From anguish to aggression: Trump goes on offense after midair collision
After TWA Flight 800 crashed in New York in 1996, U.S. President Bill Clinton asked "every American not to jump to conclusions' about what brought it down and declared it time "to pull together and work together.'
Five years later, when American Airlines Flight 587 fell out of the sky, President George W. Bush predicted that the "resilient and strong and courageous people' of New York would get through the tragedy. In 2009, after a Colgan Air plane crashed near Buffalo, New York, President Barack Obama said that "tragic events such as these remind us of the fragility of life.'
And then there was President Donald Trump. In the wake of this week's midair collision near Washington, Trump was more than happy to jump to conclusions and pull the country apart rather than together. After declaring it to be an "hour of anguish for our nation,' Trump just five minutes later let anguish give way to aggression as he blamed diversity policies promoted by Obama and former President Joe Biden for the crash, which killed 67 people.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
22 minutes ago
- Japan Times
On economic policy, the White House is its own worst enemy
The path of U.S. politics over the past 10 years is scarcely believable — and keeps getting weirder. A miraculously successful amateur politician, now half a year into his second term in the White House, isn't content to take his wins and count his achievements. Instead, he seems eager to bring the ceiling down on his own head. Meantime, his career-politician opponents aren't just failing to hold him to account, they are doing what they can to shield him from falling debris. Forgive the median voter for being disgusted, bewildered or both. If systemic political failure is possible, this must surely be what it looks like. Consider a recent poll in the Wall Street Journal. On issue after issue they care most about, voters say they trust Republicans more than Democrats — yet, at the same time, they disapprove of the way the administration is managing them. Voters prefer Republicans to Democrats on the economy, inflation, immigration, tariffs, foreign policy and Ukraine. Yet on each of those topics, there's net disapproval of the president's initiatives. In particular, "51% say the change he is bringing is a form of chaos and dysfunction that will hurt the country. By contrast, 45% agree with the alternative statement that he is making needed and helpful changes.' The implication for both political parties might seem clear. The White House needs to calm down and choose consolidation, not further controversy and "chaos.' And the Democratic Party needs to dump (not just downplay) its plainly unpopular positions and concentrate on projecting competence and moderation. They're both doing just the opposite. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could suspect each party of planting agents in the other, secretly dedicated to guiding the enemy to defeat. I'd be deeply impressed by the skill of these covert operatives, instead of stunned by the parade of willful political dysfunction. To be fair, in wrenching itself in a new direction, the Democratic Party has structural problems: zero leadership and activists who'd rather lose than compromise. That's challenging. The Republicans' dysfunction is more puzzling. They have a leader, to put it mildly, and he delights in winning above all. Yet Trump is willing to put his record of seemingly impossible political wins at risk for little or no return. On immigration, clear majorities agree that the border should be secure, there's a difference between legal and illegal immigration, and some of the millions of people who came to the U.S. illegally (especially those guilty of other offenses) should be sent home. Merely by committing itself to this, the administration defeated the Democrats. But clear majorities don't support rounding up any and all such violators regardless of their circumstances — without regard for due process — and using a hurriedly expanded force of masked enforcement officers and opaque network of makeshift, ostentatiously punitive detention centers. Resorting to such methods seems a good way for the administration to lose an argument that it had won. The same goes for economic policy. As it intended, the White House has successfully dismantled the postwar trading system and moved the U.S. into a new regime of discriminatory tariffs and managed trade. The recent Big Beautiful tax-and-spending bill abandoned all pretense of fiscal prudence and accelerated the trajectory of unsustainable public debt. Yet despite warnings of inevitable disaster, the S&P 500 continues to set records, seeming to validate Trump's thinking. So far, at least, another big political win. The political threat to this new economic regime isn't its long-term consequences — which in any case are uncertain. Large forces are in contention. Will the push to growth and productivity from AI-driven innovation, less regulation and generous tax relief for investment overpower the pull of tariff-driven stagflation, ill-conceived industrial policy and the crowding out of investment due to excessive government borrowing? Hard to say. But the debate about those questions will last well beyond the current administration. The politically salient threat to Trump's economic policies is short-term disruption in financial markets — the risk that Wall Street will stop applauding Trump, turn against him and drive the economy into a recession. As with immigration, the conduct of economic policy might have been calculated to sabotage the whole enterprise. Name three things capable of provoking a financial-market veto while delivering no offsetting benefit. How about stoking endless uncertainty over future tariffs, kneecapping the Federal Reserve's operational independence and undermining trust in official statistics? Done, done and done. Trump has escalated his unwarranted attacks on Fed Chair Jerome Powell (whom he appointed back in 2018), going as far as to drum up accusations of impropriety over the central bank's renovation of its headquarters. Just recently, he appointed Stephen Miran, a key thinker behind Trumpist heterodoxy, to a temporary position on the Fed's board, while the search for a suitably compliant successor to Powell proceeds. Doesn't it serve Trump's purposes to install a servant at the Fed? No, it doesn't. For a start, the idea that the Fed is scheming to defeat Trump's broader policy agenda is preposterous. Even if an obedient Fed were to deliver the much lower policy-rate that the president thinks appropriate, this wouldn't necessarily lower the interest rates he cares about — mortgage rates, cost of credit and long-term borrowing. It's much more likely that ending the Fed's perceived independence (to say nothing of a big cut in the policy rate with inflation still above target) would push market-driven rates higher. Politically, attacking the Fed is all risk and no return. Installing a follower at the Fed looks almost reasonable compared to firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics on patently specious grounds. The president accused Erika McEntarfer of rigging the July jobs figures released on Aug. 1, because they included unusually big downward revisions for May and June. It's hard to see how McEntarfer could have rigged the numbers even if she'd wanted to. Revisions happen and they're apt to be bigger when sectoral demands for labor are shifting a lot (as they are now, thanks to tariffs and the crackdown on illegal workers) and when the agency is short of the resources it needs to gather data (as it is, thanks to the drive to cut government workers). For sure, the agency needs to improve its methods and keep the revisions as small as possible — goals made harder by the administration's dismantling of the panel of unpaid technical experts responsible for doing so. To repeat, I'm fairly sure a Democrat saboteur hasn't tunneled into the White House — but the true explanation evades me. As with attacking the Fed, firing the head of the BLS to install a follower whose independence will be questioned is all risk and no return. Planting the suspicion that employment and inflation numbers might be manipulated would add a further premium to long-term interest rates. And as such doubts accumulate, so does the risk of a "Trump moment' for financial markets — with no short-term political benefit, beyond dominating the headlines, in exchange. On immigration, trade, the Fed and the integrity of official data, the White House seems determined to cast aside its successes and take risks that serve no purpose. To be sure, for as long as financial markets allow, the president will probably keep on winning — you know, because the Democrats. How such a great country wound up with such politicians, I cannot fathom. Look on their works, median voters, and despair. Clive Crook is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and member of the editorial board covering economics.
The Mainichi
4 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Editorial: Is Trump pushing Russian strategy in quest to settle war in Ukraine?
U.S. President Donald Trump recently met his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy and proposed a solution for the war with Russia. The proposal, however, is disadvantageous to Ukraine, the victim of aggression, raising questions about whether it could lead to fair and just peace. What comes into focus is how to achieve a ceasefire and peace, as well as what concrete steps to take for "security guarantees" to prevent Russia's reinvasion of Ukraine. Amid its inferior standing, Ukraine, alongside its European allies, has called for an immediate ceasefire. Trump once agreed to this, but made a turnaround following last week's bilateral summit talks with Russia, prioritizing efforts to achieve peace. This means the Russian offensive against Ukraine could continue until negotiations are settled. Furthermore, Trump appeared to accept Russian President Vladimir Putin's proposal demanding Ukraine withdraw its troops from two eastern regions and cede them to the aggressor. Given the fact the Ukrainian military controls 30% of Donetsk, one of the two regions, the proposal is obviously in favor of Moscow. It is only natural that Zelenskyy has rejected the proposal, claiming that constitutional provisions prohibit territorial transfers or deals. It is worth noting that Trump announced his country's commitment to security guarantees for Ukraine. A framework akin to the right to collective self-defense as defined by NATO is envisaged. While Trump had initially expressed reservations about the initiative, he shifted his stance after Putin did not oppose it during their recent meeting. Trump, however, has not specified how far the U.S. will get involved. To begin with, he has been ambiguous about the obligation to exercise the right to collective defense in the event a NATO member state comes under attack. He must ensure that the security guarantees are viable. What must not be overlooked is that Trump's proposals align with Russia's assertions. With U.S. cooperation essential in continuing the war, Ukraine cannot openly object to Trump. Alarmed, European leaders accompanied Zelenskyy to attend some of the meetings in Washington, yet the best they could do was to ask for keeping pressure on Russia. The war must be quickly brought to an end. But if the U.S. is to fall for a Russian ploy just as Trump is eager to achieve success, it will lead to future problems. It is unacceptable for the president to impose superpower logic.
The Mainichi
4 hours ago
- The Mainichi
White House launches TikTok account amid easing tensions with China
WASHINGTON (Kyodo) -- The White House on Tuesday launched an official TikTok account despite U.S. lawmakers deciding the popular short-form video-sharing app owned by a Chinese company is a national security concern. The launch, seemingly aimed at helping President Donald Trump reach wider and younger audiences, comes amid easing tensions with China and less than a month before a deadline requiring TikTok's Chinese owner ByteDance Ltd. to sell the app or face a federal ban. In April 2024, Trump's predecessor Joe Biden signed a federal law requiring ByteDance to sell the U.S. version of TikTok or face a nationwide ban on national security grounds following its passage with bipartisan congressional support. The ban was supposed to have taken effect in January, but Trump has repeatedly pushed back the deadline since taking office the same month, offering more time for the Chinese company to find a Washinton-approved buyer. In June, Trump signed an executive order for the most recent extension, which ends on Sept. 17.
