D
onald Trumpis right.
(I’vebeenwaiting
weeksfor achanceto
writethat.)
“Havingagood
relationship with Russia isagood
thing,not abad thing,” the presi-
dent-electtweetedlast weekend.
“Only ‘stupid’ people, or fools,
would thinkthat itis bad!”
That’s true; no sensibleperson
wants astateof hostilitywith a
nuclear superpower.
But —and youknewa “but”was
coming— Trumptweetedhis
foreignpolicydoctrine with an
essential piece missing.The goal of
American foreignpolicyis to pro-
tect U.S. interests, notto achieve “a
good relationship” with any par-
ticularcountry— muchless a
countryas troubling in itsconduct
as Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
Trump hasn’tgivenafull-scale
foreignpolicyspeechsince April,
when he unveiled his“America
First”slogan. He did,however,
suggest duringthe campaignthat
hewould focus onafewcoregoals:
8 Defeating Islamic Stateand
otherterroristgroups.
8 Negotiatingbettertradedeals
to bringjobs backto the United
States.
8 Curbing Iran’s powerin the
Middle East, and canceling or
renegotiating PresidentObama’s
nuclear deal.
8 Renegotiating the NATO
allianceto force othercountries to
spend moreon theirowndefense —
withawarning that theU.S. might
not defend them against Russia if
they don’t.
Here’sthe problem with
Trump’sbromance with Putin:Of
thefour items on that list, the
Russian leader might behelpful
with one, thefight against Islamic
terrorists. He’snot so interested in
the others.
Bringing U.S. jobs back?Nothis
problem.CurbingIran and scrap-
ping the nuclear deal? Actually,Putin’s proud of therole he played
in negotiatingthe agreement,and
he’sbeen busy selling advanced
weaponsto the ayatollahs. Renego-
tiating NATO?Putinmaywant to
encourageTrump on that one —
but mostlyto seeif he can under-
mine theWestern alliance.
Putin’spriorities aredifferent
from ours. Hewants to stayin
powerand stave off what he sees as
Western pressureto democratize.
He wants to restor eRussia’s
sphereof influenceover thecoun-
tries of the former SovietUnion,
beginning with Ukraine, whichhe
invaded in 2014.He wants to weak-
en theNorthAtlantic TreatyOr-
ganization,whichhe views as a
hostile militaryalliance.
In otherwords, Putin’sgoals
conflict withU.S. interestsmore
oftenthantheycoincide. In addi-
tion, Russiaexpert sbelieve Putin
prefersto castthe United States as
an adversary, because it helpshim
maintain his hold on power.
“The legitimacy of Putin’s sys-
temof repressivedomesticcontrols
depends on theexistence ofexte r-
nal threats,”WilliamJ. Burns,a
formerU.S. ambassadorto Mos-
cow, wrotelast week. “Ifhe can’t
easilybuildRussia up, he can take
the United States downafewpegs
with hischaracteristic tactical
agilityand his willingnessto play
rough and takerisks.”
Republicans—includinginside
the newTrump administration —
aredividedover howmuchU.S.-
Russiancooperation is feasible.
Trump’snominees as secretary
of Defense (JamesMattis),CIA
chief (MikePompeo) and national
intelligence director (Dan Coats)
have all described Putinas an
adversary, not afriend.
Meanwhile,retired Lt. Gen.
Michael Flynn, Trump’s choice as
national securityadvisor,has long
argued that an alliance with Russia
is keyto defeating Islamicterror-
ism. “Wecan’t do whatwe want to
do unlesswe workwith Russia,
period,”he said lastyear.And Trump’stoppolitical strat-
egist, Stephen K. Bannon,has said
he thinksPutincan be enlisted in a
joint effortto contain thegrowing
powerof both Iran and China.
Trump has alreadyproposed a
wayto settle the question:Just give
Putinachance.
“Some say the Russianswon’t
be reasonable;Iintend to find out,”
he said in April. “Ifwe can’t makea
good deal for America, thenwe will
quicklywalk from the table.”
But he stillneedsto define what
agood dealwould be.
Herearethree specific steps
Trump should take:
First, he shouldreassureU.S.
alliesthat he doesn’t planto walk
away from NATO treatycommit-
ments. (The three small Baltic
states, whichfeel directly threat-
ened by Russia, arealready racing
to meet theircommitments on
defense spending.)
Second,Trumpshould an-
nouncethat hewon’tsupportany
relaxation ofWestern sanctions
against Russia unless Putinwith-
drawsfrom eastern Ukraine.For-
mer U.S. envoyStephen Ses-
tanovichsays the Russians are
waitingto seeif Trump will act
without asking for anything in
return. “The other side neverpays
for somethingit expectsto getfor
free,” he wrote.
Third,the president-elect
shouldwait fo rthe 90-dayreviewof
cybersecurityhe’srequested before
tweaking any of the Obama admin-
istration’s added cybersanctions.
Until now, he’streated questions
about Russian hackingas political
attacks on hislegitimacy;once he’s
safelyin office, he might be ableto
consider them morecalmly as a
questionof U.S. securityinterests.
Trump should takehis own
advice:Deal wi th Putinfrom a
position of strength, notweakness
—and seekgood relations only in
pursuit ofa“good deal,” not as an
end in themselves.[email protected]M.RyderTribuneA 3-step Russia plan
DOYLE McMANUSLATIMES.COM/OPINION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY11, 2017 A
OP-ED
C
ode Pinkmaygeta
bad rap, disrupting as
it does seemingly
everysignificantevent
on Capitol Hill. But
the most hysterical perform-
ances atTuesday’s ser ially inter-
rupted Senateconfirmation
hearingfor attorneygeneral
nominee Jeff Sessionscame not
from scrappy protesters, but
from the august senators within.
“I wouldliketo begin,”Sen.
DianneFeinstein (D-Calif.) said
to Sessions,“with the second
largest criminalindustryin this
country,whichis no w— believe it
or not, byrevenues produced —
human sextrafficking.”
In otherwor ds, the California
senator wishedto lead off her
critical cross-examination of the
nation’s likely nexttopcopwith a
factually insane claim that will
probably give him morepower.
In order for“human sex
trafficking”to be the second
largest criminalindustryin the
United States, itwould at min-
imum need to supplant illegal
narcotics (roughly $100 billion a
year,accord ing to a2014 Rand
Corp.estimate),or Medicare
fraud (in the ballpark of $
billion, accord ing to the Govern-
ment AccountabilityOffice in
2015). So distantis reality from
those numbers thateventhe
commonly citedfig ureof $9.
billionayear foralltrafficking —
and keep in mindthat human
smugglingdwarfssextrafficking
—was given“four Pinocchios”by
Washington Post fact-checker
GlennKessle r.
Feinsteinwasn’t done.“Traf-
ficking victims,” shewarned,
average “12to14”in age. ( “Four
Pinocchios,”judged Kessler.)
These fakenumbers have
consequences.
Congress has leaned on such
bogus statisticsby periodically
ratcheting up the penaltiesof the
2000 TraffickingVictims Protec-
ti on Act—the 2015 reauthoriza-
tion,for example, madewebsites
liable for sextrafficking ifami-
nor is foundto have advertised
services there.
“I n2014 alone,31 states pas-
sed newlawsconcerninghuman
trafficking,” ElizabethNolan
Brownwrot ein Reason maga-
zine15 months ago. “Since the
startof 20 15,at least22 states
have done so.”
And who is beingprosecuted?
Besides publishers suchas Back-
page.com, whichshut down its
“Adult”section thisweek after
relentless pressure(including
concurrent hearingson Capitol
Hil lon Monday), the criminals
apprehended aredisproportion-
ately adultfemales whowork in
the sexindustryby choice.
There is awell-established
connection between moral panic
over disfavore dbehaviors and
laws that produce grotesque
inj ustices.What boggles the
mind is howthisclearcausation
seemsto elude lawmakerseven
in the midst ofaconversation
about the enforcement of federal
law.
In fact, the best parts ofTues-
day’s hearingscame when sena-
tors grilled Sessionsover his
oppositionto scaling back
previous hysteria-basedover-
reaches, suchas disparities in
sentencingsinvolving crack and
powder cocaine. (The Alabama
senatorvotedin favorof one
suchreform,but stands opposed
to makingtherecalibrated sen-
tencesretroactive for people still
languishing in prison.)
Yetthose momentswere
outnumbered byJudiciaryCom-
mittee members tryingto egg
Sessions onto enforce laws
against the monsters hiding
under theirbeds.
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch(R-
Utah) favorably citedanewUtah
billthat describespornography
as apublichealth“epidemic,”
and encouraged Sessionsto
reopen theJusticeDepartment’s
porno task force.As recentlyas
President Obama’sfirst term,
that unitwasproducing pros-
ecutions thatcould have put
pornographers in jail for aslong
as 32 years.
RepublicanSen.Lindsey
Grahamof South Carolinawasa
one-manhysteriagenera tor,
with eachquestiondesignedto
give the federalgovernment
morepower. What did Sessions
think about the Obama adminis-
tration interpretingthe Wire Act
in awayto “allowonline video
poker”? “Iwasshocked,” Ses-
sionsreplied.
“Do youbelieve the threatsto
the homeland aregrowing or
lessening?” Graham asked.
“Growing,” said the likelynext
attorneygeneral. Gitmo?Keep
’eropen. Trysuspectedterrorists
likecriminals? Hell no!
Thereareexcellentreasonsto
oppose Sessions’ nomination,
beginning with his enthusiastic
supportfor theevil practice of
civil asset forfeiture, by which the
government can lawfully seize
the propertyof citizens who
haven’tevenbeenchargedwith a
crime. (Ninety-fivepercent of
asset forfeiture cases, he has
ludicrously claimedin the past,
involvepeople“who have done
nothingin their lives but sell
dope.”)
But maybe the mostterrify-
ing thing about the man is that
he so faithfullyreproduces the
basic postureof his fellow sena-
tors: Everything isathreat,
evidencebe damned,and the
federalgovernment needs more
powerto keepus safe.
We areat apoint in thiscoun-
trywhere officials in theJustice
Department can’teventell you
the number of federal crimes, the
averageAmerican (accord ing to
the calculationsof the civil liber-
tarian HarveySilverglate)com-
mits“three feloniesa day,”and
thereis no observable political
penaltyfor grotesquely exagger-
atingreal problems.Jeff Ses-
sions might not beagood pick
for AG,but maybe he’sthe hon-
est one.MattWelchis editor at large
of Reasonand a contributing
writerto Opinion.Hysteria aplenty at
the Sessions hearing
By MattWelch
W
hen Donald
Trump won the
presidency on
Nov. 8, pundits,
reporters and po-
liticalwonks turnedto the national
exitpolltofindoutexactlywhathad
happened.Howhadvariousgroups
in various statesvoted?
One of theexit pollfindings was
particularly surprising:Although
Hill ary Clinton triumphed among
Latinosoverall— with66% of their
votes — she gotfewerof their votes
than Barack Obamagot in 2012.
And although Trumplost among
Latinos,his share of theirvotes —
28% — was 1 percentage point
higherthan MittRomney’s in 2 012.
If those figu res wereaccurate,
theywouldrepresentamajor reve r-
sal inLatinovoting trends.
Since the1990s, scholars track-
ing Latino votes have seen the
group’s increasing muscle at the
polls,whichingeneral,hasbeenput
to work for Democrats.Was the
largest ethnicgroup in the nation
suddenly starting to shi ft its party
allegiances? Andcould that have
happenedeven witha Republican
candidate who called immigrants
rapists, promisedto builda border
wall and claimed thata Mexican
Americanjudge couldn’t be impar-
tial becauseof his heritage?
As itturns out,a closer analysis
in states with large Latino popula-
tions indicates that the national
exit poll— which is still being cited
as an authoritative source— is
wrong. In Florida, Arizona and
Texas—andinCalifornia,wherewe
just finished analyzing the data —
the exit poll has substantiallyover-
estimated Trump’s success among
Latinos.
The national exit poll isa state-
by-state survey conducted by Edi-
son Research and paid for by news
media. It samples selected pre-
cinctsinanattemptto g atheranac-
curate overallcount quickly onelection night. But, like all polls, it
isn’t fail-safe. In California, the Edi-
son exit poll data suggested that
71% of Latinos cast theirvotes for
Clinton, and 24% for Trump. Ac-
cord ing to our research, the num-
bers are significantlydifferent: 83%
for Clinton, andjust11%for Trump.
Instead of pollinga sample of
voters, our analysis is based on ac-
tual votes: The official2012 and 20 16results in10,121 precincts in 16 Cali-
forniacounties (the most populous
counties and the ones that certify
their electionresults quickly). That
data iscombined with census infor-
mation thattells us the demo-
graphicsof eachprecinct.
Theaccompanyinggraphshows
you what we discovered. The dots
represent thevote percentage for
each candidate in each precinct.
The more votes he or she won, the
higher thecolored dots rise on the
vertical axis. Along the horizontal
axis, thevote totals are sorted by
the size of theLatino population in
eachprecinct.And thecolore dlines
track the overall estimates of
precinctvote shares for all four can-
didates in both elections, arrived at
by aseparatestatistical analysis.
We know that Obamawon Cali-
fornia by 3 million votes in 20 12, and
Clintonexpandedthismarginto 4.
million in 2016, so we would expect
to see Clin ton doing better and
Trump doing worse than their
counterpartsin2012.Thatisexactly
what thedotpattern shows. Trump
underperformedRomneyacrossal-
mostevery precinctwe analyzed,
and the deficit widens asvoting
precinctsget more heavilyLatino.
Clinton’s vote sha re largely mirrors
Obama’s except in precincts where
more than75% of the population
are adultLatino citizens. In these
precincts, she capturesa greater
proportion of thevote share. (That
increase is most likely thereason
Clinton won the state by such a
large marginover Obama in 2012.)
Onekey findingfrom all of our
analysis is this:It is virtuallyimpos-
sible that 24% of CaliforniaLatinos
cast their vote for Trump as pur-
ported by theexit poll. Instead ofwinning71%ofLatinovotes,Clinton
wonmorethan 80%.
The discrepancy between the
exit poll and ourfindings is similar
to discrepancies found viaresearch
in Texas, Ari zona and Florida.Tak-
en toge ther, theseresult s suggest
an “entrance poll”conducted in the
days before the Nov. 8 electionwas
much closerto reality than the na-
tional exit poll. Theresear ch firm
Latino Decisions did the survey. It
put theLatino vote for Clinton at
80% in California, and for Trump,
16%. Nationally, 79% voted Demo-
cratic, andonly18%Republican.
More state level analysis needs
to be done on the voting patterns in
the 2016 election. At thevery least,
we expect scholars and policy-
makers will ultimatelyreco gnize
that the trend inLatinovoting —
more turnout andmore votes for
Democrats— was buoyed andex-
tended by Clinton’s candidacy, not
interrupted orreversed.
Voting patterns drive policy and
party choices inWashington and in
state capitals. Andexactly how the
vote stacks up in California is par-
ticularly significant. The demo-
graphics of the Golden State —
where Latino voters ar e an increas-
inglyinfluential bloc at the polls —
arelikelyto be replicated in muchof
the rest of the nation incoming
years.We know that democracy
needsgood data.When itcomesto
the Latino vote, the nationalexit
poll isn’tgood enough.Francisco I. Pedrazais assistant
professor of political science and
public policyat UC Riverside.
Bryan Wilcox-Archuletais a
doctoral student in political
science at UCLA.How many Latinos voted for Tr ump?
Francisco I. PedrazaandBryan Wilcox-ArchuletaBy Francisco I.
Pedraza and Bryan
Wilcox-Archuleta
CALIFORNIA PRESIDENTIALVOTEOfficial precinct-level electionreturns