Trump

• Hannity asked Trump to guarantee he would not abuse his power or seek retribution if he was reelected in 2024.
• But evidence suggests that Trump may, in fact, abuse power and seek retribution if he regains the presidency.
• For example, Trump hinted that he will use the Department of Justice to persecute his political adversaries.
• So Trump’s jokey response may tell the truth, or at least a distorted version of the truth.
• But what’s different is the type of humour that Trump and the politicians that follow him indulge in.
• Telling an offensive joke serves up prejudice and hatred with a side order of irony.
• Delivered with a nod and a wink, humour reassures us that it’s all just “a bit of fun”.

Joking aside

• In his 1905 book The Joke and its Relation to the Unconscious, Freud argued that jokes – especially offensive ones – reveal our inner urges.
• We are trained from an early age to be kind and polite to other people.
• But offensive jokes let us temporarily pause social prohibitions and flirt with our innermost fantasies.
• After all, Trump was only joking about being a dictator.

Nick Butler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

• Nikki Haley in the South Carolina Republican primary ahead of the 2024 election, according to a new poll released today by the FAU Political Communication and Public Opinion Research Lab (PolCom Lab) and Mainstreet Research.
• The poll found 65 percent of likely Republican primary voters support Trump, compared to just 23 percent backing Haley.
• Haley fares better among younger voters and women, but she still trails Trump significantly and across most groups.
• In a hypothetical 2024 general election matchup between Trump and U.S. President Joe Biden, the poll shows Trump leading by 17 points - 51 percent to 34 percent.

• Former President Donald Trump has long made it clear that he deeply resents NATO, a 75-year-old military alliance that is composed of the United States and 30 other countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany and France.
• The central idea behind NATO’s existence, as explained in Article 5 of NATO’s 1949 treaty, is that all NATO countries agree to defend any other NATO country in case of an attack.
• NATO has no standing army and relies on member countries to volunteer their military forces to carry out any operation.
• So all NATO countries agree to spend 2% of their annual gross domestic product on military defense in order to support NATO.
• Here are three major benefits for the U.S. that come with NATO membership:

1. NATO gives the US reliable allies

• Yet, without its allies in Asia, and above all without those in Europe, the U.S would be a much diminished superpower.
• NATO provides the U.S. with a leadership position in one of the strongest military alliance networks in the world.
• The U.S. considers economically strong countries like Canada, Germany, France, Italy and many other established democracies as its friends and allies.
• NATO has invoked Article 5 only once – immediately after the U.S. was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001.
• America’s NATO allies were ready to come to the aid of the U.S. – and, for good or for bad, many subsequently participated in the United States’ war in Afghanistan.

2. NATO provides peace and stability

• NATO provides a blanket of protection and mutual security for all its members, helping explain why the vast majority of countries in central and eastern Europe clamored to join NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
• Invading a NATO country would bring the entire alliance into a war with Russia, which would be a risky gamble for Moscow.

3. NATO has helped the US get stronger

• NATO, on the other hand, is a voluntary military alliance, and countries must go through a demanding application process before they are accepted.
• The United States’ current presence in Europe – and Asia – has not been imposed by force.
• By joining NATO and accepting the military leadership of Washington, the other NATO countries give the U.S. unprecedented influence and power.
• Norwegian scholar Geir Lundestad called this an “empire by invitation.” This informal empire has deeply anchored the U.S. and its influence in Europe.

A split in opinion

• Biden has repeatedly warned Putin that he would face the consequences if Russia attacks a NATO member.
• For Trump, however, transatlantic solidarity and mutual defense appear to count for nothing.
• For him, it seems to be all about the money and whether or not NATO countries spend 2% of their GDP on defense.
• Trump does not view Putin’s Russia as an existential threat to the U.S.-led global order.

Klaus W. Larres does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

• Mayorkas is the first cabinet secretary to be impeached by the House in almost 150 years.
• The Senate, controlled by Democrats, is not expected to charge Mayorkas, allowing him to keep his job.
• The vote follows a series of recent moves by the House GOP to exercise Congress’ impeachment power.
• Committees conduct more investigations of the incumbent administration when Congress and the presidency are controlled by opposing parties.

Politicized oversight

• In April 2023, as part of his committee’s probe into allegedly politically motivated prosecutions of former President Donald Trump, Jordan sent a subpoena for sworn testimony to lawyer Mark Pomerantz.
• In return, Bragg sued Jordan in federal court for what Bragg called an “unprecedented and unconstitutional attack” by the federal government on an ongoing state-level investigation.
• But apart from legal questions, the Jordan-Bragg dispute raises fundamental questions about the politicization of oversight.

‘Legislative purpose’ required

• Jordan and McCarthy have argued that the “weaponiz[ation] of our sacred system of justice” against a political opponent demands the American people’s immediate attention.
• Thus, political science scholars have proposed several possible guidelines by which observers might judge a congressional investigation’s quality.

1. Look to the professionals

• In other words, does Congress look to the corners of the government at which highly informed nonpartisan experts have shined their lights?
• If so, we can infer that Congress is responding to problems for which there is an established need for oversight.

2. Look to bipartisan cooperation

• If the goal is to assess how oversight is weaponized politically, the most obvious metric might appear to be: Is an investigation bipartisan?
• Scholars and citizens could look at whether committee reports are issued jointly by the majority and minority parties, and whether both parties sign off on subpoenas and other information requests.
• If one Republican joins 20 Democrats on an investigative request, or vice versa, does that equate to bipartisanship?

3. Look to information sources

• Considering the sources of that information is relevant to determining its credibility.
• Thus, a relative dearth of information-sharing between Congress and agency bureaucrats may affect the quality of the information the legislature receives about the government programs they oversee.

4. Look to effectiveness

• Do oversight and investigations actually lead to measurable changes in agency behavior?
• Research suggests that when Congress chooses to conduct oversight hearings on specific problems in government, those problems are significantly less likely to recur.

5. Look to the people

• In other words, “good” oversight is whatever Congress – and, by extension, the electorate – says it is.
• There is little evidence that voters consciously split their tickets – that is, vote for candidates from different parties on the same ballot.
• In the 2022 midterms, the Republican takeover of the House can be largely explained by higher turnout among Republican voters.

Claire Leavitt has received funding from the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and the Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy.