Help Wanted: Someone Qualified to be President of the United States

Does Anyone Out There Know How to be President?—————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                With apologies to baseball legend Casey Stengel, who famously asked his players during a lackluster losing performance “if anyone here knows how to play this game”, I’m wondering if there’s anyone available who knows how to be president. I’m certain there must be someone in a population the size of ours and I wish that they’d apply for the job. I know it’s a sacrifice, exposing yourself and your family to the indignities of a political campaign, but America needs someone who knows how to lead and restore dignity and respect to the highest office in the land.

 

I’m disappointed in the cast of characters that the Democrats have assembled to vie for the honor of opposing a very vulnerable incumbent president whose administration can only be described as chaotic with its revolving door hiring and firing policy. The latest Democrat debate was not reassuring. Former Vice-president Joe Biden, a decent and likeable guy, if not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, served his country as a senator and a loyal VP to Barack Obama. He is a senior citizen at age 79 and was subjected to mean-spirited comments regarding his age from the likes of Julian Castro who served in Obama’s cabinet and whose chances of winning the nomination are, fortunately, about zero. Castro criticized “old ideas” in an obvious reference to Biden and then asked him if he had forgotten what he had just said a few moments ago. Mr. Castro denied that it was personal but anyone watching his facial expressions and body language knew that it was and it was a cheap shot. By way of full disclosure, I’m twelve years older than Biden and I regard Joe as merely middle aged and a far stronger and abler candidate than Castro. Castro should look into some other line of work.

 

Then there was the youthful Beto O’Rourke who, hell yes, is going to come after your guns if he’s president. He’ll decide which models. That should play well in gun-loving Texas or elsewhere where people believe in the second amendment. Fortunately, there’s not much chance that boyish Beto, who’s taken to dropping the f-bomb casually to show how cool he is, will be the nominee.  And how about the youthful mayor of the 301^st-largest city in the U.S. (Pop. 101,166), Pete Buttigieg, who seems to believe that the U.S. started the war in Afghanistan. He said that the best way to avoid becoming involved in such an endless war is to not start it. Hello? Wasn’t the 9/11 attack on America planned by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and wasn’t Afghanistan the “real war” that Barack Obama said we had to win? Should anyone so ignorant or forgetful of history, even after having served in Afghanistan, be elected president?

 

I wrote recently that we are raising a generation that seems woefully ignorant of history. A faithful reader responded that I am wrong and probably have little contact with people in their twenties. Actually, I have quite a bit since I teach young naval officers ship handling, seamanship, bridge resources management and other topics at Naval Base, San Diego. All are college graduates and, in my view, a cut above the general population of college graduates but, of course, I’m biased. Since I often quote from maritime history classics I sometimes ask for a show of hands if they had read the particular reference. I rarely get more than a few hands. They are incredibly busy with shipboard duties so I understand but I stand, nevertheless, by my words. As many have said, those that are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

 

Of course it’s not just the youth who are ignorant of it. Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth warren, aged 69 1nd 70, respectively, could use some history lessons. Socialism has failed to produce wealth wherever it’s been tried unless mixed with a liberal dose of capitalism as in China. Distributing wealth does not create wealth. It diminishes it, creates shortages and shares misery.

 

President Trump himself often seems oblivious to the lessons of history. Tariffs have seldom worked because both sides can employ them. Also, the most successful leaders have surrounded themselves with intelligent people of various viewpoints. They respect experience, welcome criticism and encourage debate before making decisions. Mr. Trump seemed at first disposed to govern this way, even bragging about his strong-minded generals and the diversity of opinion within his administration. Then he began publically ridiculing many of those who disagreed with him, even in private and it’s become apparent now that if you disagree with him your job is in peril. Everyone serves at the pleasure of the president but experience matters and it is not achieved by constantly firing people.

 

The latest victim of Trump’s enormous ego is National Security Advisor John Bolton. One wonders if there is something about the term “advisor” that Mr. Trump doesn’t understand. Advisors are supposed to advise, not just agree with their boss or the rest of the advisors. And that advice is supposed to be candid. Mr. Bolton is nothing if not candid. He tells it as he sees it. He is often criticized by Democrats for his hawkish views and his stern countenance adds to his undeserved reputation for being overly-belligerent but the commander-in-chief needs a full spectrum of advice, not just dovish views. This administration will be the poorer because of the absence of John Bolton.

September 29, 2019

 

 

 

A Coming Conflict

A Growing Chance of Conflict with China——————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Many Democrats and other anti-Trumpers are still under the delusion that Russia determined the outcome of the 2016 election in Trump’s favor and that the Trump Campaign colluded with the Russians to make it happen. This is so despite no evidence to that effect and a two-year intensive investigation that failed to find any. Still, the president is accused regularly of cozying up to Vladimir Putin in spite of administration policies that are anything but friendly toward Russia. Many actually believe that Russia is our number one enemy.

 

In fact, the only significant threat that Russia now poses to the U.S. is its huge nuclear arsenal, the use of which is effectively deterred by our own. Russia is a second tier economy with an aging and declining population and decaying infrastructure. Its leaders know that they can never displace the U.S. as the world’s predominant superpower.

 

China, on the other hand, is quite another matter. It would be ever so comforting to think of China, not as a potential enemy, but as just a rival economy or, perhaps, even an economic partner, but that would be naïve. China may not be an enemy at the moment but that could quickly change. Any of several potential flashpoints could serve as a catalyst, among them: (1) China’s territorial ambitions, especially in the vast and vital South China Sea; (2) China’s trade policies and theft of intellectual property and industrial secrets; (3) China’s crackdown on freedoms and protests in Hong Kong and (4) the status of Taiwan.

 

Attention is now focused on Hong Kong, the former British crown colony that the U.K. “returned” to China in 1997 under terms of an agreement that would permit self-rule and other freedoms for 50 years. In fact, Hong Kong was never ruled by the Peoples Republic of China and its freedom-loving inhabitants, who prospered under British rule and institutions, never lived under communist rule. If they had been offered a choice, they may well have preferred existence as an independent city-state like Singapore to China’s stifling control. Instead of the freedoms they were promised, they are seeing those freedom eroded away by Beijing’s heavy-handedness.

 

After 10 weeks of protests which have rocked this important financial and business hub, Beijing’s patience is nearing an end and protests are being met with force which is turning more lethal. Memories of the Tiananmen Square massacre are still vivid. If history repeats, will the U.K. and U.S. stand idly by again? While a U.S. military response seems an unlikely option, the use of military force by China against Hong Kongers would almost certainly provoke the imposition of crippling economic sanctions involving not just China but perhaps any nation that trades with China and expects to continue trading with the U.S., leading to a world-wide recession. Even if the current crisis is resolved peaceably, what happens if the “One China, two systems” policy ends after the fifty-year period?

 

Taiwan may be an even more ominous trigger to a U.S.-China conflict. The U.S. severed formal diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan) in 1979 and recognized the Peoples Republic of China under the “One China” policy. It was an act of pure political expedience and betrayal of a loyal ally. It abrogated a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan and replaced it with the Taiwan Relations Act, declaring that the future of Taiwan must be determined by peaceful means and that any use of force would be opposed by the U.S. This agreement was light on details to put it mildly.

 

Taiwan, a modern and prosperous democracy of 23 million, with a per-capita GNP greater than that of Mainland China, has never been a part of the Peoples Republic of China and, like Hong Kong, has never been under communist rule. It was, in fact, a part of the Japanese Empire and called Formosa for half a century prior to WW II. The U.S. supplies most of Taiwan’s military weapons needed to defend the island nation against attempts by the Peoples Republic to occupy it and is thus, at least morally, committed to its defense. China flies into a rage whenever we provide such aid or even treat Taiwan as the independent country that it is and not a renegade province of the Peoples Republic.

 

Washington’s policy regarding the defense of Taiwan can only be described as intentionally ambiguous. Where China is concerned, that’s not nearly good enough. To avoid misunderstanding and miscalculation on Beijing’s part we should make it crystal clear that we would react with great alacrity to forcible occupation of Taiwan and that all options would be on the table, the very least of which could be the severing of diplomatic relations with Beijing and a total boycott of Chinese products.

September 29, 2019