On this week’s Axis of Reason podcast, a deep dive into Trump and the economy. The US economy is performing strongly in 2018 as tax cuts fuel strong growth in consumer spending. But, could headwinds from Trump’s trade wars and tighter monetary policy from the Federal Reserve sap the economic momentum. Also, Trump threatened to punish GM for idling plants and laying off workers. But, can he do that? Should he? And are Trump’s trade policies to blame for GM’s decision? Plus, how Trump’s experience in real estate might be distorting his view of how the economy works. Hosted by Taylor Griffin and Tyler Cralle.
The Guardian is reporting that President Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, met with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in the spring of 2016 around the same time Mr. Manafort joined Mr. Trump’s campaign. The Guardian report is based mostly on vaguely identified unnamed sources, so some caution is warranted. But, given Wikileaks’ role in releasing tens of thousands of Democratic emails hacked by Russia’s intelligence services such a meeting, if it did actually happen, would be of significant interest to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
If there was coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election, Paul Manafort would have been the most plausible interlocutor. His shady, and allegedly outright corrupt, business dealings with Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s former pro-Russian President, and a rogues gallery of oligarchs and former Russian spies would position him well for such a role. According to the opposition research dossier prepared by Christopher Steele, a former British spy, Mr. Manafort was the key figure on the Trump side in a “well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership.”
Mr. Manafort and Mr. Assange vehemently deny any involvement with each other or with Russia’s 2016 shenanigans. Mr. Manafort issued a statement blasting the story as “totally false and deliberately libelous.” Wikileaks likewise denounced the story in a tweet Tuesday morning.
Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper's reputation. @WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor's head that Manafort never met Assange. https://t.co/R2Qn6rLQjn
Still, suspicions linger over both men. If Mr. Manafort and Mr. Assange did meet in March of 2016, as the Guardian report suggests, what did they talk about? The answer is that we don’t know. It could have been related to Trump’s campaign, Russia, or something else entirely. Or, maybe it didn’t happen at all, and The Guardian story is just wrong. But, accepting the premise that it did, there are some intriguing coincidences to consider.
It was around this same March 2016 timeframe that hackers associated with the G.R.U., Russia’s military intelligence agency, stole 50,000 emails from the Gmail account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. It was these same emails that Wikileaks began posting just minutes after The Washington Postpublished the Access Hollywood tape, a recording of Mr. Trump bragging about groping women that seemed certain to doom his Presidential bid. Wikileaks’ release of the the Podesta emails proved a critically-timed distraction that blunted the impact of the tape and perhaps saved Mr. Trump’s campaign.
Was the timing of the Podesta emails a remarkable coincidence or a carefully coordinated fail-safe? If so, coordinated with whom? Wikileaks, the Trump campaign, Russians? Whatever the case, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Assange’s alleged confab in the Ecuadorian Embassy, London, could hold the answers.
President Trump’s lawyers said Tuesday that they had submitted Mr. Trump’s written answers to questions from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The agreement to allow Mr. Trump to provide written answers to a limited set of questions comes after months of bargaining between Mr. Trump’s attorneys and the special counsel. Mr. Mueller had sought to conduct an in-person interview with the President. Mr. Trump’s lawyers balked at that request out of fear that in such a free-wheeling format, Mr. Trump may expose himself to perjury charges.
However, answering the questions may not end the stand-off between the special counsel and the White House. Mr. Mueller may still seek an in-person interview.
“Look, we made an agreement with them that we’d agree to disagree about that,” Mr. Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani told The Washington Post. “They said, in good faith, they’d go over our questions and decide if there was still a need for one. We said, in good faith, we’d listen to them, but would be very much inclined against it.”
The dozen or so questions Mr. Trump answered cover his campaign’s interactions with Russia during the 2016 election, but do not address Mr. Trump’s conduct while in office, including allegations of obstruction of justice. That doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller will let it go. “I can’t tell you he’s given up on obstruction,” Mr. Giuliani toldAxios.
Mr. Trump’s attorneys have strongly disputed the basis for the obstruction allegations. Late last year, Mr. Trump’s former attorney John Dowd argued that a “President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case.”
https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/12/can-president-obstruct-justice-might-not-matter/
While Mr. Trump’s legal team has so far rebuffed Mr. Mueller’s efforts to ask Mr. Trump about his actions while in office, it is still possible that Mr. Mueller could subpoena Mr. Trump. If he were to do so, it would set off a protracted legal battle that would be all but certain to end up in the Supreme Court. Mr. Giuliani says that he believes it’s an argument they would win.
“I don’t think he has any way to compel testimony on obstruction because the argument of executive privilege would be very, very strong. It all relates to a period of time after he was president,” Mr. Giuliani said in an interview with Axios.
Bottom Line
As a rule, investigators usually interview the central figure in an investigation last. If Mr. Mueller judges Mr. Trump’s responses sufficient, the special counsel probe could wrap up very soon. If he elects to pursue an in-person interview with the President, it could go on for some time to come.
A frequent talking point for President Trump and Republicans is that during President Obama’s term, the U.S. economy never grew three precent or better in a year. “Obama is the first president in modern history not to have a single year of three percent growth,” Mr. Trump said at a 2016 campaign rally in Manchester, N.H.
Depending on whether you view a year as any 12-month period or just the January to January calendar year, you can arrive at different conclusions. Fact-checkers have pointed out that there were two 12-month periods in which the economy grew 3% during Mr. Obama’s term. The economy grew 3.4% between the third quarters of 2009 and 2010 and 3.3% between the first quarters of 2014 and of 2015. Still, on a calendar year basis Mr. Trump’s statement is true. There was no calendar year during Mr. Obama’s term in which GDP growth exceeded 3%.
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Real Gross Domestic Product [GDPCA], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, November 17, 2018.Every modern President prior to Mr. Obama has indeed had a calendar year of GDP growth at 3% or greater. The economy grew an average of 2.1% during Obama’s tenure. That’s not the lowest, but it’s towards the bottom of the pack. In 2017, Mr. Trump’s first year in office, the economy faired only slightly better, with 2.2% GDP growth. However, the economy looks on track to grow at 3% or better in 2018. The economy logged impressive growth of 4.2% in the second quarter of 2018 and 3.5% in the third quarter. Still, during Mr. Obama’s term the economy logged growth higher than 4.2% in four quarters and higher than 3.5% in six quarters. But, Mr. Trump may surpass Mr. Obama in terms of annual GDP growth this year.
Fact-checkers have rated Mr. Trump’s claim as “mostly true” and some have called his statement misleading for failing to note 12-month periods of three percent growth under Obama. However, because Mr. Trump was clearly talking about calendar year growth, we judge Mr. Trump’s claim as accurate without need for qualification.
The Irish poet William Butler Yeats, a year after World War I, wrote “Turning and turning in the widening gyre / The falcon cannot hear the falconer; / Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, / The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere / The ceremony of innocence is drowned; / The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.” Since the 2016 election those words from “The Second Coming” have become clichés. The recent outbreak of political violence show they may also be prophetic.
Many pundits and talking heads ‒ yelling heads in reality ‒ have blamed President Trump for the outbreak of political violence. That is too simplistic. It also is a commentary on the sorry state of our politics and discourse. Politics now is defined by what you are against and who you hate. There are myriad examples: Standing in opposition to any policy proposal from the other side of the aisle; vowing to resist elected officials; calling people from another country who seek a better life criminals and rapists; saying that one-third of the electorate are deplorable racists, sexists and homophobes; contending that anyone who opposes you is part of a vast conspiracy or an enemy of the state; and, claiming that a single appointee threatens western civilization as we know it — ad nauseam, ad extremum.
The politics of hate and disdain leads to scapegoating, which leads to demonizing your opponent. Once you believe that your opponent is the devil incarnate it is a logical leap to think that you can use any means to stop them. Be that harassing your opponents in public, threatening their lives in emails or in person, murdering them with your car while they peaceable protest; shooting them at a baseball practice; sending them pipe bombs in the mail; or, massacring them while they pray.
All this is not new. American politics always has been a blood sport. Since 1800, politicians have demonized their opponents. John Adams said Thomas Jefferson supported a violent revolution; James Blaine raised the issue of Grover Cleveland fathering a child out of wedlock. On occasion, actual blood was spilled.
Joanna Freeman’s new book, “The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to the Civil War,” shows that physical attacks on the floors of the House and Senate were common. It should be required reading for all politicians and people involved in the political process.
What has changed is how wide-spread the viciousness has become. There are many reasons for this. First is the media, specifically the every-second, every-minute news programs. Fox News Channel, MSBNC, One America News appeal to narrow segments of the populace, and are feedback loops that appeal to the political extremes. Second is the Internet, especially Facebook, Tweeter, and the numerous hyper-partisan and hate-filled websites. As with cable news, people only read things that reinforce their beliefs and outlooks. Their focus narrows. They don’t consider other points of view and reject them out of hand. (We’ve written about this before).
Elections also are decided on the margins. Candidates must find a way to ensure their supporters go to the polls. Emotions, especially negative ones, are great motivators. Politicians, once they are elected, generally only are concerned with re-elections. They play to their bases and nothing gets done.
The budget is a prime example. Congress’ main job is to pass a budget (it is the first power listed in the Constitution). Since 1996, less than half the time Congress has failed to do that basic job.
Things were different as late as 1997. Democratic and Republican staffers acted like the sheepdog and the wolf in the old Looney Tunes cartoon: they would beat each other up during the day and go out for drinks together in the evening. Not today. Some politicians understand the new dynamic and work to change it. That is why the late John McCain and Sen. Ben Sasse were and are popular among their colleagues, why Gov. John Kasich and even Vice President Biden are quietly respected. All tried to restore a modicum of sanity and civility to politics. They tried to reach bipartisan consensus, fought for their beliefs, but rarely personally opposed their opponents. A partial solution to this political battlefield (sometimes a literal battlefield) may be to follow their examples.
W.H. Auden also had some advice. A generation after Yeats wrote his epic, Auden wrote the following in “September 1, 1939” ‒ a poem titled in reference to the day that the Second World War started: “All I have is a voice / To undo the folded lie, / The romantic lie in the brain / Of the sensual man-in-the-street / And the lie of Authority / Whose buildings grope the sky: / There is no such thing as the State / And no one exists alone; /Hunger allows no choice / To the citizen or the police; / We must love one another or die.”
The question is whether we will listen to the poets.
Just in time for the midterm election, President Trump has reignited a debate over birthright citizenship. In an interview with Axios’ Jonathan Swan for the news outlets’ new HBO series, Mr. Trump said he was considering issuing an executive order ending the practice in which children of foreigners born on U.S. soil are considered citizens of the United States regardless of whether their parents are in the country legally.
Mr. Trump’s suggestion that he could upend birthright citizenship by executive fiat elicited howls of protest. Critics were quick to point out that such a move would be unconstitutional. A plain reading of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution would suggest that anyone born in the United States is a citizen by birth.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” (U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Sec. 1)
At the center of this question is how the wording of the 14th Amendment, and specifically the limiting phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” applies in the context of parents who are foreign nationals. Are the children of unauthorized immigrants subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore eligible for birthright citizenship? Most credible legal scholars thinks so. Still, a handful of birthright citizenship opponents think enough uncertainty exists to potentially allow Mr. Trump to restrict it.
Birthright Citizenship in Historical Context
To sort all of this out, a little understanding of history is important. Since the founding of the American Republic, citizenship has been automatically conferred upon most anyone born on U.S. soil without regard to the nationality of their parents. But, the issue came to a head with the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision. In Dred Scott, the court ruled that despite his having been born on U.S. soil, “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves, whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen…” Anyone other than former slaves were generally considered to be U.S. citizens at birth already. It was Dred Scott, surely the court’s most shameful moment, that the 14th Amendment was intended to address. That context is important.
Birthright citizenship in the United States is rooted in the British common law tradition of jus solis, or “right of the soil.” This differs from jus sanguinis, or “right of the blood,” which confers citizenship based on the citizenship of the parents. As the 18th Century British legal commentator William Blackstone explained, the British jus solis tradition differed from the countries of continental Europe, whose citizenship rules generally followed the jus sanguines, which derives from Roman Law.
“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.” – William Blackstone
The American tradition of birthright citizenship was not accidental. Nor, is America the only country to embrace it. Currently some 30 countries confer citizenship to those born on their territory regardless of the nationality status of the parents.
‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’
Opponents of birthright citizenship argue that the presence of the limiting phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” exempts children of parents who are subject to allegiance to some power other than the United States. Otherwise, why note this exception?
Most legal experts dispute that interpretation. John Yoo, a constitutional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, explained in a recent blog post, that “at the time of the Framing of the Constitution and of the Amendment, there were discrete categories of persons who could be on US territory but not subject to our laws, such as diplomats and enemy soldiers occupying US territory during war. International law grants both diplomats and enemy soldiers protected status, when present on the soil of another state, from the application of that state’s laws.”
Further, Native Americans, who maintained tribal sovereignty at the time that the Amendment was drafted, would have been another group exempted from U.S. jurisdiction. It wasn’t until the 20th Century that Congress extended birthright citizenship to Native Americans after all.
The clear consensus among legal experts is that the 14th Amendment’s “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” exception was intended for diplomats, foreign soldiers and (at the time) Native Americans who were not subject to the laws of the United States. Most everyone else, including children of foreign nationals, would fit under the 14th Amendment’s test of born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.
However, a handful of scholars, like John Eastman of Chapman University’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, disagree. Mr. Eastman told Axios that ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof language refers only to people with political allegiance to the U.S. such as green card holders and citizens. But, he is distinctly in the minority.
“When the 14th Amendment included the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ the framers and the public clearly understood that they were setting aside the children of foreign diplomats,” Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Fordham University said. “Other visitors to the United States were and continue to be plainly under the jurisdiction of US law. Why else can they be detained and convicted in US courts for violating US law, unlike diplomats?”
It was well-understood at the time of ratification that the 14th Amendment would apply to the children of immigrants. A growing backlash against Chinese immigrants in the latter half of the 19th Century made this an issue in the debate. As Mr. Yoo wrote in his recent blog post:
“Significantly, congressional critics of the Amendment recognized the broad sweep of the birthright citizenship language. Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, a leading opponent, asked: ‘is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child born of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?’ Senator John Conness of California responded yes, and later lost his seat due to anti-Chinese sentiment in his state.”
It is clear that the 14th Amendment was intended to apply to the children of immigrants. But, the question of illegal immigrants is still unsettled. The problem is that at the time the Amendment was drafted in 1866 (and ratified in 1868), there were no restrictions on who could enter the U.S. — the concept of “illegal immigrant” did not yet exist. So, answering the question of whether birthright citizenship applies to unauthorized immigrants requires some degree of interpretation. The key question is this: are those that entered the country illegally considered “subject to the jurisdiction of” the U.S. for the purposes of the the 14th Amendment?
Probably so. When we refer to unauthorized immigrants as illegal, we are conceding that they are indeed subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Federal government regularly subjects unauthorized immigration to the jurisdiction of the United States when it prosecutes them for the crime of entering the country illegally. When an unauthorized immigrant commits this or any other crime in the United States, they are prosecuted under U.S. law and so, by definition, subject to its jurisdiction.
If the Congress had sought to prevent the children of foreign nationals from becoming citizens by birth, it had at hand a model for doing so. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which passed the same year the 14th Amendment was drafted, excepted those “subject to any foreign power” and “Indians not taxed” from eligibility for birthright citizenship. Congress could have used that same language in the 14th Amendment if they wished to exclude the children of foreign nationals. Yet they did not. Their decision to instead adopt the “jurisdiction thereof” language cannot be understood as anything other than a conscious choice.
The Supreme Court Would Decide
There’s no indication that an Executive Order banning birthright citizenship is really in the works. By all appearances, talk of it is little more than pre-election pot-stirring. But, if Mr. Trump were actually to go through with it, it would almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court. And there, Mr. Trump would face an uphill climb.
Supreme Court precedent argues strongly in favor of an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that grants birthright citizenship to immigrants. As Jessica Levinson, a law professor with Loyola Law School told Vox:
“This issue was largely settled in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. There, the Supreme Court held that ‘to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.’”
The issue in Wong Kim Ark was whether a child born in San Fransisco to Chinese parents who were ineligible for citizenship under the Chinese Exclusion Act, was considered a citizen of the United States. The court found that the answer in this instance unequivocally yes. In Wong Kim Ark, the court further held that “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.”
However, because there was no distinction at the time between legal and illegal immigrants at the time, Wong Kim Ark does not directly settle the question of birthright status for children of illegal immigrants. Even so, the Court’s logic in the case suggests that the 14th amendment would apply to unauthorized immigrants in similar fashion.
Because the Supreme Court has never opined explicitly on the question of birthright citizenship as it applies to illegal immigrants, there is no definitive answer to the question of the constitutionality of an executive order restricting it. if Mr. Trump were to issue such an executive order, it would be immediately challenged legally and almost certainly end up in front of the Supreme Court. For now, we can say only that given the historical and legal precedent, it is unlikely that the high court would uphold it.
https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2018/06/why-the-supreme-court-upheld-president-trumps-travel-ban/
On this week’s Axis of Reason, as the caravan approaches and pipe bombs are being sent through the mail, crazies are seizing on both stories for their own political gain. Meanwhile, lawyer for Stormy Daniels turned Democratic presidential aspirant, Michael Avenatti, has a really bad week.
In the latest Axis of Reason podcast, Tyler and Taylor discuss the crisis in U.S.-Saudi relations in the wake of the disappearance and alleged gruesome murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi; reports that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is wrapping up his Russia investigation; and, where things stand for the midterm elections.
The disappearance and alleged killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is an inflection point in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Mounting evidence that the Saudi government, and specifically its young crown prince, Muhammed bin Salman, are responsible for his murder has sparked an intense international backlash. As the grisly details of his alleged killing have emerged, that backlash has grown especially intense.
Mr. Khashoggi was a Saudi citizen and columnist for The Washington Post living in the U.S. But, he was more than a journalist, he was also an insider with close ties to the Saudi monarchy. In the past, he held various posts with members of the Saudi royal family. In recent years, Mr. Khashoggi grew critical of the Crown Prince, and especially his efforts to stifle dissent.
Turkish authorities claim to have audio recordings of Mr. Khashoggi’s torture and murder inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The details are too gruesome to ignore. According to Turkish police, the tapes reveal that when Mr. Khashoggi arrived at the consulate in Istanbul, a Saudi hit team was waiting for him. First, they cut off his fingers. Then they severed his head. A forensic doctor advised the others to listen to music as he dismembered Mr. Khashoggi with a bone saw. His body was then packed into suitcases and taken off in a Mercedes van.
The Saudi government has denied involvement, but has been casting around for explanations as evidence of Riyadh’s culpability mounts. The Saudis are reportedly mulling issuing a report acknowledging that Mr. Khashoggi was killed within the consulate by “rogue elements” acting without official sanction.
Buying Time
President Donald Trump has sought to give the Saudis the benefit of the doubt. On Tuesday, Mr. Trump suggested that “rogue” killers may be behind Mr. Khashoggi’s murder. “Who knows,” he added. When asked about it in an interview with the AP, Mr. Trump bristled at the assumption that Saudi Arabia was responsible. “Here you go again with ‘You’re guilty until proven innocent,’” he said. “I don’t like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I’m concerned. So we have to find out what happened.”
Earlier this week, Taylor Griffin talked with former Time Senior Correspondent Adam Zagorin about what Khashoggi’s disappearance and apparent murder means for the geopolitics of the Middle East. Listen here.
Mr. Trump has also said that if the allegations are true, there will be “serious consequences.” Yet, he desperately doesn’t want to be placed in a position that will oblige him to follow through on that pledge. The Trump Administration seems to be buying time for the Saudis to figure a way out of this mess. Still, behind the scenes, they are pressing the Saudis to act swiftly.
Mr. Trump dispatched Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Riyadh earlier this week to meet with Saudi leaders, including Crown Prince bin Salman. Press reports indicate that Mr. Pompeo’s meeting Tuesday with the Crown Prince was more tense than the smiling pictures released earlier this week suggest. Behind closed doors, Mr. Pompeo reportedly urged the crown prince to “own” the situation and do so quickly before mounting international pressure forces Mr. Trump’s hand. Mr. Pompeo told him that the Saudi government needed to complete its investigation within 72-hours and hold those responsible accountable.
The U.S.-Saudi Alliance Isn’t Going Anywhere
Even if the Saudis did it, and all signs point towards that conclusion, the reality is that we’re stuck with them. There’s simply no stable configuration of the Mideast geopolitical chessboard that doesn’t involve a U.S.-Saudi alliance. As Danielle Pletka, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, wrote this week, “There is no other Saudi Arabia — no regional power which has the resources and the will to provide a counterweight to Iran and help lead us out of the current morass. Egypt is no longer that nation; the UAE is too small. Iraq is too riven.“
Given Saudi Arabia’s importance to U.S. interests in the region, what is important now is how Washington and Riyadh find their way through this debacle. “Addressing, even falsely, the Khashoggi crime will bring Saudi Arabia and its young de facto leader, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), to another fork in the road,” Ms. Pletka says, “The key question is will MBS take the right turn?”
According to Ms. Pletka, the Khashoggi debacle has “horribly, and ironically,” presented the young Saudi leader an opportunity to steer the Kingdom back onto the path of modernization. She suggests several steps MBS could take:
“A thorough scrub of political prisoners, and the release of those who have committed no real crimes.
“A national commission (I would say international, but I’m trying to be realistic) to assess the conduct of the war in Yemen.
“A real ambassador in Washington so that messages are flowing not just between Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and the White House. (The Crown Prince’s younger brother seemed a nice enough fellow, but 28 is not the age or the experience for this job. Word is he’s leaving, but who will come next?)”
What Happens Next
It is increasingly likely that the U.S. will be forced to mount some sort of response. The political pressure from Congress and the international community is just too great. Lindsay Graham, a Republican Senator from South Carolina who has been among Saudi Arabia’s staunchest defenders in Congress, is all but calling for Muhammed bin Saltan’s head.
“This guy is a wrecking ball, he had this guy murdered in a consulate in Turkey, and to expect me to ignore it, I feel used and abused,” Mr. Graham said on Fox and Friends Tuesday. President Trump should “sanction the hell out of Saudi Arabia,” he added.
The U.S.-Saudi relationship will continue. But, it cannot continue unchanged. The U.S. should demand that Saudi Arabia commit to reverse the tide of illiberalism as part of the bargain.
All American Presidents have accepted, to varying degrees, the devil’s bargain implicit in the US-Saudi relationship. The Saudis are no angels. Still, things like the internal brutality of Saudi Arabia’s sharia justice system could be understood in terms of the balance that the ruling family must strike to keep the Wahhabi maniacs at bay.
When it comes to the Kingdom, American policy has always weighed human rights concerns against the risk of a bunch of Islamic nut-jobs gaining control of the world’s largest oil reserves. But, this is something different. Murdering and dismembering a journalist on foreign soil is shocking even for them. The U.S.-Saudi relationship will continue. But, it cannot continue unchanged.
Crown Prince bin Salam has sought to market himself as a reformer. And, he’s taken some steps in the right direction, such as permitting women to drive. But, his recent efforts to crack down on dissent and consolidate power demonstrated an ugly illiberal bent. The Crown Prince wants to be seen by the world as a modern, progressive, Arab leader. The U.S. should demand that he act like one.
Mr. Khashoggi’s final column, published in The Washington Post Thursday, had an eerie prescience. In it, he decried press censorship and suppression of dissent in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Middle East. “These actions no longer carry the consequence of a backlash from the international community,” he wrote. “Instead, these actions may trigger condemnation quickly followed by silence.”
Now, Mr. Khashoggi’s own murder begs the question: will this time be different?
Axis of Reason Podcast: The Death of Jamal Khashoggi
Earlier this week, Taylor Griffin talked with former Time Senior Correspondent Adam Zagorin about what Khashoggi’s disappearance and apparent murder means for the geopolitics of the Middle East. Listen here.
The Trump Administration has made Saudi Arabia the lynchpin of its Middle East strategy. Now, the alleged murder of Jamal Kashoggi, a Saudi journalist and columnist for the Washington Post, threatens to upend the relationship between the United States and a key Middle East ally. In the latest Axis of Reason podcast, Taylor Griffin talks with former Time Magazine Senior Correspondent Adam Zagorin about what happened and what Kashoggi’s death means for the geopolitics of the Middle East.
