Truth and Consequences

Trump is not like normal people.  His statements about the world are not aimed at being true or false, but rather useful in advancing his interests, or not useful.

In recent decades a cornerstone of world peace has been the globally accepted proposition that there is one China, not two.  This is accepted by almost all governments, and indeed is a part of Taiwan’s constitution.  The issue was completely settled, until now:

In his remarks on Sunday, however, Mr Trump suggested the One China policy could in fact be treated as a bargaining chip, rather than as the bedrock of relations between the world’s two largest economies. “I don’t know why we have to be bound by the One China policy unless we make a deal with China on other things,” the president-elect said.

Interestingly, my commenters often wrongly accuse Richard Rorty as having this sort of relationship with the truth.  But Trump really does seem to think truth is whatever he wants it to be.  His statement increases the probability of war between the mainland and Taiwan (albeit in absolute terms the probability is still quite low.) It also puts to rest any ideas that Trump would stop being a reckless buffoon after being elected, and would “get serious”.  Sorry Trumpistas, Trump acted like an idiot during the campaign and he’ll act like an idiot as president.

Just recently, Trump ridiculed CIA claims that the Russians tried to influence the election with leaks aimed at Hillary:

President-elect Donald Trump trashed the reported assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency that Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election in an effort to help him win the White House, calling it “just another excuse” pushed by the Democrats to undercut his stunning victory.

Tags:

 
 
 

83 Responses to “Truth and Consequences”

  1. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    12. December 2016 at 08:27

    “In the future, I’ll have lots of posts praising Trump for things like the Taiwan phone call”

    -I’m waiting.

    “If I were religious, I’d be praying for a President Pence, ASAP.”

    -If I were religious, I’d be praying for a Vice-President Paul, ASAP. Pence is nuts, far more dangerous than Trump.

    “His statements about the world are not aimed at being true or false, but rather useful in advancing his interests, or not useful.”

    -Just like yours.

    “His statement increases the probability of war between the mainland and Taiwan (albeit in absolute terms the probability is still quite low.)”

    -Actually, it decreases it.

    “And he says not just wrong, but “ridiculous”.”

    -Because it is. RNC insiders agree: the RNC was NOT hacked. Ergo, the CIA’s lies are not just false, they’re ridiculous.

  2. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    12. December 2016 at 08:28

    Agreed the election was not a landslide. Too few electoral votes.

  3. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    12. December 2016 at 08:32

    The National Review and the principled conservatives are strongly supportive of Trump’s accepting a phone call from Taiwan leadership.

    The NR editors jointly refer to Senator Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) tweet that Trump’s phone call is “how wars start” as “scaremongering”.

    It seems Sumner is firmly in camp with the far left on this issue. This is a recurring pattern.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442824/donald-trump-taiwan-president-phone-call-opportunity

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442753/trumps-taiwan-phone-call-good-sign-shifting-balance-power

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442937/taiwan-china-united-states-democracy-diplomacy-donald-trump-tsai-ing-wen

  4. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    12. December 2016 at 08:39

    Massimo, You again win most moronic comment of the day award. I already suggested that I support Trump on the Taiwan call. Indeed Harding references that support above.

    Is it possible you can just post one comment without making a complete fool of yourself? Just one?

    Couldn’t you give someone else a chance at the award?

  5. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    12. December 2016 at 08:51

    Scott,

    I largely agree with you, but my assessment of Pence is more negative all the time. He is also willing to say anything to push his agenda. He just seems more knowledgeable, smarter, and less reckless than Trump, but given that he’s supporting Trump and given that he showed pretty poor judgement at times as governor of Indiana, I wouldn’t rest easy with him as President in many ways. Still, I suspect he’d be somewhat less likely to blow the world up, but I wonder at times lately. He seems like such an extremist christian that I wonder about his autocratic tendencies and personal agenda.

    Getting tough with China over Taiwan like this could be a good strategy if handled with care by a diplomaticly competent administration, with with a reckless moron like Trump I fear it may lead to a larger confrontation that he and his administration expect or are prepared to handle. I’m concerned we may back down in a face-saving way that leads to a major diplomatic defeat that will go over the heads of Trump supporters, or worse, end up with a large, needless military crisis.

  6. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    12. December 2016 at 09:10

    Scott, You said:

    “Getting tough with China over Taiwan like this could be a good strategy”

    I’m not even sure what you mean, but it’s an idiotic idea to “get tough” with China over Taiwan right now. The situation now is fine, and change is almost certain to be worse. What do you suppose we should advocate–Taiwanese independence?

    If we want to get tough” with a country it should be Russia, and even there I’d oppose military action.

    If China invades Taiwan, that would be a time to “get tough”.

  7. Gravatar of Dhruv Dhruv
    12. December 2016 at 09:12

    I am not sure Taiwan is a bargaining chip anymore. In the 1970s, One China policy meant that PRC got a UN permanent / veto seat and diplomatic recognition.
    Today, what does ‘One China’ policy mean for China ? And is Taiwan big enough/ strategic enough to worry the mandarins ?

    I feel Trump is just pissing the PRC off without anything in terms of a bargaining position

  8. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    12. December 2016 at 09:18

    @sumner,

    “I already suggested that I support Trump on the Taiwan call.”

    I’ll believe in other posts, you have such a position. In this post, you call Trump a “reckless buffoon” in direct relation to the Taiwan call and quote an ft.com article that is critical of accepting the Taiwan call.

    Am I missing some double layers of sarcasm or inside joke or some backhanded trolling here?

  9. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    12. December 2016 at 09:43

    “If we want to get tough” with a country it should be Russia”

    -Only someone too stupid to live would say that.

    I’m glad the U.S. elected Trump. Finally, someone who cannot be bullied.

  10. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    12. December 2016 at 09:45


    In the future, I’ll have lots of posts praising Trump for things like the Taiwan phone call

    I remember this statement vividly as well.

    So now we got your promised post about the Taiwan call but there’s no praising at all only bashing, bashing, bashing. Similar to Harding and Massimo I don’t get this at all. Your statements do not go well together in fact they don’t go together at all.

    This seems to be one of your Sheldon-Cooper-posts in which you thought you used irony and sarcasm that is supposed to be “obvious” (in your mind) when in fact it’s not obvious to a non-autistic person at all. It’s totally unclear what you could have meant.

  11. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    12. December 2016 at 09:54

    Massimo and Christian, You really are idiots. This post has nothing to do with the Taiwan call. Can’t you read?

  12. Gravatar of SG SG
    12. December 2016 at 10:01

    Scott,

    This is your blog so you can obviously do what you want with it, but just wanted to register my 2 cents that seeing you engage in name calling with your dumbest commenters is a bummer. Not sure why these people have infested your comments section (where did Mark Sadowski go?!) but surely the name calling isn’t helping anything (not to mention it’s one of Trump’s many attributes that makes me viscerally loathe the man).

  13. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    12. December 2016 at 10:06

    Sure, it’s possible that the CIA is wrong, but Trump offers no evidence.

    Actually there is no evidence the Russians are responsible for the leaks. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, not on the person refusing to believe it. One cannot prove a negative. This is basic logic.

    Julian Assange said the hacker was not Russian. In an interview, he alluded to the leaker being a DNC insider. Likely Seth Rich, who incidentally was found murdered.

    There are hacked emails dating all the way back in 2015 showing the Democrats intended to start the “Russia” conspiracy theory.

    The CIA has not publicized any conclusive statements that anyone in the Russian government did it. There has only been statements like “The leak/hack may have come from Russia”. And that was likely under Democrat pressure, similar to Bush pressure about WMD.

    The FBI has stated there is no evidence it was Russia.

    The NSA has stated if it was Russia they would have known about it.

    —————

    Summer appears to be having a mental breakdown. Spewing rhetoric about truth this, and lies that, as if he were consistently applying his own definitions of truth being simply what the consensus happens to believe is true or false, honesty and lies.

    You keep contradicting Rortyism when you are making an argument. You claimed Trump is lying. That very well may be, but the Rortyist cannot then KNOW he is lying, let alone know the truth, on the basis of something other than what Trump or the consensus happens to believe.

    You promoted “Truth is what you can get away with”. Of course you believed that when it suited your interests. Well, now that you are on the other side, how does it feel to be presented with Rortyism that does not suit your interests?

    You are just mad that you have to contradict Rortyism when you are just so sure someone is telling a falsehood, that you fall back on, you know, logic and evidence that is not necessarily backed by consensus.

    Now you are chasting Trump for behaving like a Rortyist? Which is it? You cannot have your cake an eat it too. Either Trump is a jerk for using Rortyian strategy and flouting “truth” for “lies”, and “getting away with it”, or Rortyian strategy was dishonest and fallacious all along. Take your pick.

    Every time you claim to know a truth or lie about something Trump said, without first establishing whether other people believe it or disbelieve it, and believe me, a lot of people believe what Trump is saying to be true, you are completely contradicting Rortyism. There is no objective truth that can be known, according to you. How can you claim to know Trump is lying? Lying about what? Objective truth right?

    This blog is literally a cesspool.

  14. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    12. December 2016 at 10:21

    Scott,

    First, let me say the situation with China in Asia is very delicate and any diplomatic initiatives must be handled with great care. I recognize the danger to Taiwan, for example, from recklessly challenging China’s claims there. I also recognize territorial disputes China has with various other neighbors, including Australia over waterways. That’s a reason why coordination and a graduated approach are very important.

    In international relations theory, the rise of one power relative to others in a region is often the source for instability that can lead to war. Hence, I take very seriously the challenge of trying to skillfully and peacefully manage China’s relative rise, along with that of India, the latter of which is a natural ally in balancing China.

    That said, China represents a growing threat to its neighbors’s interests and hence our influence and interests in the south China Sea, as well those of ours vis-a-vis Japan. They are increasingly bold.

    This is in the context of an attempted consolidation of power by Xi not seen since perhaps the early years of Mao’s rule, with crackdowns and return to socialist orthodoxy being two of the means of consolidation.

    Recently, China can claim victories in beginning to move the Philippines and Malaysia more directly into their sphere of influence, with concessions gained against each in territorial disputes. These concessions could have been bargaining chips in any coordinated diplomacy in opposition to China, and instead of hard fought concessions on both sides, China has gotten much of what it wants so far. This is a loss for the US and its allies.

    So, if I were developing our diplomatic policy versus China, I would consider raising the One China policy in subtle ways. I certainly wouldn’t begin with public statements.

    Why? It’s a sensitive pressure point that goes to the legitimacy of the Xi regime, which is what hurts them most. It’s our point of greatest leverage, and because of that fact, it must be handled delicately.

    I frankly think the difference in diplomatic competence between say, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump may be greater than that between Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm. And I don’t think that highly of Clinton’s decision making.

    Just to be clear, I understand that our concessions on Taiwan and the One China policy was a pre-condition for the opening and normalization of diplomatic relations between the US and China. I do understand the historical context, and that’s precisely why even through subtle back-channel communications raising the issue will send a loud message.

    Unfortunately, I think that publicly questioning the One China policy as Trump is doing, in the context of attacking them as a trading partner is potentially not only counter-productive, but dangerous. We are at once unilaterally taking away carrots and swinging a stick, giving China less to lose and more to gain by becoming more aggressive in some instances.

  15. Gravatar of bill bill
    12. December 2016 at 10:33

    I wonder how Taiwan feels about being called a bargaining chip? Maybe China gives us 10 billion yuan and buys a thousand nights at a Trump hotel and they get Taiwan?

  16. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    12. December 2016 at 10:34

    I should also point out that, coupled with private indications we’ve begun to question the One China policy, we begin to up our objections to the Xi crackdowns and consolidation, making it clear that with an escalation of tensions could come public statements about Chinese human rights suppression at homes and abroad, and manipulation of internal politics in the Philippines and Malaysia.

    If I were ever to publicly question the One China policy, and I hope it would never come to that, I would do so in the context of human rights abuses, so that it plays against China among its constituents.

  17. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    12. December 2016 at 10:35

    Bill, they wouldn’t feel much differently than they have for decades, except that tensions are rising. Germany also knew how it felt, until the last generation.

  18. Gravatar of Randomize Randomize
    12. December 2016 at 10:41

    In Trump’s defense (sounds crazy, doesn’t it?), if there was ever a time to break the One China policy, now is probably it for a number of reasons:

    First, the One China policy was always kind of stupid. Taiwan has its own government, is our ally, and it makes zero sense for the U.S. to cut off communication with them except as some kind of capitulation to the Chinese. Frankly, cutting off diplomatic contact is the worst form of diplomacy imaginable.

    Second, we don’t need to capitulate to the Chinese any more. This was done to open up trade and, let’s be honest now, that genie is out of the bottle. The Chinese won’t stop selling us iPhones or buying our PBR for anything less than a war. And unless they’re idiots, they won’t throw it all away to save face on Taiwan.

    Plus, Trump can always walk it back and allow the Chinese to save face. As President-elect, he has no real power yet and his opinions on policy are just opinions and the Chinese can publicly be more forgiving of his statements as he doesn’t yet know any better.

  19. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    12. December 2016 at 10:51

    Good read Scott.

  20. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    12. December 2016 at 10:56

    Okay so you are happy with the Taiwan call but unhappy with its consequences? That’s not very coherent. It’s hard to read your post differently without getting very technical. It’s no surprise to me that two others readers drew a connection to the Taiwan call as well. It’s not obvious to not draw this connection.

    Or you seem to think that you can’t use the One-China policy nonsense as a bargaining chip (but of course you can).

    Or you seem to think that there is only one truth (one China or two Chinas) and that Trump has to stick to this “one truth” (but obviously this is not true, there’s no objective truth regarding this topic, it’s just a matter of pure opinion and pure ideology, an opinion that can be changed from time to time).

    Or you don’t get Trump’s strategy at all and think it’s useless which would be understandable because so far you never got his strategy (even though he has been so extremely successful with it up to that point).

    Of course it would have helped Taiwan extremely if they would have gotten massive American media support after the Taiwan call but as we all know they did not get this support at all, they got the opposite, and that’s just very unfortunate for Taiwan (and typical for all those despicable media outlets).

  21. Gravatar of Michael Rulle Michael Rulle
    12. December 2016 at 11:45

    Re:Carrier

    I think Trump’s interfering with Carrier to “save” 880 (or 1100 or 1330) jobs was ill-advised for a variety of pragmatic reasons, which I will not bore you with. However, I cannot believe The WP’s reporting (you quote from a 12/01 article) that Trump “never” meant to be literal. That is absurd on its face—I must have seen countless speeches of him taking credit for this. I have seen him interviewed on it. He would be worse than a liar, he would be demented to say he never meant it literally. This is fake news at its most absurd. How do you believe this?

    Re:CIA and Russia DNC hacking

    I hate using the standard Clintonian trope of “old news” but this news first came out no later than July of this year. But now, one week before the electoral college vote, we supposedly have 10000 unnamed sources within the CIA revealing to the “media” that their “analysis”—not new facts– of the known hacking has been completed and they have determined it was primarily done “for the purpose of influencing our elections”. This is ludicrous.

    The entire premise is that Putin prefers Trump. Doesn’t this strike you as ridiculous? Why should he want Trump over Clinton? Better oil deals? Better hotel and golf course deals? Or is Trump an old Soviet plant?

    Clinton was Ms. Reset button in 2008—Obama was the Medvedev “whisperer” in 2012. Everything about this hacking scheme was known way before the election and no one gave a damn because the media “knew” Hillary was going to win. Has anyone come up with a theory as to how the hacking “influenced” our elections and why this “analysis” is coming out now? What analysis?

    This is more fake news designed by Trumpophobics that he is somehow not “legitimate”. There are lots of things about Trump that concern me—lots. But the dishonesty of the media and its clown dog believers is ridiculous. There will be non-stop attacks of this sort with the objective of impeachment for the next 4 years—-it won’t work. This is just the beginning.

  22. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    12. December 2016 at 12:13

    Michael Rulle,

    Putin has considerable reason to favor Trump. First, Putin wants sanctions eased or removed. Does that seem more likely to happen with Trump, or Hillary?

    Second, Putin wants a freer hand in his near abroad, especially Ukraine. Hence, he favors weakening NATO and EU solidarity. Trump has questioned the utility of NATO and favored Brexit.

    Third, Putin does not want to be challenged in Syria. Trump says the US and Russia are on the same side.

    Fourth, Putin would like to drive wedges between China and the US, to further weaken our negotiating power. The same triangulation strategy applies vis-a-vis Iran, and Putin has already cashed in his increased influence in the middle east by helping negotiate oil output cuts with OPEC.

    Fifth, Putin seeks to undermine honest, democratic governments wherever he can, in favor of crony-capitalist autocratic regimes friendly to both Russia’s and Putin’s personal business interests.

    Other than that, you didn’t miss much.

  23. Gravatar of Jeff Jeff
    12. December 2016 at 12:46

    In reality there are two China’s. Taiwan has it’s own government that takes no direction from mainland China. Everybody knows this. The One China policy is Newspeak. The idea that the mainland is going to go to war over this is silly. If we really believed they are that unstable and dangerous we’d be doing our best to effect rapid regime change.

    But of course, we’re not, because nobody really thinks mainland China is being run by a bunch of petulant children. But that’s what the One China fiction presupposes.

  24. Gravatar of B Cole B Cole
    12. December 2016 at 13:07

    Trump is Trump, so sometimes he does call a spade a spade.

    When was the last time a US intelligence agency was asked to assess a situation and responded, “This is pretty much a tempest in a teapot”?

    The CIA will inevitably draw the conclusion that is the most alarming possible.

    Yes, CIA reports are not about the truth but advancing the interests of the US intelligence, foreign policy and military communities.

    Trump was correct to refer to the CIA assessment that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which the CIA director at the time said was a “slam dunk.”

    The FBI has a different assessment, much less conclusive, of the “Russian hacking.”

  25. Gravatar of B Cole B Cole
    12. December 2016 at 13:14

    Far more importantly and encouraging,

    “F-35 program ‘cost is out of control,’ Trump says…”

    Published December 12, 2016
    FoxNews.com

    Give Trump credit when credit is due. When was the last time a US president had the guts to say the CIA was full of beans and that a major weapons program was running out of control?

  26. Gravatar of Christian Listerian Christian Listerian
    12. December 2016 at 14:06

    I said from the start that the Russian DNC hacking is true. It was too obvious. It was one of Obama’s many mistakes that he didn’t talk about this more openly when the Presidential election was still ongoing. Whining about it now is just sore losing.

    As I said before that I despite the Russian regime. But in this case their hacking was very helpful because only by their actions we got information that would have been unreported otherwise.

    It’s fair to assume that at least 90% of the elites in DC hated Trump and also that at least 80-90% of the Western media outlets preferred Hillary by a long shot. The Russians actually did something very useful here: They brought some balance to an otherwise very uneven fight.

    I hope they will do this during the Dutch, and the French, and the German elections as well. The European media is even more biased. Sad that we need the Russians to make those very imbalanced fights more even. It’s sad but true.

    I don’t know yet how Trump will deal with the Russians. This is not settled at all, it can go either way. But it will be not easy for him to be softer on the Russians than Obama and his companions have been. Being more softer on Putin than Obama would equal the setting of a new world record in limbo dancing.

  27. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    12. December 2016 at 14:08

    I said from the start that the Russian DNC hacking is true. It was too obvious. It was one of Obama’s many mistakes that he didn’t talk about this more openly when the Presidential election was still ongoing. Whining about it now is just sore losing.

    As I said before that I despite the Russian regime. But in this case their hacking was very helpful because only by their actions we got information that would have been unreported otherwise.

    It’s fair to assume that at least 90% of the elites in DC hated Trump and also that at least 80-90% of the Western media outlets preferred Hillary by a long shot. The Russians actually did something very useful here: They brought some balance to an otherwise very uneven fight.

    I hope they will do this during the Dutch, and the French, and the German elections as well. The European media is even more biased. Sad that we need the Russians to make those very imbalanced fights more even. It’s sad but true.

    I don’t know yet how Trump will deal with the Russians. This is not settled at all, it can go either way. But it will be not easy for him to be softer on the Russians than Obama and his companions have been. Being more softer on Putin than Obama would equal the setting of a new world record in limbo dancing.

    (Sorry for typos)

  28. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    12. December 2016 at 14:51

    Scott, maybe Trump is crazy dangerous, maybe you (for some odd reason) don’t understand how negotiating works.

    Probably somewhere in-between.

  29. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    12. December 2016 at 14:53

    The Obama administration does not rely on hacking alone. I bet they love to send taxpayers’ money to boost the “right” people. Like they did during the elections in Israel last year:

    “The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/

  30. Gravatar of Patrick R. Sullivan Patrick R. Sullivan
    12. December 2016 at 15:13

    ‘Trump is not like normal people.’

    There’s a syllogism struggling to get out there. Ala Scott Fitzgerald, I believe.

    ‘His statements about the world are not aimed at being true or false, but rather useful in advancing his interests, or not useful.’

    Actually, in my experience that’s depressingly normal.

  31. Gravatar of Marty Bormann Marty Bormann
    12. December 2016 at 15:58

    Scott Sumner, the “libertarian” who supports monopoly central banking, NATO, believes all the rubbish statistics put out by the Chinese Communist Party, now takes the word of that most truthful of organizations, the CIA. Just hilarious.

  32. Gravatar of Marty Bormann Marty Bormann
    12. December 2016 at 16:13

    @MF

    Most hacks are inside jobs, so likely the leaked emails were some US insider with an ax to grind against Hilary, or with any luck someone sensible who realizes US militarism needs a time-out.

    The current uproar is likely Democratic infighting (funny how people like Sumner never discuss the actual content of these emails), and the CIA trying to cover its tracks for its crimes in Syria and Libya.

  33. Gravatar of Andrew Garland Andrew Garland
    12. December 2016 at 16:14

    Sumner: “there is one China, not two. This is accepted by almost all governments, and indeed is a part of Taiwan’s constitution.”

    The One China policy is keeping the peace? Not when both governments claim to rule the one country called China.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy
    === ===
    Under this “consensus”, both governments “agree” that there is only one sovereign state encompassing both mainland China and Taiwan, but disagree about which of the two governments is the legitimate government of this state.
    === ===

    One China is a diplomatic construction. PRC (mainland) requires countries to recognize only itself and not ROC (Taiwan), or forget about having official diplomatic relations.

    Trump has a more realistic view of this than the diplomats. Trump’s fault is that he is not playing word games about the true situation of China and Taiwan. Who is being served by the prior obfuscation of this situation?

    This isn’t a showing that Trump is ignorant of obvious facts.

  34. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    12. December 2016 at 16:17

    @SG,

    You are calling me one of the “dumbest commenters” that has “infested” the comment section, but you loathe name calling? Sounds hypocritical.

    Is your participation in this comment section somehow more noble to warrant a less pejorative verb than “infest”?

  35. Gravatar of Marty Bormann Marty Bormann
    12. December 2016 at 17:58

    @SG

    Sadowski? LOL, he’s somewhere running bullshit regressions “proving” market monetarism. How are those NGDP consulting firms doing? Better be a lot of fools to separate from their money.

  36. Gravatar of DanC DanC
    12. December 2016 at 17:58

    Trump is deeply flawed. Some (a majority) of his comments cause me to wince. However on the Russia thing your comments are off.

    I can agree with Scott and the CIA that the Russians sought to influence the election. However I can also agree with Trump that there is little evidence that they sought to elect Trump.

    The Russians were hacking the Democrats, and the Republicans, long before Trump was given any chance to win the Republican nomination. The Russians did not select Trump out of the field and decide to support him. (Did the Russians leak any stories against Republicans opposing Trump?)

    The CIA report is a best guess on what and why the Russians did what they did. It is not a compelling case and makes numerous assumptions based on incomplete information. Did they want to poke Hillary in the eye? Probably. Why? Not clear. Did they think their actions would elect Trump? I doubt it. They would seem to be as surprised as most New Yorkers.

    Hillary had big negatives. The fact that a candidate as weak as Trump defeated her only highlights how bad a candidate she was. The leaked emails only reinforced commonly accepted views of Clinton. As did the FBI investigation. Her own comments etc. She concentrated on some demographics, ignored others. She failed to fully excite the groups she sought and angered some groups she ignored (or even antagonized).

    You can attack Trump for many things, but not as a creation of the Russians. To do so is to ignore why he was so popular in a very large segment of the population

  37. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    12. December 2016 at 18:08

    Marty:

    Yes, the content of what was leaks is far more important than who did the leaking.

    I’m not sure how much of the leaks you have researched, but what I studied was in many cases nauseating and extremely disturbing.

  38. Gravatar of Banned Norse Warrior Banned Norse Warrior
    12. December 2016 at 18:22

    Interesting debate, I need to second the comments about name calling, the debate is better without it.

    I am writing this from Hong Kong, and will travel by train to PRC this evening. Like our host, I also have a Chinese wife, and some interest in the evolution of China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan.

    Going outside the tourist traps, the gist I get is that the biggest problem here is not the free expression restrictions or anything related to China, rather a Kevin Erdman closed access city malaise, where the next generation cannot afford household formation. It seems like they consider Beijing just another colonizer, perhaps a bit influenced by Mongol and Manchurian dynasties, although they wouldn’t explicitly say northern barbarians.

  39. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    12. December 2016 at 18:22

    Sumner wrote:

    His statement increases the probability of war between the mainland and Taiwan

    There already is war, the mainland Chinese communists waging perpetual war against an island population that deserves the right to secede. Yes yes, we know you are a left wing statist globalist shill attacking any and all forms of movements towards political libertarianism. But if the mainland Chinese government escalates the aggression because of foreign nations entering into deals with the Taiwanese nation, then that would be the fault of the mainland Chinese government. The increase in probability of what you define as war is entirely on the hands of those who introduce aggression.

  40. Gravatar of Banned Norse Warrior Banned Norse Warrior
    12. December 2016 at 19:06

    Regarding the primary issue of the post, that Trump is flaky and amoral and opportunistic, I agree, and still consider Clinton a worse candidate. I am at odds with most economists in thinking trade deficits can have long term negative consequences. Assume a world where all capital on U.S. soil is owned by foreigners, and U.S. residents have no capital abroad. We now get into a situation where the GDP differs a lot from the GNP, and there could be negative consequences similar as the Irish potato famine. In a world were rents and profits go abroad, there is less margin to buffer down turns.

    Refusing to recognize the equivalency between trade and budget deficits, and eating the seed grain is a shortcoming where economists are worse than Trump, and hitherto, trump has refused to deal with the serious injustices brought on by the entitlement systems, especially medicare, medicaid, ss survivor benefits, actuarial fairness of social security.

    Medicare and Medicaid spend about 5/3 their revenue, limiting spending to revenue would force down medical costs, and doctors, nurses, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies would be the losers, right now they are winners picked by government.

    All the SJW registration of race for affirmative action is useless and unconstitutional. The one justified place to use race as determinant for anything would be adjusting social security benefits for life expectancy. A black man maxing out social security contributions is statistically screwed by the system, while an Asian lady paying half as much into the system would probably extract more than this hypothetical black man.

    Neither Trump nor Clinton would deal with these real and important problems, Trump will scratch the surface of ACA, or SCOTUSCARE, but nothing more.

  41. Gravatar of Banned Norse Warrior Banned Norse Warrior
    12. December 2016 at 19:28

    Reading the posts above, it seems a bit rambling, the point is that while stating budget deficits are bad, by refusing to touch entitlements, there is nothing Trump can do about spending. The world would be a lot better in utilitarian terms, if Republicans were the monsters the left paints them as, and would actually balance each entitlement program, let medicare spend no more than its revenue, let medicaid spend no more than its revenue etc.

    I say better in utilitarian terms, because MDs and pharmaceutical sales reps are very well compensated, and would be expected to derive less utility from the marginal dollar than the rest of Americans.

  42. Gravatar of Patrick R. Sullivan Patrick R. Sullivan
    12. December 2016 at 20:11

    First, Trump is correct that this is about Democrats trying to deligitimize his win. He’s doing the smart thing ridiculing the story.

    Second, I don’t remember this much attention paid by the press to the discovery that Teddy Kennedy was sending messages to the Kremlin in the 1980s asking for their help defeating Reagan.

  43. Gravatar of Patrick R. Sullivan Patrick R. Sullivan
    12. December 2016 at 20:18

    ‘What did Orwell tell us about how corrupt governments use language? ‘

    Was that the one about what the meaning of ‘is’ is?

  44. Gravatar of Patrick R. Sullivan Patrick R. Sullivan
    12. December 2016 at 20:41

    Speaking of economic howlers, how about this headline from today’s WSJ;

    ‘Cabinet Pick Wilbur Ross Has Used Trade to His Benefit.’

    Adam Smith’s Difficult Idea?

  45. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    12. December 2016 at 23:48

    The funny thing is that the Russiand didn’t even need to lie. They just published real e-mails.

    Dutch, German and French politicians are worried that the Russians “keep lying” during their elections, too. I would not worry about the lying part so much, they should be worried that they publish real data.

    @DanC
    Russians (like any hostile foreign government) try to hack as much as possible to gather information. The new thing is that they are trying to influence foreign elections with it. (I’m pretty sure it’s an old method not a new one but still).

  46. Gravatar of B Cole B Cole
    12. December 2016 at 23:52

    Has the CIA made public any type of information that confirms or refutes that “Russians did the hacking?” Why is the FBI not convinced?

    At least with weapons of mass destruction, we had Colin Powell showing a enlarged photographs of a truck entering and leaving a building. That was considered extremely indicative of WMD.

    But with this hacking, can evidence be offered? Is it believable in any way?

    Let me guess: The CIA says it has the evidence, but cannot make it public as doing so would compromise intelligence sources.

  47. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    13. December 2016 at 00:42

    @Patrick R. Sullivan

    He’s doing the smart thing ridiculing the story.

    That’s one of Trump’s key persuasion strategies, I guess. When Trump is attacked he immediately wents into counter-attack mode. He often counters with a claim that is similar absurd or even more absurd.

    For example when Jill Stein demanded recounts while emphasizing that she did not want to change the final result. Trump made the classic counter:

    “So you don’t want to alter the final results? Oh yeah?! Well I won the popular vote in a landslide anyhow!!!”

    Trump haters don’t get this but it seems to work.

  48. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    13. December 2016 at 01:03

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/five-questions-about-russias-election-hacking/510305/

    http://www.redstate.com/diary/jdrucker/2016/12/12/4-reasons-trump-demand-transparent-investigation-russian-election-influence/

    http://theresurgent.com/this-is-not-about-donald-trump-the-russian-issue-should-be-taken-seriously-and-investigated/

  49. Gravatar of rick rick
    13. December 2016 at 03:57

    ..”among the postwar youth of Europe, of writers like Dostoevsky and Kirkegaard, who had emphasized the irrational as a regenerative force and exalted faith over logic”….

    All the fundamentals of life have been affected by the ____ and something deeper has been worn away than the renewable parts of the machine.. among these things is the Mind. The Mind has been cruelly wounded… It doubts itself profoundly.—Valery

    …..if you cannot see the parallels to an earlier time in the sentences above taken from a book entitled European History Since 1815 then I don’t think you understand what happened to us when the markets crashed in 2007. And if you don’t see that, then I wonder whether you can really call yourself economists? Can’t you see that most people doubt the experts now.

  50. Gravatar of Marty Bormann Marty Bormann
    13. December 2016 at 05:52

    @Tom Brown

    You lose all credibility by linking to an article by David Frum. I also notice that none of your links dispute the veracity of the leaked emails.

  51. Gravatar of Marty Bormann Marty Bormann
    13. December 2016 at 06:21

    I wonder if all the people upset about alleged Russian interference in the US political process have anything to say about obvious and unquestioned Israeli influence?

  52. Gravatar of Marty Bormann Marty Bormann
    13. December 2016 at 06:24

    Funny that’s it’s the Russians who supposedly undermine faith in US institutions, by simply revealing the corruption of those institutions. In other words pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, etc. etc.

  53. Gravatar of mi hael Rulle mi hael Rulle
    13. December 2016 at 06:43

    Scott Freelander

    Well, you got me. I agree with your points. I need to remember not to diverge from my main points when commenting. I am obviously more disturbed by the domestic politics of where this is going.Whatever crap Assange and or Putin actually were doing is far less dangerous to us than what Podesta and Pelosi are trying to do. I say let Trump commit an impeachable offense before we actually try to get him out of office

  54. Gravatar of Michael Rulle Michael Rulle
    13. December 2016 at 07:17

    Scott Freelander

    Well, you got me. I agree that is how Putin thinks. This does not mean, of course, this does not mean Trump actuallybe tter for Putin

    But that was me going on a tangent. My obvious point is the unprecedented steps the Dems seem willing to go to literally overturn the election. Podesta seeking a national security review for Electors from the CIA is beyond the pale. I am realistic enough to know this kind of stuff will not stop. But let Trump commit an impeachable offense before we actually get him out of office.I think this is going to backfire on Dems.

  55. Gravatar of Michael Rulle Michael Rulle
    13. December 2016 at 07:18

    excuse my iphone typing above. sorry

  56. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    13. December 2016 at 07:53

    Michael Rulle,

    That’s funny, because I’m amazed the Democrats aren’t fighting to the death over this. They should do nothing, but obstruct anything Trump wants to do, whether they agree or not, and should only talk about his illegitimacy and organize constant, growing protests.

    Unbearable pressure should be brought on electors to do their jobs and refuse to vote for Trump.

  57. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    13. December 2016 at 08:27

    SG, Fair point, but unlike Trump, I’m polite when people are polite to me.

    Christian, You said:

    “Okay so you are happy with the Taiwan call but unhappy with its consequences? That’s not very coherent.”

    Because of SG I can’t call you names anymore. Just go away if this is all way over your head. i am not unhappy with the consequence of the call.

    Michael, You can’t believe Trump would say something that outrageous? Where have you been for the past 12 months?

    And this statement was reportedly made in a public speech. And many dozens of other new outlets reported the exact same statement, word for word. So I guess your claim is that it’s all some grand conspiracy, that dozens of press outlets together in a room and agree on the exact wording of phony Trump quotes they are about to make up.

    Pathetic.

    Christian Listerman, You said:

    “I said from the start that the Russian DNC hacking is true. It was too obvious. It was one of Obama’s many mistakes that he didn’t talk about this more openly when the Presidential election was still ongoing. Whining about it now is just sore losing.”

    I never once whined about Russian hacking. Can’t anyone around here read? You remind me of Christian List.

    Brian, Finally a comment that is on subject. If you are going to raise a bargaining chip, you have to be willing to carry through with the threat. (Remember Obama’s “red line” in Syria?) Is Trump willing to carry through? Abandoning the one China policy would be a disaster. Current policy makes war over Taiwan very unlikely. I’m not saying there would be war if we abandoned the policy, but it would certainly be marginally more likely. And for what gain?

    Marty, You said:

    “Scott Sumner, the “libertarian” who supports monopoly central banking, NATO, believes all the rubbish statistics put out by the Chinese Communist Party, now takes the word of that most truthful of organizations, the CIA. Just hilarious.”

    And right back to morons who can’t read. I never once suggested I believe the CIA. Indeed just the opposite.

    I’m not even going to read the rest of this comment section. If 90% of my commenters are completely unable to read a simple post, what’s the point?

    But I’m not surprised so many of you like Trump, you are just as clueless as he is.

  58. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    13. December 2016 at 08:55

    I’m polite when people are polite to me.

    I gather no one you listen to ever reflects reality back at you. Maybe they’ve given up.

  59. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    13. December 2016 at 08:55

    “You lose all credibility by linking to an article by David Frum.”

    Pre-Trump, I deeply admired Frum as one of the most reasoned, thoughtful, articulate voices in politics. I love his writing and I love his memoirs of working on the Bush 43 administration.

    With Trump, Frum has lost his mind. He just went raving lunatic insane. He tweets and writes the most ridiculous things now.

  60. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    13. December 2016 at 08:56

    Scott, my comments obviously aren’t pro-Trump, but I try to make a rational case for raising the One China issue, though not publicly.

  61. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    13. December 2016 at 11:28

    Scott, And I’m telling you that there is no rational case for raising the one China issue. Why tinker with something that’s worked well for decades? Who would it help?

    I doubt that there will be a war, but I’ll tell you one thing—China is not going to stand by and allow Taiwan to declare independence. And the US won’t risk a nuclear war over the issue. So what’s the endgame here? I doubt whether Trump has even considered this issue an any sort of coherent fashion.

    Marty, Safe spaces??? The next four years will be the most enjoyable in my entire life. I can rub Trump’s idiocy into your faces every single day, as he continues to make a fool of himself. Why would I need a safe space? Unlike other bloggers, I don’t need to even ban jerks like you—you are (unintentionally) making my points for me. All I need to do is point to the comments made by Trump defenders, and it pretty much makes my case.

    When I read the news each morning, it’s like one Christmas Day after another.

  62. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    13. December 2016 at 11:30

    Marty, I know you are just trying to be a troll, but even that pathetic job actually requires a bit of skill or cleverness. I suggest you consider another pastime, perhaps playing solitaire, or collecting stamps. Throwing out random insults that don’t even fit the target is not going to win you any trolling awards.

  63. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    13. December 2016 at 11:33


    It was one of Obama’s many mistakes that he didn’t talk about this more openly when the Presidential election was still ongoing. Whining about it now is just sore losing.
    – I never once whined about Russian hacking.

    I was talking about Obama and his comrades, not about you. This might be apparent from the context for some people.


    Can’t anyone around here read?

    Everyone seems to be accurate, but then including you.

  64. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    13. December 2016 at 12:03

    Scott,

    The idea is to begin to signal to China how important having open waters in Asia is to us. We raise the issue quietly behind the scenes to signal our willingness not to go to war for Taiwan, but to keep open sea lanes and counter Chinese opposing our interests. I offer the whole context in my rather long post above.

    We’ve been losing ground to China recently, as I explain, vis-a-vis the Philippines and Malaysia. Historically, periods like this are very dangerous and it’s critical that China understand how serious we are about managing their emerging power.

  65. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    13. December 2016 at 12:07

    To further clarify, we consider raising the One China issue behind the scenes to make the Chinese understand that issue is no longer settled if they continue with their aggressive policies. The idea is to let them know they will hit a wall with us, after which we will publicly challenge the very legitimacy of their regime.

  66. Gravatar of DanC DanC
    13. December 2016 at 12:39

    I have been away from this blog for some time. The quality has declined and Scott may need a winter break or to simply avoid political commentary. But heck it is his playground and if he enjoys this, go for it.

  67. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    13. December 2016 at 12:50

    DanC,

    I’ve brought this up a few times, but Scott seems to like it this way. I stopped bringing it up. Besides, as he often points out, his most serious economics posts now can be found on econlog.

  68. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    13. December 2016 at 14:31

    Dr. Sumner,

    If we harbor an aircraft carrier in Taiwan, it’s safe to say China won’t do a thing about Taiwan declaring independence. They simply sell us too many iPhones to risk destroying our trade relationship.

  69. Gravatar of Randomize Randomize
    13. December 2016 at 14:32

    Apologies – I had a brain fart and put your name in my previous post.

  70. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    13. December 2016 at 15:06

    Christian, You said:

    “Can’t anyone around here read?

    Everyone seems to be accurate, but then including you.”

    Let me rephrase that. Can anyone around here write?

    I know that you people think you are clever, but good Lord, do you read the stuff you write?

    Scott, I agree we should keep open sea lanes, and I very much doubt that China will contest that. But the one China policy has nothing to do with sea lanes.

    Dan. You said:

    “I have been away from this blog for some time.”

    We all enjoyed the break.

    Randomize, OK, I’ll criticize myself:

    Sumner, what makes you think a President Trump, who wants to appease a real aggressor like Putin, would risk WWIII over Taiwan, which is almost universally viewed as part of China? So Russia taking Crimea from Ukraine is perfectly fine with Trump, but China regaining one of its own provinces, which even the Taiwan constitution says is part of China, we are willing to fight WWIII over? I don’t think so. China would laugh at our threats, and rightly so. If there were a war, I’d take China’s side and root for a US defeat.

    In any case, one missile can take out an aircraft carrier, can’t it?

  71. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    13. December 2016 at 17:54

    Scott,

    Virtually everything is fungible in foreign policy, and China is very much threatening sea lanes. They’re doing it for leverage, which again, is fungible.

  72. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    13. December 2016 at 18:01

    With Trump, Frum has lost his mind. He just went raving lunatic insane. He tweets and writes the most ridiculous things now.

    Frum’s 56. He never practiced law, but set up shop as a journeyman writer, employed in the first instance by the 1st Bush Administration. He presented himself as a libertarian ca. 1994 (Dead Right, as the press secretary of the Committee on the Present Danger ca. 2003 (An End to Evil), and as the press agent for what’s left of the Ripon Society ca. 2009 (and also as the persecuted truth-teller after Arthur Brooks discontinued his salary at AEI in 2009 when he discovered on assuming office as AEI President that Frum did no work for the Institute). Crazy’s this year’s performance, and will likely be out in book form ‘ere long. He’s more creative than Bruce Bartlett, so there’s that.

  73. Gravatar of DanC DanC
    14. December 2016 at 06:29

    It would appear that Scott enjoys name calling more than thoughtful commentary. This is his litter box and he can fill it with whatever he wants.

    I apologize for entering without the now required hip waders and I will stay away in the future as my holiday gift to Scott. And a sincere prayer that Scott works out his anger issues.

    For those who might enjoy some cogent comments on the Russians and Trump I offer this link to John Kass of the Chicago Tribune

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-clinton-trump-russians-kass-1214-20161213-column.html

  74. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    14. December 2016 at 08:29

    Trump’s election is a potential barrier to Israeli expansion with a US backstop, hence he’s apoplectic.

    The territory under Israel’s civil administration has expanded by about 1,800 sq miles since 1949. That’s about the size of Steuben and Chemung Counties in New York taken together. There are about 400,000 Arabs resident there. There’s another 450 sq miles (with an Arab population of about 590,000 where there’s an Israeli security presence, but the territory is under an Arab authority.

    Israel acquired those 2,300 sq miles in a war Gamal Abdel Nasser was itching for. Net expansion in Israeli territory has been nil since 1967. In fact, Israel has made a series of unilateral and bilateral cessions: the Sinai Peninsula (1979-82), the Gaza Strip (2005), and 400 sq. miles on the West Bank where resides 1.5 million Arabs (1993-2000, various times).

    I don’t think the Arabs are in much danger from “Israeli expanstion’.

  75. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    14. December 2016 at 14:04

    @Marty,

    Where is your evidence that Frum’s apoplectic opposition to Trump is centered around Israel or Middle Eastern policy? I’ve read Frum a lot and I don’t see this at all.

    His main op-ed blasting Trump doesn’t come close to mentioning Israel.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-seven-broken-guardrails-of-democracy/484829/

    Frum is obviously very pro-Israel. He’s also pro-US, and pro Europe. He is the most articulate voice in opposing mass immigration to US + Europe. Trump is friendly towards Israel. Easily more so than Obama.

    Netanyahu seems to like Trump although that could easily be fake.

  76. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    15. December 2016 at 05:26

    And didn’t Obama just sign over a record amount of aid to Israel?

    Congress writes the appropriations bills. It’s not worth it to Obama to tangle with Congress on this matter, especially when appropriations are in the form of massive omnibus bills. Obama may adhere to all sorts of witless nonsense about the ‘peace process’, but he shows little indication of the poisonous hostility to the Jews that’s bog standard among Israel’s detractors.

    Aid to Israel was minimal prior to 1973. It was contextually most significant ca. 1984, when the Carter and Reagan administration ratcheted up aid to Israel and Egypt to finance their peace agreement, and has been of declining importance since then (and is now currently 1.3% of Israel’s gross domestic product, entirely devoted to security assistance).

  77. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    15. December 2016 at 05:31

    Where is your evidence that Frum’s apoplectic opposition to Trump is centered around Israel or Middle Eastern policy? I’ve read Frum a lot and I don’t see this at all.

    Massimo, his handle is the name of a petty henchman of Adolf Hitler. Why do you think that is?

    Frum’s writings cover the waterfront of topical policy questions. Any ordinary person sees that. A pathological person sees everything he says as a cover for discussion of Israel, because the pathological person is obsessed with Jews.

  78. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    15. December 2016 at 05:32

    (Frum’s doesn’t seem to have trouble supporting dictatorships friendly to Israel,

    ROTFL

  79. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    15. December 2016 at 07:50

    Norse Warrior, The US earns far more from its overseas capital than foreigners earn from their investments in the US. When do you expect that to change?

  80. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    15. December 2016 at 11:42

    @Art,

    “Massimo, his handle is the name of a petty henchman of Adolf Hitler. Why do you think that is?”

    I definitely didn’t know that. I would have recognized Goebbels or Himmler but I never heard of Bormann until now. Got it, he’s obsessed by Jews. wow!

  81. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    15. December 2016 at 12:17

    Spoken like a true liberal. But hey, that’s why I’m a cuckservative!

  82. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    15. December 2016 at 12:29

    @Art,

    “Spoken like a true liberal. But hey, that’s why I’m a cuckservative!”

    ??? I hope that has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.

  83. Gravatar of Stalin’s Organ Stalin's Organ
    15. December 2016 at 14:05

    @massimo

    He was referring to himself, not you.

Leave a Reply