“U.S. President Donald Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to set foot in North Korea on Sunday when he met its leader, Kim Jong Un, in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between the two Koreas and agreed to resume stalled nuclear talks.” Reuters
The left is generally critical of Trump’s failures to condemn Kim’s human rights abuses, and skeptical that he will obtain any tangible concessions from Kim.
“Trump has always prided himself on his willingness to speak with anyone, no matter how poor their record on human rights or their defiance of the United States… But he seems unaware of the pitfalls of the approach. Chief among them: foreign leaders feel encouraged to stick with a strategy, now tried and tested, to circumvent the rest of the U.S. government and appeal directly to the president… ‘You just can’t look at this as going over and talking to your dictator next door and bringing them a hot dish over the fence,’ [Minnesota Democratic Senator and 2020 presidential hopeful Amy Klobuchar] said on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ on Sunday. The U.S. needs to make ‘sure there are measurable results, that we have a plan when we go in there and we just haven’t seen that.’”
Nick Wadhams, Bloomberg
“The single, modest agreement that emerged from the encounter, which lasted fifty-three minutes, was to resume working group talks next month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters in South Korea. Asked if the hastily organized rendezvous (which must have driven the Secret Service nuts) was a gamble, Pompeo responded, ‘It worked,’ and then laughed. But he also conceded that the two sides had not yet made any progress on the issue at the heart of the negotiations—defining what ‘denuclearization’ means… A lot of work remains to get beyond the gamesmanship that has typified the first year of the Trump-Kim flirtation.”
Robin Wright, The New Yorker
“The New York Times reported on Sunday that officials inside the Trump administration (it isn’t clear who) are ‘weighing a new approach’ to arms talks, settling simply for a ‘freeze’ in North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program, at least as a ‘first step,’ rather than demanding full ‘denuclearization’ from the get-go… A freeze on all aspects of North Korea’s nuclear program isn’t a bad idea; in fact, it’s a prerequisite to step-by-step reductions. But the mere declaration of a freeze is a hollow gesture unless the North Koreans also provide a full and itemized list of what they currently possess—how many missiles, how many warheads, how much fissile material, where all this stuff is—and open up their facilities to inspection...
“The problem is the North Koreans have never agreed to submit such a list. If Trump can get Kim to do this, and to let inspectors verify its accuracy, we will look back on Sunday’s stroll across the DMZ as a truly historic moment. If not, it will be recognized, and soon forgotten, as a bit of theater staged for Kim’s domestic glorification and Trump’s reelection campaign.”
Fred Kaplan, Slate
Some argue that “The kind of personal diplomacy Trump favors can have its place. North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un cut off negotiations (and perhaps some of his negotiators) after being embarrassed by the failure of his last summit with Trump in Hanoi. Though the North hasn’t tested a nuclear weapon or long-range missile since then, its weapons programs have continued unchecked. If Trump’s handshake on the border gives Kim the cover he needs to agree to restart talks, it will have served some purpose… [But] to reach a lasting nuclear deal, Donald Trump should pull back and let his negotiators hammer out critical details.”
Editorial Board, Bloomberg
“The political calendar and Trump's approach could give grounds for optimism. Kim, who has presided over a limited form of economic development inside North Korea, is under pressure to deliver improvements in the lives of his people… So he has an incentive to try to seek economic benefits or aid from the United States and wants punishing economic sanctions lifted — a potential opening for US negotiators… Kim must realize that his chances of basking in this kind of legitimacy with a US President other than Trump are slim. So if he fears Trump could lose in 2020, he may reason the time may be ripe for a deal. And Trump wants nothing more than a big diplomatic breakthrough months before the election.”
Stephen Collinson, CNN
Regarding the Cadillac tax, “high-premium employer-based plans raise the cost of health care for everyone by encouraging the overconsumption of expensive services. This means that even Medicare and Medicaid face higher prices. Quite aside from its benefits for the health-care market, the Cadillac tax would also have the effect of expanding the tax base and making the tax code more efficient. It would raise revenues by about $15 billion a year… Rather than killing or delaying the Cadillac tax, Democrats should be trying to make it operational. The tax would raise revenue, lower costs, increase the efficiency of the tax code and give the Obamacare individual market its best chance at success.”
Karl W. Smith, Bloomberg
“The two issues with which he is most often associated, support for a balanced budget and opposition to free trade, put him at odds with both of our major political parties. An old-fashioned, soft-spoken Southerner, he nevertheless held views on so-called ‘social issues’ that would be to the left of the mainstream of the Republican Party, both then and now. He was a fervent supporter of the Vietnam POW/MIA movement in the late '80s and early '90s, but he was not in any sense a hawk. Never mind 2003. Perot opposed the first war in Iraq in 1990… Perot's death should be mourned by all Americans who regret the fact that it is no longer possible to make reasoned, non-ideological arguments about questions of public import, and by the devolution of our political life into mindless partisan squabbling.”
Matthew Walther, The Week
The right is cautiously optimistic about Trump’s efforts.
The right is cautiously optimistic about Trump’s efforts.
Trump’s supporters “recognize that experts have been in charge of U.S. foreign policy for decades. And, they argue, we have little to show for it: North Korea has nuclear weapons, and China has emerged as a dangerous geopolitical foe. In their view, Trump’s dramatic breaks with the past could be the only chance the United States has to avert dangerous conflicts with one or both nations. Better to take a chance on him, they reason, than hope more of the same will yield different results… Continuing the old ways would have surely led to more North Korean tests, as sanctions unsupported by a credible military threat clearly did not deter Pyongyang.”
Henry Olsen, Washington Post
“Yes, North Korea's human rights record is an ongoing atrocity of almost immeasurable terror. But Trump's friendship with the tyrant is currently the only bulwark Americans, South Koreans, and Japan have from the Kim dynasty's typical irrational behavior. When the alternative is a North Korea capable of launching nuclear warhead-armed ballistic missiles at every major American city, or a catastrophic new Korean war, then his partnership with Kim is the way to go. Trump knows he must persuade Kim that while America might be an unusual partner, it is one that has narrow interests with North Korea and can be trusted. Such persuasion will be crucial if Kim is to abandon the hardliners in his regime, to avoid new missile tests (which otherwise are coming), and verifiably end his threat to American security.”
Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner
Some point out, however, that “the symbolism was more potent than the substance. Mr. Trump is betting, as he always does, that flattery and personal engagement can persuade Mr. Kim to give up his nuclear weapons. ‘A lot of great triumphs have been based on relationships,’ the President said Sunday in perhaps the purest distillation of a Trump Doctrine… Mr. Trump’s DMZ diplomacy has reduced the chances of new North Korean nuclear tests. But Mr. Kim wants the U.S. to ease sanctions before he takes even modest steps to disclose his research labs, test facilities and nuclear stockpiles, much less dismantle them. Without such a declaration, North Korean pledges are worthless.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“Kim Jong-un has yet to do anything to prove that he merits the sort of trust he’s asking for, and I sincerely hope that President Tump keeps holding his feet to the fire and demands IAEA inspections and verifiable proof of progress on denuclearization before beginning any sanctions relief or other normalization of North Korea as a legitimate actor in the international community.”
Jazz Shaw, Hot Air
“The talks could easily stall or fail again. Trump’s negotiators also know that given North Korea’s long record of violating prior agreements, a new agreement will have to be ironclad. with extremely strong verification provisions. Perhaps Kim will never choose to walk through that door. But perhaps the confidence-building that President Trump has initiated with his personal diplomacy will convince Kim to make a denuclearization deal that formally ends hostilities and allows North Korea to join the community of nations… The odds may still be long to reach an agreement that fully denuclearizes North Korea. But President Trump’s unorthodox diplomacy has significantly lowered tensions from the dangerous level he inherited from President Obama and opened a door to peace that no one thought possible.”
Fred Fleitz, Fox News
“I’m hearing a lot of crap about how [Trump] is giving away the store to Kim Jong-un. Well, what exactly has he given away? Large-scale military exercises are suspended, but military professionals will tell you that small-scale drills are fine for readiness. Not a single sanction has been taken off. The North can’t even connect roads with the South without violating them. There have been no U.S. military pullouts from the Peninsula. And unless you think top-down diplomacy is a concession, there haven’t been many giveaways.”
Daniel DePetris, Twitter
“NBC and MSNBC embraced Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts in the first debate of Democratic presidential candidates Wednesday night, treating her like the star of the show. The debate led off with Warren, who had a huge popularity advantage from the start… NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie started it off sounding more like Warren’s press secretary. ‘You have many plans – free college, free child care, government health care, cancelation of student debt, new taxes, new regulations, the breakup of major corporations,’ Guthrie said, before teeing up an economy question. Guthrie even used Warren’s plan to break up tech companies as the foundation for a question for Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey… the round-robin final comments also ended with Warren, as Maddow asked her for the ‘final, final statement.’ That let NBC bookend the entire debate with Warren and Warren.”
Dan Gainor, Fox News
“President Trump should be happy. As much as Warren is articulate, obviously intelligent, and energetically supported by Democrats, she would also be far easier to defeat than Joe Biden… Considering Trump's economy, the president is well placed to defeat Warren.”
Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner
A libertarian's take
“The fans who avidly followed the men’s tournament certainly weren’t doing anything wrong. And it’s hard to argue that each of them had a moral obligation to be exactly as interested in women’s soccer. Even if we could stop them from watching the men more than the women, should we?…
“It’s tempting to answer that the fan choices aren’t innocent, they’re sexist. But since we can’t peek into their hearts, to say that definitively, we’d have to assume that men’s greater speed, strength and endurance definitely make nodifference to the sport’s quality. Fair enough, but then why do fans prefer to watch Megan Rapinoe play instead of the sedentary elderly who could presumably use some exercise? Alternatively, maybe pay should be equalized precisely because biology is unfair. But that seems to be an argument for curbing the pay of all top-level athletes, who have to hit the genetic lottery just to get on the field. It might be easier to focus on the distributions across society at large, rather than every individual industry, especially when fundamental biology is in play.”
Megan McArdle, Washington Post
A beer company is offering a free 'Deliver-a-Nonna' service where an Italian grandmother will come and cook for you in your home.