Policies Navarro is pushing could generate both a trade war and a shootin’ war between the two great powers. Image: His Death by China website.
  • Policies Navarro is pushing could generate both a trade war and a shootin’ war between the two great powers. Image: His Death by China website.
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

In San Diego County from 1992 through 2001, Peter Navarro ran unsuccessfully for mayor, county supervisor, city council, and Congress. Then he became an economics professor at the University of California, Irvine.

Through books and documentaries, Navarro has become recognized for his insights on China’s dirty trade tricks.

Through books and documentaries, Navarro has become recognized for his insights on China’s dirty trade tricks.

Now he is in Washington DC, and his books and documentaries are making waves around the world.

Conceivably, policies he is pushing could generate both a trade war and a shootin’ war between the two great powers, the United States and China. Gulp. Through books and documentaries, Navarro has become recognized for his insights on China’s dirty trade tricks, and he has written a book and directed a series of documentary films on the possibility of an all-out war with China.

If Trump and Navarro get their way, the stocks of companies with major China business (including Qualcomm)  will get hit, at least initially.

If Trump and Navarro get their way, the stocks of companies with major China business (including Qualcomm) will get hit, at least initially.

Trade and military scholars generally consider Navarro a jingoist — one who advocates belligerence. As Charles Tiefer wrote in Forbes, “Navarro is not at all just a ‘trade hawk’ about China. He is a ‘hawk’ about China across the board, in all the theatres of struggle, including the military. Navarro is, about China,… a war hawk.”

Navarro has written or cowritten three books warning of China risks: The Coming China Wars (2006), Death by China (2011), and Crouching Tiger: What China’s Militarism Means for the World (2015). A video documentary accompanied Death by China and a series of ten videos accompany his frightening 2015 book, exploring the possibility of armed conflict between the two countries. He recently revised his earlier work into a new book, The Coming China Wars: Where They Will Be Fought and How They Can Be Won.

Death by China and the companion film got some malodorous reviews: “dramatic overkill,” “alarming and alarmist,” “inflammatory language and cheesy graphics,” and “hyperbole” were some of the media barbs heaved at it. True enough, both the book and documentary were jeremiads. The movie featured a bloody knife thrust into a map of the United States.

Conventional economists sneer at Navarro’s views. Most are in favor of free trade. They have no use for Navarro’s pushing for stiff tariffs. The last thing they want is a trade war in which countries erect barriers against other nations. And very few Americans favor combat with China or any other country.

In one of his wisest moves, Navarro got the 2011 book and the documentary into the hands of a TV star/New York real estate tycoon, Donald Trump, who also doesn’t appeal to conventional scholars. Trump gobbled up Navarro’s messages, seeing them as campaign fodder for a planned run for the presidency. When Trump tossed his hat in the ring in 2015, Navarro served as a policy advisor.

After Trump was elected president — using much of Navarro’s prose in the campaign — the professor hit the big time. After the election, Trump named Navarro to a new position: director of the White House National Trade Council.

Navarro says that China manipulates its currency to get an advantage over trade partners; illegally subsidizes products; pays slave wages to labor that gets terrible medical care; permits rampant pollution, thus cutting costs and taking further advantage of other countries; puts out products that are so cheaply made they can poison people; and cheats every other way it can.

Trump also liked Navarro’s 2006 book, which dripped with purple prose. Navarro wrote that “the raw stench of a gut-wrenching, sweat-stained fear” hangs in the air as venal and incompetent Communist party officials are at the steering wheel. Whew!

Says the Guardian, “The Chinese government is a despicable, parasitic, brutal, brass-knuckled, crass, callous, amoral, ruthless and totally totalitarian imperialist power that reigns over the world’s leading cancer factory, its most prolific propaganda mill and the biggest police state and prison on the face of the earth. That is the view of Peter Navarro, the man chosen by Donald Trump to lead a new presidential office for U.S. trade and industrial policy.” This is likely to add to Beijing’s anxieties over Trump’s plans for U.S.-China relations.

Elazar Advisors, writing in Seeking Alpha, say bluntly, “A trade war is coming.” Elazar picks up some quotes from the Death by China video: “What’s wrong with taking China to task? They pirate our technology. They pirate our intellectual property rights. They counterfeit our goods and services and no administration has the backbone to stand up to them.…When you shop, always read the label. If the label says ‘Made in China,’ think about your job, think about your safety, think about China’s rapid military buildup.” Elazar says that if Trump and Navarro get their way, the stocks of companies with major China business, such as San Diego’s Qualcomm (more than half its revenues come from China), will get hit, at least initially.

In one of the ten videos about possible war with China, Navarro says that China, the world’s largest country, could one day have a military that dwarfs that of the United States. This statement may well have motivated Trump to campaign for more military spending — particularly Navy spending.

The Trump/Navarro saber rattling has already shaken up China. Some say that with its economy slowing, China does not want a trade war. But with the Trump administration saying that the United States won’t let China access American-held islands in the South China Sea, China is now suggesting it might beef up its nuclear arsenal.

Navarro may have convinced Trump of the wisdom of a bellicose policy toward China. But there are many roadblocks. First, Trump tosses out policy suggestions and quickly has to retract them. What does he really believe? Other nations seem to be trying to tame Trump’s belligerence.

Political promises evanesce mysteriously in Washington. Christopher Balding, a Peking University finance professor, told the Guardian that Navarro may not be able to put into effect his “alarmist” notions on China. “Navarro is going to quickly realize the constraints that he is under.… They come as professors, they come as businessmen and they get into office as the secretary-of-whatever and they quickly realize… that they cannot just implement their pet idea or their classroom theory.” There will be “strong push-back” from the United States business community if fat tariffs are imposed on imports from China.

Read more about Navarro, including four cover stories he wrote for the Reader.

  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it


bcoldpro Feb. 8, 2017 @ 9:06 a.m.

At what point does Trump agitate countries like China to the point where they use the verbal threats as real and use that as an excuse to provoke and attack the U.S. Trump could be the first President to start a war with his mouth..


Don Bauder Feb. 8, 2017 @ 9:37 a.m.

Mike Murphy: I don't think Americans realize the horrific danger before us with Trump and his buddies in the government. Best, Don Bauder


MURPHYJUNK Feb. 8, 2017 @ 1:48 p.m.

especially when dealing with delicate asian matters of face


Don Bauder Feb. 8, 2017 @ 2:14 p.m.

Murphyjunk: I don't trust Trump to deal astutely with any "delicate" subject. Best, Don Bauder


Don Bauder Feb. 8, 2017 @ 8:19 p.m.

Flapper: Shame on you. That is one of the oldest jokes in the world. I think I heard it in 1940, when I was four years old -- maybe two years later when I was six. Best, Don Bauder


Flapper Feb. 8, 2017 @ 9:02 p.m.

That reinforces the measure of his (intellect?).


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 6:30 a.m.

Flapper: Are you referring to Trump's absence of intellect or my absence of intellect? Best, Don Bauder


Flapper Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:25 p.m.

When I mean you, I will address you directly.


Don Bauder Feb. 10, 2017 @ 12:21 p.m.

Flapper: That is comforting. Best, Don Bauder


Don Bauder Feb. 8, 2017 @ 9:43 a.m.

bcoldpro: He understands very little about government. It appears he doesn't understand the terrifying danger of nuclear proliferation. When asked about a nuclear deterrent, he said he didn't want to take any possible threat off the table. He doesn't want to tip our hand to our enemies.

The possible use of nuclear weapons should be taken off every nation's table immediately. Best, Don Bauder


shirleyberan Feb. 8, 2017 @ 10:28 a.m.

Have read talk of legal impeachment for deranged and dangerous Trumpiness. Hope the procedure gets along soon. Don't know how it works but that's better than trying to manage a peaceful revolution while the new order attempts to silence journalists - death Putin style. Even declaring all news fake if not Trumpism.


Don Bauder Feb. 8, 2017 @ 10:39 a.m.

shirleyberan: I have always thought that impeachment would have to be justified by high crimes and misdemeanors. But I have never heard that insanity is a justification. That's something to ponder. Best, Don Bauder


danfogel Feb. 8, 2017 @ 6:44 p.m.

don bauder The impeachment of POTUS, VPOTUS and all civil Officers of the United States is defined by Article II of the US Constitution. Mental health, or in this case, the lack thereof, is NOT grounds for impeachment. Now with that being said, if you take a look at what the US Constitution defines as charges of "high crimes and misdemeanors", one could argue that Trump's behavior fits the bill for most of them. In order to remove a sitting POTUS for mental health issues, the Twenty-fifth Amendment, Section IV would have to be invoked (its a long section, look it up). As far as I am aware, there are only two times documented instances that use of Section 4 of the was considered, both during Ronald Reagan's presidency. One was after the assassination attempt, for obvious reasons. The other was sometime around the last year or so of his second term. I forget the exact details, but as I remember, it was his chief of staff who finally decided that worries over Reagan's perceived mental ineptness were unfounded. In hindsight, after what we have learned about those last couple of years of his second term, maybe they weren't so unfounded after all


Don Bauder Feb. 8, 2017 @ 8:27 p.m.

danfogel: Welcome back and many thanks. I agree that Reagan seemed to be losing it in the final years in the presidency.

I have seen appellate courts in which one of the judges seems to be suffering from at least the early stages of dementia. (I am not talking about the appellate panel going over Trump's immigration ban. One of those judges is in his mid-80s but seems to be fine.) I have done at least two columns in which I had to go over video of an appellate decision. In both cases there was one judge (not the same one) who was clearly losing some shingles off the roof. Best, Don Bauder


Flapper Feb. 8, 2017 @ 10:48 a.m.

"Trump also liked Navarro’s 2006 book, which dripped with purple prose. Navarro wrote that “the raw stench of a gut-wrenching, sweat-stained fear” hangs in the air as venal and incompetent Communist party officials are at the steering wheel. Whew!"

Donny-Boy, like most impotents, are thus characterized . . .


Don Bauder Feb. 8, 2017 @ 12:46 p.m.

Flapper: Is somebody confusing importance with impotence? Big difference. Best, Don Bauder


shirleyberan Feb. 8, 2017 @ 1:48 p.m.

Funny hysterical, what about emotional incontinence?


Don Bauder Feb. 8, 2017 @ 2:16 p.m.

shirleyberan: Incontinence on which continent? Best, Don Bauder


Don Bauder Feb. 8, 2017 @ 2:19 p.m.

Mielikki Org: Navarro is an academic. I do not think he is for sale on this issue. He believes in what he writes, although I don't believe he realizes the possible consequences of what he is writing. Best, Don Bauder


Flapper Feb. 8, 2017 @ 3:47 p.m.

Men are who are not impotent have better things to do than to be paranoid.


Don Bauder Feb. 8, 2017 @ 8:28 p.m.

Flapper: That is a deeply profound observation. Best, Don Bauder


Flapper Feb. 8, 2017 @ 5:04 p.m.

Importance is a common symptom of impotence.


Don Bauder Feb. 8, 2017 @ 8:30 p.m.

Flapper: You mean all those customers of Viagra and Cialis are actually big wheels? Best, Don Bauder


Flapper Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:32 p.m.

No, those are the guys that don't have enough blood supply to keep it up and/or whose capillaries are clogged. The big wheels (little hands) get trophies for show, while the tw's play with the gardeners and the pilots, etc.


Don Bauder Feb. 10, 2017 @ 12:25 p.m.

Flapper: Playing with gardeners and the pilots? Explicate, please. Best, Don Bauder


swell Feb. 8, 2017 @ 9 p.m.

So maybe Navarro is wrong. Maybe the Chinese are sweethearts who want to spread joy around the world. We want to believe that, don't we?

But look at us. US. USA. We threaten every corner of the globe- financially, militarily and technologically. Our military is more powerful then the rest of the world combined. We can wipe out humanity on a president's whim.

We have met the enemy, and he is US.


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 6:34 a.m.

swell:But Navarro claims that one day in the future China will have a much bigger military presence then the U.S. Best, Don Bauder


shirleyberan Feb. 9, 2017 @ 7:55 a.m.

vox.com - today "The 25th Amendment, explained: how a president can be declared unfit to serve"


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:13 p.m.

danfogel:That is most interesting and, in my judgment, good to know. Best, Don Bauder


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:17 a.m.

shirleyberan: I know little (close to nothing) about that amendment. Best, Don Bauder


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:27 a.m.

Shimizu Randall: There is no doubt that Navarro has done good work on China's trade abuses, although his highly emotional prose does not sit well with academics. He has also done a good job explaining the dangers of China's possible moves in the South China Sea, and military buildup.

However, Navarro's sizzling prose does not help his cause with his fellow academics and experts on China. I think he goes too far predicting how large China's military will become. The country has economic problems and knows history: excessive military spending is one thing that hastened the collapse of the USSR.

At the latest Davos conference in Switzerland, China was talking up free trade, although such talk may have been diversionary. Best, Don Bauder


AlexClarke Feb. 9, 2017 @ 9:07 a.m.

Trump will do more damage than all the other "worst" presidents combined. We (the US) will lose standing in the world. We will be less safe. We will be worse off financially. And on and on. We as a people and a country my not survive his presidency. Time will tell but the only thing that I can see that will be constant is chaos.


ImJustABill Feb. 9, 2017 @ 11:46 a.m.

I disagree with your projection about Trump destroying the country, but as you say time will tell. He is trying to change some things and with change comes risk.

I do know that a lot of people have been predicting bad results for everything Trump related for a long time and so far those predictions have mostly been wrong.

There were a lot of pundits predicting a rapid stock market crash if Trump got elected - how'd that prediction work out?


danfogel Feb. 9, 2017 @ 2:35 p.m.

I agree with your disagreement. This country has survived a revolution, a civil war, Pearl Harbor, the violent protest of the 1960's and the Nixon presidency, 9/11 and the assassination of four of it's Presidents. It will survive Trump. It may get ugly for a while, almost assuredly so, I think, but it will survive Trump, and as with the things incidents I mentioned above, will emerge stronger than ever. There's an old saying. Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the others.


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:23 p.m.

danfogel: Oh yes, we will SURVIVE Trump, except in the remote case of a worldwide nuclear war. It's how we will be after he finishes that is worrisome. Best, Don Bauder


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:21 p.m.

ImJustABill: Instead of a stock market crash, we got a vigorous rally.That is the time to be wary. Stocks were overvalued when he won and are now even more overvalued. Best, Don Bauder


ImJustABill Feb. 11, 2017 @ 9:21 a.m.

Yes, I agree that stock market bubble is a time to be worried. My point still stands that there have been a lot of predictions about Trump failing or causing failures that have not held true.


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:16 p.m.

AlexClarke: He has already done more damage than all the worst presidents combined. Americans don't realize how his bullying, his "America First," his pugnacious approach to the presidency -- both domestically and in the world -- has put out country in a perilous situation. Best, Don Bauder


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:25 p.m.

AlexClarke:I agree with your three initial points: we will lose standing in the world, be less safe, and be worse off financially and economically. Best, Don Bauder


shirleyberan Feb. 9, 2017 @ 12:43 p.m.

thank-you danfogel, haven't read it but the hope is enough for now


danfogel Feb. 9, 2017 @ 2:21 p.m.

Since you posted, or at least attempted to post, the link, it should be a fair assumption that you actually read the article. It seems from your comment that you did not. So let me clarify for you with what you would have found out:

"Section 4 of the 25th Amendment has never been invoked in reality, though it’s a staple of thriller fiction."

It would take VPOTUS , a majority of sitting Cabinet secretaries AND a two-thirds majority in both houses for such an attempted coup. Yes, I said coup. Because unless POTUS, not just this one, but any, is actually diagnosed and CONFIRMED to have an affliction, either mental or physical, that prevents him or here from fulfilling the oath of office, it would be a coup. And that CANNOT HAPPEN. In other words, your "hope" is merely an unfulfilled fantasy.


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:34 p.m.

danfogel: I think serious physical and mental illnesses can be confirmed decidedly -- that would be why there could be such a sweeping consensus in the cabinet and both houses of Congress. Remember, Richard Nixon resigned when told he could well be convicted in the case of an impeachment. Bill Clinton's impeachment was rather silly, so there was no conviction.

I am not saying there could be such a sweeping consensus on Trump now. Best, Don Bauder


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:17 p.m.

shirleyberan: danfogel is a reliable source of information.Best, Don Bauder


Flapper Feb. 9, 2017 @ 2:48 p.m.

The Republican Party, having strayed far, far from its original self, and had degenerated into a babbling idiot on steroids.


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:36 p.m.

Flapper:It is disappointing that Republicans are not standing up to Trump's outrageous activity. However, I have hope that they will. Best, Don Bauder


shirleyberan Feb. 9, 2017 @ 2:56 p.m.

fogel - I don't accept hostility or opinion of others, what happened to you? football team lost at the StuperBowl?. I don't wake up trying to solve this county's problems, got other stuff I gotta do. That's Don Bauder education gig anyway. I don't get $


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:39 p.m.

shirleyberan: As a contributor to this blog's debates, you have to take some punches. I take them all the time. Being a punching bag is my job description. Best, Don Bauder


ImJustABill Feb. 11, 2017 @ 9:53 a.m.

BTW I hope I didn't insult you by my comments below inferring that those who want to remove Trump from office are "swinging at windmills". Maybe there is a legitimate way to remove Trump from office (not that I'm in favor of that BTW) but it doesn't seem very realistic to me - based on the present information we have. Sorry if "swinging at windmills" is pushing things to far to the point where it's insulting. I try not to be insulting to people but maybe I cross the line at times.

If someone were to, for example, find solid evidence that Trump was personally involved with Russian interference in the election that would be solid grounds for removal.

But just because Trump has a lot of policies many people don't agree with, and he says a lot of disrespectful and insulting things, are not going to be grounds for removal.


Don Bauder Feb. 11, 2017 @ 7:47 p.m.

ImJustABill: I agree that if he knew about the Russian interference in the election, and encouraged it, and possibly helped it along, that is an impeachable offense. But I don't think he can yet be removed for his other actions, as repugnant as they may be. I think his lying is part of his personality and it may get him into big trouble. He can't control it. Best, Don Bauder


SportsFan0000 May 1, 2017 @ 2:03 p.m.

Plenty of evidence that Trump knew and encouraged Putin and the Russians..Even in his own campaign speeches where Trump openly invites Putin and Russian intelligence to commit espionage against the USA. And, Trump's many business conflicts of interest violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution.


shirleyberan Feb. 9, 2017 @ 3 p.m.

And a lot of people in this idiot-based country can't detect mental illness in others or themselves. I don't fantasize reality, ever again.


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:41 p.m.

shirleyberan: Detecting mental illness can be very difficult. Best, Don Bauder


Ponzi Feb. 9, 2017 @ 3:16 p.m.

Mango Mussolini's sidekick (or puppeteer), Steve "Jaundice" Bannon predicted a war in the South China Sea years ago. He's written about it in books and in Breitbart News.


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:43 p.m.

Ponzi: Now that is something I did not know. Bannon is said to have been the one choosing Trump's cabinet members and assistants. What you say makes me suspicious. Best, Don Bauder


Ponzi Feb. 10, 2017 @ 9:27 a.m.

Two scary quotes:

Steve Bannon (March 2016); "The United States and China will fight a war within the next 10 years over islands in the South China Sea, and “there’s no doubt about that.”

Rex Tillerson (January 2017); “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed,” “They are taking territory or control or declaring control of territories that are not rightfully China’s.”


Don Bauder Feb. 10, 2017 @ 12:31 p.m.

Ponzi: Your response is on target: these quotes (Bannon and Tillerson) are scary indeed. Best, Don Bauder


Flapper Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:35 p.m.

He might be right. China is building strategically-placed islands. When they get too big for their britches, they might take us on.


Don Bauder Feb. 10, 2017 @ 8:44 a.m.

Flapper: China's population is more than four times ours. They are capable of a huge military buildup. Best, Don Bauder


Flapper Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:43 p.m.

". . . we will SURVIVE Trump, except in the remote case of a worldwide nuclear war." --Don Bauder

He is highly unstable emotionally. If he has a hissy-fit or is forced to assume the fetal position, he could well open the codes. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . .


Don Bauder Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:45 p.m.

Flapper: We must not dismiss such a possibility. Navarro makes some very good points on China, and the possibility of a war. Best, Don Bauder


swell Feb. 9, 2017 @ 8:53 p.m.

We have the illusion of governments in the US, in UK, Brasil, China, Korea, Saudi Arabia etc. But what we have is business. Business dictates what 'government' does.

The bad news is that business isn't interested in well-compensated American workers or unions or any other unnecessary expenses. Jobs will go where labor or robotics is cheap. Profits rule.

The good news is that very few businesses profit from war. There is almost no place on earth where you can drop a bomb that doesn't hurt an American business. Or a German or Chinese or Korean business. So who is stupid enough to start a war?

China needs us. We need them. Period. Navarro is a FUD peddler.


Don Bauder Feb. 10, 2017 @ 8:51 a.m.

swell: China needs us. We are a huge customer for their goods. We need China from a financial perspective. But wars often are not launched for logical reasons. I certainly hope you are right.

Navarro is going against conventional economics and world politics, but others have defied convention and wound up heroes. Best, Don Bauder


Don Bauder Feb. 10, 2017 @ 8:53 a.m.

Flapper: That has always been true, but the nitwittery (is there such a word?) in Washington D.C. now makes the adage more scary. Best, Don Bauder


Flapper Feb. 9, 2017 @ 9:12 p.m.

There's a great scene in this of Trump with his thumbs up--suitably framed. Skip to about 4:40 and go for about ten seconds or so. Warning: Do not watch the rest!



Don Bauder Feb. 10, 2017 @ 8:54 a.m.

Flapper: I promise to look. Should I eat breakfast first or would it be wiser not to eat before viewing this? Best, Don Bauder


Flapper Feb. 10, 2017 @ 9:48 a.m.

They tell me that purging is good for the system. Which system? Don't ask.


Don Bauder Feb. 11, 2017 @ 4:29 p.m.

Flapper: In Washington D.C., perjury -- not purging -- is good for the system. Best, Don Bauder


Flapper Feb. 10, 2017 @ 9:58 a.m.

Here's some raw meat for another piece. Go to about 01:47:00 to hear a Warrening Munuchken. Take your blood-pressure Rx first.


Flapper Feb. 10, 2017 @ 10:01 a.m.

!&@%! I meant to say Warrening about Munuchken.


Don Bauder Feb. 11, 2017 @ 4:39 p.m.

Flapper: Mnuchin is not the worst of this bunch, but he is a bad pick. Best, Don Bauder


ImJustABill Feb. 11, 2017 @ 9:03 a.m.

Ya know - despite his obvious personality abnormalities I'm not really on the anti-Trump bandwagon with all of you. So take this with a grain of salt.

But if I was in your shoes and I wanted to minimize the impact of President Trump I would listen to what Rahm Emmanuel is saying.

Rather than swinging at windmills hoping for some miracle way to remove Trump from office you ought to "take a chill pill" and figure out how to get more Democrats into Congress.



Don Bauder Feb. 11, 2017 @ 4:41 p.m.

ImJustABill: The constant prevarication and obvious sociopathic personality are not just "abnormalities." Best, Don Bauder


ImJustABill Feb. 12, 2017 @ 9:20 p.m.

Your opinion of Trump was not the point. Apparently you didn't bother to read my post.


Don Bauder Feb. 14, 2017 @ 7:29 a.m.

ImJustABill: I got your point. I don't always reply to the main point by someone who posts. Best, Don Bauder


Don Bauder Feb. 11, 2017 @ 4:44 p.m.

shirleyberan: With all the gerrymandering, vote suppression, and other dirty tricks that have been pulled, I don't know how Democrats can re-take Congress. Best, Don Bauder


Darren Feb. 12, 2017 @ 9:51 a.m.

Thanks Don for your article. Seems to me Trump has appointed much military brass around him, and right out of the gate went on war footing towards Iran. I was not happy with the eight years of Obama's administration, but am concerned about the trajectory Trump will take USA, not to mention that I might look back at Nixon and say "he was more honorable, stable and ethical than Trump".


Ponzi Feb. 12, 2017 @ 10:56 a.m.

Nixon did a lot of good things. In 1972, he reopened America's relations with China. And he signed one of the first treaties limiting the deadly nuclear arms race. He also largely ended segregated classes in the south, revenue sharing, he ended the draft for soldiers for Vietnam, he created new anti crime law and put into affect a new environmental program - he is largely responsible for the Environmental Protection Agency. He was the only President who was able to achieve a balanced national budget.

Trump may destroy the EPA, bring us to the brink of (if not in) a nuclear war, and chill our relations with China and other nations. Trump is creating a division instead of unity.

Nixon may have been paranoid and was forced to resign because of a cover-up. But Trump will never achieve anything close to the good deeds that Nixon did. Trump cannot be compared to any president. To do so is an insult to all the presidents who served with dignity and honor.


Don Bauder Feb. 14, 2017 @ 7:35 a.m.

Ponzi: Yes, Nixon was responsible for some good forward steps, the EPA among them. But remember, the Congress was Democratic and pushed these bills. Nixon signed them. Best, Don Bauder


Don Bauder Feb. 14, 2017 @ 7:33 a.m.

Darren: I think for certain you can say Nixon was better than Trump from the point of view of ethics. Among other things, Nixon wasn't in hock to foreign mobsters, although he had money in a Mafia Swiss bank. Best, Don Bauder


Don Bauder Feb. 12, 2017 @ 9:13 p.m.

Darren: I voted for Nixon twice (I was a Republican until 2004), but I was all in favor of Nixon's impeachment and conviction after I read what was on those tapes. The man was clearly paranoid, probably sociopathic, as well as corrupt. (Have you seen my article about Nixon's money in a Mafia Swiss bank?) But if there were an election between Nixon and Trump, I would go for Nixon. Best, Don Bauder


SportsFan0000 Feb. 14, 2017 @ 1:16 a.m.

Did you see the book about Nixon and Kissinger sabotaging LBJ's Vietnam peace deal to win a close election?! They had the evidence, FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies on Nixon before he became Pres that could have locked both Nixon and Kissinger up for a long time. LBJ had a peace deal with the N Vietnamese. Nixon and Kissinger told them to wait until after the election and they would give them a better deal?! It was all BS. Nixon and Kissinger had no plan. The war went on for 6 more years with 10's of thousands more American Casualties, 100's of thousands more civilian casualties, billions of dollars more flushed down the toilet.. Nixon won a squeaker election. IT WAS TREASON BY NIXON AND KISSINGER. LBJ's WH Staff secreted the file out of the WH and hid it for decades. The beginning of Nixon's "Plumbers Unit" was in his first term looking for that top secret file of evidence that would have brought him down early in his 1st term. At some point, the file was secreted to the LBJ library in Texas with instructions not to open it for 50 years..The Library couldn't wait and opened it sooner...FBI and WH taping system corroborate the story. So anyone who says Nixon's only fault in Watergate was only that "he covered up a crime" is either not dealing with a full deck OR has been decidedly brainwashed by right wing media Fox/Fake News, Gasbag Radio, Breitbart White Supremacy Media etc..


danfogel Feb. 14, 2017 @ 8:50 a.m.

Let me correct you on a couple of points. In late October of 1968, Hanoi did agree to a de-escalation of Viet Cong activities in South Vietnam and in return, Johnson agreed to stop all bombing runs over North Vietnam, Operation Rolling Thunder. These concessions would allow the peace talks to begin in Paris. So on October 31, just 5 days before the election, Johnson announced the bombing halt of North Vietnam, effective November 1. But there was never a "deal" with the North Vietnamese to end the war at that point. Johnson did have a transcript of one of Nixon's people telling Hanoi that Nixon didn’t run the war and didn’t get them into it, but he could be a lot more considerate of them because Johnson was pretty inflexible one what concessions he wanted. But it was not the North Vietnamese government who were told to wait for a Nixon victory for a better plan. It was the South Vietnamese government who was told to walk away from the Paris peace negotiations. Nixon had already set up a secret back-channel using Anna Chennault, who was a senior campaign adviser. When he heard about the concessions by the North Vietnamese, Chennault was sent to the South Vietnamese embassy with message for the South Vietnamese government to withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal. A couple of days later, the FBI intercepted a cable between Chennault and the South Vietnamese Embassy reinforcing that message. So on the night before his announcement of the halt to the bombing, Johnson found out that the South Vietnamese were pulling out of the peace talks. And after Johnson made his announcement, Saigon, issued a statement saying that the United States had acted unilaterally in its decision to halt the bombing. It is just my opinion and opinions vary, but while those involved were most certainly guilty of violating the Logan Act, I don't necessarily agree that it was treason. Between Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution and a couple of other laws created by Congress, an act of treason has been pretty specifically defined. And I am not sure this fits the bill. Not saying definitively that it doesn't, just not sure it does. Again: Just my opinion Opinions vary


Don Bauder Feb. 14, 2017 @ 10:32 a.m.

danfogel: If SportsFan000 disagrees with your account, I am sure you will hear from him. Best, Don Bauder


danfogel Feb. 14, 2017 @ 11:19 a.m.

don bauder It's not my "account". It is fact. The North agreed to a de-escalation of Viet Cong activities in South Vietnam and in return, Johnson agreed to stop all bombing runs over North. And it was South Vietnam that backed out of the talks in Paris. It's in the history books. As for the details on the who, what, when, where, how and why, it was all made public years ago thru the declassified records at the LBJ Library. At the time, there was even a story written by Christian Science Monitor correspondent in Saigon that had the details, but Johnson convinced the paper to only print a story that South Vietnam's President Nguyen Van Thieu decided on his own to hold out until after the election. LBJ was afraid of the country's reaction if people found out that he had the FBI investigating Nixon, including surveillance, wire taps and the whole enchilada. As I said, the information has been public for years, and most recently, within the last few weeks, I have read articles in the NYT and the Smithsonian on the subject. And the fact remains that Paris talks were on the ropes before November 1968 because the North Vietnamese were not serious about ending the war at that time and South Vietnamese President Thieu was completely unwilling to participate in talks that included the NLF, the communist party that was trying to overthrow the his government.


SportsFan0000 May 1, 2017 @ 2:14 p.m.

You make some good points. However, recently declassfied and released information clearly states that LBJ had a deal with N Vietnam to end the War in 1968. Nixon and Kissinger were heavily implicated in sabotaging the deal telling N Vietnam to wait until after the election and they would get a better deal if Nixon won. It was all BS. Nixon and Kissinger had no deal and no plan to end the war at that time. It was a huge bluff to tilt the election to Nixon. Nixon and Kissinger used a similar scam before the 1972 election/reelection campaign...Nixon's infamous "Secret Plan to end the Vietnam War"...and/or "Peace with Honor" "October Surprise" Vietnam. It was also a scam and worse terms than N Vietnam had in their agreement with LBJ in 1968. The plan Nixon/Kissinger finally came up with was "cease fire in place" with Vietcong military controlling major areas of S Vietnam...a recipe for disaster and that lead to the collapse of S Vietnam to the Vietcong. For that Kissinger fraudulently accepted a Nobel Peace Prize?! Some scholars consider Kissinger a war criminal for that and other actions in SE Asia.


Don Bauder Feb. 14, 2017 @ 7:40 a.m.

SportsFan0000: I haven't read the book, but I have read about the scheme. It is hardly surprising. Jimmy Carter was a victim of peace sabotaging by opponents, too. Best, Don Bauder


Sign in to comment

Let’s Be Friends

Subscribe for local event alerts, concerts tickets, promotions and more from the San Diego Reader