Author Archives: jsh54

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 13.

Posted on by
Reply

            President Donald Trump sees great virtues in building a tariff wall around America.  Is that good or bad?  It depends. 

Trump’s argument is that tariffs are good for America over the long run, even if they have short-term costs.  “Other countries have used tariffs against us for decades, and now it’s our turn.”  Trump has claimed that tariffs will make the American economy “even more self-sufficient, producing more of its energy, lumber, steel, and computer chips than ever before.”[1]  If those hopes come true, there will many jobs—white collar as well as blue collar—created.  The American economy’s supply-chain will become much more secure in a time of rising international tensions.  Trump has conceded that America would experience a “period of transition,” which might include a recession.[2]  

Critics argue that tariffs are bad for America and for everyone else.  First, tariffs raise prices for consumer countries, not for producer countries.[3]  Second, if one country raises tariffs, the other country or countries will raise tariffs on the first country’s goods.  This will reduce exports in what becomes a” trade war.”  Slowing down the domestic economy by raising consumer prices and reducing employment in sectors tied to exports could bring on a recession. 

President Donald Trump has followed a very erratic course on actually imposing tariffs.  Is that good or bad?  It’s bad. 

In early March 2025, Trump imposed a 20 percent tariff on goods imported from China[4] and 25 percent tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada.[5]  China responded with 10-15 percent tariffs on American corn and wheat.  The stock market tumbled and Trump quickly announced a month-long pause on tariffs on imported cars and parts.  The Wall Street Journal wondered “which side of the tariff bed Trump will wake up on” in days to come?  They got a quick answer.  In mid-March 2025, Trump imposed a 25 percent tariff on all steel and aluminum (both unprocessed and turned into something else—look at your soda can) imported into the United States. 

No one seemed to care about the tariff hike for China, but critics insisted that Canada and Mexico take about a third of America’s exports and send the US valuable commodities. 

Is this what got Trump elected?  Journalists posit that Trump won election on the promise of a vibrant economy, low inflation and unemployment, and controlled immigration.  That’s not all they’re getting.  One recent poll reported that 56 percent of respondents disapproved of Trump’s management of the economy.  He tariff-bombed China in his first administration and talked about tariffs in the campaign for his second.  Apparently, no one took him seriously.  Now he is acting like a real lame-duck president: doing what he thinks is right regardless of the polls or the pols—or the stock market.  Albeit in an erratic, bloviating, Trump-like fashion. 

[1] Quoted in “The Trump economy: Adrift in a sea of tariffs,” The Week, 28 March 2025, p. 34. 

[2] “Trump tariffs cause stock market whiplash,” The Week, 21 March 2025, p. 4. 

[3] Which is exactly the purpose of tariffs.  More expensive imports create a market for cheaper domestic producers. 

[4] Previously 10 percent.  The key question becomes whether the American producers can deliver equal goods at a lower cost. 

[5] Even though all three countries are members of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  “U.S. tariffs spark North American trade war,” The Week, 14 March 2025, p. 5. 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 12.

Posted on by
Reply

            For a long time, the United States has imposed lower tariffs on the goods of its trading partners than those trading partners have imposed on American goods.  The US did this because the national strategy was to foster a world of openish markets in pursuit of “peace, prosperity, and American exports around the world.”[1]  A month into office, President Donald Trump is announcing the end of the Age of America as the “benevolent hegemon.”  Now it is “pursuing its own interests first.”[2]  Trump’s actions began wreaking havoc in the international economy.  He doubled the tariff on Chinese goods, announced a looming 25 percent tariff on imported steel and aluminum, and raised the possibility of tariffs on semi-conductors, drugs (and not the fentanyl kind either), and cars. 

            Take the example of cars.  About 8 million of the 16 million new cars sold in the United States each year are manufactured abroad, chiefly in Germany, Japan, and South Korea.  Many more “foreign” cars are manufactured in American plants.  In late February 2025, President Donald Trump raised the idea of imposing a 25 percent tariff on car imports.[3]  One solution might be for foreign car-makers to increase production in their American facilities, while reducing exports to the United States.  Fine, except that a) it takes along time to build a car plant and recruit a work force, and Trump might be out of office before the plants are ready, taking his tariffs with him back to Mar-a-Lago; and b) if they cut manufacturing in their home country, they will have to lay off many workers there, as well as taking the political heat that comes with the lay-offs. 

            Then there’s steel.[4]  Many foreign countries subsidize their own steel industries at the expense of American producers.  Eighty percent of America’s steel imports come from “friendly” countries (Europe, Japan), rather than from China.[5]  Trump wants to privilege American steel-producers over those foreign competitors.  American steel-consumers—car companies for example, and their American customers—will have to bear the transitional costs. 

            The push-back came swift and hard.  Basically, “He did this in his first term and the results were BAD!”  Prices rose, American companies saw their sales fall, and car companies came under a lot of financial stress.[6]  Moreover, bullying our friends gains us nothing.  Canada—the country that invented hockey—dropped the gloves, at least rhetorically for the moment.[7]

On the other hand, some observers thought that the threat of tariffs could serve a useful purpose.  It could bring foreign trading partners to renegotiate existing trade deals.[8]  In short, Trump isn’t serious about actually imposing the tariffs. 

But what if he is serious?  And what if he insists on including the reduction of Non-Tariff Barriers (NTB) to trade?  This would include things like currency manipulation, and the taxation and regulation of American businesses abroad.  Eeeek! 

[1] “Trump’s tariffs: A new era of protectionism,” The Week, 28 February 2025, p. 34.    

[2] See Oren Cass, quoted in “Tariffs: Does Trump know what he is doing?” The Week, 14 February 2025, p. 6. 

[3] “Trade: Tariffs may hike foreign car prices,” The Week, 28 February 2025, p. 32. 

[4] “Trum brings back steel tariffs,” The Week, 21 February 2025, p. 32. 

[5] That is, our “friends” have been harming us for decades in the service of domestic interest groups. 

[6] “Trump’s tariffs: A new era of protectionism,” The Week, 28 February 2025, p. 34. 

[7] “Canada: Proudly resisting Trump’s bullying,” The Week, 14 February 2025, p. 14. 

[8] “Tariffs: Does Trump know what he is doing?” The Week, 14 February 2025, p. 6. 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 11.

Posted on by
Reply

            The year began with a menacing fact about Sino- American trade.  In the course of the last year of the interminable Biden presidency, China’s global trade surplus hit $992 billion, the highest ever.  China’s surplus in trade with the United States reached almost $525 billion.[1]  That’s over half of the total trade surplus for the year.  This news came as a grim confirmation of fears to people who think that trade deficits represent job losses in the deficit country, represent a victory for the chief rival of the United States, and that China is trying to export its way out of grave domestic economic problems. 

            This fact provides important background to President-elect Donald Trump’s tariff policy.  Trump had promised to impose tariffs “on Day 1.”  He didn’t quite do that.  No sooner was he inaugurated than Trump said that he was considering a 10 percent increase on the existing tariffs on imports from China and a 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico.[2]  The tariffs would go into effect on 1 February 2025. 

“He’s a fake!” chortled Never-Trump pundits in early January 2025.[3]  He campaigned on levying tariffs of 10-20 percent on all imports from everywhere.  Now the President-elect is talking about focused tariffs on a few things.  Others took a more nuanced view.  This is his second term, so people have become accustomed to his “bluster.”  More than likely, he talks about tariffs in order to “squeez[e] out some concessions.”[4]

            In the eyes of critics, there are two different issues here.  The first is economic warfare against China.  America’s aggressive rival[5] has some serious weak spots.  Most noticeably, these include “a spiraling property market, perilous local government finances, a shrinking labor force, and brittle consumer confidence.”[6]  Since the first Trump administration, many American companies have been pulling back from China.  The country is vulnerable to pressure. 

            China hawks felt ambivalent about tariffs.  The very smart Aaron Friedberg,[7] took a hopeful view.  To resist “Chinese mercantilism,” tariffs “in a more targeted, tailored form” can be useful.  Tariffs on everyone else, however, would impede formation of an anti-China alliance.[8]  Meanwhile, China is exploiting every opportunity to build an anti-American alliance.  Why increase the number of volunteers? 

            The second is the tariffs on everyone else.  The tariffs on Mexico and Cananda “could throw American diplomatic relationships and global supply chains into disarray.”[9] 

            What does China do with all the dollars it earns from selling to America? 

[1] “The bottom line,” The Week 24 January 2025, p. 32. 

[2] “Trade: Trump readies tariffs on rivals and allies,” The Week, 31 January 2025, p. 32. 

[3] No, he’s all too real. 

[4] Gabriel Rubin in Reuters, quoted in “Trade: Trump readies tariffs on rivals and allies,” The Week, 31 January 2025, p. 32.

[5] “A toughish lot, but very go ahead, rather like we were in the old days.”—Sam Collins to George Smiley in John LeCarre, Smiley’s People. 

[6] Eswar Prasad in NYT, quoted in “China: Does Trump really want a trade war?” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 34.

[7] See: Aaron Friedberg – Wikipedia 

[8] Friedberg’s blog at Foreign Policy, quoted in “China: Does Trump really want a trade war?” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 34. 

[9] Ana Swanson in NYT, quoted in “Trade: Trump readies tariffs on rivals and allies,” The Week, 31 January 2025, p. 32. 

Sleigh Ride.

Posted on by
Reply

            Imagine a Russian four-horse sleigh.  Coming home from a Christmas party at a nobleman’s country estate, it is loaded with presents.  Its passengers are bundled in furs and further insulated against the cold by much wine and an elaborate meal.  Sleep beckons. 

            Glancing drowsily toward the nearby forest, one among them sees the glitter of eyes watching from the woods.  “Wolves,” he says.  The sleigh-driver urges his horses on a bit.  Looking back, the passengers see a pack of wolves emerge from among the trees.  Then the leader of the pack begins to run after the sleigh.  The others follow.  Looking back, the driver sees them and quickly cracks his whip.  The horses surge forward and the passengers come fully awake.  Safety lies only in reaching their own country house. 

            The wolf-pack gains ground.  The driver belabors his horses with the whip, but calls to his passengers that they must throw things overboard.  That will lighten the load for the horses and it may distract the wolves.  Hampers filled with left-overs are the first to go.  The wolves pause briefly to snap at the offerings, but then come on with appetites whetted.  Gifts still wrapped in paper and ribbon go over the back next.  The wolves hardly glance at these, just keep rushing toward the sleigh.  Panic begins to grip the people on the sleigh.  Would they reach home before the wolves caught up? 

            So it was with rearmament in the Thirties.  Germany was the leader of the pack, Japan and Italy were other members of the pack; Britain and France were the passengers in the sleigh; and rearmament itself was the sleigh. 

            For more detail and depth on these issues, you can see additional posts on this blog. 

            The Costs of the First World War.  The Costs of the First World War. | waroftheworldblog 

            Appeasement and Beliefs.  Appeasement and Beliefs. | waroftheworldblog 

            Britain, Appeasement, and Today.  Britain, Appeasement, and Today. | waroftheworldblog 

            France and Appeasement in the Thirties. France and Appeasement in the Thirties. | waroftheworldblog   

            Crossing the Line.  Crossing the Line. | waroftheworldblog 

            Hitler’s War.  Hitler’s War. | waroftheworldblog 

            Why write this stuff NOW?  Why write?  I’m a historian trying to make sense of human actions under the pressure of ideas and events.  It’s my way of trying to serve a useful purpose beyond my own enjoyment.  Why NOW?  I suspect that those times inform our times.  China is the leader of the pack; Russia, North Korea, and Iran are the other wolves.  Maybe I’m just crying “Wolf!” 

British rearmament in the Thirties.

Posted on by
1

            The government had ended the “Ten Year Rule” in 1932, but continued to hold down defense spending.  Then, in October 1933, Germany withdrew from the Disarmament Conference.  This tipped the balance toward rearmament. 

            In November 1933, the Committee of Imperial Defence (CID) formed a “Defence Requirements Sub-Committee (DRC).”  Its mission was to identify the worst gaps in the military forces, plan how to meet them, and to make broad judgements about strategy.  By July 1934 it identified Germany as the primary danger and determined that Britain should avoid conflict with Japan.  Also, the DRC adopted a five-year time-line for rearmament (1934-1939).[1]  In March 1935, the government broke decisively in favor of rearmament.

            Having made the decision to rearm in a hurry, all went smoothly, no?  No.  The DRC proposed increasing military spending by £71 million over the five years, much of it on the Army.  The Chancellor of the Exchequer[2] imposed important changes.  First, he cut the total to £50 million.  Second, he cut the money for the Army in half, while doubling the proposed spending on the Royal Air Force (RAF).  He placed the emphasis squarely on home defense.  Henceforth, rearmament would involve constant tension between the armed services and the Treasury, with the Foreign Office getting buffeted between them. 

Defense spending rose from £37.2 million (1934) to £42.6 million (1935) to £60.7 million (1936) to £104.2 million (1937) to £182.2 million (1938) to £273.1 million (1939).  Almost half went to the Navy each year with the RAF receiving over half of the remainder.[3]    

What did Britain get for the money and how soon?  First and foremost, the RAF got thousands of modern, all-metal, single wing fighter planes–the Supermarine Spitfire and the Hawker Hurricane–which were to play such an important role in the Battle of Britain.  In addition, money went to development of radar for air defense control.[4]  In addition, a good deal of the expanded Army budget went to anti-aircraft artillery for home defense.  Second, the Navy received five new battleships, several aircraft carriers, and a host of light cruisers, while several older battleships were totally modernized.  Also, the defenses of the Singapore Base were hurried to conclusion as a stop-gap defense against Japan.  The Army largely got skint.  It could field only five divisions for service on the Continent.  Finally, industrial production saw improvements, both through the increased spending for the Royal Ordnance Factories (essentially bullets and shells), and through “Shadow Factories” (government-aided factories to expand aircraft production).[5] 

Britain had to try to avoid war until the program had been completed.  Until then,…

[1] Which would suggest that the “Ten-Year Rule” should have foreseen war in 1929.  But that is ridiculous.  It shows how fast things can change in human affairs. 

[2] Neville Chamberlin served as Chancellor of the Exchequer from November 1931 to May 1937, when he became Prime Minister. 

[3] Michael M. Postan, British War Production, Official History of the Second World War, United Kingdom Civil Series, Chapter II, p. 12, at HyperWar: British War Production [Chapter II]  On Postan, see: Michael Postan – Wikipedia 

[4] The prioritization of the RAF over the Army, but not over the Navy, reflected a fear of the danger from enemy bombing.  See: Chain Home – Wikipedia, especially the section “The bomber will always get through.”  It also demonstrates the initially defensive and deterrent nature of British rearmament. 

[5] British shadow factories – Wikipedia 

Why did Britain hesitate to rearm in the Thirties?

Posted on by
Reply

            Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany at a particularly difficult time for Britain.  The decision to re-arm, to prepare for another great war—even if could be limited to a merely “European War”[1]—proved agonizing and divisive. 

On the one hand, Britain faced the Great Depression which drove up unemployment, forced Britain off the Gold Standard (21 September 1931), and began the process of converting Britain from a policy of free trade to a system of protective tariffs.[2]  The tariffs went into effect in February 1932.  They encouraged import-substitute re-industrialization.  By one later estimate, the tariffs led to a rise of real annual GDP by 4 percent (1932-37), on a par with Nazi Germany.  These events marked a dramatic turning point in Britain’s national policies. 

The ship’s pilot guiding this turn was Neville Chamberlain.[3]  Having devoted his political career to domestic reform, he foresaw the GDP growth serving to revitalize the British economy through industrial modernization and a social policy that eased old divisions, rather than preparation for another world war.[4]  Threatened by Japan in the Far East, the Cabinet formally abandoned the “Ten Year Rule” (March 1932).  Even so, the government remained preoccupied by the “very serious financial and economic situation.”  It was determined to resist big increases in military spending. 

On the other hand, the forces opposed to war and the preparation for war occupied a strong position in political.  These forces coalesced around the League of Nations.  Although the League had been the brain-child of American President Woodrow Wilson, it found its strongest popular support in Britain.  Britain’s League of Nations Union acted as a powerful pressure-group.[5]  Its goals were to promote international justice and human rights; disarmament and the settlement of international conflicts by peaceful means; and reliance upon collective security, rather than alliances.[6]  Membership rose from about 250,000 in the mid-Twenties to over 400,000 in 1931. 

Anti-militarism became a public fixture in the early Thirties.  Examples include the Oxford “King and Country” debate (February 1933); the East Fulham by-election, in which the peace candidate thrashed the rearmament candidate (October 1933); the “Peace Ballot,” (results June 1935), which strongly endorsed League membership, universal disarmament, abolition of air forces and the arms industry, and collective security against aggression; and the ferocious opposition to the Hoare-Laval Pact (December 1935).  This only worked if everyone played.    

            Hitler’s withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference (October 1933) ended real hope. 

[1] John Lukacs, The Last European War: September 1939-December 1941 (1976). 

[2] See: Import Duties Act 1932 – Wikipedia  This Act formed a first step in a much larger plan.  In Summer 1932, representatives of Britain and the Dominions met in Ottawa.  They agreed upon a policy of high tariffs around the Empire; low tariffs within the Empire; and Keynesian ideas about demand management (low interest rates, increased government spending).  See: British Empire Economic Conference – Wikipedia for an under-developed sketch. 

[3] Neville Chamberlain – Wikipedia 

[4] For some of the National government’s social reforms, see: Unemployment Act 1934 – Wikipedia;

 Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act 1934 – Wikipedia; Special Areas (Amendment) Act 1937 – Wikipedia; Factory Acts – Wikipedia; Coal Act 1938 – Wikipedia; Holidays with Pay Act 1938 – Wikipedia;

[5] Members of the Liberal Party provided much of the leadership for the group, but important Conservatives also joined.  At the same time, many Conservative politicians and voters saw the League as ridiculous.

[6] See: Collective security – Wikipedia, and Disarmament – Wikipedia.  Both have useful bibliographies.   

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 10.

Posted on by
Reply

            Elon Musk kept swinging his scythe through the federal workforce, firing 7,000 people at the IRS and an additional 1,400 from Veterans Affairs, while warning the Environmental Protection Agency to expect a 65 percent reduction in force from its current 17,000 employees.[1] 

            Then, at the end of February 2025, Elon Musk had the Office of Personnel Management e-mail, oh, several million federal civilian employees.  The message instructed them to submit a five bullet-point list of the major stuff that they had done the previous week.  Failure to comply would be taken as a resignation. 

            Federal employees, their union representatives, and the Democratic Party responded with their competing imitations of Albert Goldman.[2]  About a dozen Secretaries of Departments rallied to the defense of their employees.  The latter seemed to some observers like the leaders being captured by their followers.  President Donald Trump may have seen it in that light because he gave Musk pride of place at a televised Cabinet meeting. 

            The themes in the criticism were as before: Musk is an “unelected” person culling the ranks of the unelected employees wielding the power of the federal government; and lots of Americans—Republicans and Democrats alike–depend upon the federal government for income or medical care or education.  The appeal to elected politicians to keep things as they are against the actions of the unelected man-child genius seeking to avert national bankruptcy captures the spirit of the enterprise.  It is disruption of the Old Order and NOT kicking the can down the road that arouses resistance.  In addition, it is argued that cutting employees from Veterans Affairs will harm veterans.  In reality, for at least twenty years people who deal with Veterans Affairs have been complaining that it is the most messed-up organization that they have ever seen.  A string of good leaders (e.g. Eric Shinseki) have failed in their efforts to fix it.  Finally, it is asserted that the cuts to the IRS will just hinder efforts to get the rich to pay their “fair share.”  This is an ever-green political issue.  Democrats like having it as an issue with which to bash the Republicans, but they will not actually raise taxes on the rich when they could.[3] 

            Then, to be asked to briefly state what work one did last week doesn’t seem unusual or difficult.  Corporations—both in America and around the world—carry out reductions in force whenever the balance sheet tips too much into the red.  Often, they’re not too strategic about where the axe falls.  It isn’t regarded as the end of the world. 

            On the other hand, government isn’t a business.  Ideally, the government does things for society that are essential or highly desirable, but for which there is no reasonable private sector provider.  The Departments of Defense, State, Justice, the Treasury, and the CIA and NSA for example.  Then there is the government’s role in funding and coordinating scientific and medical research, and managing a system of air traffic control.  Moreover, the “bureaucracy” isn’t staffed only with drones.  It recruits many specialist experts.  Sweeping purges will cause a bunch of things to go wrong soon.  And once the experts get the heave, it will be hard to lure them back. 

[1] “DOGE slashes workforce with Trump’s backing,” The Week, 7 March 2025, p. 5. 

[2] The character played by the great Nathan Lane in “The Birdcage” (dir. Mike Nichols, 1996). 

[3] The Biden administration’s “American Rescue Plan” passed the Senate 50-49; its “Inflation Reduction Act” passed the Senate 51-50.  Both used “Reconciliation” to by-pass the filibuster.  Higher taxes easily could have been included if they actually wanted to make the rich pay “their fair share.”  Same for repealing the “debt ceiling.” 

British Disarmament in the Nineteen Twenties.

Posted on by
Reply

            Britain’s military spending had soared during the First World War.  It remained high in the immediate aftermath of the war: £766 million in 1919–20.  Then, in August 1919, led by the Secretary of State for War and Air,[1] the Cabinet’s Committee of Imperial Defence adopted the “Ten Year Rule”: the government would base its defense budgets “on the assumption that the British Empire would not be engaged in any great war during the next ten years.” 

            From January 1920 to July 1921, Britain suffered a severe recession.  In 1921, the media titan Lord Rothermere founded the “Anti-Waste League” to pressure the government.[2]  It worked: the government appointed a budget-cutting Committee on National Expenditure with Sir Eric Geddes as chairman.  What followed became known as the “Geddes Axe.”[3]  In the end, total defense spending fell from £189.5 million (1921–22) to £111 million (1922–23), before rebounding to £114.7 million in 1924–25.[4] 

            Then a series of international agreements altered the context.  The Washington Naval Conference (1921-22) prevented a naval arms race between Britain, the United States, and Japan.  The Dawes Plan (1924) conceded to German objections on reparations.  The Locarno Pact (1925) stabilized relations in Western Europe between Germany and its former opponents.  In 1925, the new—and very popular in Britain–League of Nations began pushing for a World Disarmament Conference that would reduce “offensive” weapons almost out of existence.  The Versailles treaty had substantially disarmed Germany; now it was time for the other powers to follow suit.  A reduced chance of war would justify deep cuts in military budgets.  In 1928, in light of all these developments, the Chancellor of the Exchequer[5] persuaded the Cabinet to make the “Ten Year Rule” permanent unless specifically changed by the government.   

In the early Thirties, the Great Depression forced still more economies: defense spending fell to £102 million in 1932.  In April 1931, the First Sea Lord told the Committee of Imperial Defense that “owing to the operation of the ‘ten-year-decision’ and the clamant need for economy, our absolute [naval] strength also has … been so diminished as to render the fleet incapable, in the event of war, of efficiently affording protection to our trade.”  Moreover, if the Navy had to move the bulk of its strength to the Far East to deal with Japan, it would have the means to defend neither Britain’s overseas trade nor Britain itself. 

            In September 1931, Japan seized the Chinese outlying province of Manchuria.  On 23 March 1932, the Cabinet formally abandoned the “Ten Year Rule.”  However, it stipulated that “this [change] must not be taken to justify an expanding expenditure by the Defence Services without regard to the very serious financial and economic situation” of Britain. 

Then, in January 1933, Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany.  War was less than seven years, not ten, away.  Much rearmament would have to be done in great haste. 

[1] Winston Churchill. 

[2] See: Anti-Waste League – Wikipedia and Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere – Wikipedia  Comic in light of current events.  However, it was his rival, Lord Beaverbrook, who was the immigrant. 

[3] On Geddes, see: Eric Geddes – Wikipedia   On the Committee on National Expenditure, see: Geddes Axe – Wikipedia 

[4] For its part, social spending (education, health, housing, pensions, unemployment) fell from £205.8 million (1920–21) to £182.1 million (1922–23) to £175.5 million (1923–24), before rising to £177.4 million (1924–25). 

[5] Winston Churchill. 

“I hate rude behavior in a man.”–Woodrow F. Call, “Lonesome Dove.”

Posted on by
2

What is a “manly man”?  My grandfather pretty much abandoned his wife and two sons during the Twenties.  My Dad grew up in the Depression.  He picked fruit in California; logged in Montana; worked on a government survey ship in the Gulf of Alaska; was the assistant manager of a movie theater in Portland, Oregon; soldiered on Guadalcanal and Bougainville; was a ski-bum in Sun Valley and a cab driver in Seattle and Anchorage; and—eventually—owned a small business that put a roof over our heads and food in our bellies, along with many other things.  He smoked two packs of Camels a day.  He read a lot of high-end trash.[1]  He knew many “colorful” expressions, but he did not use them indoors or in front of women and children.  He never raised his voice to–let alone hit–my Mom or me and my siblings.  (He did punch out a tug-boat captain who disrespected my Mom.)  He taught me to sail, to ski, to drive a car (with a manual gear-shift), and to shoot both long guns and pistols (which we had around the house in an unlocked rack) and gun safety (“always check in the breech”).  He believed in individual achievement and personal responsibility.  He always voted straight-ticket Republican, except for the time he voted for McGovern because he was so angry about the waste and lies of the Vietnam War.  He intensely disliked rich swells, especially rich swells who went into politics and took up the cause of the “common man.”  (This meant FDR and all the Kennedys.)  He and my Mom believed that “a woman’s place was in the home” and that “a man had to provide for his family.”  He and my Mom were casual racists, just like most other White people of the time outside the South.  He was the finest man I’ve ever known. 

He offered an example of “traditional masculinity,” rather than “toxic masculinity.”  That distinction began when the term “toxic masculinity” was taken up by men’s movements in the 1980s and 1990s.  Gender differences are essentially hard-wired, rather than socially constructed.[2]  “Toxic” masculinity could appear where men had lost contact with real or “deep” masculinity.  Masculinity became “toxic” when men lost comradery with other men and when they repressed emotions.  From there, the term crept into academic studies and, from there, into the media in the 2010s.  Along the way, however, it became generalized to describe ALL masculinity.  In part, this seems to have occurred among people—feminists, gay-rights activists–struggling courageously for their own liberation.  In part, this sprang from “gray wolf” behavior among academics.[3]  In part, this seems to have resulted from the intellectual laziness of people in the media.[4]  There followed a moral panic over behavior attributed to many men.[5] 

Social movements swing like a pendulum, taking ever more extreme positions.  So it was with “toxic masculinity.”  Recent studies find that many male Trump voters support abortion rights, gender equality, and openness about emotions, but don’t believe that women’s progress has come at the expense of men.  They’re just sick of being stigmatized.[6]   

Believing a man should provide for his family is preferable to abandoning that family. 

[1] Kenneth Roberts, C.S. Forester, and John D. MacDonald. 

[2] On “Social Construction” see Social construction of gender – Wikipedia  Lots of jargon. 

[3] Pack hunter – Wikipedia 

[4] See: Toxic masculinity – Wikipedia, “Terminology.” 

[5] Moral panic – Wikipedia 

[6] Claire Cain Miller, “Many Trump-Voting Men Feel Under Fire, Yet Defy Stereotypes,” NYT, 5 March 2025. 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 9.

Posted on by
Reply

New York City Mayor Eric Adams had been critical of President Joe Biden’s policy on illegal immigration.  He became so after the administration’s “Remain in Texas” policy had collapsed, flooding Democratic cities in the North with illegal immigrants.  Adams and newly-elected President Donald Trump drew together.  So far, so good.  Bipartisanship is still possible! 

However, a problem existed.  Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York had accused Adams of various serious crimes.  It seemed possible, if not certain, that Adams would be out as mayor. 

In mid-February 2025, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove declared that the mayor’s parochial legal difficulties were harming his ability to assist the President’s national immigration policy.[1]  Bove ordered Danielle Sassoon, the acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to drop the charges against Adams “without prejudice.”  Sassoon requested a meeting with Attorney General Pam Bondi to discuss her concerns that this was a corrupt bargain; Bondi declined to meet with Sassoon, who then resigned.  Bove then ordered Sassoon’s deputy to dismiss the charges.  He got a less politely phrased response than Sassoon had provided, and the deputy resigned.  So did a bunch of other lawyers who wouldn’t be caught dead doing what Bove wanted.  Finally, the charges did get dismissed.  Then four deputy mayors of New York City resigned.[2] 

At the moment, Adams remains Mayor.  Perhaps not for long.  Voters will have a chance to turf him out at the next election.  They’re likely to do so.  Adams is besmirched by the deal, so the chances of him losing re-elections are increased.  New York Governor Kathy Hochul has contemplated removing him from office even before an election.  The Department of Justice retains great leverage over Adams.  The charges were dismissed “without prejudice.”  This means that they can be reinstated whenever the Trump administration finds Adams insufficiently co-operative with something (anything) in the future.  Or even when he is no more use to them. 

What does the Trump administration get out of this deal?  It gets unrestricted access to the denizens of New York City’s vast jail system.  Any illegal immigrant who is arrested for something is liable to find themselves on a federal government airplane bound for a banana republic.[3]  In effect, the NYPD becomes an extension of the effort to expel illegal immigrants. 

Trump, Bove, and Adams have come in for much abuse in the media for their apparent deal.  So they should.  If the sweeping pardons for the 6 January 2021 rioters[4] are added to this deal, then the administration can’t escape being called for its own “weaponization” of the law. 

Nor is Adams out of the woods even over the short-term.  Bove may have requested that the charges be dropped, but the presiding judge has to agree to it.  It isn’t certain that he will agree.  On the one hand, the whole thing stinks to high Heaven.  On the other hand, prosecutors cut deals with criminals all the time.  They do so when the alleged criminal agrees to cooperate with the government in pursuit of some larger goal.  The government can argue that there’s no difference between Adams and a drug-dealer.  OK, not a good re-election campaign slogan. 

[1] “The U.S. at a Glance,” The Week, 21 February 2025, p. 7. 

[2] “Justice Department: Condoning corruption under Trump?” The Week, 28 February 2025, p. 6. 

[3] I can just hear people saying “You mean ANOTHER banana republic!” 

[4] “Cop-beaters” in the frank words of the Wall Street Journal.