Was the Singapore Summit nothing, or bad, or the worst thing ever? This is the question we debate. We also examine the meaning of the primary defeat of Republican anti-Trumper Mark Sanford and what this portends for the GOP. Give a listen.

Subscribe to Commentary Magazine Podcast in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

There are 8 comments.

  1. Lincoln

    As far as crazy presidential statements, what about “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe” by Gerald Ford. I bet it wouldn’t be too hard to find more outrageous comments as well.

    • #1
    • June 13, 2018 at 1:26 pm
    • 1 like
  2. Coolidge

    Joe D. (View Comment):

    As far as crazy presidential statements, what about “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe” by Gerald Ford. I bet it wouldn’t be too hard to find more outrageous comments as well.

    That’s a good one.

    I agree more with Noah re: America’s history of isolationism and that our post WW2 foreign policy consensus is more the exception than the rule.

    • #2
    • June 13, 2018 at 4:01 pm
    • Like
  3. Member

    Myself, I was absolutely amazed to find out how much the guys- uniquely among American journalists- simply know about everything involved in the negotiations, strategy, goals, what was agreed to or not, what the hidden meanings are of the tissue-paper communique, etc. And they built a massive edifice of assumptions and consequences based on that assured knowledge.

    I’d like to remind JPod and Noah that it is apparent that they have not spent much time in or around East Asia, where everything of what we would call “substance” is subordinated to one thing, and one thing only: “saving face”- the lack of which causes how many honor suicides a year in Japan and Korea? The first time I went to Korea, I almost caused an international incident when I refused to drink (I don’t drink booze, never liked it, never have) with the ROK Army officers (and a former 4-star USA commander).

    BTW, Noah, talk to an East Asian diplomatic historian some time before you again prattle the usual IR nonsense.

    The fact is, we know absolutely nothing about the Singapore meeting, and there is nothing we can reliably infer. Either Trump gave away the store, completely neutering Pompeo and Bolton (the two diplomats in the world least likely to be captive of the standard DoS nonsense), or he didn’t. It will be a while before we find out what really resulted. 

    • #3
    • June 14, 2018 at 7:34 am
    • Like
  4. Coolidge

    Duane Oyen (View Comment):
    The fact is, we know absolutely nothing about the Singapore meeting,

    We know that Trump acted like a nitwit.

    • #4
    • June 14, 2018 at 8:10 am
    • Like
  5. Member

     

    • #5
    • June 14, 2018 at 11:02 am
    • Like
  6. Member

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    Duane Oyen (View Comment):
    The fact is, we know absolutely nothing about the Singapore meeting,

    We know that Trump acted like a nitwit.

    Actually, my point is that we do not, even though Trump’s general historic demeanor is, indeed, to behave like a 4 year old (that is to say, a nitwit when the speaker is 70). Read Austin Bay.

    • #6
    • June 14, 2018 at 11:44 am
    • Like
  7. Coolidge

    Duane Oyen (View Comment):
    Actually, my point is that we do not, even though Trump’s general historic demeanor is, indeed, to behave like a 4 year old (that is to say, a nitwit when the speaker is 70). Read Austin Bay.

    I really don’t think Trump was aware of much of the history with North Korea apart from what he gleans from Fox News. He doesn’t read you know. He was just Trumping, ergo being a nitwit. Mr. Bay is giving Trump far too much credit. Or do you think Trump was playing 3D chess yet again and we are simply too stupid to see his brilliance?

    • #7
    • June 14, 2018 at 11:54 am
    • Like
  8. Member

    Duane Oyen (View Comment):

    Myself, I was absolutely amazed to find out how much the guys- uniquely among American journalists- simply know about everything involved in the negotiations, strategy, goals, what was agreed to or not, what the hidden meanings are of the tissue-paper communique, etc. And they built a massive edifice of assumptions and consequences based on that assured knowledge.

    I’d like to remind JPod and Noah that it is apparent that they have not spent much time in or around East Asia, where everything of what we would call “substance” is subordinated to one thing, and one thing only: “saving face”- the lack of which causes how many honor suicides a year in Japan and Korea? The first time I went to Korea, I almost caused an international incident when I refused to drink (I don’t drink booze, never liked it, never have) with the ROK Army officers (and a former 4-star USA commander).

    BTW, Noah, talk to an East Asian diplomatic historian some time before you again prattle the usual IR nonsense.

    The fact is, we know absolutely nothing about the Singapore meeting, and there is nothing we can reliably infer. Either Trump gave away the store, completely neutering Pompeo and Bolton (the two diplomats in the world least likely to be captive of the standard DoS nonsense), or he didn’t. It will be a while before we find out what really resulted.

    ———————————————————————

    I spent considerable time in China and never once contemplated suicide. Nor did anyone I knew. I’m not buying that face saving argument. It’s an old chestnut, and meritless. Probably something left over from viewing too many Hari Kari movies. Who doesn’t want to save face, but to call it an East Asian cultural phenomenon is misleading. Neither of the leaders lost face. Not yet anyway. Kim could very well back out or off denuclearization but not for fear of losing face -rather, fear of losing support of his militiary.

    I think the inferences drawn by the guys were reasonable, given what’s known.

    • #8
    • June 16, 2018 at 8:24 am
    • 1 like