Trump’s hypocrisy is good for America

By Michael Gerson

As Donald Trump’s campaign promises have been dunked in reality’s strong solvent, many have been transformed in one way or another — modified, moderated, qualified, abandoned or pushed off into the distant future. Not a wall across the whole southern border. Not every part of Obamacare repealed. Not all illegal immigrants deported, at least in the foreseeable future. Not literally tearing up the Iran agreement. Not an actual prison cell for Hillary Clinton.

All this has opened up Trump to the charge of being a hypocrite. For the nation’s sake, let’s hope so. 

Hypocrisy has always been a complicated vice. It is the easiest, most common charge made in politics (“my opponent claims to love apple pie but uses them regularly in unspeakable acts”). Most of us feel a visceral reaction when a crusading prosecutor makes use of prostitutes, or a law-and-order judge takes bribes, or a moralizing pastor tends to his or her flock a little too closely. 

But we should take care in defining hypocrisy. “A hypocrite is a person who — but who isn’t?” said Don Marquis. More helpfully, British political scientist David Runciman says that hypocrisy involves “claims to a consistency that one cannot sustain, claims to a loyalty that one does not possess, claims to an identity that one does not hold.”

Hypocrisy comes in a long continuum of seriousness. You can wear a false face in displaying good manners toward someone you secretly despise. There is often hypocritical deception involved in political and diplomatic negotiations, which generally start with principled, nonnegotiable demands that are negotiated away in the process of finding a compromise. Hypocrisy can come in accommodating human realities that don’t quite fit our ideals, as in the widespread use of artificial birth control by American Catholics. Or it may be that you have simply changed your mind in light of new circumstances — as President George H.W. Bush did in violating the pledge “Read my lips: no new taxes.” 

In one sense, hypocrisy is unavoidable and necessary. If people were required, at all times, to live up to ideals of honesty, loyalty and compassion in order for those ideals to exist, there would be no ideals. Being a moral person is a struggle in which everyone repeatedly fails, becoming a hypocrite at each of those moments. A just and peaceful society depends on hypocrites who ultimately refuse to abandon the ideals they betray.

Before we become overly self-forgiving, it is worth recalling that the founder of Christianity took hypocrisy quite seriously: “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them.” Purity of heart and motivation, in the Christian tradition, does matter. But the hunt for hypocrisy should begin in the mirror. 

The issue at hand, however, is a certain kind of political hypocrisy — the conscious use of a mask to fool the public and gain political benefit. Most would concede that this type of hypocrisy is generally harmful for a democracy, in which self-government requires informed choices. Trump’s brand of personality-driven politics — emphasizing the virtues of a single leader — exaggerates the challenge. Trump arrives in Washington claiming to be the only honest man in a world of mendacity. It is a long way down from such a pedestal. 

Some of Trump’s strongest supporters seem to assume his cynicism. The part about forcing Mexicans to pay for the wall, according to Newt Gingrich, was “a great campaign device.” Of the largest construction project since the Qin dynasty, Rush Limbaugh now says he never expected Trump to do it. 

In this case, perhaps surprisingly, I am all for the wisdom of Gingrich and Limbaugh. Trump presents a special case, in which the normal criticisms of political hypocrisy should be suspended. Every time the Trump agenda is reshaped or refined to better fit reality, even Trump’s most dedicated critics have reason to applaud. 

This is a rare ethical circumstance in which realism and good sense take the form of hypocrisy. On a variety of issues, the sincerity of Trump’s current intentions — or the cynicism of his past intentions — should not matter. If the candidate who gave a wink and nod toward white nationalism now repudiates the alt-right and promises to “bring this country together,” so much the better. If the candidate who promised a trade war with China reconsiders, it is all to the good. 

It is admittedly an odd thing to cheer for cynicism. But in this strange, new political era, hypocrisy is our best hope. 

Trump’s presidency, overseas business deals and relations with foreign governments could all become intertwined

By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger

Days after Donald Trump’s election victory, a news agency in the former Soviet republic of Georgia reported that a long-stalled plan for a Trump-branded tower in a seaside Georgian resort town was now back on track.

Likewise, the local developer of a Trump Tower planned for ­Buenos Aires announced last week, three days after Trump spoke with Argentina’s president, that the long-delayed project was moving ahead.
Meanwhile, foreign government leaders seeking to speak with Trump have reached out to the president-elect through his overseas network of business partners, an unusually informal process for calls traditionally coordinated with the U.S. State Department.
 
All of it highlights the muddy new world that Trump’s election may usher in — a world in which his stature as the U.S. president, the status of his private ventures across the globe and his relationships with foreign business partners and the leaders of their governments could all become intertwined.

In that world, Trump could personally profit if his election gives a boost to his brand and results in its expansion overseas. His political rise could also enrich his overseas business partners — and, perhaps more significantly, enhance their statuses in their home countries and alter long-standing diplomatic traditions by establishing them as new conduits for public business.

It is also possible, of course, that a controversial presidency inflaming international opposition could cause damage to the brand.

Trump has done little to set boundaries between his personal and official business since winning the presidency.

He has indicated that his children may take over the business, but he has also appointed them to formal roles with his presidential transition and included daughter Ivanka on calls with world leaders.
And he has continued to offer signs that he may remain engaged, at least on some level, in his private ventures.

For instance, Trump took a break from selecting his Cabinet last week for a brief meeting in his Trump Tower office with the developers of a Trump project in Pune, India, shaking hands and posing for photos with the men. When asked about the meeting, Trump told the New York Times: “I mean, what am I going to say? ‘I’m not going to talk to you, I’m not going to take pictures’?”

Trump also acknowledged to the Times, after he received a congratulatory visit the weekend after the election from British politician Nigel Farage, that he “might have” encouraged the leader of the UK Independence Party to oppose offshore windmill farms, like one he has fought off the Scottish coast because he believes it will mar the view from his Trump Turnberry golf resort there.

Trump has reacted defensively to suggestions that his conversations about his private business are somehow inappropriate. He told the Times this week, “the law’s totally on my side. The president can’t have a conflict of interest.”

On Monday evening, he tweeted: “Prior to the election, it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world. Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!”

Ethics experts say that if Trump takes no action to distance himself from his business holdings, he is likely to face questions about whether he is pursuing policy in the national interest or for his own business advantage. It is also possible that Trump could run afoul of a constitutional provision prohibiting presidents from accepting favors, or “emoluments,” from foreign leaders.

Trump representatives did not respond to questions this week about his business interests in Argentina, Georgia or elsewhere.

It is unclear how much real progress Trump’s election has prompted for some of these foreign projects, several of which had stalled in recent years. Some of the promises of renewed activity could be the work of foreign partners who have paid for the use of his name and who may be looking to take advantage of the moment as a marketing opportunity.

The Trump project in Argentina, for instance, has not been issued new permits since Election Day, a city official in Buenos Aires said. But public reports that the project is moving ahead show how foreign developers could stand to benefit if their governments were to grease the skids for Trump-branded projects as a way to curry favor with the new American president.

In Argentina, President Mauricio Macri connected by phone with President-elect Trump and his daughter Ivanka on Nov. 14. Three days later, Trump’s development partner in Argentina, the YY Development Group, put out word that the $100 million project was moving forward, featuring on its website a South American news report touting the progress. “The magnate Donald Trump expands his ‘ultraexclusive’ towers in South America,” the story read.

The development firm’s chief executive, Felipe Yaryuri, has touted his personal relationship with the Trumps, particularly with Trump’s son Eric. He was in Trump campaign headquarters on election night, posting a photo of himself with Eric Trump and tweeting that he had breakfast with Eric Trump the day after the election. Again, Trump officials declined to respond to inquiries about the tweets.

Yaryuri declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that his company has filed permit requests with the city of Buenos Aires that are awaiting approval. A city official said the request was made earlier this year but that no determination had been made.

Macri, the president, denied reports in local media that Trump had mentioned the project to him in their post-election conversation. However, a spokesman confirmed that Macri had relied on the Trump business partner to put him in touch with the newly elected president, a sign of how the local developer’s stature has risen since the American election.

Entanglements between Trump’s business interests and his official relationships also appear possible in Georgia, a U.S. ally where many are fearful of Trump’s potential rapprochement with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump swept into the Black Sea resort town of Batumi in 2012 and announced that a new luxury Trump Tower would soon rise from the empty field in which he stood with the country’s then-president.

Once scheduled to break ground in 2013, however, the project was halted by an economic downturn, a local land planning dispute and, some analysts said, the electoral defeat of then-Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, a personal friend of Trump’s who had championed the deal.

In recent months, long-standing roadblocks to the project’s groundbreaking resolved without government assistance, said ­Giorgi Rtskhiladze, a U.S.-based partner working with the local developer, the Silk Road Group, which paid Trump a licensing fee to put his name on the building.
Rtskhiladze said the developers informed the Trump Organization in September or October that the project could now proceed. After Trump was elected, he said he emailed a congratulatory note to Trump’s adult children and to a top Trump Organization executive — and reiterated that developers are prepared to move forward. He said Trump executives have indicated the project is being “reevaluated,” as they discuss how his company will be operated after Trump takes office.

“We’re ready,” Rtskhiladze said. “We’re waiting for them to give us the green light.”

He said it would add distinction to the project to bear the name of the U.S. president.

“There’s only one word: Pride,” he said of how he would feel to help construct a building bearing Trump’s name. “What else can you possibly feel? You can’t even imagine it, and then suddenly it happens.”

Although the United States stood beside Georgia when it was invaded by Russia in 2008, leaders of the small nation fear that an ascendant Russia could escalate simmering hostilities. The current Georgian government is led by political rivals of Saakashvili’s, the president who brought Trump to Georgia in 2012 but who has since left the country.

Georgian officials antsy with Trump’s rhetoric on Russia and eager to forge their own good relationship with the new American president could be tempted to curry favor by pushing ahead with the proposed 47-story building bearing his name, predicted Lincoln Mitchell, an American expert on Georgian politics who served as a paid adviser to the current governing party in 2012.

“The gray areas Trump has between where his job as president ends and where his business interests begin, that’s normal in that part of the world. Renewing this deal, that’s just an obvious thing to do,” said Mitchell, who opposed Trump’s election, quitting his job this summer writing for the New York Observer, which is owned by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Indeed, on Georgian state television last week, a U.S.-based Georgian real estate entrepreneur enthusiastically predicted that Trump’s win would mean a new era of economic cooperation and growth for both countries. In a separate interview with The Washington Post, the entrepreneur, Roman Bokeria, expressed optimism that a new Trump Tower would soon rise in Batumi.

“Cutting the ribbon on a new Trump Tower in Georgia will be a symbol of victory for all of the free world,” said Bokeria, chief executive of Miami Red Square Realty.

Rtskhiladze said the project will move forward based only on the “attractive business case” that can be made for it, not any government intervention.

While Trump and his advisers have noted that U.S. conflict of interest and gift laws do not apply to the president, a bipartisan group of ethics experts has emphasized that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the president from accepting favors — emoluments is the constitutional term — from foreign leaders.

“It appears from the reports we’re seeing this week that Donald Trump may be opening up a wholesale emoluments business,” said Norm Eisen, former White House ethics counsel to President Obama, who is joining with colleagues from both parties to sound an alarm about the perils of Trump’s business holdings.

“The pattern we are seeing this week of stalled Trump projects jump-starting and the president-elect himself conceding that he may have raised business issues with a foreign official is stunning,” he said.

Clinton, Trump, and the ends of great power hypocrisy

The hypocrisy of the politicians stinks almost as much as the corpses of the dead.

Mark LeVine

Mark LeVine is a professor of Middle Eastern History at University of California.

US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry rail against Russia's support for the Syrian government's horrific bombing of hospitals and other crimes of war. Meanwhile, from Iraq and Afghanistan to Yemen to Israel, the US and its allies have either yet to account for or continue to engage in wars and pursue policies that have killed hundreds of thousands of people and ruined the lives of tens of millions more. 

Truth be told, the Middle East is an intricate wheel of war and oppression whose spokes stretch across the Middle East into Africa and Central Asia, and which rolls roughshod over most every attempt by citizens across these regions to achieve a measure of democracy, accountability, development and dignity.

Why are are western leaders surprised when those crushed under the wheel ride the spokes across the water in the desperate hope of arriving at a better, or at least livable, future.

Overlap in policies

Last Monday's presidential debate has no doubt revealed the stakes involved in choosing between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, at least in terms of their differences in temperament and treatment of women. 

But as we rightly condemn Trump's so-called "fat-shaming" and his lack of command of life-or-death issues, the overlap in policies between the two candidates when it comes to supporting massive levels of violence across the Middle East is as troubling as it is depressing.

True, Clinton isn't crazy enough to try to steal Iraq's oil (let's face it, neither is Trump); but she had no problem hijacking that country's future (and ours) in 2003, and continuing to support every brutal government  that serves the American elite's consensus of the country's "national interest" since then.

[Clinton's] 'sober' hand hardly seems less dangerous than Trump's recklessness from the point of view of those caught under the wheels of US foreign policy, or that of the other major powers, allies and adversaries alike.

Her "sober" hand hardly seems less dangerous than Trump's recklessness from the point of view of those caught under the wheels of US foreign policy, or that of the other major powers, allies and adversaries alike. 

 

Yet whatever their past, or allegiances or entanglements, we can assume that both Clinton and Trump would, each in their own way, like to be remembered as having in some fundamental sense significantly improved the United State's standing, and global security with it.

Trump's cowboy imperialism is not that far from the attitudes that his favourite president, Ronald Reagan, brought to office. And yet Reagan produced several of the boldest foreign policy tacks of the post-War era, including calling on Soviet President Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" as well as completely abolish nuclear weapons.

Global peace

Neither Trump nor Clinton has Reagan's rhetorical and ideological genius. But both Clinton and Trump could call for a major change in the architecture of world politics and diplomacy that would have an equally profound effect on global peace and security: namely, an end to the veto power of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

It is hard to overstate the harm the P5 veto has done to the cause of world peace. Rather than shore up stability and a balance of power between the emerging two global blocs, the Security Council veto ensured a shared a balance of terror and the ability of the great powers and their most favourite allies and clients to get away with literally anything, no matter how gravely their actions violate international law and norms.

From the US invasion of Iraq, to Israel's continual violations of international law, and the even more egregious actions of the Syrian government and its Russian patrons, hundreds of millions of people continue to suffer because the world community has almost no leverage to prevent systematic violations of the UN Charter and fundamental international laws by one of the P5 or their allies.
While it is true that an end to the veto - or at least increasing the number of permanent members necessary to wield it - would prevent the US and its friends from violating international law at will, as a fundamental rule of the international game it would in fact impact all the major powers more or less equally. 

It would also hamstring Russia, China and their allies from pursuing policies such as supporting Assad, that are destabilising the global system.

An end to the veto

Indeed, calling for an end to the veto would offer two major advantages to the next president. 

First, if enacted it would clear the diplomatic slate for the new administration and draw a line under the failed policies of Obama and his predecessors, offering unprecedented freedom of action to reshape US priorities in line with either Trump's or Clinton's core foreign policy goals.

Second, because changing the UN Charter in this manner would, according to Article 109, requires approval of all five current permanent Security Council members (as well as two thirds of the General Assembly), a US call to abolish the veto would put the new president squarely on the right side of history without constituting an act of immediate and unilateral strategic disarmament.

Either Russia and China would agree to raise the bar for international law to a much higher level for all international actors, and in so doing profoundly improve the global security climate, or they would look like obstructionists to a much more just and humane order, while the United States under President Clinton or Trump would assume the mantle of leadership for envisioning that order.

Needless to say, such a position would greatly improve America's standing in the very regions where decades of hypocrisy and callousness have caused such harm - both to citizens there and ultimately in the United States. 

Given the desperate state of American and global politics today, it would be nice to imagine, if only for a moment, an American president with the vision and courage to make such a call.

Mark LeVine is a professor of Middle Eastern History at University of California, Irvine, and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Lund University.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.