Email Hugh
The audio
Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly joined me this AM to discuss the very surprising –to the House Arned Services Committee at least– decision by Secretary Esper and OMB to cut the fleet acquisition budget:
Audio:
Transcript:
HH: Joined as I am always pleased to say by Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly. Acting Secretary Modly, welcome, good to have you with us.
TM: Good morning, Hugh. How are you?
HH: I am great, Mr. Secretary. Challenging times in the Navy. I want to start with the USNI News story this morning – Coronavirus concerns prompt PacFleet to impose a 14 day gap between port visits. I think that’s a great idea. How did that develop? And how long do you think that will be in place for?
TM: Well, I think we’re monitoring this very, very closely, Hugh. We’ve been actually looking at this for several weeks now. I know it’s sort of come out in the news lately that we’re taking these actions, but we’ve been looking at this for a very long time. And we’re going to keep whatever actions and restrictions in place as long as we feel that there may be some risk to our sailors. So we’re going to continue to do this and monitor it closely.
HH: Now of course, ships make port calls not just for the benefit of the morale of the sailors, but also because they need to take on supplies, etc. Can everybody handle this very easily?
TM: Oh, I think we are prepared to deal with this for a while. And as it evolves, you know, we’ll come up with different contingencies in terms of how we might get supplies out to the ships.
HH: It was also the case in the 1918-1920 pandemic that the Surgeon General of the military and the various branches was pretty much greeted with silence when they went to the brass of the various services. I hope, I expect you’ll tell me it’s 180 degrees reversed from that now.
TM: No, this has been a very open and transparent process within the Pentagon itself. I’ve been in briefings on this for at least five weeks now. So, and all the senior political leadership are in the meetings as well as all the senior services chiefs and the surgeon generals. And so this has been a very collaborative effort not just within the Pentagon, but throughout the interagency as well.
As predicted, the pollicization of coronavirus has picked up enormous steam in the last 36 hours since the president’s press conference. I saw stories on Thursday that said almost everything I said would happen – calling the task force into question, questioning the VP’s abilities, accusations of “controlling” information flow, etc., etc., etc. And as if the markets Thursday were not enough, the panic is taking on even dumber and more panicky manifestations. At this point what we are seeing has much more to do with media and politics than it does with coronavirus.
Most pundits agree that the only thing that can derail Trump this election cycle is a hard hit to the economy, and I guess some parties are willing to create one in order to win. I want you to think about that for just a minute. On a day when the markets should have stabilized they took the biggest hit yet because the coverage took off, and so did people’s fear. And why did coverage move from overwrought to overwhelming? If you ask I am sure they will talk about the CDC presser and “community transmission.” But somehow I cannot help but wonder if Schumer’s comments did not serve a catalytic role.
John Campbell commented Wednesday about how much the Dems talk about money as if it is the root of all evil and the cure to all ills. Apparently if they cannot tax it from us and spend it somewhere else, they are willing to simply make it evaporate. Trillions of dollars have simply disappeared in the last week or so. That’s all our money too – it doesn’t belong to corporations or companies, it belongs to anybody that has money in a bank or investments in a market. That’s frightening. And yet, in search on an election victory the Dems seem willing to talk in a fashion designed to accelerate those losses rather than quell them.
There is a narrative out there that Republicans, and perhaps even the President, are hoping for Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic nomination because not only will he lose dramatically to Trump, but his weak candidacy will bring a bigger majority in the Senate and make Kevin McCarthy Speaker of the House. The Never Bernies out there are even suggesting that Republicans are surreptitiously helping Bernie because they are so confident of this outcome.
I’m not so sure.
First of all, the history of one party picking who they think will be the weakest opponent in a presidential race is not good. The Democrats wanted Reagan in 1980 because he was too conservative for the public. Republicans wanted Clinton in 1992 because he was not well known and a regional candidate. And of course, the Democrats were thrilled to face Donald Trump right up to election day because defeating this hugely flawed TV host would be so easy.
Secondly, stuff happens in election years. Jimmy Carter to this day believes he would have won in 1980 were it not for the failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran. “I wish I would have sent one more helicopter and we would have rescued them and I would have been reelected,” former president Carter said in 2015. George H.W. Bush had the presidential record approval rating of 89% in the Gallup poll after the Gulf War in 1991. The economy then went downhill, he raised taxes, the war faded into memory and that rating was down to 29% 16 months later after which he lost reelection. And John McCain might have beaten Barrack Obama and led in some polls around Labor Day of that election year. But the “great recession” began a few weeks later and any chance he had of succeeding Bush 43 evaporated. And then in September 2012, four Americans were killed in our embassy in Benghazi. The Obama administration made up a story of how the attack started and why there was no rescue attempt. Although I have no direct proof, I am convinced to this day by circumstantial evidence that the Obama administration was worried about a Carter-like failed mission costing them the election, so they chose not to try to rescue those people.
I understand that there have been presidential elections that turned out exactly as most people on both sides of the aisle thought in 1972, 1976, 1984, 1996 and 2004 just to give examples.
But as I sit down to write this, I am watching the stock market tank, Treasury yields drop to unimaginable lows and the Coronavirus spread. All of this could be in the rear view mirror in a a few months. But what if it’s not? Might people be willing to give socialism a try if they are scared about current events? Most often a Bernie/Trump face-off is compared to the Nixon/McGovern election of 1972, which I am old enough to remember well and to have campaigned for Nixon. I understand the parallels. But since then, American Universities have been “teaching” students that socialism and in fact communism are and were good things. I was at UCLA then and vividly remember a class in which the professor praised the virtues of communism and the Soviet Union. It didn’t take with me. But it has and continues to take with many others.
Furthermore, let us not forget that Bernie has a large and very enthusiastic base of supporters. Elections are often won and lost not by winning the middle, but by who’s base was excited and came out to vote. Let us not forget that Romney beat Obama amongst independents by 5 points but still lost the election because his base turned out and the Republican base did not.
So, do not rule out the possibility of conditions on the ground being unfavorable for the incumbent combined with an enthusiastic base turnout propelling an otherwise “unelectable” candidate to a victory. I admit, the thought of a Sanders presidency is at least as frightening to me as four more years of Donald Trump is to the anchors at CNN.
In other words, be careful what you wish for.
Respectfully submitted.
Congressman John Campbell
Follow me on Twitter @JohnCampbellRep
