++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If there is any government department that needs a total overhaul it is State. Our Diplomats have been consistently on the wrong side of history, operate as a tenured fraternity that protects those who are in agreement with the ones above them and has an Arabist tilt that has helped to perpetuate policies which have kept us energy dependent on Sheikdoms that will eventually collapse.
Lifson believes he knows why Trump is courting Romney. Perhaps Romney would be more effective than Bolton, who would be my choice. As for Rudy, I would appoint him to The Supreme Court to fill Scalia's seat. (See 1 below.)
AND
Newt has been there, been successful and offers some sound advice.
While I lived in Atlanta, I got to know Newt. He loves Peter Drucker and referred to him time and again. Newt is correct in the advice he is giving. Focus, focus, focus on a few critical matters and build upon successes that are doable.
There are two scenarios that could evolve.
First, if Republicans fail to support Trump by engaging in intra-party warfare and thereby blow the opportunity for meaningful and long overdue change they will rue the day.
Second, should the Demwits become obstructionists, Republicans must rise, challenge the gauntlet and "slay" the Schumer/Pelosi led Demwits. They must not buckle or they will also rue the day. (See 1a below.)
===
There really is no reason for the Federal Government to intrude itself in education and one would hope Ms. DeVos would slowly gut the department but I doubt she will. Therefore, at least she appears to be a proponent of charter schools and focusing on students being educated rather than protecting unions who have shown little interest in doing so. We have allowed PC'ism to take over course curriculae and this must stop (See 2 below.)
+++
As I have said on enumerable instances, Liberals engage in discrimination, smear- trashing tactics and politics of personality. If Sen. Sessions is a racist then my father and Hugo Black were racists. (See 3 below.)
+++
This worthwhile article was referred to me by a neighbor. It provides another side of Steve Bannon and confirms what I have heard and read from others.
What I find interesting is more has been written about Bannon, in a few weeks and we have learned who knew him at Harvard etc. than what we know and/or have learned about Obama after 8 years. (See 4 below.)
+++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1).Why Trump is courting Romney for the State Department
By Thomas Lifson
All the brouhaha over the alleged rifts within the Trump transition over Mitt Romney misses the point. I think it is theatre, a distraction by the same man who was able to direct media attention where he wanted it all throughout the campaign.
Donald Trump has a plan that eludes his critics, who can't help thinking about politics the way it has always been played and still do not grasp his thinking nor the range of new tools he brings to the presidency.
The Department of State is badly broken and desperately needs to be fixed. State requires fundamental restructuring as well as the departure of many entrenched figures whose goals and beliefs are antagonistic to realistic confrontation with Islamic jihad and the generations-long efforts of Muslim states to "wipe Israel off the map." The State Department is full of people called "Arabists," who instinctively blame Israel when it is attacked and defends itself and who presume that the U.S. should attend to the prejudices of hundreds of millions of Arab Muslims because they are so populous, and because they have oil and have funded an amazing number of sinecures for retired bureaucrats with generous compensation and few demands (other than reflexive support whenever an issue arises).
This is just a start on enumerating the problems, for the Middle East is not the only problem ahead, merely the oldest. There are serious issues with Russia, China, North Korea, and Venezuela, among major problems for U.S. diplomacy.
Arnold Cusmariu today makes the case that John Bolton is the man to reform the State Department while implementing President-Elect Trump's policies. I am a great admirer of Bolton and would be happy if he were to get the job. But even though I am much closer to Bolton's politics than Mitt Romney's, the former governor's skill set seems ideal for the job ahead.
First of all, my assumption is that when he assumes the presidency, Donald Trump will largely make foreign policy from the White House, a move with much precedent. He would do this by using the National Security Council staff, who do not require Senate confirmation, and who can operate quicker and more flexibly than the barnacle-encrusted State Department protocols allow.
Mitt Romney as secretary of state would focus not on policy, but on doing to the State Department what he has done to poorly performing companies: close down entire segments of the organization and reorganize what the survivors do around re-thought goals and procedures. This is a formidable art, and one that Romney is an acknowledged master of, thanks to his many years at Bain Capital, buying companies and turning them around. He has deep experience in refocusing on what matters most and the most effective ways to accomplish the redefined priorities.
It helps a lot to be a total stranger if you are making ruthless cuts. Bolton's experience at the State Department could be a plus in many ways, but also his human relationships could be an obstacle for sweeping change. He would be only a phone call away from Romney, were the latter to need his advice. The portrait of Romney painted by the Obama campaign in 2012 could be turned to advantage if State Department employees started sending out their résumés in anticipation of Mitt the Knife forcing them out.
Donald Trump has endured a certain amount of mockery for saying that Romney "looks like" a secretary of state, but I take the remark as an indication that he intends to make unprecedented use of the media in his foreign policy (and everywhere else in his administration). Remember that he understands reality television's appeal better than anyone else in politics. And for better or worse, a sizable chunk – probably a majority – of the public apprehends politics at the level of TV drama, with heroes and villains, and especially with victims.
Donald Trump is spending a lot of time with Mitt Romney, and the two are to dine together. I think this suggests that the president-elect is using his formidable persuasion powers to explain to Mitt what the job he has in mind will look like and solicit Romney's formidable intelligence and experience in the task ahead.
The master showman is also a master persuader (hat tip: Scott Adams). I think he has big plans for big changes at State, and he thinks Romney is the guy to do it.
There are three fundamental challenges to any effort to transform Washington.
I learned these principles from working with President Reagan on dramatic change in the 1980s and then leading the Contract with America with its deep changes (first GOP majority in 40 years, welfare reform, the only four balanced budgets in your lifetime, the largest capital gains tax cut in history, etc.)
The principles I learned working with Reagan and applied as Speaker seem to be universal for those who would enact deep, profound changes. They are:
1. The "normal" will try to convince the leader to be "reasonable".
2. Solving symptoms feels satisfying and is an easy substitute for solving the real, underlying problems.
3. The urgent drives out the important.
Let me explain each.
First, the "normal" will try to convince the leader to be reasonable. I remember on election night of 1994 when we had won the House for the first time since 1952. At about 2:00 AM, our key supporters--people who had spent years of their life working for a Republican majority--sat around discussing the historic victory. Their number one fear was that I would go to Washington and be talked into behaving "normally." They knew that the lobbyists, the news media, the socialites, the bureaucracy and the old order would gather together to "tame" the revolutionary reform effort of the American people.
That Friday, three days after the election, I spoke at The Heritage Foundation and shocked the Washington media by declaring, “I will cooperate but I will not compromise.” This formula was a direct attack on the Washington assumption that campaign promises are cynically made to win votes but after the election "responsible" people forget those words and get back to governing as insiders.
If we had listened to the Washington establishment, we would never have reformed welfare, balanced the budget or cut capital gains taxes.
President-elect Trump should get up every day and begin by looking at his own campaign promises. He owes his presidency to the people who believed in him, not to the courtiers and schmoozers who had contempt for him as candidate but adore him now that he is going to be president.
“Reasonableness” will be the death of Trumpism. The very essence of the Trump candidacy was a willingness to set out new policies, new goals, and new toughness that was “unreasonable” to Washington but made perfect sense to millions of Americans. President Trump should “unreasonably” insist on draining the swamp and changing policies. This is why he was elected.
Second, there will be so many symptoms of problems that a president could satisfyingly spend every day focusing on little problems that require little solutions. While that approach will yield many small satisfactions, however, it will not produce the profound changes that are needed. Peter Drucker warned of this tendency to allow surface symptoms to attract our attention. In The Effective Executive (a book every Trump appointee should be required to read), Drucker wrote that great leaders look below the symptom to find the real problem. Getting rid of one bad bureaucrat may be satisfying, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. Other bad bureaucrats will show up. Overhauling the bureaucracy so that it quits producing bad bureaucrats and starts producing good civil servants is a reform that could last a lifetime.
President-elect Trump and his senior team have to acquire the habit of asking of every situation “Is this a symptom, or a problem?” If it is symptom, they must take some time to look for the real underlying problem. When they solve that problem they will have solved orders of magnitude more symptoms.
Third, Washington is a city in which the urgent drives out the important. Senator Jesse Helms first taught me this. He saw me on the street one day early in my career and said, “Young man, remember that this is a city in which the urgent drives out the important. Your job is to get up every morning, place the important at the center of your desk, and work on it until the urgent overwhelms it.”
As I thought about Helms’s rule and watched President Reagan, I realized he had developed an antelope-and-chipmunk theory of leading.
Lions know that they cannot afford to hunt chipmunks because even if they capture them, they will starve to death.
Lions have to hunt antelopes and zebras.
President Reagan was a lion. He wanted to accomplish big things. He knew that meant he could not get bogged down by tiny problems (chipmunks).
President Reagan got up every morning and reminded himself of his three antelopes: defeat the Soviet Union, grow the American economy, and renew American civic culture so we would be proud to be American again.
When President Reagan entered the oval office, chipmunks would come running in. Some federal chipmunks can be $10 billion or more. Reagan would listen patiently and say "You are a fine chipmunk! Have you met my chief of staff?" Jim Baker became the largest chipmunk collector in the world.
President-elect Trump has to pick between three and five antelope he wants to hunt. He should focus on them relentlessly.
He should work out with Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and senior strategist Steve Bannon how they are going to divide up the chipmunks.
Only with a system like this can the new president avoid having the urgent and the trivial overwhelm his ability to focus on the essential changes that will make his presidency historic.
Developing Trumpism as a governing system is going to be an enormous job.
Moving America from decay to dynamic growth is going to be an enormous job.
Draining the swamp in Washington is going to be an enormous job.
President Reagan proved it could be done.
These three principles will help get it done.
Newt
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Why Trump’s Education Pick Scares Unions
By JASON L. RILEY
2) Why Trump’s Education Pick Scares Unions
Betsy DeVos favors school choice and helped pass Michigan’s first charter-school bill.
By JASON L. RILEY
Ms. DeVos is chairwoman of the American Federation for Children, an organization dedicated to helping parents choose the best school for their kids. Ms. Weingarten leads the American Federation of Teachers, which is focused on what’s best for the adults.
Detractors say Ms. DeVos is opposed to public education. But she told an interviewer in 2013 that her definition of educational choice includes schools of all kinds. “What we are trying to do is tear down the mindset that assigns students to a school based solely on the zip code of their family’s home,” she said. “We think of the educational choice movement as involving many parts: vouchers and tax credits, certainly, but also virtual schools, magnet schools, homeschooling, and charter schools.” In the early 1990s, Ms. DeVos and her husband, a former president of Amway, were involved in passing Michigan’s first charter-school bill.
Ms. Weingarten brings a different set of priorities to the education debate. She has fought to keep persistently failing schools open because they still provide jobs for her dues-paying members. She has fought to ensure that government officials, rather than parents, decide where a child attends school. Union influence over education policy in the U.S. is unrivaled, and Ms. Weingarten prefers it that way. Her top concern is better pay and working conditions for her members. Students don’t pay union dues.
That doesn’t make her a bad person, but it should cast doubt on claims, too often swallowed whole by education reporters, that union interests are perfectly aligned with those of students and families. A union-negotiated work rule that says teachers can’t be evaluated by how much their students learn is a job-protection measure, but it obviously harms kids and school quality.
Education philanthropists often work to accommodate the teachers unions. Ms. DeVos chose to fight them head on by backing political candidates who support school choice, the same way unions support candidates who don’t.
Michael Petrilli, a veteran of George W. Bush’s Education Department who now runs the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, wrote last week that the DeVos pick shows Mr. Trump’s seriousness. “She was one of the first people in ed-reform to understand that we weren’t going to beat the teachers unions with op-eds and policy papers,” he wrote. “She pushed the private school choice movement to invest in serious political giving much earlier than the mainstream reform groups did, and, so far, with far greater success.” In the 2016 election, the American Federation for Children invested in 121 races in 12 states and won 89% of them.
Mr. Trump clearly has tapped a fighter, and education reformers are thrilled. The school voucher program in Washington, D.C., that President Obama has spent two terms working to shut down—at the urging of the unions, natch—is likely to flourish under the new administration. Mr. Obama and his Education Department supported charter schools but not vouchers. Ms. DeVos embraces school choice writ large, and states interested in expanding educational options for low-income families will proceed knowing that Washington has their back.
Mr. Obama tended to regulate what he couldn’t legislate, and education policy was no exception. The administration imposed its will from Washington in areas traditionally left to the states—from Common Core curriculum standards, to bathroom rules for transgender students, to race-based school discipline policies. With any luck Ms. DeVos will promptly end this meddling.
Reformers are also hoping that the Trump administration learns from the past. To the dismay of many conservatives, George W. Bush greatly expanded the role of the federal government in K-12 schooling through the No Child Left Behind Act. Insisting that school districts break down test results by subgroup—low income, special education, racial minorities—increased transparency. But rewarding and punishing school districts based on yearly progress was overreach that even some who supported the law now regret. It legitimized a more muscular role in education for the feds.
Mr. Trump has proposed a $20 billion federal voucher program that students could use to attend public or private schools. But this idea presents similar hazards. Federal dollars will bring federal regulations, and reform-minded individuals like Betsy DeVos won’t forever be in charge of implementing them. Better to let the states lead on school choice. Now that Republicans control 33 governorships and both legislative chambers in 32 states, what’s stopping them?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) The Racist Smear Against Jeff Sessions
Trump’s pick for attorney general spent a decade trying to fix disparities in drug sentencing.
By QUIN HILLYER
The accusations stem from Mr. Sessions’s unsuccessful nomination for a federal judgeship in 1986. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted down that nomination after hearing testimony about remarks Mr. Sessions had purportedly made in the early 1980s that were deemed racially insensitive. Throughout three intervening decades of public life, Mr. Sessions hasn’t evinced an iota of racial animus. Yet Democrats are clucking that the now-ancient incidents—disputed even then as taken wholly out of context—should disqualify Mr. Sessions from being attorney general.
What should be far more relevant is a conversation Mr. Sessions had, and a legislative course he pursued, after being elected to the Senate in 1996. My small part of that story begins two years later on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.
In 1998 I arrived in Mobile, Ala., to write editorials for the daily Register newspaper—and I held my own private doubts about Sen. Sessions. As a self-styled “Jack KempRepublican” determined to expel vestigial racism from the conservative movement, I had been a founding board member of the Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism. That was a group formed in 1989 to end the then-ascendant political career of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. I was thus naturally wary of Sen. Sessions, who supposedly had told a joke making light of the Klan’s evils.
On my first reporting trip for the Register to Washington, D.C., I requested interviews with both of Alabama’s senators. The timing was bad—lawmakers were in session—but Mr. Sessions’s press aide said the senator was eager to talk. I was instructed to meet him, between votes, on the Capitol steps.
Long story short, Sen. Sessions was on a mission. He wanted somebody, anybody, to write about the importance of American policy toward Colombia. That U.S. ally was at risk of being toppled by the narco-financed, communist guerrillas known by the acronym FARC.
It was a subject far from my interests. But Mr. Sessions put the stakes in memorable context. The senator can be a discursive speaker, but he kept returning to a central contention: FARC-allied drug lords were responsible for much of the cocaine that polluted the American streets. As a former federal prosecutor, he was concerned about the violent crime accompanying the cocaine scourge.
He spoke about addicts and criminals not with vilification, but with compassion. “You’ve got these poor guys in the inner city,” I remember him saying. “Nobody provided them much of an education; they can’t find a job; and somebody tells them they can get high for relatively cheap by smoking these crack rocks. They get addicted and they do something terrible and end up in jail and their lives get ruined. We’ve gotta help our Colombian allies defeat these drug lords at the source, where they grow this stuff. It’s just ruining all these lives.”
It was this same train of thought—compassion for the users of crack cocaine—that led Sen. Sessions to introduce the Drug Sentencing Reform Act in 2001. The law at the time punished crack cocaine 100 times more harshly than powdered cocaine. Mr. Sessions specifically argued that this created unfair racial disparities, since crack was the drug of poor inner cities, while powder was favored by white Wall Streeters. Such compassion for black addicts is far from a hallmark of someone motivated by racial animus.
Early on, advancing the bill was slow going. It was too easy for sentencing reform to be mischaracterized as soft-on-crime leniency, a political death knell. But Sen. Sessions, with mostly Democratic allies initially, kept pushing. As my intermittent conversations with him over the next nine years demonstrated, it was a passion of his. Mr. Sessions was tough on crime, but he seemed troubled to the core by the thought of sentencing injustice, especially with a racial component.
Finally, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, reducing the disparity. Mr. Sessions was one of the bill’s three lead authors—a testament to his doggedness in the pursuit of equal justice.
In 18 years of closely covering Sen. Sessions (including numerous off-the-record conversations), I’ve never heard a mean word from his lips or seen a single sign that raised my Kempian hackles. Mr. Sessions has now served 20 years in the Senate. No racist could keep bigotry closeted for so long. And none, surely, would work so hard, risking political capital, to fix sentencing laws that had proved in application to be racially discriminatory.
Mr. Hillyer is a columnist in Mobile, Ala.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Harvard classmates barely recognize the Bannon of today