정책비교/국제정치2020. 11. 4. 16:04
반응형

미 대선 중계방송 메모.  2020 USA Presidential Election.


1. 필라델피아, 필리의 자유의 종이 파산당하는 신호탄. 전통적인 민주당 강세 주였지만, 2016년 선거에서 공화당 트럼프로 넘어간 펜실베니아 Pennsylvania 주. 농촌을 포함 소도시들에서 트럼프가 6대 4 정도로 쉽게 이김. 유명한 대도시, 피츠버그가 속한 알게니 (Allegheny) 카운티에서 6대 4로, 필라델피아 73대 25 로 민주당 조 바이든이 이기고 있는 중. 


펜실베니아 우편 투표 개봉이 필요하지만, 바이든의 역전은 힘들 듯.

미국에서도 고향이 중요한데, 바이든이 스크랜튼 Scranton 에서 청소년 시절을 보낸 곳인데도 쉽게 무너짐. 그만큼 존재감이 약한 후보였다는 것을 입증.


2. 플로리다 Florida 역시 마이애미, 보카 라톤, 잭슨 빌, 탐파 등 대도시 지역은 민주당 바이든이, 나머지는 소도시들과 농촌 지역은 트럼프가 승리. 특히 플로리다 마이애미가 속한 선거구 마이애미 데이드(Miami-Dade)에서 바이든이 613,086 (53.3%), 트럼프가 529,716 (46%)를 획득했으나, 민주당 바이든이 선거운동을 제대로 못했다는 플로리다 한 정치학자의 평가. 


"플로리다 주에서 민주당이 이기려면 마이애미-데이드(Miami-Dade )선거구에서 바이든이 65% : 35%로 트럼프를 이겼어야 함. "


3. 결국, 2차 세계대전 이후 거의 50년간 부강한 미 제국주의 하에서 경제적 부를 누린 세대들, 백인들이 과거 강대국이었던 미국 향수에 젖어 투표를 더 많이 했다. 코로나 19 보다는 경제적 이익과 중국과의 경쟁에서 승리 염원, 그걸 노린 트럼프 선거전략 효과적이었다. 조 바이든의 약한 캐릭터. 트럼프를 반대하는 비백인 소수 인종, 아시아, 흑인, 라티노, 청년, 여성들의 표결집력, 투표율이 낮은 결과인가?  


미국 역시 도시: 비도시 = 민주당: 공화당 = 6:4 

중부 미국과 농촌 rural 지역 공화당:민주당 = 6:4 

'왔다 갔다리 경합주 swing voting state' 하는 주들에 있는 도시 유권자들의 투표율, 그리고 결집력이 미 대선을 결정한다. 


오하이오, 플로리다, 펜실베니아에서 트럼프가 현재 이기고 있기 때문에, 조 바이든의 역전은 힘든 상황임.


4. 미 대선 결과가 한국에 미치는 영향, 남북관계 등.


거의 없음. 지난 4년간 많이 속아봤기 때문에, 한국의 주체적인 외교역량이 변화하지 않고, 트럼프 초대손님 만들기 청와대 '쇼', 탁현민 쇼잔치를 또 벌인다면 아무런 성과가 없을 것임.


실용주의적 남북 경협,민간인 교류를 한국정부가 해결하지 못하면, 실리적인 외교는 거의 없을 예정임. 미국은 군사비나 더 요구할 것임.







반응형
Posted by NJ원시

댓글을 달아 주세요

정책비교/국제정치2020. 6. 1. 17:05
반응형


트럼프가 "시위대가 도둑질을 하면, 총격을 가하겠다"는 트위터. 백악관 앞에서 폴리스 라인을 넘어오면 맹견을 풀어버리겠다는 협박. 이 두가지 협박의 기원은 1967년 미국 플로리다 주, 마이애미 경찰서장, 왈터 헤들리였다. 1) 왈터 헤들리가 당시 개를 풀어 버리겠다고 협박한 이유는, 흑인 청년들이 달리기를 잘해서라고 설명함. 왈터 헤들리가 흑인 청년들이 죽어서 시체보관실에 갇히고 싶냐고 협박함.


2) 당시 왈터 헤들리가 경찰 부하들에게 명령을 내린 지시사항이 "도둑질이 시작되면, 총격을 개시하라"였음.



1967년 당시 흑인 민권운동이 한창이라서, 왈터 헤들리와 달리, '흑인 지역사회 공동체 프로그램'을 운영해 흑인범죄율을 낮추려는 시도가 있었지만, 인종차별주의자 왈터 헤들리는 흑인들을 무력으로 진압하려는 노선을 포기하지 않음. 이후 왈터 헤들리 강경 노선은 인종차별주의 대표적인 노선으로 간주됨.

The forefather of Trump's white supremacy was Walter Headley, Miami police chief in 1967.






트럼프 트위터 


“When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” is a threat coined by Miami Police Chief Walter Headley, who promised violent reprisals on black protesters in 1967. He also said: “We don’t mind being accused of police brutality. They haven’t seen anything yet.”


EXPAND

President Donald Trump at a coronavirus briefing.Photo by D. Myles Cullen/Official White House


Trump's Minneapolis Tweet Is an Echo of Miami's Racist Past

ALEXI C. CARDONA | MAY 29, 2020 | 12:18PM

Facebook

 

Twitter

 

 



In the Miami of the 1960s, Liberty City was boiling over.


Protests and black-empowerment rallies sprang up in response to aggressive policing of black neighborhoods, stop-and-frisk policies, and a police chief whose "get tough" crime-fighting approach amounted to a declaration of war on the black community.


A Miami Herald article from December 1967 said then-Miami Police Chief Walter Headley would arm his officers with shotguns and dogs to "cut crimes in the city's slums" rather than build a community-relations program.


RELATED STORIES

Protests Against George Floyd's Killing Planned in Miami and Broward

Cable News Networks Are Enabling Donald Trump's Racist Ideology

Here's How Trump's Rhetoric Inspires Death Threats in South Florida

"We haven't had any serious problems with civil uprisings and looting because I've let the word filter down that when the looting starts, the shooting starts," Headley said, according to the Herald.


"[Headley] said the major group his 'get tough' policy is aimed at is young Negro males, from 15 to 21," the paper wrote.


"Felons will learn that they can't be bonded out from the morgue," Headley said at the time. "We don't mind being accused of police brutality. They haven't seen anything yet."


Former Miami Police Chief Walter Headley coined the phrase, "When the looting starts, the shooting starts."EXPAND


Former Miami Police Chief Walter Headley coined the phrase, "When the looting starts, the shooting starts."Screenshot via Newsbank


The former police chief died in 1968, but President Donald Trump resurrected his words without attribution early this morning in a tweet about civil unrest in Minneapolis. The ongoing protests are a response to a police officer handcuffing and pinning George Floyd to the ground and putting a knee to Floyd's neck; the 46-year-old later died.


"....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen," Trump tweeted. "Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!"


Twitter flagged the president's tweet for violating the company's rules about glorifying violence and blocked it from being automatically viewed.


New York Times national politics reporter Astead Herndon and other journalists called attention to the source of Trump's alliterative turn of phrase.



Steadman™

@AsteadWesley

"When the looting starts, the shooting starts" is originally a phrase of Miami police chief Walter Headley. 


Headley refused to return from vacation when violent protests broke out at the RNC in 1968. "They know what to do...Wen the looting starts, the shooting starts." https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266231100780744704 …


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump


Replying to @realDonaldTrump


....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!


4,757

1:13 AM - May 29, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

2,502 people are talking about this


Todd Zwillich

@toddzwillich

“When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” is a threat coined by Miami Police Chief Walter Headley, who promised violent reprisals on black protesters in 1967. He also said: “We don’t mind being accused of police brutality. They haven’t seen anything yet.” https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1266231100780744704 …


View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Replying to @realDonaldTrump

....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!


27.2K

1:19 AM - May 29, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

22.8K people are talking about this

Headley was chief for two decades and oversaw the Miami Police Department during a time of tremendous racial tension within the city.


In February 1968, two MPD officers stripped a black teenager down to his shorts and dangled him by his ankles from a bridge 80 feet above the Miami River. Officers were conducting searches on patrons of a pool hall, according to a Herald article at the time, and reportedly found that the boy, Robert Owens, was carrying a knife.


There are conflicting stories about what happened to the officers. Some reports say Headley suspended them immediately, while others say one officer resigned and the other was suspended after refusing to do likewise.


Stanley Jean-Poix, president of the Miami Community Police Benevolent Association, the city's black police union, tells New Times Headley had been warned about one of the officers. Jean-Poix says black community leaders told Headley one of the officers was "racist and antagonistic" toward the black community.


"They wanted him removed from Liberty City," explains Jean-Poix, who says he has become conversant in the department's history of race relations.


Headley reportedly rejected the leaders' concerns, and when the community learned what the officers did to Owens, they rebelled.


"Tension between the black community and Headley accelerated at that time," Jean-Poix says.


Six months later, community organizers were planning rallies to protest the Republican National Convention in Miami Beach, which secured the nomination of Richard Nixon for president.


Jean-Poix says the organizers were mindful of the fact that the media would be present for the convention and planned the demonstrations to bring continued attention to the issue of police brutality and racism in Miami.


The rallies devolved into three days of rebellion, during which police killed three people, wounded 18, and arrested 222, according to a 2018 look back at the riot by the Washington Post.


Headley died later that year at age 63. An Associated Press obituary called him the "architect of a crime crackdown that sent police dogs and shotgun-toting patrolmen into Miami's slums in force."


Stephen P. Clark, the mayor of Dade County from the 1970s to the 1990s, praised Headley in the obituary for his "effective" policing tactics.


Clark was quoted in the obituary as saying Headley's policy "will always be in existence in this city."


The former chief's legacy lives on, as evidenced by Miami's Fraternal Order of Police union, which bears his name.


WE BELIEVE LOCAL JOURNALISM IS CRITICAL TO THE LIFE OF A CITY

Engaging with our readers is essential to Miami New Times's mission. Make a financial contribution or sign up for a newsletter, and help us keep telling Miami's stories with no paywalls.


SUPPORT OUR JOURNALISM

Jean-Poix says he was disturbed to see Trump quote Headley, knowing Headley's history with the black community in Miami.


"His comments were very disappointing, but I'm not surprised because I feel he showed himself," Jean-Poix says. "I just feel like he's adding fuel to the fire."


Jean-Poix worries that Trump's words will encourage people’s implicit biases and perpetuate racism. At the same time, he says the resurfacing of Headley's comments sheds a light on racism in America and the importance of listening to the voices of the oppressed.


"Looting and breaking things, I don't agree with," he says. "But I'm savvy enough to understand that people who feel disrespected lash out. They're reacting out of anger, and this is how they know to get the word out. It's easy to say, 'Be calm,' but if you don't give that person a voice, if you don't acknowledge or validate them, they are going to lash out."


 

Alexi C. Cardona is a staff writer at Miami New Times. A Hialeah native, she's happy to be back home writing about Miami's craziness after four years working for Naples Daily News.

CONTACT: Alexi C. Cardona

FOLLOW: Twitter: @Alexi_Cristina

반응형
Posted by NJ원시

댓글을 달아 주세요

정책비교/국제정치2019. 4. 16. 03:49
반응형

물 폭탄을 떨어뜨리라는 트럼프의 화재진압 방식 제안은 오히려 노트르담 성당 건축물 전체를 파손시킬 수 있다. 


1. 미국 트럼프가 프랑스 파리 노틀담 성당 화재 진압을 희망하며 남긴 트위터

" 파리 노트르담 성당에 불을 보는 게 끔찍하다. 물탱크를 실은 비행기로 성당 화재를 진압해야 할 것 같다. 신속하게 화재를 진압하라"


2. 비행기에서 물을 쏟아 붓는 물폭탄식 화재 진압을 하게 되면, 오히려 노트르담 성당 건축물이 더 큰 훼손을 입게 된다. 물 무게 때문에 건축물이 휘거나 파손당할 수 있다. 비행기에 물을 실어 날라 화재를 진압하는 (flying-water-tankers) 방법은 산불이 난 경우에 사용된다.


3. 프랑스는  수백명의 소방관들을 투입해서 노트르담 성당 화재를 진압하고 있다. 



- 정치는 선한 동기로만 할 수 없다. 물을 다스린다는 '치수'는 문제 해결에 필요한 구체적인 탁월한 능력이었다. (virtue)  


https://www.france24.com/en/20190415-notre-dame-blaze-flying-water-tankers-not-option-paris-france-firefighters




Notre-Dame blaze: Flying water tankers 'could lead to collapse'


Ludovic Marin, AFP | Aerial water tankers will not be used in fight against Notre-Dame fire. The weight of the water could cause the 12th centure structure to collapse, explained French civil protection service on Monday night.

The use of flying water tankers to extinguish the fire at Notre-Dame Cathedral is not an option, French officials said on Monday night. The weight of the water could cause the entire structure to collapse.


US President Donald Trump on Monday called the blaze engulfing Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris "horrible" and suggested the deployment of flying water tankers, before being told by French authorities that this wouldn't work.


"So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!" Trump tweeted.


Not an option


Following Trump's tweet, the French civil protection service responded that the one thing it was not contemplating was using aerial tankers, which dump enormously heavy loads of water, usually on wildfires.


"Hundreds of firemen of the Paris Fire Brigade are doing everything they can to bring the terrible #NotreDame fire under control," the civil protection service said in a statement.


"All means are being used, except for water-bombing aircraft which, if used, could lead to the collapse of the entire structure of the cathedral."


Later, while in Minnesota for a speech on the economy, Trump called the fire "one of the true catastrophes" and said "the television images he'd watched during his flight were "a terrible sight to behold."


"It was burning at a level you rarely see a fire burn," he told the crowd.


"It's a part of our culture, it's a part of our lives."


The fire spread rapidly through a major portion of the magnificent Gothic cathedral in the heart of Paris, causing a spire to collapse and raising fears for the building.


The cause of the blaze was not immediately confirmed, but the cathedral had been undergoing intense restoration work.



(FRANCE 24 with AFP)




2. 





Donald J. Trump

So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!





1:39 PM - 15 Apr 2019

14,032 Retweets 50,739 Likes MajonnieCharlottetort-s-vishnenkoiMiguelPPEjoe walgenbachAnirudh 💍💘Barbara Balintjulia ⚽️

18,489 replies 14,032 retweets 50,739 likes

Reply 18K   Retweet 14K   Like 51K   


 


New conversation


Jeff Tiedrich

 

@itsJeffTiedrich

 1h1 hour ago

More

Replying to @realDonaldTrump

"must act quickly," what awesome advice! oh my god, it's a good thing you mentioned that because otherwise the fireman would have lollygagged their way to the fire while smoking cigarettes and carrying baguettes in a little net tote as French firemen usually do. GOOD THINKING SIR


229 replies 608 retweets 6,995 likes

Reply 229   Retweet 608   Like 7.0K   Direct message


Jeffrey Guterman

;

He should just STFU.


-

Charly M.

-

Can you please teach us how to put a fire out ? We the French have no clue, we're currently blowing on it but it doesn't work. Please help us o mighty world ruler.


--

DALE

‏-

We love u president trump

-

Jack Posobiec  🇺🇸-

And during Holy Week-

 ---

FIREMAN: Chief we just got a emergency call, the Notre Dame Cathedral is on fire, should I send all our TRUCKS??


FIRE CHIEF: No, not yet. First - somebody get on Twitter and check Donald Trump's Twitter feed, he may have the answer, but be quick with it, there isn't much TIME!!!


‏--

Trump is apparently an expert at fighting Cathedral fires overseas, but when it comes to natural fires in American forests, he wants nothing to do with them.

-

You said exactly what I was thinking.  It's almost like we are twins or something.


반응형
Posted by NJ원시

댓글을 달아 주세요

정책비교/국제정치2019. 3. 2. 01:22
반응형



1. 이번 하노이 북미 회담 결과가 지지부진했던 이유는, 트럼프가 북미협상 타결을 다음 기회에 더 크게 써먹기 위해 아껴둔 것이 아니라, 내 생각에는 북한과 미국, 특히 미국 측 협상 팀이 준비를 철저하게 하지 못했다고 본다.


하노이 북미 정상 공동선언문은 이미 어느정도 작성이 되어 있었다. 그런데 막상 하노이 협상장에서, 트럼프 폼페오 존 볼튼 등이 김혁철-비건 (Biegun)협상팀이 만든 초안보다 더 많은 양보를 북한 김정은에게 요구했다. 


이것을 어떻게 해석할 것인가 ?  외교 관례를 깬 트럼프의 위용과 위대한 전술이라고 봐야 하는가? 그렇지 않다. 북한과 마찬가지로 미국 트럼프도 김정은과의 정상회담들을 통해서 적은 것이라도 성과를 내야 하는 처지에 있기 때문에, 둘 다 빈손으로 돌아간 것은 외교적 실패라고 볼 수 있다. 


아래 CNN 스테펀 콜린슨의 분석은 트럼프 외교의 문제점을 지적한 것인데, 시의성이 있다고 본다. 


2. 기사 요약 및 해설


CNN 스테펀 콜린슨이 트럼프의 국제 외교 협상능력을 비판했다. 한마디로 맨하탄 부동산 회장일 때 트럼프가 해왔던 '협상' 방식은 국가간 이익들이 걸린 국제 외교에서는 통하지 않을 수 있다는 것이다.


그리고 트럼프가 '논리'보다는 '본능'과 '감각'에 의존해 다른 나라들과 협상 (중국, 북한 등)하는 것이 문제가 있다고 지적했다.  한국계 조셉 윤도 이번 하노이 북미 회담 '협상'이 결렬된 이유로, 미국의 '준비 부족'을 지적했다. 


비지니스 세계에서 '최고 협상가'를 자처한 트럼프가 정치 세계에서는 오히려 그게 '심리적 부담' (albatross)이 될 수 있다. 이번 하노이 북미회담에서 트럼프는 전임 대통령들이 전혀 하지 못했던 일들을 해냈겠다고 했지만, 북한의 김정은은 그 예상보다 완강했다. 


트럼프는 김정은과 개인적인 친분과 사랑을 드러냈지만, 국가 이익들을 배분하는 외교협상에서는 그런 개인적인 화학작용은 한계가 있다고 지적했다. 


트럼프가 마치 부동산 거래에서 '적은 문제 (hiccup 딸꾹질)'로 인해 협상이 조금 지연되고 있는 것처럼, 이번 북한과 미국 사이 '교착' 국면을 트럼프 자기만의 협상 전술이라고 보고 있다. 그러면서 "sometimes, you have to walk 때론 협상에서 나와 버릴 필요가 있다"고 했다. 


사례 2. 미국 민주당과의 협상 실패. 멕시코와 미국 국경 사이 벽 설치 비용은 200억 달러가 든다. 민주당과 트럼프 사이 협상이 실패했다. 


사례 3. 중국과의 무역 전쟁 역시 썩 성공적이지 못하다. 중국 제품에 2000억 달러 관세를 부과한다고 엄포 놓은 이후에 한발짝 물러나 시진핑을 플로리다 자기 별장으로 다시 초대해서 미중 무역전쟁을 해결하려고 하고 있다. 

  

Trump's presidency turns into the art of the no deal

Stephen Collinson -Analysis by Stephen Collinson, CNN


Updated 9:42 AM ET, Fri March 1, 2019


How the Hanoi summit unraveled



(CNN)Donald Trump's art of the deal persona sold books like wildfire, anchored a blockbuster TV reality show and proved a potent theme for a White House run.


But it's beginning to look a house of cards on which to build a presidency.


It's not just that Trump -- fresh from a collapsed summit with North Korea's Kim Jong Un, a loss to Democrats over his border wall and a set of underwhelming new trade deals -- is not living up to his own billing.


The strategy of presenting Trump as a consummate dealmaker is becoming an albatross for the President, partly because he is operating in a domestic and international environment where there are few low-hanging deals on offer.


Democrats, with their new House majority, have little incentive to conclude joint projects that make the President look good as he seeks re-election.



And an increasingly unstable global geopolitical environment, characterized by power grabs by rising developing nations such as China and resurgent giants such as Russia, is challenging US leverage more than at any time since World War II.

Trump's disappointments dim the mystique central to his political appeal as an instinctive deal maker who can get his way through bluffing, charm and lightning business reflexes. The narrative built on the President as the master artist of the deal also threatens to keep lining him up for failure at an already fraught political moment and is creating an opening for potential 2020 opponents.


"The President treats everything like a real estate deal," former Vice President Joe Biden said in Nebraska on Thursday. " 'Just let me in the room. I can convince the other party to make a deal.' Well, it requires hard, hard, hard and consistent diplomacy."

In fact, Trump has shown more proficiency in breaking deals than making them after pulling the US out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris global climate pact and abandoning the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive multilateral trade deal.


A failure for 'reality show' diplomacy



North Korea's refusal to make concessions at the summit was especially disappointing for Trump since he had done so much to build it up, and with deepening political and legal crises back home he badly needed a win.


In the days before he met Kim, Trump predicted that the talks would be "very productive" and said on Twitter that his tyrannical friend should take advantage of the "AWESOME" economic incentives for denuclearizing.


The White House had originally scheduled a signing ceremony for after the meeting at a Hanoi hotel, raising expectations that a deal was imminent after talk over the last week of some kind of peace pact.


Before he went to Hanoi, Trump defended his approach.


"So funny to watch people who have failed for years, they got NOTHING, telling me how to negotiate with North Korea. But thanks anyway," Trump tweeted.


CNN's Kevin Liptak reported that top aides had told Trump a deal was tough to reach in Hanoi, but the President had harbored hopes that he could turn the tables. He was dismayed to find that the North Korean leader was so inflexible.


Had Trump been more aware of the tortuous history of US-North Korea negotiations, he might have concluded that Kim was behaving exactly to type.


As with other high-stakes situations during his presidency, Trump has seemed to believe his own propaganda, entering the talks convinced of his capacity to forge a deal.


For all the chummy letters he and Kim exchanged, it was a lesson that when the vital national interests of two nations clash, good personal chemistry goes only so far.


Trump's failure raises the question of whether an off-the-cuff approach, in which powerful figures huddle to thrash out a deal, is as effective in international diplomacy as it was in the Manhattan real estate game.




Kim, according to the US side, was willing to take only limited steps to dispose of his nuclear arsenal in return for a full lifting of sanctions. The North Koreans maintained they would accept a partial easing of the trade embargo in return for dismantling a key nuclear facility.


Pyongyang's tactics appeared to back up recent assessments by US intelligence agencies, which infuriated Trump, that the North would never renounce nuclear weapons completely because its leaders see them as a guarantee of regime survival.

Trump portrayed the impasse as part of a negotiating tactic, as if it were a hiccup in a real estate transaction.


"Sometimes, you have to walk," Trump told reporters in Vietnam.

Many Republicans and North Korea analysts were actually relieved, having worried that Trump might make a huge concession in his zeal for a deal, and praised him for walking away.


Democrats pounced anyway, pointing out that Trump had now invested presidential prestige in two summits with Kim and achieved little.


"What we saw in Hanoi was amateur hour with nuclear weapons at stake and the limits of reality TV diplomacy," said Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey on CNN's "Newsroom."


A thin resume on presidential deal making


Play Video


Anderson Cooper: Trump failed as a dealmaker 03:32


Trump presented himself during his election campaign in 2016 as the man to fix Washington after a lifetime of pounding rivals in the boardroom.


"I have made billions of dollars in business making deals. Now I'm going to make our country rich again," Trump said at the Republican National Convention.


Yet those mythical skills did not convince Mexico to pay for the border wall, as Trump promised at every rally. The President's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is meanwhile preparing to unveil what Trump has called "the deal of the century" to forge Middle East peace -- though most analysts believe it is dead on arrival.


And the President was comprehensively out-negotiated by Democrats using their new House majority in a government shutdown over border wall funding.


That clash revealed a flaw in the use of the deal-maker profile as an organizing principle. It was not that Trump could not get a deal -- but he found that accepting a give and take agreement with Democrats was politically untenable.


In 2018, Trump was considering a proposal that could have seen him get more than $20 billion in wall funding in return for a path to citizenship for "Dreamers" -- undocumented migrants brought to the US illegally as kids.


But because he anchored his viability as President on a minority of Americans for whom a hardline immigration policy is an almost existential issue, he had no political room to make the deal.


Months later, after the damaging shutdown drama, Trump has had to resort to a controversial national emergency declaration to try to fund his wall.


He has done a little better on trade, after renegotiated deals involving the US, Canada and Mexico and South Korea.

But his claims of huge new breakthroughs have been difficult to square with the results of negotiations that have reshaped trade deals rather than revolutionized them.


Last year, Trump proclaimed a "very big day" for free and fair trade after stepping back from a tariff war with Europe.

But the "deal" in question was mostly an undertaking to talk about working toward zero tariffs, and no permanent agreement has yet been reached.


China pact could offer redemption for Trump the deal maker


Play Video


Trump boasts about trade relationship with China 01:03


Trump's deal-making skills will next be tested in the endgame of long-running negotiations with China.

He and Chinese President Xi Jinping are under fierce domestic political pressure to drive a hard bargain. The President plans to host Xi at a summit at his Florida resort after he backed away from plans to impose tariffs this week on $200 billion in Chinese goods, citing "substantial progress."


Washington is seeking far-reaching reforms of the Chinese economy -- including to state industry subsidies -- plus it wants to halt cyber-thefts of US secrets and hopes to get new protections for US intellectual property.


It would not be an exaggeration to say a deal along these lines would be one agreement that would match Trump's hyperbolic claims of success.


Some Democrats and even some Republicans fear that Trump may be so desperate for a deal that he might be bought off with limited Chinese promises to tackle the trade deficit and to buy more US agricultural products from electorally key states that have been hit by the trade skirmishes.


It's not clear how Trump's unsuccessful opening to North Korea this week will play into the China deal. On the one hand, it could give Beijing's negotiators extra leverage since the President could be even more keen to strike an agreement that will validate his deal making prowess.


But Trump's willingness to walk away from the table with Kim could build his credibility if he threatens to take a similar approach with China.


CNN's Arlette Saenz and Annie Grayer contributed to this report.



























반응형
Posted by NJ원시

댓글을 달아 주세요

  1. 사설] 충격적인 북-미 회담 결렬, 정부가 나서 ‘불씨’ 살려야
    등록 :2019-02-28 21:12수정 :2019-02-28 22:17
    페이스북트위터공유스크랩프린트크게 작게
    ‘비핵화-상응조처’ 조합 못 찾아 실패
    협상 판 깨지지 않은 건 불행 중 다행
    정부 ‘중재력’ 발휘에 모든 힘 쏟아야
    도널드 트럼프(오른쪽) 미국 대통령과 김정은 북한 국무위원장이 28일(현지시간) 1대1 단독 정상회담을 마치고 베트남 하노이의 소피텔 레전드 메트로폴 호텔 정원에서 나란히 걷고 있다. 연합뉴스
    도널드 트럼프(오른쪽) 미국 대통령과 김정은 북한 국무위원장이 28일(현지시간) 1대1 단독 정상회담을 마치고 베트남 하노이의 소피텔 레전드 메트로폴 호텔 정원에서 나란히 걷고 있다. 연합뉴스
    세계의 이목이 집중된 가운데 베트남 하노이에서 열린 2차 북-미 정상회담이 28일 아무런 성과를 내지 못하고 결렬됐다. 아침까지만 해도 성공을 향해 순항하는 듯하던 정상회담은 오후 들어 결국 암초를 만났다. 북-미 두 정상은 아무런 합의 없이 예정됐던 합의문 서명식을 취소했다. 커다란 주목과 관심 속에 열린 정상회담이 이렇게 갑작스럽게 결렬된 것은 큰 충격이 아닐 수 없다.
    협상 결렬 책임이 누구에게 있는지 지금으로서는 명확하지 않다. 하지만 절박한 심정으로 하노이에 왔다고 밝힌 김정은 국무위원장이 먼저 회담장을 떠났을 가능성은 크지 않다. 도널드 트럼프 대통령이 “내 결정이라고 말하고 싶지는 않다”고 했지만, 미국 쪽의 원칙 고수가 김 위원장을 압박한 것으로 보인다. 트럼프 대통령은 회담 결렬 분위기와 관련해 ‘박차고 나간 것이 아니고 우호적인 분위기에서 악수하면서 끝냈다’며 다음 만남을 기약했다. 하지만 이런 상황에서 언제 다시 협상이 재개될지는 알 수 없다.
    협상 결렬의 원인이 비핵화 실행조처와 상응조처의 조합을 찾아내지 못한 데 있는 것은 분명해 보인다. 트럼프 대통령이 ‘북한이 우리가 원하는 비핵화를 해주어야만 우리도 제재 완화를 해줄 수 있다고 말했다’고 밝힌 데서도 이런 사실을 엿볼 수 있다. 미국 쪽은 영변 핵시설의 폐기 또는 동결만으로는 충분하지 않다는 입장이었던 데 반해, 김 위원장은 영변 핵시설 폐기 대가로 제재 완화를 강력하게 요구했던 것으로 보인다. 결국 이 두 사안을 놓고 마지막까지 절충점을 찾아보려 했지만 북-미 양쪽 다 물러서지 않은 것이 협상 결렬의 직접적인 원인이 됐을 것이다. 앞으로 협상이 재개된다면 북-미가 지금까지보다 훨씬 더 깊이 논의하고, 합의점을 찾기 위해 역지사지의 자세로 노력해야 함을 보여준다.
    북-미 정상회담과 비핵화 협상 진행 양상에 대한 미국 의회의 부정적인 기류도 협상 결렬에 상당한 영향을 준 것으로 보인다. 최근 들어 일부 기류 변화가 감지되기는 했지만, 워싱턴 정가는 보수와 진보를 막론하고 트럼프 대통령의 대북 협상에 의구심을 감추지 않았다. 트럼프 대통령이 정치적 궁지에서 벗어나기 위해 북한과의 협상에서 너무 많은 것을 내주지 않을까 하는 의구심이 컸다. 이런 상황에서 협상이 미흡하면 미흡한 대로 ‘스몰딜’에 머물렀다는 비판이 나올 것이 불 보듯 뻔했고, 과감한 타협을 본다 해도 북한에 지나치게 양보했다는 비난이 날아들 판이었다. 마찬가지로 북한으로서는 비핵화 실행만 하고 경제발전을 이룰 제재 완화를 해내지 못한다면, 내부의 압박에 처할 수밖에 없는 상황이다. 김 위원장은 핵을 버리고 경제에 집중하겠다는 전략적 결단을 했지만, 그렇다고 해서 체제안보의 핵심인 핵을 당장 포기하기는 쉽지 않은 일이다.
    협상 결렬 뒤 트럼프 대통령이 기자회견에서 내놓은 발언을 보면, 상황이 더 악화할 가능성은 커 보이지 않는다. 마이크 폼페이오 국무장관이 “앞으로 몇 주 내에 합의를 이뤄내길 기대한다”고 밝힌데다 트럼프 대통령이 “궁극적으로 합의를 이뤄낼 것으로 기대한다”고 밝힌 것도 협상을 재개할 뜻이 있음을 보여준다. 하지만 한번 틀어진 협상을 되살리는 데는 많은 노력이 필요하다. 만약 여기서 북-미가 결렬의 책임을 상대방에게 떠넘기며 감정적 균열을 키운다면 사태는 심각한 수준으로 악화할 수 있다.
    북-미 합의를 위해 오랫동안 공을 들여온 우리 정부도 예상치 못한 결과에 충격이 클 것이다. 하지만 마냥 주저앉아 있어서는 안 된다. 문재인 대통령이 북-미 협상의 중재자이자 촉진자로서 최대한 적극적으로 이 상황에 개입해야 한다. 협상 결렬의 여파가 길어져선 안 된다. 참으로 안타까운 일인 것은 분명하지만 이번 결렬로 협상의 판 자체가 깨진 것은 아니다. 우리 정부는 지난해 싱가포르 정상회담을 앞두고 취소된 회담을 되살려낸 바 있다. 그 경험을 살려 협상을 다시 궤도에 올리는 데 모든 노력을 다해야 한다.


    원문보기:
    http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/opinion/editorial/884105.html#csidx72eca9174320931821c22adb81625da

    2019.03.02 04:50 신고 [ ADDR : EDIT/ DEL : REPLY ]

한국정치/북한_DPRK2018. 5. 24. 18:05
반응형


May 23.2018 


CNN 슈테펀 콜린즈 기사는 뒤죽박죽이다. 논조도 동의하기 힘들다.  더군다나 우리들 정치적 목표점과도 거리가 멀다. 

(아래 내용은 콜린즈 기사 요약이 아니고 내 주관적인 견해이다)


1.슈테펀 콜린즈 분석이 별 설득력이 없는 이유들

만약 북미회담이 지리멸렬해지면 가장 손해보는 사람들은 트럼프와 김정은이다. 트럼프는 지금 북한카드를 성공적으로 수확해서 11월 중간 선거에서 민주당이건 공화당이건 반트럼프파들의 콧대를 꺾어 놓고 싶어한다.


실제 북미회담 개최로 트럼프 지지율이 올라갔다. 미국 민주당과 주류 언론도 "내로남불" 이중잣대다. 트럼프가 북핵 과실을 따먹고 있는 사실이 배가 아픈 것이다. 

 

지금 군수 자본을 대변하는 John Bolton 과 손잡고 "거 봐라 북한 못믿어"를 지속적으로 전파하는 세력들이 있다.


2. 북핵 문제의 위상과 그 특성에 대한 미국 외교가의 판단

- 미국 외교가 싱크탱크에서 나오는 중요한 이야기들 중에 하나가 "이라크, 아프가니스탄, 이란 문제보다 오히려 북한 문제가 더 풀기 쉽다. 미국이 노력하면 외교적 결실을 거둘 수 있다" 라는 설이다. 


트럼프는 이해관계 플러스 마이너스를 따지는데 있어서  다른 미국 정치가들보다 빠르게 대응한다. 트럼프는 "아 이거 비지니스 아이템 되는 김정은 놓치고 싶지 않을 것이다" 지난 2년간 트럼프 발언 내용들에서 내가 느낀 소감이다. 


3. 김정은 국무위원장 역시 북미수교를 목표로 하고 있고, 트럼프보다 훨씬 더 명료한 목표들을 갖고 나왔다. 지금까지 이미 국제정치 무대에서 스포트 라이트를 받았다. 스타는 후속타를 내놓아야 한다. 김정은이 psy 싸이도 아닌 바에 "나는 정은 스타일" 한곡 내놓고 국제 무대에서 퇴장하지 않을 것이다.

 

김정은 국무위원장은 일대일로 미국 대통령과 회담하는 것 자체가 1950년 한국전쟁 상황과 유사한 무게감이 있다. 

북한 내치에서 가장 중요한 북한 주민들의 삶의 질 향상, 이를 위한 경제발전, 과학기술의 비약적 발전을 성취하기 위해서, 하루 속히 국제 경제제재들로부터 해방 되어야 한다.


북미회담을 성공해야만 하는 절실함이 북한에도 있다. 따라서 겉으로는 외교 신경전 난타전을 벌이지만, 이번 북미회담은 구체적인 협상 단계들을 밟을 것이다.


CNN 슈테펀 콜린즈 기사는 관성적인 분석이다.




Trump's North Korea summit was a history-making gamble. Now it may not happen.


Analysis by Stephen Collinson, CNN


Updated 7:05 AM ET, Wed May 23, 2018CNN)President Donald Trump's spur-of-the-moment decision to agree to a face-to-face meeting with North Korea leader Kim Jong Un represented an unprecedented opportunity, but also a huge risk, most recently highlighted by a case of cold feet on both sides.


Anticipation about the June 12 meeting in Singapore is turning to pessimism, as the complexity of the initiative, the stark divides between Washington and Pyongyang, and inconsistencies in the White House's approach to the meeting all become clear.

First, the Kim government threatened to pull out, blaming the "repugnance" of national security adviser John Bolton and his nuclear disarmament schemes.

Now Trump has switched from dreaming of Nobel prizes to warning that there is a "very substantial chance" that the meeting will not happen next month.

    Trump is also speculating that China's President Xi Jinping, who he called a "world class poker player" on Tuesday, may be behind Kim's new hard line.

    The atmosphere has soured from the euphoric optimism with which Trump welcomed home three US prisoners from North Korea two weeks ago to doubt and uncertainty.


    There seems a good chance that the challenge coins minted by the White House Communications Agency to commemorate the summit may get left on the shelf.
    "If it doesn't happen, maybe it'll happen later. Maybe it'll happen at a different time, but we will see," Trump said, alongside South Korean President Moon Jae-in at the White House on Tuesday.

    So what is behind the sudden outburst of pessimism about what would be the most spectacular diplomatic summit in decades?

    One explanation is that both the United States and North Korea, as they get past the initial wave of enthusiasm after Trump agreed to meet Kim, are being reminded of just how intricate their differences are.
    The idea that Kim would give up a nuclear arsenal his country has spent decades acquiring and that he sees as the guarantor of his dynastic rule always struck many people who have dealt with the North Koreans as farfetched.

    The fact that goal seems so distant and could take years of painstaking negotiations to achieve after a Kim-Trump summit may be what is fueling rising skepticism among some White House officials that the summit will take place.

    It's conceivable that Kim may be realizing, as North Korea invited journalists to watch the destruction of a nuclear test site Tuesday, exactly what the kind of aggressive verification measures the US is demanding would mean for his country.

    "There is a whole lot of sites that are going to have to be shut down (and) inspected. This is going to take months and years," Michael Anton, Trump's former National Security Council spokesman, said on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront."

    Trouble

    Trump: Kim changed attitude after chat with Xi 01:02
    The first sign of trouble came when Kim made an unexpected visit to China earlier this month to meet Xi and said he was aiming for a "phased and synchronous" process that would offer North Korea step-by-step rewards for renouncing its nuclear program.

    That is exactly the approach that Trump says failed for previous administrations. This White House is telling the North Koreans they will get a bonanza of US private-sector investment only once the nuclear program is completely dismantled.

    Then last week, Bolton went on television to tout his vision for a Libya-style export by North Korea of its nuclear weapons program -- without upfront incentives.

    But when Kim hears Libya he thinks of the assassination of its longtime dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, after a NATO-led air operation in 2011 that may not have happened had he not previously given away a nuclear program that was far more rudimentary than North Korea's.

    In a bid to keep the summit on track, Trump hurriedly said last week that he was not contemplating using a Libya model for North Korea.
    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Tuesday that he was pressing ahead with plans for the summit -- and was not looking at any date other than June 12.
    "We're driving on. ... I am optimistic, but again this could be something that comes right to the end and doesn't happen," Pompeo said.

    The run-in to the summit is also being clouded by uncertainty over the shape of the administration's position. Bolton's comments have, for instance, sparked a backlash in the media and among experts in South Korea.

    The confusion is bearing out warnings by former officials that the Trump administration should have gotten its ducks in a row before agreeing to a summit.

    "We are bumbling into this summit where there is no agreement even among the members of the US administration about where this is going and what are our goals," Jamie Metzl, who served on President Bill Clinton's National Security Council, told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead."


    반응형
    Posted by NJ원시

    댓글을 달아 주세요

    정책비교/국제정치2018. 3. 5. 05:59
    반응형

    로널드 트럼프, 자선 연례 저녁식사 자리인 그리다이런 (Gridiron)에서, 언론인들과 정치인들 600명 초대해놓고 농담 작렬 (crack jokes), 언론인들 엿먹이는 행태.


    (1) “상당수가 백악관을 떠났습니다.  이 사실이야말로 정말 짜릿하고 들뜨게 하지 않냐? 왜냐하면 당신들은 새 소식들을 전달받기 원하기 때문에.  난 뒤집어엎기(turnover: 전복)를 좋아하고, 난 흐트러놓는 ‘혼돈 chaos’을 좋아한다. 백악관 사표 수리 그거 진짜 좋다. 이제 여러분이 계속해서 던질 질문은 “다음 백악관을 떠날 사람은, 누구 차례냐?, 스티브 밀러? 아니면 멜라니아?”


    (2) 재무장관 스티브 므누신과 같이 해서 영광입니다. 스티브와 그 아름다운 아내를 이 전 무대에서 봤죠. 활기 넘쳤죠.

    스티브 므누신 아내가 묻길, “내가 재정(돈)에 사인할 수 있는지 없는지를” 물었죠. 내 답변은, “스티브, 당신 권한이 많아, 그런데 당신은 그것을 실행할 수 없어, 스티브” 


    (3) 마이크 펜스 부통령이 최근 부쩍 뉴스에 촉각을 곤두세우고 있습니다. 매일 아침 다른 사람들에게 마이크 펜스가 묻는 말이 있는데 “그가 아직 탄핵당하지 않았나요?” 헤이 마이크, 당신은 탄핵당할 수 없어요. 죄짓지 않았다면. 그 점 염두해두시라고.





















    https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/04/politics/trump-best-jokes-gridiron-dinner/index.html



    Cnn:CNN)When President Donald Trump announced he would attend the annual Gridiron Club Dinner last month, many wondered whether he would be able to joke about sensitive subjects like himself and his administration.


    The dinner, hosted in Washington and attended by hundreds of journalists, is similar to the White House Corespondents' Dinner in that it is replete with roasts and laughter. But for a president who rarely provides the country with laughs -- and who opted out of attending both dinners last year -- the spotlight on his jokes at the dinner was all the brighter.


    Add to the mix his administration's struggles in some key policy areas, Trump's harshly critical tweets, and an ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election that has inched closer to Trump's orbit, and one question jumps out: Does the President ever stop to joke about it all?


    Indeed he does, as only Trump can.


    "My staff was concerned that I couldn't do self-deprecating humor," Trump said. "And I told them not to worry, nobody does self-deprecating humor better than I do."


    Before launching into a litany of humorous jokes at both his and his administration's expense, Trump told the room of journalists that even Sen. Orrin Hatch -- the Utah Republican whose over-the-top praise of Trump after the GOP passed its tax cut bill garnered him some notice -- even agreed that he is the best at self-deprecating humor.


    "Orrin said that 'Donald Trump is the best at self-deprecation in the history of America. Better than Washington and better than Lincoln,'" Trump said.


    Here are a dozen of the President's top jokes from the dinner:


    On Attorney General Jeff Sessions' refusal from the Russia investigation:


    "I offered him a ride over, and he recused himself. What are you gonna do? But that's OK."


    (gonna: going to)


    On the "failing New York Times":


    "You, The New York Times, are an icon. I'm a New York icon, you're a New York icon. And the only difference is, I still own my buildings."


    On Vice President Mike Pence's "Graham rule:":


    "The other day we were in line shaking hands with men and women, and a woman came over to shake his hand and he said, 'I'm sorry I can't do that, my wife is not here.' He's 25 years ahead of his time, folks."


    저번날 우리가 줄서서 남자들 여자들과 악수를 하고 있는데, 한 여자가 다가와서 한 남자에게 악수를 청하자, 그 남자가 답변하길 미안합니다. 악수를 할 수 없어요. 내 아내가 이 자리에 나와있지 않거든요그 남자는 25년 정도 시대를 앞선 간 사람입니다요.

     

    On talk of impeachment:


    "Lately, [Pence has been] showing a particularly keen interest in the news these days. He starts out each morning asking everyone, 'Has he been impeached yet?' Mike, you can't be impeached when there's no crime, please remember that."


    마이크 펜스 부통령이 최근 부쩍 뉴스에 촉각을 곤두세우고 있습니다. 매일 아침 다른 사람들에게 마이크 펜스가 묻는 말이 있는데 그가 아직 탄핵당하지 않았나요?” 헤이 마이크, 당신은 탄핵당할 수 없어요. 죄짓지 않았다면. 그 점 염두해두시라고.

     

    On Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and his wife, Louise Linton:


    "We're also honored to be joined by Secretary Steve Mnuchin. You saw him and his beautiful wife on stage before. A lot of energy in that room. When she asked whether or not she could sign the money, I said, 'Steve, you've got a lot to handle.' I said, 'You can't do that, Steven.'"


    재무장관 스티브 므누신과 같이 해서 영광입니다. 스티브와 그 아름다운 아내를 이 전 무대에서 봤죠. 활기 넘쳤죠.

    스티브 므누신 아내가 묻길, “내가 재정()에 사인할 수 있는지 없는지를물었죠. 내 답변은, “스티브, 당신 권한이 많아, 그런데 당신은 그것을 실행할 수 없어, 스티브

     

    On White House departures:


    "So many people have been leaving the White House. It's actually been really exciting and invigorating 'cause you want new thought. So, I like turnover. I like chaos. It really is good. Now the question everyone keeps asking is, 'Who is going to be the next to leave? Steve Miller or Melania?'


    상당수가 백악관을 떠났습니다.  이 사실이야말로 정말 짜릿하고 들뜨게 하지 않냐? 왜냐하면 당신들은 새 소식들을 전달받기 원하기 때문에.  난 뒤집어엎기(turnover: 전복)를 좋아하고, 난 흐트러놓는 혼돈 chaos’을 좋아한다. 백악관 사표 수리 그거 진짜 좋다. 이제 여러분이 계속해서 던질 질문은 다음 누구 차례냐?, 스티브 밀러? 아니면 멜라니아?”

     

    On draining the swamp:


    "And I know Mayor Mitch Landrieu feels right at home in Washington coming from Louisiana — I love Louisiana. Where's Mitch, where the [expletive] are you? I love you in Louisiana. Not too bad, right? Not bad, Mitch. But, he's used to being in that swamp. It's a beautiful swamp. I like that swamp. This swamp I hate. Not so good."


    On Dreamers and the 2020 presidential Election:


    "But we were talking about the Dreamers and quite honestly, Democrats can fantasize all they want about winning in 2020 ... those are the dreamers."


    On Kim Jong Un:


    "I won't rule out direct talks with Kim Jong Un. I just won't. As far as the risk of dealing with a madman is concerned, that's his problem, not mine. It's his problem."


    On Jared Kushner's security clearance:


    "Before I get started, I wanted to apologize for arriving a little bit late. You know, we're late tonight because Jared could not get through the security. I will tell you he is a good guy. And he has suffered. He is a great guy."


    On Omarosa Manigault-Newman:


    "As I'm sure you've seen, we're now riding very high in the polls, which is hard to believe considering I never get any good press. But, I just hit 50 in the Rasmussen poll. A lot of people said I wouldn't be able to do so well after losing my so-called chief strategist. But somehow, we're still doing great without Omarosa."


    On the "opposition party":


    "It might be hard for you to believe, but I do love gatherings like these. They give you a chance to socialize with members of the opposition party, it's very important. And it's also great to see some Democrats here also."


    반응형
    Posted by NJ원시

    댓글을 달아 주세요

    정책비교/국제정치2018. 2. 26. 22:06
    반응형

    .

    by

    Why the Common Good Disappeared (And How We Get it Back)


    The era we are living in offers too many illustrations of greed, narcissism, and hatefulness. But I don’t believe it hopeless.




    "Too many leaders in business and politics have been willing to do anything to make more money or to gain more power – regardless of the consequences for our society." (Photo: Robert Reich/ Screenshot)



    "Too many leaders in business and politics have been willing to do anything to make more money or to gain more power – regardless of the consequences for our society." (Photo: Robert Reich/ Screenshot) 






    In 1963 over 70 percent of Americans trusted government to do the right thing all or most of the time; nowadays only 16 percent do. 


    There has been a similar decline in trust for corporations. In the late 1970s, 32 percent trusted big business, by 2016, only 18 percent did. 


    Trust in banks has dropped from 60 percent to 27 percent. Trust in newspapers, from 51 percent to 20 percent.


     Public trust has also plummeted for nonprofits, universities, charities, and religious institutions.



    Why this distrust? As economic inequality has widened, the moneyed interests have spent more and more of their ever-expanding wealth to alter the rules of the game to their own advantage. 



    Too many leaders in business and politics have been willing to do anything to make more money or to gain more power – regardless of the consequences for our society. 


    We see this everywhere – in the new tax giveaway to big corporations, in gun manufacturer’s use of the NRA to block gun controls, in the Koch Brother’s push to roll back environmental regulations, in Donald Trump’s profiting off his presidency. 

    No wonder much of the public no longer believes that America’s major institutions are working for the many. Increasingly, they have become vessels for the few.


    The question is whether we can restore the common good. Can the system be made to work for the good of all? 

    Some of you may feel such a quest to be hopeless. The era we are living in offers too many illustrations of greed, narcissism, and hatefulness. But I don’t believe it hopeless.


    Almost every day I witness or hear of the compassion of ordinary Americans – like the thousands who helped people displaced by the wildfires in California and floods in Louisiana;

     like the two men in Seattle who gave their lives trying to protect a young Muslim woman from a hate-filled assault;

     like the coach who lost his life in Parkland, Florida, trying to shield students from a gunman; 

    like the teenagers who are demanding that Florida legislators take action on guns.  



    The challenge is to turn all this into a new public spiritedness extending to the highest reaches in the land – a public morality that strengthens our democracy, makes our economy work for everyone, and revives trust in the major institutions of America. 

    We have never been a perfect union; our finest moments have been when we sought to become more perfect than we had been. We can help restore the common good by striving for it and showing others it’s worth the effort. 


    I started my career a half-century ago in the Senate office of Robert F. Kennedy,  when the common good was well understood, and I’ve watched it unravel over the last half-century. 


    Resurrecting it may take another half century, or more. But as the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once said, “Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope.“



    Robert Reich

    Robert Reich, is the Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, and Time magazine named him one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the 20th century. He has written 14 books, including the best-sellers AftershockThe Work of NationsBeyond Outrage and, most recently, Saving Capitalism. He is also a founding editor of The American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and co-creator of the award-winning documentary INEQUALITY FOR ALL.


    반응형
    Posted by NJ원시

    댓글을 달아 주세요

    정책비교/국제정치2017. 10. 12. 17:22
    반응형


    Oct 12. 2017. Robert Reich's Facebook:


    This morning I phoned my old friend, a Republican former member of Congress.

    Me: So what’s up? Is Corker alone, or are others also ready to call it quits with Trump?

    He: All I know is they’re simmering over there.

    Me: Flake and McCain have come pretty close.

    He: Yeah. Others are thinking about doing what Bob did. Sounding the alarm. They think Trump’s nuts. Unfit. Dangerous.

    Me: Well, they already knew that, didn’t they?

    He: But now it’s personal. It started with the Sessions stuff. Jeff was as loyal as they come. Trump’s crapping on him was like kicking your puppy. And then, you know, him beating up on Mitch for the Obamacare fiasco. And going after Flake and the others.

    Me: So they're pissed off?

    He: Not just that. I mean, they have thick hides. The personal stuff got them to notice all the other things. The wild stuff, like those threats to North Korea. Tillerson would leave tomorrow if he wasn’t so worried Trump would go nuclear, literally.

    Me: You think Trump is really thinking nuclear war?

    He: Who knows what’s in his head? But I can tell you this. He’s not listening to anyone. Not a soul. He’s got the nuclear codes and, well, it scares the hell out of me. It’s starting to scare all of them. That’s really why Bob spoke up.

    Me: So what could they do? I mean, even if the whole Republican leadership was willing to say publicly he’s unfit to serve, what then?

    He: Bingo! The emperor has no clothes. It’s a signal to everyone they can bail. Have to bail to save their skins. I mean, Trump could be the end of the whole goddam Republican party.

    Me: If he starts a nuclear war, that could be the end of everything.

    He: Yeah, right. So when they start bailing on him, the stage is set.

    Me: For what?

    He: Impeachment. 25th amendment.

    Me: You think Republicans would go that far?

    He: Not yet. Here’s the thing. They really want to get this tax bill through. That’s all they have going for them. They don’t want to face voters in ’18 or ’20 without something to show for it. They’re just praying Trump doesn’t do something really, really stupid before the tax bill.

    Me: Like a nuclear war?

    He: Look, all I can tell you is many of the people I talk with are getting freaked out. It’s not as if there’s any careful strategizing going on. Not like, well, do we balance the tax bill against nuclear war? No, no. They’re worried as hell. They’re also worried about Trump crazies, all the ignoramuses he’s stirred up. I mean, Roy Moore? How many more of them do you need to destroy the party?

    Me: So what’s gonna happen?

    He: You got me. I’m just glad I’m not there anymore. Trump’s not just a moron. He’s a despicable human being. And he’s getting crazier. Paranoid. Unhinged. Everyone knows it. I mean, we’re in shit up to our eyeballs with this guy.

    반응형
    Posted by NJ원시

    댓글을 달아 주세요

    정책비교/국제정치2017. 3. 20. 13:01
    반응형

    2017. march 17.

    독일 정부는  독일은 나토 분담금을 더 내야 한다는 미국 트럼프 대통령의 주장을 수용하지 않았다. 


    트럼트는 18일 토요일, 자신의 트위터에다 “독일은 나토에 돈을 더 내야 할 상황이다. 왜냐하면 미국이 독일을 위해서 아주 강력하고 비용이 많이 드는 국방력을 제공하고 있기 때문이다”라고 썼다.

    독일 국방비는 나토 회원국 GDP의 2% 목표치에 계속해서 도달하지 못했다. 


    독일 국방부 장관 우르슐라 폰 데 레이엔은 토요일에 이렇게 발표했다. “나토 회원국들 중에 분담금을 내지 않는 채무국가는 없다. GDP의 2%를 나토 분담금으로 내야한다는 규정을 오직 나토 회원국에 강요하는 것도 옳지 않다” 


    기사 참고: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/germany-rejects-trump-nato/



    (기자들이 서로 악수하라고 요청하자, 메르켈이 '악수할까요?' 하고 말했으나, 트럼프는 듣지 못한 척 딴전을 피우자, 메르켈이 어이없어 하는 표정이다)


    (교훈) 한미동맹을 강조하면서 한국 국민들 의사에 반하는 싸드(THHAD) 배치를 자기 멋대로 해버리는 미국의 태도를 어떻게 볼 것인가?


    나토 우방 국가인 독일도 자기 주권에 근거해 미국 트럼프에게 할 말은 하지 않는가?





    반응형
    Posted by NJ원시

    댓글을 달아 주세요

    정책비교/국제정치2016. 11. 9. 17:20
    반응형

    5분 전, 미 민주당 대선 후보 힐러리 클린턴이 도널드 트럼프에게 전화를 걸어, 미 대선 패배를 인정했다.


    위스컨신 주에서 도널드 트럼프가 이겨 당선에 필요한 선거인단 숫자 270을 넘어 276이 된 이후, 힐러리 클린턴이 도널드 트럼프에게 전화를 걸어 선거 패배를 인정했다. 


    도널드 트럼프는 그 동안 힐러리 클린턴이 미국을 위해 공직생활을 한 것에 대해서 감사한다고 말했다.


    선거 승리 이후, 도널드 트럼프는 민주당, 공화당, 무당파 독립파 등으로 분열된 미국인들을 하나로 통합시키겠다고 말했다. 그리고 특유의 미국 백인 남자들의 허세를 곁들여 "아...이번 선거, 정치라는 게 거칠고 역겨운 일이었다 Political stuff is nasty, and tough"라고 말하기도 했다. 




    대통령 선거 결과 :




    상원 투표 : 공화당 승리 




    하원 투표 : 공화당 승리





    https://www.washingtonpost.com/?reload=true



    (참고 자료: NBC 뉴스 중계) 




    2:48 AM

    November 9 by Colby Itkowitz

    Clinton called Trump to concede

    Shortly after Wisconsin was called for Donald Trump, putting him over the 270 threshold needed to win the White House, Hillary Clinton called him to concede the election, The Washington Post has confirmed.


    Donald Trump confirmed the phone call in his speech, congratulating her on her campaign.


    “We owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country,” Trump said.



    (트럼트가 이번 선거에서 가장 많이 말한 단어들 중에 하나가, "열심히 일하는 미국 남자 a hard working man" 이었다. 2차 세계대전 이후부터 80년대 초반까지 잘 살았던 시절, 열심히 일해서 돈벌어 가족을 먹여 살리는 백인 남자들의 꿈을 말한 것이다.) 




    반응형
    Posted by NJ원시

    댓글을 달아 주세요