Trump addresses the UN…
…and no one runs screaming out of the room, tearing out their hair.
Including Trump.
Expectations are so low for Trump that many people are surprised that he can string a bunch of coherent words together, even when reading them from prepared remarks. I think in a way that holds him in good stead; people can only be pleasantly surprised, and he remains unpredictable.
Reactions were mixed but generally positive in the sense I just described. One person who loved the speech was Bibi Netanyahu:
“In over 30 years in my experience with the U.N., I never heard a bolder or more courageous speech,” Netanyahu said, according to his Twitter feed.
Other foreign diplomats were relieved by Trump’s 40-minute speech, although many approached the address with low expectations. Some were reassured that, even though he urged it to reform itself, Trump at least did not completely turn his back on the U.N.
“It was as Trumpian as expected, and we are getting used to it,” one European diplomat said.
Trump came down hard on North Korea, at least rhetorically, as well as Iran and Venezuela. I particularly like what he said about Venezuela:
The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented,” Trump added, “but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.”
Sounds like a leaf out of Thatcher’s book, doesn’t it? That’s not to say Trump is like Thatcher. He most assuredly is not. Thatcher had enormous political experience, was an extremely sharp debater, and was possessed of a solid conservative philosophy. In her time, she was almost as hated as Trump is, though. And she was even more fearless than he, and exceptionally articulate.
A trip down memory lane—Thatcher on socialism:
The hysterical denunciations from the left are just beginning. A sample from Fred Kaplan, writing for the predictably unhinged Slate: “this may have been the most hostile, dangerous and intellectually confused–if not downright dishonest– speech ever delivered by an American president to an international body.” I do wonder whether the text was written by Stephen Miller.
What a magnificent woman.
He went after Kim Jong-Un’s handlers. If anyone thinks the leader of North Korea is more than a puppet of Beijing, then I have some global warming theory to sell you.
“It is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such a regime, but would arm, supply, and financially support a country that imperils the world with nuclear conflict. No nation on earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles.”
China. Hello?
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2017/09/trumps-30-words-that-rocked-un.html?showComment=1505855076171#c5724202659303526977
Kaplan’s characterization of Trump’s speech brings to mind Euripedes’ 2500 yr old expressed frustration: “Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish!”
The BEEB gave as much time to Tim Kaine’ response to the speech as it did to what Trump actually said.
Jeb Bush even responded favorably to his NORK and Iran positions.
Vanderluen,
Trump was mistaken when he claimed that no nation has an interest in seeing the Norks achieve nuclear ICBM capability.
China absolutely believes it to be in their geopolitical interest for them to have a nuclear armed pit bull. And only a fool fails to grasp what that reveals about both the Chinese leadership and the party from which that leadership emerges.
Read the transcript, imo a good speech with many salient points. I have no problem with any president chastizing the UN, calling out specific rogue nations, and talking tough if he/we possess the will to walk the walk. We can do anything if 60% of the people back a decisive leader. That is a big if.
Lady Thatcher is a giant of our time. A true leader.
China is not monolithic, which many Americans treat them as. The same way the Chinese think of America’s Benghazi, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other reversals as being American policy.
Most of the anti American or nationalist forces in the world, cannot trust America because of the backstabbing allies reputation the US has obtains over the decades.
They also notice that the State Department doesn’t know what the DOD is doing. And the US President’s promises is not in any line with agreement with what the CIA and NSA runs as covert ops. They can’t trust the US because even the US doesn’t seem to realize what is going on.
We know why, due to Snowden. Not even Congress is allowed to oversee CIA and NSA top ultra zebra programs. They don’t have “need to know”.
As for the UN, Bush, Blair, and Colin Powell all gave nice speeches.
The execution is going to be an all out war between the Deep State, secret societies, internal US factions, and political factions however.
Talk is nice. As it was in 2001.
The Iron Lady had an eloquence matched by few, a solid foundation of political and economic philosophy honed over years of debate and thought, and a liver-slicing wit.
She was a marvel, and the triangularity of herself, Reagan and Pope John Paul was a once-in-a-century constellation of larger-than-life figures on the world stage.
I loved the fact that Trump called Kim “Rocket Man.” Crooked Hillary worked so why not?
Cornhead Says:
September 19th, 2017 at 7:57 pm
I loved the fact that Trump called Kim “Rocket Man.” Crooked Hillary worked so why not?
Some potential Trum supporters said that parodying the US President by modifying their name, is immature and childish.
Maybe I’m just an over-the-hill snowflake, but I don’t consider unpredictability a necessarily good thing.
“China is not monolithic” Ymar Sakar
I’m sure there are internal factions but totalitarian regimes only allow a limited amount of internal disagreement. Once Xi has a minimal amount of backing, ‘discussion’ ends.
Ah, Maggie, you are greatly missed.
On the subject of North Korea and its controller/enabler, China, Prof VDH, as usual, offers a very perceptive take on the subject right now over at his website. http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/
His latest column is entitled: “What if South Korea acted like North Korea” and repays the reading.
It is a very effective and powerful – and a clarifying device – to reverse the scenario and imagine a bellicose, rogue South Korea threatening a peaceful North Korea. Simple device but makes an important point powerfully about the 4 main players.
Like the rest of you, I revere the memory of “Maggie”.
I am reminded each day of a particularly astute lament by Baroness Thatcher, as she then was, quite late in life, that sums it all up:
“It used to be about doing something. Now it’s about being someone”. So true. So sad.
We’ll be quoting this speech for generations. He shook the world with this one.
On the subject of President addressing his North Korean rival as “Rocket Man” I am torn.
On the one hand one cannot imagine, even for a second, Adlai Stevenson on the floor of the Security Council during the direst days of the Cuban Missile Crisis referring in like terms to either Castro or Khruschev.
However, I also agree with VDH that Trump’s ability to coin and weaponise a nickname is a devastating part of his armory, (think “Little Marco”, “Low energy Jeb”, “Lyin’ Ted” and “Crooked Hillary” and consider their fates).
Petty on one level, sure – but cutting and accurate and devastatingly effective.
In the end, I say “Let Trump be Trump”. For surely he will be.
Ann:
How does this speech lead to unpredictability?
Maybe the epithet “rocket boy” is directed toward the Chinese leadership.They all may have memories of suffering from the whims of adolescents during the Cultural Revolution.
Rocket Man is a LONELY man.
Rocket Man is also an uncomprehending man.
He’s also disconnected from his ownfamily.
Get it ?
Why does Neo repeat the Leftist MSM babble as if it were meaningful?
“Expectations are so low for Trump that many people are surprised that he can string a bunch of coherent words together.”
You stated that in the form of a fact and in your own words, Neo.
To repeat, “Expectations are so low for Trump….”
My expectations are a great deal higher than “so low”, and have been since Cruz folded. Would Cruz have been a better POTUS? I now doubt it. And Trump saved us from Bushie Jeb! with his $100 million coffer, and from the awful Kasich, a lamb in sheep’s clothing.
We are IMO a great deal better off than if any of the other GOPers or Shrillary had achieved the Presidency. A great deal better off.
On predictability and unpredictability:
Suppose you were the leader of one of the nations under the United States’ nuclear umbrella, most of NATO, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, et cetera.
Would you want to know, for certain, what the United States would do if you were attacked with nuclear weapons?
Or would you prefer the leader of the United States to be unpredictable?
(Chancellor Merkel distrusts Trump so much, in spite of all our treaties, that she has begun exploring, at lest informally, getting protection from France and Britain.)
Or, suppose you are a leader of a nation thinking about making a trade deal with the United States. Would you be more or less likely to make the agreement if you don’t know whether the leader of the United States will keep it?
Or to put it on a more personal level, suppose you were a small contractor. Would you rather sign a deal with the predictable Jeb Bush, who you know will keep his side of the deal, or the unpredictable Donald Trump, who may or may not?
One day the BBC rather casually blamed Venezuela’s problems on low oil prices.
It isn’t hard to find conservatives who rather casually blame Venezuela’s problems on socialism.
Both conclusions are the result of “thinking fast”, and non rationally. And both are partly right, but mostly wrong.
Consider, to take an easy example, Norway, which has also been hurt by low oil prices, and is more socialist than the United States. Norway has its problems, but it isn’t a disaster.
In fact, both low oil prices and socialism are probably less important in explaining what is wrong in Venezuela than massive incompetence, and corruption on a gargantuan scale.
Do a search on “corruption + Venezuela” if you want some specifics.
(Sadly, the security forces are relatively competent, which makes me suspect that the Cubans are running that part of the show.)
Jim Miller:
I don’t agree, although of course one can easily find people who argue either side of the question.
And of course, Venezuela is Venezuela, with its particular characteristics and history, and Norway is Norway, with its own particular characteristics and history. Two very different countries in basic ways. I don’t think anyone is saying that socialism is 100% responsible for a country’s success or failure. But it can help or hinder.
I don’t think Norway is actually a socialist country, by the way. More of a social democracy. See this and this.
Venezuela was doing well before socialism, but there were hidden problems that probably would have come to the fore eventually no matter what. But nowhere near as badly as the state it’s in now. There are tons of articles on the subject that are quite convincing; here’s one.
Frog:
Obviously some people have high—in fact, in some cases with his supporters, very high—expectations for Trump,
And just as obviously, I’m talking here about people at the UN, and foreign governments. I wrote “no one ran screaming out of the room.” The room I was talking about was the UN General Assembly, plus the leaders of the countries in it. Not every single one, either—for example, not Israel and Netanyahu—but generally.
That’s a fact. I am stating it because it’s true. It is also a generalization about a group of people.
Neo
Venezuela was doing well before socialism, but there were hidden problems that probably would have come to the fore eventually no matter what.
There was plenty of socialism in Venezuela before Chavez took power. Before Chavez took power, the government owned and managed petroleum, the prime driver in the Venezuelan economy- and had since 1976. In addition, in attempts to sembrar el petroleo (sow the oil money), Venezuela had government enterprises producing steel, aluminum, and hydroelectricity. That sounds to me like socialism.
In most years of the Fourth Republic (1958-1998), the government built substantially more housing than the private sector. See page 10 of El Déficit y la Produccié³n Formal de Viviendas Fecha: 2006-08-05. That also sounds like socialism- or at least a very heavy dose of social welfare.
While PDVSA was government-owned, government interference in its day to day operations was minimal until Chavez.
That being said, I have no problem with assigning socialism, a.k.a. overweening government control, as being the problem with Venezuela. Chavistas shouted loud and clear- we need MORE socialism, MORE government control. They got it. Every time there was a problem, Chavistas saw the solution as being MORE government control- which only exacerbated the problem.
During the 2016 Presidential campaign, many on the right shouted that Venezuela was a prime example of why Bernie Sander’s socialism was the wrong way to go. The reply from the Sanderistas (a.k.a. Bernie fans) was that Bernie’s socialism had NOTHING to do with Venezuela, that Bernie’s socialism pointed towards the likes of Scandinavia.
The problem with the Sanderistas’ reply was that Bernie had already spoken out in favor of Chavista Venezuela. From the sanders.senate.gov website: Close The Gaps: Disparities That Threaten America. (2011)
The American dream is more likely to be realized in Venezuela than in the United States, Bernie Sanders tells us. As we all want to realize the American dream, we should emulate Venezuela, Bernie Sanders tells us. Just as Mayor Bernie said that Sandinista Nicaragua should be a model for Vermont. Just as Bernie has been a cheerleader for the Castro brothers for the last half-century. I will provide sources if you want them.
BTW, while Venezuela is purported to have those GREAT inequality statistics that Three-House-Bernie adores, they don’t take into account all the billions that the upper level Chavistas are skimming off the top. If that were reported in the income figures, the reported inequality figures for Venezuela would be a lot higher.
Continually increasing government control inevitably leads to corruption and to incompetence. The more power the government honchos have, the more they can steal. The more they control things, the more things go awry. Increasing government control- sounds like socialism to me.
I’m sure there are internal factions but totalitarian regimes only allow a limited amount of internal disagreement. Once Xi has a minimal amount of backing, ‘discussion’ ends.
The same description can be applied to the US. When the Deep State determines what policies national governments will have, it gets done and discussion ends.
It doesn’t mean people understand where the decisions are coming from, since by definition the masses are ignorant and easy to manipulate.
Jim Miller
Consider, to take an easy example, Norway, which has also been hurt by low oil prices, and is more socialist than the United States. Norway has its problems, but it isn’t a disaster.
The Norwegian government owns 67% of Statoil. Socialism in Norway has its limits. In Venezuela, socialism has no limits. Asé expropia Ché¡vez. (So Ché¡vez expropriates.) Those who do not speak Spanish can still note the number of times in a minute Ché¡vez says Expropriase– expropriate. In Venezuela, where socialism has no limits, disaster results. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
The drop in the price of oil from 2014 to present has had a negative effect on Venezuela’s economy. However, it was evident by 2013 that Venezuela’s economy had problems that could not be blamed on a low oil price.
When Ché¡vez was elected in 1998, Venezuelan oil was selling for around $11/BBL. The price of oil rebounded to the $20s in 1999. When Ché¡vez died in 2013, Venezuelan oil was selling for around $100/BBL. How did Venezuela’s economy perform with this oil price bonanza, compared to the rest of the world? Not very well, it turns out.
From the World Bank:
GDP per capita, PPP (constant 2011 international$), % increase 1998-2013
East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income) 192.1%
Upper middle income 109.3%
South Asia 102.4%
Middle income 96.1%
Low & middle income 91.7%
Lower middle income 83.4%
Least developed countries: UN classification 67.5%
World 44.5%
Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income) 42.4%
Middle East & North Africa 39.5%
Latin America & Caribbean 30.1%
Venezuela 15.2 %
Venezuela would have been classified as Upper Middle Income or above.In 1998, Upper Middle Income countries averaged $6,752 in the above income classification, compared with Venezuela’s $15,362.
In spite of the bonanza in oil export income from 1999-2013,the performance of the Venezuelan economy was anemic compared to other countries. Chavista Venezuela’s economic problems cannot be blamed on a low oil price. Rather, a low oil price exacerbated the underlying problems of Chavista Venezuela.
In 1998, when Venezuelan oil sold for about $11/BBL, Venezuela’s Infant Mortality fell. In 2016, when Venezuelan oil sold for about $36/BBL, Venezuela’s Infant Mortality rose 30%- in a year. Venezuela’s underlying problem is not the low price of oil.
Venezuela can thank American intervention from Hussein for their social utopian paradise. Next stop, the home of USA patriots.
If America is monolithic, then the pro democracy, pro terrorist, anti terrorist, anti socialism, pro socialism, anti communism, pro communism, policies are all due to the unified will of the government and people.
But China, America, Japan, and the Koreas are not monolithic. As a result, it only looks like it is one unified will to people outside the circle.