The Unpredictability Factor

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/opinion/campaign-stops/the-unpredictability-factor.html

Version 0 of 1.

Arthur Brooks: Hi, Gail. It’s been a pretty active week out on the trail. Donald Trump delivered a foreign policy speech to great press attention (although basically anything he does is an earth-shattering event in the eyes of the Fourth Estate). Ted Cruz tapped a running mate. Bernie Sanders laid off hundreds of campaign workers (paying them, I assume, the same lavish severance they would receive in dear old Denmark). So where should we start?

Gail Collins: I love it when you get snarky. You’re usually so nice. In that spirit I will take the high-minded policy side and ask you what you thought of Trump’s big foreign-affairs speech.

Arthur: The address last Wednesday here in D.C. was highly anticipated, since he has almost never given a traditional speech or laid out a specific agenda. His supporters were pitching this as a turning point.

Gail: All of us were impressed by his skill at reading a teleprompter.

Arthur: Hey, it’s trickier than it looks.

The speech was classically populist and harked back to the days when Republicans preferred retrenchment to foreign intervention. He continued to road-test the slogan “America First,” which was the actual name of the Charles Lindbergh-backed group that spent 1940 and 1941 trying to convince everyone that America should stay out of World War II.

Trump’s stated objectives are to build up the military for defensive use while intervening less in the world and forcing our allies to pay for part of our military presence.

Gail: Only Donald Trump could combine a promise to destroy ISIS with a name that suggests we should have left Hitler alone.

Arthur: One part of Trump’s remarks picked up more mainstream appeal: He pointed out how badly inconsistent our foreign policy has been in recent years. A prime example was our enthusiastic support for Muammar el-Qaddafi’s ouster, followed by an utter lack of meaningful action to help stabilize Libya after he fell.

Gail: I would never claim Libya was a great example of foreign affairs strategy. But did you notice that Trump is building his policy around being “unpredictable?” A president our allies can count on. Except don’t count on it.

Arthur: Nothing new about unpredictability, unfortunately. Just ask the Syrians who predicted we would do something about the “red line” we set and that Bashar al-Assad skipped right across. Surprise — no consequences.

Outside commentators noted that Trump’s big speech had a number of inconsistencies. But to be fair, presidential aspirants always struggle to form a coherent foreign policy philosophy before they have served. Everything is theoretical until you’ve had on-the-job training.

Gail: True, which I would say is a great argument for Hillary Clinton. She’s already been through the screw-it-up phase.

Arthur: With respect to Clinton’s campaign, I’m starting to wonder whether that particular phase will ever end. Just think of all the unforced errors over the last couple of years. Her advisers must be starting to develop nervous tics by now.

Gail: Speaking of campaign arguments, any thoughts on the current Republican debate? Both Trump and Cruz contend that they’re the only one who can defeat Clinton, while the Democrats are chortling at the idea of going up against either of them. But I have never been a fan of the theory that you root for the most awful opponent.

Arthur: You are so right. Only the most cynical partisans hope for an awful opponent. It’s actually sort of unpatriotic. The right approach is the Antonin Scalia model that we discussed a few weeks ago. He actually lobbied for Elena Kagan; if he couldn’t get a conservative justice, he wanted the smartest liberal justice possible.

Both Republican campaigns insist they can beat Clinton, but the numbers don’t look encouraging right now, especially in the demographic areas where Republicans badly need to improve. For example, Trump’s unfavorable rating with Hispanic voters is now 87 percent. This is on a par with head lice and letters from the I.R.S. Some think that his candidacy could erode even the small foothold that conservatives do have with these groups, such as Cuban-Americans.

Gail: I’ve found it interesting that Cruz is pounding so hard on the transgender bathroom issue. Even women who are social conservatives know our restrooms aren’t really well designed for Peeping Toms. Second, as our colleague Frank Bruni has pointed out, Cruz is actually demanding that transgender men use the ladies’ room.

Arthur: Your column on this last Saturday was very funny (which is tough to pull off, given the topic). The whole bathroom debate is a ghastly example of how politics and government can crowd out respect, judgment and common sense. Just when my kids have gotten old enough to outgrow toilet humor, I get to explain why public restrooms are now a cornerstone of our political discourse.

Let’s move over to Bernie for a minute. If I’m hearing things right, he basically said this week: “I know I can’t win. However, I can still use my campaign to push Hillary toward the fringe.” Do I have that about right?

Gail: A more charitable reading would be, “I can still use my campaign to push the Democratic Party to adopt more specific, progressive positions on issues like campaign finance reform, climate change and the growing gap between the very rich and the average American family.”

Which is fair.

Arthur: Tomato, tomahto. In either reading, he wants to be the conscience of the Democratic race from here on out. Imagine a really cranky Jiminy Cricket yelling on Hillary’s shoulder. It’s could be a long spring.

So Gail, our conversation is about to go on a brief springtime hiatus. Tuesday mornings will be sad and hollow for our readers, no doubt.

I’ll be tied up with my day job running a tank full of thinking, and a few other experimental projects, like a trip to Denmark and Spain for fieldwork and speeches. What will you be working on?

Gail: I’ve got a women’s history book I’m trying to finish. This is “trying to finish” in the sense of “almost halfway done.” Writing my column. Maybe go out and follow a candidate or two. But then when we come back next month you’ll be talking about Denmark and Spain and I’ll only have what Ted Cruz said in Oregon. Life is unfair.

Arthur: Hey, it’s not much fun trying to explain our presidential contest in Europe, where they think it must be some sort of elaborate prank. “You Americans are such funny jokers. But seriously, who is your candidate?”

Ah, yes, the curse of the half-done book. I know this all too well. Can you give us a sneak peek into your argument?

Gail: I’m writing a history of older women in America. It begins in the 1600s, when Colonial men were advertising for wives who were “civil and under 50 years of age.” Then in the 19th century, 20 was over the hill. And now girls want to grow up to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So I think it’s fair to say there’s a lot of territory to cover.

Arthur: Something tells me that “civil and under 50” won’t be catching on for online dating profiles. I’m interested to hear what your research turns up.

Good luck on the book — I’ll pre-order it on Amazon.

Gail: Bless you. I’m sure it’ll all be finished by the time we pick up our conversation in June — how long could it take to cover the last 65 years? Good luck with the Spaniards, Arthur. Then it’s California, here we come.