THE GRAND RAPIDS PRESS
S U N DAY, F E B RUA RY 1 2 , 2 0 17
Don’t expect usual round of commencement addresses
Obama should thank Trump for putting Iran on notice
Albert R. Hunt
Eli Lake
Bloomberg View
In the first two years of his presidency, George W. Bush delivered commencement addresses at Yale, Notre Dame and Ohio State universities. President Barack Obama also spoke at Notre Dame during his first couple of years in office, as well as at Michigan and Carnegie Mellon. Don’t look for President Donald Trump this spring on these or most other wellknown campuses. He would face disruptive protests that would extend beyond the halls of academe. The threat of vocal protests limited public appearances for a few other presidents, including Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. But not until they’d been in office for years. For Trump, with his proposed immigration ban and penchant for racial, ethnic, sexist and other insults, the phenomenon has occurred almost instantly. Unfriendly venues appear to be spreading. Last weekend there were 3,000 protesters at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida while he was there attending a Red Cross benefit dinner. He canceled an appearance at a Harley-Davidson plant in Milwaukee because of planned demonstrations. Efforts are underway to organize a national worker’s strike this month against the president’s policies. There’s even an online calendar for anti-Trump rallies being scheduled in the months ahead. Some Democrats fear that the antiTrump protests could provoke a backlash. A scheduled speech by a Trump-supporting white nationalist was called off last week at the University of California at Berkeley when violence erupted. Trump then threatened to cut off federal assis-
Presidents traditionally speak at one of the military academies, and Trump also may appear at a conservative Christian college. tance to the university if it didn’t respect “free speech.” Nixon turned demonstrations against him to his political advantage, depicting protesters as fringe radicals. He won re-election in 1972 by the largest popular-vote margin of any presidential contest after World War II. (Then the Watergate scandal broke, and less than two years later he resigned.) Presidents traditionally speak each year at one of the military service academies. Trump, who loves to identify with the military, will surely do so. These are safe havens. But it’s doubtful he’d be welcome at most other prestigious institutions, meaning he’s most likely to deliver an address at a conservative Christian school. What may prove especially grating to Trump is the hostility toward him at the University of Pennsylvania, his alma mater and that of three of his children. Many students there express embarrassment over their famous alumnus; the student newspaper constantly criticizes him and his policies. On Jan. 21, a group of Jewish and Muslim students at Penn shared a bus ride to Washington to join the national women’s protest against Trump.
Court of the crimson king Eugene Robinson
Washington Post Writers Group
No one should have been surprised when President Donald Trump raged that the “so-called judge” who blocked his travel ban should be blamed “if something happens.” It is clear by now that the leader of the free world has the emotional maturity of a 2-year-old who kicks, punches and holds his breath when he can’t have ice cream. He dismisses anything he doesn’t want to hear as “fake news,” which is the equivalent of holding his hands over his ears. A poll showing most people disapprove of the ban? Photographic evidence that the crowd for his inauguration was less than historic? Fake! All fake! Trump’s supporters may convince themselves that the tantrums are part of a clever act. But if they were, Trump’s closest aides wouldn’t be leaking like walking colanders to what he calls the “dishonest media.” It appears they can’t get the president to sit for a briefing or read a memo, so they send messages to him via the newspaper stories that are clipped for him to read and the cable channels he obsessively watches. Trump’s temperament is at least an issue and potentially a crisis, not just for the nation but for the world. In one of his introductory phone calls with foreign leaders, he even managed to ruffle feathers with Australia, which is a hard thing to do. What kind of leader accuses one of our most steadfast allies of trying to send the “next Boston bombers” to the United States? A leader utterly lacking in self-control, apparently. I realize there is some method to go along with all the madness. I understand that Trump wants to be disruptive and has disdain for traditional norms. I know he believes he has a mandate to radically change immigration policy, defend what he sees as Western values and project his vision of American strength. But how does feuding with Australia further those ends? What rational purpose is served by lashing out at a federal judge for fulfilling his constitutional role? Why did he spend his first week in office trying to deny the fact that his inaugural crowd, while of quite respectable size, was much smaller than either of former President Barack Obama’s? Trump’s assault on the concept of an
independent judiciary can be seen as something out of Orwell. “What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?” Trump tweeted on Feb. 4. In one efficient sentence, the president trashed the concept of separation of powers and falsely alleged that prior administrations had let just anyone into the country. So should that tweet be read as a deliberate attempt to encourage fear and grab more power? Or was it simply Trump’s pre-kindergarten reflex to hit back at anyone who hits him? I think it was probably the latter. I’ve seen no indication that Trump is able to control his need to retaliate. We saw it throughout his campaign, and 70-year-old men usually don’t change. Those in his inner circle obviously know that the way to accomplish their own goals, and to stay in Trump’s favor, is to indulge his impulses in hopes of being able to channel them in a given direction. Those who speak for the White House, including press secretary Sean Spicer, are required to emulate Trump’s air of wounded pugnacity. And yes, Melissa McCarthy’s portrayal of Spicer on “Saturday Night Live” may be the funniest thing I’ve seen all year. Thus far, senior advisers Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller — both from the nationalistic, protectionist, anti-immigration “alt-right” — have proved most skillful at the game of intrigue in Trump’s court. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus has had less success in getting him to pursue a traditional GOP agenda, though he is likely to get the deregulation and tax cuts his party wants. Kellyanne Conway’s overreach with “alternative facts” and “the Bowling Green massacre” seem to have pleased, not irked, her boss. Son-inlaw Jared Kushner has had little apparent impact thus far, but he can play the long game because he’s family and doesn’t have to worry about being fired. But make no mistake: We are talking about the rising and falling fortunes of courtiers who, with flattery and whispers and flowery professions of fealty, serve the whims of their liege. The next four years promise to be a history lesson in the sort of thing that caused American democracy to be born.
Here’s one way for president to help small business Bloomberg View
At a meeting with small-business leaders this week, President Donald Trump pledged to do “a big number” on the 2010 DoddFrank Act, which he blamed for cutting off the bank lending needed for growth. “It’s almost impossible now to start a small business and it’s virtually impossible to expand your existing business,” the president said. Tr ump is w rong about small-business starts. Since early 2010, new business creation has rebounded. But he’s right, albeit with a whiff of exaggeration, that it’s harder to finance and expand a small business than it needs to be. Total bank lending to small businesses has declined by
about 6 percent since DoddFrank was put in place. Although weak consumer demand is a major culprit, misdirected regulation has also created formidable obstacles. Half a decade into DoddFrank’s life, it’s clear that the rules aimed at large, complex institutions have fallen hard on banks with less than $10 billion in assets — a group that accounts for about two-thirds of all small-business lending. These banks must sort their assets into myriad risk categories, a task that has helped double the length of the quarterly reports they file with supervisors. Stringent one-size-fits-all guidelines limit their ability to make mortgage loans — a major source of financing for entrepre-
neurs. Such requirements are entirely unnecessary for institutions that don’t get involved in derivatives, that keep most of their loans on their own books, and that run simple businesses examiners understand well. Worse, the added red tape complicates precisely the kind of know-your-customer lending at which they excel. That’s why some banking experts — including Thomas Hoenig, vice chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. — have proposed freeing them of the most onerous requirements as long as they maintain adequate levels of loss-absorbing capital. After assuring that security, emphasize simplicity and flexibility for the smaller banks. Financial regulators have
actually taken a step in the right direction, issuing a rule that will streamline quarterly reporting requirements for the smallest banks (with assets of less than $1 billion). Still, there’s plenty more that the Trump administration and Congress can do, such as liberating well-capitalized community banks from risk-weighting requirements and certain mortgage-lending constraints, such as a requirement to respond to applications in three days. Dodd-Frank was built primarily to address the excesses of sprawling, global institutions, not small-town banks that take risks on people they know. It’s a disconnect that should be recognized — and repaired.
D9
Bloomberg View
Don’t say Donald Trump never did anything for Barack Obama. National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has put Iran “on notice” for its ballistic missile test and its arming, training and equipping of Houthi rebels in Yemen. The early reaction from the network of groups that pushed for the Iran nuclear deal has been shock and horror. The Arms Control Association warned President Trump against “provoking confrontation.” The National Iranian American Council said Flynn’s Feb. 1 warning was “reckless.” Ben Rhodes, Obama’s top national-security adviser, let loose on his Twitter feed. And I understand the alarm. After all, Trump has ridiculed the Iran deal all along. News outlets reported the administration planned on sanctioning 25 Iranian entities. Officials tell me there will be other changes to follow, including new rules of engagement for Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf. All of this creates an atmosphere of uncertainty for Iran’s leaders, who don’t yet know what it means when Trump puts them “on notice.” Most times, predictability and steadiness are important for statecraft. But there are exceptions. Iran’s recent aggression in the Middle East is one of them. Since completing the nuclear deal in 2015, Iran has tested ballistic missiles at least 12 times, according to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. This is not only contrary to U.N. Security Council 2231, which calls on Iran not to test missiles. It also means Iran is perfecting the delivery mechanism for an eventual nuclear weapon, if it chooses to build one. Remember, the limits on Iran’s enrichment activi-
Predictability and steadiness are important for statecraft. But there are exceptions. ties expire between 2025 and 2030. Perhaps the deal’s supporters believe Iran’s Sunni neighbors and Israel would just allow Iran to keep testing with no real consequences. But that’s a risky bet. And it’s made even riskier in light of Iran’s aggressive shadow war. The Houthi militias — which it has armed, trained and equipped — attacked a Saudi ship in the Red Sea. These skirmishes can quickly escalate. How likely is it that the nuclear deal would survive such an escalation? One way to reduce the risk of a regional war Iran and its proxies are currently stoking is through deterrence. Because Trump’s advisers have yet to present a new war plan to take out the Islamic State, it also makes sense that the U.S. position on Iran should be vague. Let the regime’s imagination run wild. Who knows what else Trump will do? Now, it should be said Iranian officials have long publicly warned that their proud nation does not respond well to threats. But this just isn’t true. Threats and pressure have worked well with Iran. Look no further than the nuclear deal itself. Iran only agreed to even negotiate with the U.S. and five other great powers after the world imposed crippling sanctions on its oil exports and central bank. It took the threat of economic collapse to get Iran to start negotiations. The reverse is also true. Iran has been testing more ballistic missiles, increasing its interventions in Yemen and Syria and detaining additional U.S.-Iranian dual nationals since it completed the nuclear deal. When Obama was trying his best to reset the relationship, the Iranians became more aggressive. The best news for Obama is that the White House was clear that, for now, it does not intend to withdraw from the nuclear deal. A senior administration official told reporters that he did not consider these missile tests to be a violation of the pact itself. When Obama sold that agreement to Congress in 2015, he promised that the U.S. was only lifting sanctions on Iran related to its nuclear program. And while Obama imposed a few mild sanctions on Iran for missile tests, the economic pain these measures caused was minuscule compared to the benefits of Iran’s sanctions relief. Trump is now preparing new sanctions and signaling that there will be greater consequences under his administration for missile tests and other forms of regional aggression. If those consequences are meted out with skill and resolve, a little confrontation today could stave off a larger conflict down the road.