COLUMN: Trump Admin Ill-Equipped for New Threat Level Posed By North Korea

Huffington Post, 3.24.17
By Isaac Wright

The situation on the Korean Peninsula is a dangerous and complicated one. It is a problem regarding which the current administration seems dangerously lacking in direction.

Amidst all the news coverage of President Donald Trump’s team and its questionable connections to Russia and all the talk of the debacle which is TrumpCare, we as a nation cannot lose focus on the evolving crisis on the Korean peninsula or the potential nuclear threat to our nation’s safety.

Every year when the U.S. engages in military and naval exercises with South Korea, Pyongyang reacts defensively. This year has proven no different. The U.S. never backed down on the joint exercises in the face of Pyongyang antics and should not do so now.

However, American leaders must view the most recent defiance by North Korea in its broader context of an escalating threat. The North Korean weapons program has advanced exponentially. Last year North Korea conducted 24 ballistic missile tests and two nuclear test explosions. Make no mistake, the North Korean intentions are aggressive. In dictator Kim Jong Un’s New Year’s address, he declared that North Korea “entered the final stage of preparation for the test launch of intercontinental ballistic missile.” He wants the capability to strike American cities at will, most likely with nuclear capable weapons.

Recently, a defiant North Korea simultaneously launched four missiles, three of which landed dangerously close to Japan’s coast where the U.S. maintains significant military bases. The subtext of this simultaneous launch is clear: North Korea can conduct multiple, simultaneous launches to thwart the new THAAD missile defense system (Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense) our military is deploying in South Korea, a system intended to obliterate descending ballistic missiles while they are still in the air negating their damage. The THAAD system would likely struggle to knock out multiple targets at once.

The North Korean dictator is sending a message that he will soon be able to strike and he will aggressively work to thwart our defenses should he choose to strike.

Inaction is not an option. According to U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, an Exxon Oil mogul with no foreign policy experience other than being buddies with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, “all options are on the table.”

Yet Tillerson and the Trump administration have failed to articulate what those options are.

Expanding THAAD to Japan might offer some level of defense for our allied nation and our soldiers stationed there, but Pyongyang is already in the process of undermining that technology.

A preemptive strike against North Korea would destroy some, but likely not all, of North Korea’s missile facilities and nuclear technology which appear to be spread far and wide geographically, fortified, and in some instances hidden. Between waves of being bombed, North Korea would put all its efforts into missile attacks on the U.S. or our allies in Japan and South Korea – or all three. Seoul is only 30 miles from the North Korean border. Millions of casualties and massive unchecked radioactivity would result.

Moving American first-strike-capable assets to Japan or South Korea would likely result in similar disastrous outcomes, as could attempted regime change since Kim Jong Un’s primary concern seems to be continuing the survival of his regime.

We could continue or further U.S. economic sanctions on North Korea. Already, four-in-ten citizens are undernourished, and 70 percent rely on some sort of government food aid just to survive. According to the same United Nations reports, most North Koreans lack basic health care and sanitation. Despite sanctions and these base national circumstances, North Korea remains on an aggressive and dangerously militarily-equipped footing.

China, North Korea’s only treaty-aligned nation and primary economic partner, could be utilized as a vehicle to inflict more decisive sanctions on North Korea. Previous Chinese sanctions on North Korean coal exports were important, but China has little strategic interest in going further. China is upset at the deployment of THAAD by the U.S. and has never been the closest of U.S. allies. Outsourcing our national security and diplomatic authority to China seems risky.

U.S. sanctions against Chinese banks and industries that do business with North Korea could be enacted, but the reaction by China to such moves would be unpredictable to say the least.

The Trump administration has yet to offer any of these options as possible actions. In fact, Trump and Tillerson have yet to offer much of any leadership on this dire issue.

We have a national responsibility to stand with our allies, engage the regional players in a constructive manner, maintain diplomatic efforts keeping channels open, and continue in a position of strength as we resolve to find a solution to this crisis of global security emanating from the Korean peninsula.

Where is the leadership from the people at the helm of the free world – Trump and his cabinet — to accomplish these responsibilities?

The Trump administration must articulate some sort of strategy with respect to the North Korean situation. Simply beating our proverbial national chest will not resolve anything. We have a reality TV star and a corporate oil-man muddling their way through multi-state, delicate international relations with a rogue state and nuclear weapons at play. We have entered a new threat level.

There Is Room For Trump Voters To Resist: It Is Time To Move Beyond Buyers’ Remorse

Huffington Post, by Isaac Wright, 2.1.17

Resisting the direction of President Donald Trump and his administration is more than a partisan issue. That effort must be treated as such by those who join at the table in steadfast resistance and heartfelt devotion to the American ideals of peace, prosperity, fairness-under-the-law, equality, and democracy.

This is an important message for anyone who may have voted for Trump and now regrets it. Perhaps you believed all of his rhetoric was just bluster. It would not be hard to be so jaded by politics and politicians that you supported someone because you assumed he would never actually do the things he said. After all, if cynicism led you to the belief that all politicians lie, then it was easy to take comfort in believing that Trump was surely lying with the most outrageous of his campaign promises to ban people of certain religions, to shred the burden of constitutional principles he disagreed with or found inconvenient, and the like.

But that wasn’t the case. His first weeks in office prove Trump meant every word of his rhetoric. It is time to move beyond buyers’ remorse. It is time to take action.

One needs to look no further than Trump’s immigration ban to see the choice ahead for every American. Now is the time to decide between the ideals of the first inhabitant of the Office of President and the 45th inhabitant of that office:

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respected stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges...” - George Washington

“I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons...” - President Donald Trump, Executive Order, January 27, 2017

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” - Donald Trump, public statement, December 7, 2015

If you have come to regret the decision of voting for Trump, please hear this: you can still make a difference. You are needed. Stand with people in support of the Constitution, in support of the concept of this nation, and in support of this grand experiment that is our democracy. Stand up and be counted. 

Join with other Americans who want to preserve that which President Ronald Reagan once called a “shining city on a hill.”

Stand up and embrace the words of President John F. Kennedy who said, “Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.”

The responsibility of the future is a heavy weight to bear in uncertain times. Indeed, these are uncertain times for refugees who flee oppression seeking the hope and promise of the American concept. These are uncertain times for those who fought with Americans against evil in their own homelands and are now by executive order separated from the nation to which they showed devotion. These are uncertain times for those separated from loved ones by policies driven by fear, contempt, and prejudice.

For all of these people and for future generations of our nation and our world, now is the time to bear the solemn burden of the future and embrace the struggle of democracy that comes with it.

Stand up. Speak out. Raise your voice. Resist. Register people to vote. Run for office. Run for office in a political party and make it what it should be.

To those of you who have been standing against the threat of Donald Trump and standing against his rhetoric for months, or even years, quit saying “I told you so” and redouble your efforts. Being right in the past doesn’t relieve you of your responsibility for the future. Do not be bitter about the past or the losses it bore. Instead be hopeful for the future and steadfast in the fight on which that future depends.

Those willing to stand against the threat of Trump must be willing to work together without the luxury of ideological purity tests, of re-litigating past primary fights, or of rehashing old divides that risk new ones. Perhaps we disagree on how best to make the economy work for everyone, but we agree it should work for everyone. Perhaps we disagree on how to best vet refugees seeking asylum from persecution. But we agree that seeking asylum from persecution was a principle of this country from our first President until today and it should remain tomorrow.

A Difficult Path Ahead For The Next DNC Chair

Huffington Post, by Isaac Wright, 1.24.17

It was refreshing to hear virtually every candidate for Democratic Party Chair recently call for a greater effort to reach a broader base of voters, specifically white, working class voters and voters in the inland states. I spent much of my adult life working with Democratic campaigns in that part of the country -winning tough races. It’s the corner of America I was raised in, and it’s still what I call home. Hearing my Party admit it has failed to communicate in those regions is reassuring that things can eventually get better.

This moment of introspection happened in a recent debate for the candidates for Democratic National Committee Chair sponsored by Huffington Post and streamed on Facebook. Some contenders for Chair hail from places where they have seen painful consequences of our Party’s losses up close and personal, repeatedly - states like South Carolina, Indiana, and Idaho.

After the devastating loss of the White House to Republican Donald Trump and a general drumming at the ballot box at every other level, recognition that there is a problem is the first step towards a solution. But taking the steps that come next will be the most critical part if Democrats are to again connect to white working class voters and non-coastal parts of the country.

First, those who would be part of the solution for the Democratic Party must understand that the Party is not led solely by a Committee Chair or leadership structure. Our Party is led collectively by numerous people and organizations, including the other Democratic Committees (Democratic Governors Association, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Committee, Democratic Attorneys General Association, Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, and the like). Our Party is influenced by groups that have come to play integral roles in the electoral efforts and progressive thought world - groups like Priorities USA, the Center for American Progress, Progressive Policy Institute, Third Way, The Hub, Democracy Alliance, organized labor, SIX, and David Brock’s numerous organizations (full disclosure, one of which I was affiliated with for three years).

The fact is, the leadership of both national political parties is made up of various organizations and individuals - not just a Chair and committee structure.

The second part of this first step will be to build some level of consensus among these various entities and their leaders in recognizing that the problem is real and critically important to address and resolve. That is a tougher task than it sounds. Even after the devastating electoral losses of 2016 and the losses in the eight years prior that cost Democrats 11 seats in the Senate, 62 seats in the House, 12 governorships, and 958 state legislative seats across the country, not all will agree the issue should be addressed proactively. There will be some thought leaders who may not be bothered by the concept of the Democratic Party becoming a “Party of the coasts.” There will be others who say that it is just a question of demographics and that if Democrats wait, eventually the problem will resolve itself. Nonsense. Republicans are watching demographic trends as closely as Democrats, and Republicans are not yielding that their Party is in its final death throws. There will be others amongst the Democratic elites who call for an ideological purity test, as though it is the Party’s role to set ideology, rather than platform. Democrats should stop squabbling over “wings” of the Party and start focusing on building back. The issue before us is not a question of “identity politics” versus “economic populism.” The issue before Democrats is a question of focus. Specifically, our next Democratic Chair must build a consensus among Democrats for focusing on the states between the coasts and the voters there.

If you want to compete in a state, you need an infrastructure there. That means electing local and state Democrats. That means Party building in non-election years. It means a new and greater focus on non-federal politics and politics in non-coastal states. It means dedicated resources if changes are to be made.

Second, our next Party Chair must break with what has become the norm among national Democrats: talking at our fellow Americans rather than talking with them. This means we must have more than a listening tour. It means the next DNC chair, along with the major political entities in the Progressive world, must begin a dialogue with people of all backgrounds in all parts of our country. An honest dialogue will not only proactively define what it means to be a Democrat, but also dispel Republican false narratives. More importantly, it will bring thoughts, ideas, tactics, case studies, and a bench of political and campaign talent not only into the process, but hopefully leading the process.

Our next chair must facilitate the development of a clear and salient vision for the country in conjunction with Democrats and Americans of all walks of life, from every part of the nation. This should not be “our” vision. It should be “America’s vision” for our future. In this time of being a minority Party in every capacity, Democrats must not fall into only being the opposition Party of “no” without its own vision or just a glorified fact-checking operation rebuking Trump Republicans but offering no alternative. Our Party must not be reduced to a stoic clearing house of policy ideas and programmatic proposals. We must renew our vision, a vision which in the end won more votes on Election Day 2016 than that of Republicans.

Third, we must move beyond the Beltway. Our ranks of strategists, tacticians, and leaders of the Party must not be exclusively creatures of Washington. Washington is not where elections happen. We need to look to the leaders - mayors, governors, strategists, and operatives - who have learned how to accomplish that which our Party must now accomplish and where it must be accomplished. We must effectively communicate that the Democratic Party is a Party of people who believe every person should be treated fairly.

Too many Democrats now search for solutions within the Beltway. They look to “messaging” and “issue platforms” as though they will magically bridge the gap with voters and geographies without actually engaging them and communicating. That is not to say that our Party, its stalwarts, or its identity should be thrown to the scrap heap. We must remember that far more Americans voted for the Democrat for President, not the Republican, in 2016. We should not look to fix the parts of our Party that are not broken, but we must shift our approach in how we fix those parts which are broken.

The next chair of our Party — indeed all the leaders of the Democratic Party - must focus on a new genuinely national and distinctly local effort. If they are to be successful, the path ahead for the Democratic Party and its leadership is a path that leads out of the Beltway and across the country, a path that must be endeavored together.