“I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach --- condemnation without discussion --- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path, unless it has a choice of an open door.”   --- Barack Obama

That is, unless Donald Trump opens it.

When Trump met North Korean aggression with an equally aggressive stance, the elite foreign policy blogosphere waxed ballistic. The mainstream press streamed hours of hyperbolic public hand-wringing about the immanent advent of World War III. Trump was “ham fisted” and bellicose, risking all out war. The Independent presented an entire scenario of detailed steps leading from the tough rhetoric of Donald Trump to the immolation of San Francisco with an ICBM. Politico warned that the personal attacks of Trump against dictator Kim Jong Un would lead the world to “stumble into WW III”.  

CNN --- always leave CNN for last --- loyally quoted the head of the pacifist leftwing Ploughshares Fund, warning that the UK and North Korea could easily “stumble into conflict” (ah, now we know where Politico got that catchy phrase) as “two inexperienced and impulsive presidents in control of these massive military machines… let loose a war unlike anything we have seen since World War II”.

And so on. And on.

Barack Obama, they cried, understood the need for diplomacy with rogue regimes. He would refrain from insulting the unstable leader of a rogue nation. He would never default to warlike rhetoric. He would negotiate, eschewing prideful posturing for wise outreach. The inability of the inexperienced Mr. Trump to follow his lead and extend an olive branch to the North Korean dictator risked worldwide immolation.

At least, that was the party line, until President Trump actually extended an olive branch to North Korea, at which point bellicosity became the preferred course of action and diplomacy a mistake of historic proportion.

Ending warlike rhetoric in favor of diplomatic language is suddenly ‘weak’.

All diplomatic meetings with Kim are suddenly wrong, because they 'legitimize' him as the president of North Korea, which he is.

Complimenting Kim Jong Un instead of those personal attacks is suddenly ‘embarrassing’.

Nevertheless, there has now been a summit, with a preliminary agreement to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and a pause in US / SK military exercises, pending further negotiations. (Which, just as an aside, is not a pause at all, since the exercises were already over until next spring, at which point we'll have successful denuclearization or start them up again as scheduled.... but I digress). This nascent rapprochement might be considered a wise course of action in a sane world, at least according to the doctrine established by President Obama that “no repressive regime can move down a new path, unless it has an open door”.  Trump has opened a tempting little door; he's waiting to see if Kim walks through it.

But in the view of those afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome, there is no sanity. Opening diplomatic doors with repressive regimes is good, until one opens a door with a repressive regime. Using warlike rhetoric is wrong, until one tries diplomatic rhetoric. Attacking Kim personally is wrong, until one says something positive. Diplomatic meetings are great, until one has a meeting.

If you are Donald Trump in the eyes of the Democrats, all is failure. If we only had Barack Obama back; he knew how to handle North Korea: let Kim Jong Un amuse himself building a nuclear arsenal and some nice ICBM’s to deliver it, all the while delivering his own erudite warnings against “the satisfying purity of indignation” for the edification of his followers. And just let World War III take care of itself.