on legal grounds) and the Obamacare replacement bill (pulled from the floor due to lack of votes, though negotiations are ongoing). Though many will disagree with me, I had little concern with either the original or revised travel ban orders (though implementation was a different matter entirely), and the suspension is really not Trump’s fault. The Obamacare bill, on the other hand, was terrible from the beginning, and blame for that debacle must rest with the President at least partially, for embracing it so fully, rushing the process, and attempting to bully conservative skeptics into taking his side.

Those have been perhaps the most high-profile events of Trump’s time in office so far, and it would be easy to write a summary of his first hundred days focusing entirely on those two misfires. But to do so would not be fair to Trump or his administration, and ignore several conservative policy successes. Let us not forget that on his first weekend in office, Trump restored the Mexico City Policy, barring federal funding of groups that promote abortions internationally (such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation). He has assumed a tougher posture in dealings with North Korea, Syria, Iran, and (surprisingly) Russia than Barack Obama ever did, and backed up talk with action. And his recently released preliminary budget is everything Obama’s attempts weren’t: namely, fiscally sane and small government-friendly.

When Trump said during the campaign that he would “surround himself with good people”, I and others mocked him and wondered how much he would actually listen to those “good people”. But he has, in fact, surrounded himself with a truly stellar Cabinet and military advisors (I have my differences with a couple, but on the whole a conservative could not hope for a more knowledgeable and principled group of people), and just as surprising seems to actually be listening to them, at least most of the time.

President Trump still has a ways to go, but overall his time in office is off to a promising start. If he keeps the momentum going, signs an Obamacare replacement bill that actually repeals Obamacare, and maybe tones down the tweets just a bit (I say that reluctantly; I’ve come to enjoy reading them), he’ll have the makings of a great first year.

The Status Quo Can't Last Forever

The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, against all the odds, brought home a reality that was already becoming apparent: the world is changing, and the old order of the past sixty years cannot last forever. The 2016 election has not been the only indicator: Brexit and the rise of Marine Le Pen in France are two others, which most prominently demonstrate the continuing populist surge across the West. Even the Arab Spring of several years ago could, in hindsight, be seen as a early sign of the dissatisfaction with the established order sweeping the globe.

North Korea seems to grow more belligerent by the day, faced by a United States no longer satisfied with détente and endless rounds of failed negotiations and sanctions which seem to do little good. Iran, too, seeks to become a regional power, spreading their influence in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. The movement of greater European integration, begun after the Second World War, is stalled, and perhaps is in full retreat already, depending on one’s point of view. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin seeks both to cement his own power, and return Russia to the imagined glory of the old Soviet Union. And the time of Venezuela’s “Socialism of the 21^st Century” may be reaching its inevitable conclusion.

It is a tangible truth, so much so that one can almost feel it in the air: the second decade of the 21^st century is a time of great, unprecedented change, the past two years especially so. The old order is gradually giving way to something new. What ends up replacing it will not become clear for a long time yet, but its shape is slowly emerging.

All the issues we increasingly struggle with today—from North Korea to immigration and globalization, all the way to the exploding national debt—will be affected by this change. The current, decades-old balance of power in the Korean Peninsula cannot last in perpetuity. Neither can America’s current rate of borrowing and spending. Neither can the European struggle between integrationists and nationalists, and the centralization of power in Brussels. Changes across the world have been gestating for a long time, and many are finally coming to a head.

Change is in the air.

Memo to North Korea: Time To Get Real

North Korea has long been known as a strange blend of rogue nation and true national security threat, driven largely by its aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons, combined with an almost comedic level of propaganda denouncing the West and lauding its own “Dear Leader”, Kim Jong Un. But the past few weeks have seen an unusual amount of attention focused on North Korea, with the nation conducting more and more missile launches and Vice President Mike Pence promising that the United States is tired of using the same failed playbook to get North Korea to stop pursuing WMD’s. “The sword stands ready,” Pence said yesterday, speaking to U.S. sailors stationed off the Korean peninsula.

There will be no more red lines, of the sort President Obama so infamously drew in Syria. No more one-sided pleas for negotiation. Peace should always be the goal, but with a ruler as dangerous and unstable as Kim Jong Un, conflict is always a possibility. America has to be ready for that very real possibility, and it looks as though Trump, guided by Mike Pence and his advisors, has accepted that fact.

North Korea has been a danger to world security for decades, and that danger only increases as time goes by. Too many nations, and too many U.S. administrations, have not taken the threat seriously enough, or have attempted to use the same failed tactics over and over again. Credit where credit is due: Trump (or his advisors) have recognized that the current Korean situation is untenable. Something has to give.

Easter: Good A Time As Any for a Presidential Reset

It is no secret that President Trump has had a turbulent first couple of months on the job. The (deserved) failure of the American Health Care Act, controversies over Russian meddling in the presidential election, the travel ban rollout, now a burgeoning fight over tax reform… All of these were avoidable crises, during the best time for a new administration to score some big wins. And all were made even worse by the President being the same impulsive, vindictive, easily-provoked Twitter addict he’s always been.

During the campaign, we were promised a presidential Trump, someone who could be “so presidential you’ll be bored.”We haven’t seen him yet. And while the Twitter outbursts have sometimes been amusing, they are quickly getting in the way of opportunities for real conservative reforms. I like fun, WTF-style tweets. They keep the day interesting. But not from the President of the United States, not multiple times a day from said President, and certainly not at the expense of real progress in reforming the federal government.

Spring is a time of growth and optimism. Maybe Trump can be inspired to start putting more effort and focus into governing, away from the constant media attention he craves. Maybe someone close to him can be inspired to stage an intervention and lock him out of Twitter for a week or two. But whatever the reason, it’s something that needed to happen yesterday. The sooner, the better.

Campaigning is fun. But the campaign, and the playtime, is over. If Trump can’t see on his own that it’s time to ditch the phone and start acting like the leader of the free world, hopefully someone in the West Wing can wake him up to the fact.

What's Next for the Obamacare Debate

On Friday, House Republican leadership, acting on the behest of President Trump, pulled the awful American Health Care Act from consideration, only minutes before a scheduled vote.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that Speaker Ryan, Trump, and the rest of leadership now seem to be running up the white flag on Obamacare repeal. Trump: “I’m glad I got it out of the way.” Ryan: “Obamacare is the law of the land…for the foreseeable future.”

Are you kidding me? They spend seven years campaigning for full repeal. They promise millions of voters that if their party just controlled the House of Representatives, Obamacare could be repealed. Then they just needed the Senate. Then, of course, once they had the Senate, Congress was no good unless they had the presidency as well. And now, after only two months and one half-baked, terrible bill that succeeded in uniting moderates, conservatives and Democrats in opposition, they’re giving up?

I don’t think so. Not if we have anything to say about it. The solution is simple: just pass the same damn bill Congress sent to President Obama in 2015. Don’t worry about the replacement for right now. Just repeal the mandates, repeal the taxes, repeal the regulations. Do what was literally the one thing every single member of the Republican conference was elected to do over the past four election cycles.

Go back to the drawing board. Talk to members. Lead. And repeal Obamacare, in full. Because if a solidly Republican Congress, working with a Republican president, can’t even achieve their single signature promise, then having a GOP majority isn’t worth a bucket of spit. And that, rather than actually keeping a core campaign promise, will be the one thing that could actually cost Republicans the majority in 2018.