Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration.

Posted on by
Reply

            In 2024, Trump pulled 75,142,617 votes versus 71,881,183 for Harris. 

            In 2020, Trump pulled 74,223,975 votes versus 81,283,501 for Biden. 

            In 2024, Harris pulled 9,402,318 fewer votes than Biden did in 2020. 

            In 2024, Trump pulled 918,642 more votes than he did in 2020. 

            If it is assumed that Trump’s additional votes came from people who had voted for Biden, then 918,642 of Harris’s lost votes represent these vote-switchers. 

            So, more than 900,000 voters switched from Biden/Harris to Trump.  Had those votes stayed with Harris, then Trump would have pulled “only” 74,223,975 votes.  Harris would have pulled 72,799,825 votes.  Trump still would have won the popular votes by 1,424,150 votes.  (That still leaves the Electoral College.)   

Then, some 8,483,676 people who voted for Biden in 2020, just stayed home in 2024 rather than voting for either candidate.[1] 

Throughout the Biden administration, Democratic politicians and many in the media labeled Donald Trump an “Authoritarian” and a “Fascist.”  During the Biden phase of the 2024 Presidential election and in the final bit of the Harris-phase of the election, “Donald Trump is a threat to Democracy” played a central role in Democratic messaging. 

What is “Fascism”?  Fascism is a term for right-radical political movements in the first half of the Twentieth Century.  Commonly, they were anti-liberal (in the sense of the 19th Century political ideology); Chauvinistic nationalist; focused on a strong “Leader”; hostile toward minority groups inside and to non-whites outside the Nation; and supporters of traditional values. 

Maybe 84.5 million voters WANT “Authoritarianism” and “Fascism.”  I don’t know why this would be.  Perhaps the terms “Authoritarianism” and “Fascism” aren’t frightening to 84.5 million Americans?  Perhaps the meaning for many people is different from what the terms’ users intend?  Perhaps Trump’s opponents failed to flesh-out the meaning sufficiently?[2]  Deporting illegal immigrants or letting each state decide the abortion question or avoiding foreign entanglements may not sound Hitlerian. 

Maybe 84.5 million voters don’t believe that Trump is an “Authoritarian” or “Fascist.”  In 1944, George Orwell wrote that “fascist” was a term of abusee used on the left for anyone they didn’t like.  Similarly, he said, “socialist” or “communist” were terms of abuse used on the right for anyone they didn’t like.[3]  Older voters will recall that “Fascist,” as in “cops are Fascist pigs,” once provided a common epithet on the Left.  Wasn’t true then; maybe it isn’t true now? 

Perhaps many people think that the current “democratic” political system is broken?  The parties have been failing to deal with disruptive change for decades now.  Scholars have divided American political history into six “party systems.”  Parties exhaust their agenda.  Then systems change after a “realigning election” wrecks one or more of the parties.[4] 

[1] Unless one accepts the logic of pre-election Democratics that “not voting or voting for a third candidate is a vote for Trump.”  That would put Trump’s vote at 83,626,293 to Harris’s 71,881,183.  Nearly a 12 million vote edge. 

[2] Certainly, 6 January 2021 gave them plenty to work with.  A huge audience watched the broadcast of the riot. 

[3] “What is Fascism?” https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc 

[4] For an introduction, see Political eras of the United States – Wikipedia  Bibliography is weak. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 4.

Posted on by
Reply

            Donald Trump did a lot to dirty himself up before the November 2024 presidential election.  In 2020, after losing the election, he asked Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger to find him around 12,000 votes to help his effort to over-turn the election.  Then he sat around in the White House watching television broadcasts of some of his supporters attacking the Capitol building and he didn’t do anything about it for a long time.[1]  He defamed E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of sexual abuse.  He stormed off to Mar-a-Lago with a big stash of classified documents, then resisted returning them to their rightful owner. 

            Not content with Trump shooting himself in the foot (or head) with these acts, the Democrats piled on.  Having run for office on a promise to sue or prosecute (or turn him into a hissing and a byword in the village) Donald Trump, Attorney General of the State of New York Laetitia James sued him for fraud.  She won her case.  Having run for office on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump, New York County district attorney Alvin Bragg prosecuted him for filing false business records, then turned these misdemeanors into felonies by claiming that they were done in support of another criminal act.[2]  Then Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis charged Trump with election interference.  Then U.S. Department of Justice Special Prosecutor Jack Smith charged Trump in a federal election interference case and the government documents case.[3]  All these efforts may have been counter-productive. 

            Once again, during his campaign Trump dirtied himself up.  He lied about violent illegal immigrants taking over towns; he seemed to promise to put the anti-vaxxer and animal prankster Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in charge of public health, he called the Democrats “the enemy within,” and engaged in various vulgarities and menaces. 

            The “Fascist Trump” and “Authoritarian Trump” had been a common accusation before and during Trump’s first term.  During the Joe Biden-phase of the 2024 campaign, it became a staple once again.  Later, in the Kamala Harris-phase of the campaign, she turned to a more optimistic message about all the good things that would come from a Democratic victory.  In the last sprint toward election day, with this message not opening much of a lead in the polls, Harris turned back to the “It Can Happen Here” theme.  All sorts of eminent people who had served in the first Trump administration now testified to his “Authoritarian” and “Fascist” tendencies.  

            None of this moved the needle.  At least it didn’t move the needle against Trump.  On 5 November 2024, voters gave him a decisive victory.  Trump won the popular vote 75,142,617 versus 71,881,183 for Harris.  In percentage terms, Trump won 50.3 percent of the vote; Harris won 48.1 percent.  In the Electoral College, these numbers translated into 312 votes for Trump and 226 votes for Harris.[4]  So, yes, Decisive, but not a Landslide. 

[1] There’s a lot to be learned about all this and more from The Report of the January 6th Committee.  On-line: Read the Jan. 6 committee report in full : NPR  In print: The January 6th Report: Findings from the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol: The January 6 Select Committee, Schiff, Adam: 9780593597279: Amazon.com: Books 

[2] I wonder if either one of these convictions will hold up, in part or in full, if they ever get to an appeals court. 

[3] All three got gummed up from a combination of Trump’s legitimate “Delay, Delay, Delay” strategy and missteps by prosecutors that do not seem to me to bear on the essential validity of the prosecutions.  OTOH, I’m no lawyer. 

[4] In 2020 Joe Biden won the popular vote 81,283,501 to Trump’s 74,223,975.

Questions of Purely Historical Interest.

Posted on by
Reply

            Was Joe Biden at least semi-senile when he ran for President in 2020?  Did he take advantage of the Covid emergency to campaign from the basement of his house in order to avoid too many public appearances? 

Did leading figures[1] in the Democratic Party know this at the time.  Did those leading figures choose to support Biden as a plausible alternative to Bernie Sanders not because they feared that Sanders could not win but because they feared that Sanders could win?  First Trump, then Sanders: that would really upset the apple cart. 

            Did Joe Biden’s senility advance, perhaps rapidly, during his term as President.[2]  Did he play an ever-smaller role in his Presidency?  He continued to be adequate when reading from a Tele-Prompter.  He had never been an electrifying public speaker, so he had a low bar to clear there.  He avoided press conferences and extended interviews.  Did key Administration officials– Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Janet Yellin, Lloyd Austin, the Director of National Intelligence officers doing the daily intelligence briefing[3]–see this decline?[4]  Was there a group in the White House that assumed many of the functions of the Presidency to lighten the load for a beloved person? 

            Did leading figures in the Democratic Party (and possibly in the Republican Party as well) perceive the cognitive decline of President Biden? 

Between 2020 and 2022, many ordinary observers had assumed that Biden would serve one term, then hand off to a younger generation.  He had much younger leaders-in-waiting in his Cabinet: Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Gina Raimondo.  There were ambitious governors: Gavin Newsome, Gretchen Whitmer.  Why not let them duke it out in a primary campaign, while Biden minded the store?  Why was this not a good alternative?    

            Between 2022 and 2024, did Nancy Pelosi and others contemplate forcing Biden to bow out after he said that he would run for a second term?  Was his decline not yet evident to them?  Did they view it as a professional courtesy extended to a fellow gerontocrat?  Did they fear that exposing the President would cast a shadow over the administration’s work during the first term?  Did they fear that a knives-out primary fought against the backdrop of massive illegal immigration and rising prices would only produce harmful effects?[5] 

            Where they willing to “manage” a deficient President during a second term?  While President Biden sought re-election, did they contemplate the possibility of his removal during his second term?  That would have made Kamala Harris the first female President. 

[1] I have great respect for Nancy Pelosi’s intelligence, realism, deep understanding of the American political system, self-control, ability to read other people, and ruthlessness.  She closely resembles Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, and Georgia Meloni.  Had she been born a generation later, the United States already would have had its first woman President.  Aside from party affiliation, she has nothing in common with Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris, and nothing at all in common with Nikki Haley.  Obviously, the bar is lower for men.  Can’t explain presidents like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama otherwise.   

[2] The alternative would be to believe that Biden’s previously alleged “sharp as a tack” cognitive abilities suddenly collapsed during the week before his one debate with Donald Trump.  I find that hard to credit.  You? 

[3] Would the DNI briefers report to their superiors any signs of mental decline? 

[4] Certainly could explain why poor Karine Jean-Pierre, the Press Secretary, got frozen out of the policy discussions.  She isn’t an old-time Biden person, so she might let something slip. 

[5] When driving on an icy road, you should neither swerve nor bang the brakes hard. 

American Public Opinion in October 2024.

Posted on by
Reply

            NBC/Telemundo polls[1] revealed a shift in the political preference among Latino voters. 

            In 2016, 69 percent of Latino voters supported Hillary Clinton; 19 percent favored Donald Trump. 

            In 2020, 63 percent of Latino voters chose Joe Biden; 27 percent voted for Donald Trump. 

            In 2024, just before the election, 54 percent of Latino voters favored Kamala Harris; 40 percent favored Donald Trump. 

            That is an almost 22 percent drop for the Democratic candidate in eight years, with 60 percent of it coming in the last four years.  Why the decline? 

When she ran—briefly—in the Democratic presidential primary in 2019, Harris favored decriminalizing illegal border crossings.[2]  Subsequently, under the Biden-Harris administration, President Biden ordered an end to President Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy for those seeking asylum.  Illegal immigration tripled.  Then the failure of the Biden-Harris administration’s “Remain in Texas” policy brought home to many northern Democratic cities the realities of such huge, unregulated immigration.  Immigration control became a powerful Republican issue. 

That explains the careening U-turn taken by Kamala Harris.  She began walloping Trump for having squelched a bipartisan border bill for political reasons when Democrats had only adopted the policy recently for political reasons. 

It doesn’t automatically explain why the Latino vote shifted.  That shift may or may not be related to the immigration question.  There are 50.4 million Latinos in states on the border with Mexico.  They would have seen all the same things that drove many Anglos wild. 

Perhaps some are angry about inflation, which hits lower-income people harder than it does higher-income people.[3]  Perhaps some are running small businesses and perceive Democrats as anti-Business, and not merely anti-Big Business.  Perhaps some are socially conservative and are repelled by the Democrat embrace of non-binarity. 

Whatever the cause, it is an important chunk of the Democratic coalition to cast away. 

            In October 2024, an Economist/YouGov poll assessed the state of American opinion on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.[4] 

            Overall, 33 percent sympathized more with Israel, 19 percent more with the Palestinians, and 24 percent with both sides equally.  (Which totals 76 percent.  What about the other 24 percent?  “Don’t Know” or “A plague on both their houses”?)  Under that umbrella huddle different groups.  Only 14 percent of Democrats sympathize more with Israelis, while 33 percent sympathize more with the Palestinians.  (That’s 47 percent.  So the other 53 percent sympathize with both sides equally or Don’t Care?)  In contrast, 63 percent of Republicans express more sympathy for Israelis than for Palestinians, while a mere 5 percent sympathize more with Palestinians.  (Again, that’s 68 percent. Do the other 32 percent sympathize equally or just don’t care?)  On the issue of supplying military aid[5] to Israel, 38 percent say that it should be reduced; 18 percent support increasing it; and 25 percent say that it’s fine where it is.  (Again, the figures total 81 percent, so 19 percent probably fall into “Don’t Know.”)  Support for military assistance at or above the current level totals 43 percent, while support for cutting it is at 38 percent.  That’s close to a tipping point. 

            So, 63 percent of Republicans and 14 percent of Democrats sympathize more with Israel than with the Palestinians.  At the same time, support for maintaining military aid at the current level or for raising it totals only 43 percent.  That is a lot lower level than the totals for feeling sympathy for Israel.  Even among their most committed American supporters, the Israelis are encountering doubts about their wars in Gaza and Lebanon.  Probably these doubts are rooted less in the necessity of war than in the manner of its conduct. 

Do Israeli care any longer if they alienate the Americans?  I haven’t seen polling on that. 

[1] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 17. 

[2] “Harris: A sharp turn on immigration,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 16. 

[3] Donald Trump is said to appeal to “low-information” voters.  The disparate impact of inflation among income groups could leave the better-educated and better-off Democrats as the “low information voters” when it comes to economic hardship.  To turn around Governor Tim Walz’s jab at the ever-obnoxious Elon Musk, “He’s a fat guy with a government job; what does he know about hardship?” 

[4] Poll Watch,” The Week, 18 October 2024

[5] You know, stuff that goes “BOOM!” and then buildings fall down. 

Prologue to a Possible Second Term of the Addams Administration 3.

Posted on by
Reply

            NB: I’m writing this as if I don’t know how yesterday’s election turned out. 

            As 5 November 2024 loomed, nothing seemed to shift the balance of voters.  A Wall Street Journal poll reported that Donald Trump led Kamala Harris 51 to 47 percent nation-wide; a New York Times poll showed them even in the seven “battleground” states.  This wasn’t a simple difference of opinion.  Another poll reported that 87 percent of respondents believed that “America will suffer permanent damage if their candidate loses.” 

In light of the themes of speeches used by the two candidates and their parties in this election season, it isn’t hard to see why so many people are worried.  In the sprint to the finish, neither candidate did anything to lessen voter fears.  Kamala Harris said that Donald Trump is a “petty tyrant”; that he is “unstable, consumed with grievance, obsessed with revenge, and out for unchecked power”; and that electing him President will produce an America “ruled by chaos and division.”[1]  For his part, Trump lambasted the Democratic Party as “a crooked, malicious, leftist machine” and “the most sinister and corrupt forces on Earth.” 

Whichever one of them wins, the judiciary is going to be re-made.  Asked straight-out about expanding the Supreme Court to outvote the current conservative majority, Harris refused to disavow such a plan.  If Trump wins, any vacancies in the next four years will be filled with Federalist Society-vetted people like Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch. 

            Much will depend on the outcome of races further down the ballot, especially the Senate.  If one party gains both the White House and the Senate, it will grasp Executive and Judicial appointments for at least two years.  In Senate races (where one-third of the Senate stands for election every two years), Republicans have the easier path to control.  Flipping one seat, would give them a tie.  The Vice President would be the deciding vote on some legislation, but the filibuster would block most legislation.[2]  If the Republicans win two or more seats, then they would have the majority and could either block all Democratic legislation (if Harris wins) or push through some legislation if Trump wins.  (The American system is murkier and more contingent than are European parliamentary systems.)  Republicans appeared confident that they could win seats in West Virginia and Montana; they hoped to win seats in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.  Pollsters agreed that these hopes were reasonable.  Control of the House of Representatives appeared up for grabs.[3] 

            Fear haunted the Democrats.  Democrats warn that an election that gives Republicans control of both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch, combined with a Republican super-majority on the Supreme Court, will allow the Republicans to launch a sweeping remodeling of American government.  Then, many Democrats have given voice to their fear of violence from Trump’s supporters if he loses.  Stoked by four years of accusations of a stolen election, it might be much worse than on 6 January 2021.  What if he wins?  What if he wins both the popular vote and in the Electoral College?  How will Democrats absorb such a stinging rejection of all their warnings? 

[1] “Harris warns of ‘petty tyrant’ Trump in closing pitch,” The Week, 8 November 2024, p. 4.  Harris also proclaimed that “We have to stop pointing fingers and start locking arms.” 

[2] Harris has already called for an end to the filibuster in the Senate. 

[3] “Republicans hold edge in race to control Congress,” The Week, 8 November 2024, p. 5. 

Prologue to a Possible Second Addams Administration 2.

Posted on by
Reply

            In mid-October 2024, polls showed Kamala Harris and Donald Trump each drawing 48 percent of the nation-wide poll’s respondents; they were neck and neck in the “swing states” which will decide the victor in the Electoral College. 

Donald Trump sat for an interview with Fox News.[1]  Asked about how to deal with election interference by foreign agitators,[2] he took the question in an entirely different direction.  He warned that domestic opponents, whom he called “the enemy within,” posed a much more serious threat.  If the police were not up to the task, then the National Guard or even the Army, could be deployed.[3] 

Perhaps Trump had in mind the civil unrest attending some of the social justice protests that had followed the murder of George Floyd.  Such an interpretation is hard to maintain in light of Trump’s talk about his political opponents.  He has called them “radical left lunatics,” and “Marxists and communists and fascists.  They’re so sick and they’re so evil.” 

            Trump’s grim discourse prompted Kamala Harris to adjourn her joy campaign in favor of a return to the Biden campaign’s denunciation of Trump as a danger to democracy.  She claimed that Trump is “out for unchecked power” and that he is “increasingly unstable and unhinged.”  Soon, “Unstable, Unhinged, and Unchecked” became a staple of Harris ads.  She told one interviewer that trump’s program “is about fascism.”  General Mark Miley, the former Chairman of of the Joint Chiefs, joined in the assessment.  Trump, he said, is “fascist to the core.” 

            Journalists have been quick to see Trump’s actions as drawn from the non-existent “authoritarian playbook.”[4]  The week’s news gave them a lot to work with.  Rather than evidence of vulgar Madness, his violent talk is evidence of clever Badness said one columnist.  Republican “normies” will vote for him no matter what to avoid a Harris presidency.  (Many of these voters this that his threats are just more Trump blather.)  He is actually seeking to mobilize the low-information patriotic voters.  Even if he does lose the election, he will not accept the outcome.  He didn’t in 2020.  He’s been spewing charges of massive voter fraud ever since. 

            What if the Cassandras are right?  Trump could come to power with half or almost half of American voters behind him.  What is the next line of defense if the ballot box “fails” from an excess of democracy?  If people sincerely believe that Trump is a “fascist” bent on overthrowing Democracy, then he poses a grave danger whether or not he wins the election.  If elected, he will use his office to ram through policies that the other half of the population oppose.[5] 

What are his opponents planning to do?  Sue?  Hold vigils?  Rally at the Capitol?  Enjoy cutting sarcasm on late-night TV?  Or hasn’t anyone at all given this thought?  That’s hard to believe.  So, who has done the thinking and what have they come up with? 

[1] “Trump ramps up threats against political ‘enemies’,” The Week, 25 October 2024, p. 4. 

[2] The F.B.I. has been reporting to the public about on-line interventions by Russia, China, and Iran. 

[3] The planning and decision-making for the use of National Guard troops from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia on 6 January 2020 is outlined here: https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/08/2002562063/-1/-1/0/PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-FIRST-AMENDMENT-PROTESTS-IN-WASHINGTON-DC 

[4] Well, OK, there is a book with that title.  However, it is a product of Trump’s opponents.  See: The Authoritarian Playbook for 2025 : Protect Democracy : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

[5] Wait, is that how we define “fascism”? 

Prologue to a Possible Second Addams Administration 1.

Posted on by
Reply

In early October 2024, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris each could smell victory.[1]  A New York Times/Siena College poll had Harris leading Trump nationally 49 to 46 percent.  More importantly, an average of polls in the seven “battleground” states that will decide the election in the Electoral College showed the rivals within 1-2 points of each other.  Each was ahead in three states and they were tied in Pennsylvania.[2] 

Remarkably, nothing has seemed to shift the basic balance of forces for the last several months.  It appears that Americans have largely decided for which candidate they will vote if Election Day ever gets here.  Faced with the need to just grind it out for another month, the candidates distilled their campaign messages for the final kick. 

For Trump it boiled down to Courage and Anger.  He returned to Butler, Pennsylvania, where he had narrowly survived an assassination attempt in July.  Then, as the Secret Service agents had belatedly tried to drag him to safety,[3] he had instinctively yelled to the crowd “Fight!  Fight!  Fight!”  Many in his audience now sported T-shirts bearing the same words.[4]  In Butler, he warned of the “enemy from within.”  Two days later, in Wisconsin, he warned that a victory by Kamala Harris would mean that “The country won’t be the U.S. any longer.” 

For Harris, it boiled down to Fear and Promises.  She arranged a series of appearances with friendly interviewers that allowed her to speak directly to her target audiences.[5]  In one appearance, Harris said that she wanted to extend Medicare to pay for long-term home care for senior citizens, but stated that “there is not a thing” that she would have done differently from President Biden over the last four years.  She also agreed to an interview on “Sixty Minutes.”  In the “Sixty Minutes” interview Harris skipped past Russia and China to name Iran as the “greatest adversary” of the United States, and judged that Vladimir Putin “would be sitting in Kyiv right  now” if  Donald Trump had been president instead of Joe Biden. 

            Neither the media nor the campaign staffs felt much joy from these approaches.  They roundly denounced the former president’s refusal to stay on a conventional political message (inflation, illegal immigration) while avoiding incitements to violence and personal denigration of his opponents.  They roundly denounced the Vice President’s penchant for soft-ball media appearances and her relatively thin schedule of public appearances.  Too many voters say that they don’t really know her.  To be fair, too many voters say they know Trump all too well. 

[1] “Harris, Trump neck and neck in race’s final month,” The Week, 18 October 2024, p. 4. 

[2] Which explains why I’m being bombarded with text messages and phone calls while I’m trying to watch the evening news.  Note to Self: This is NOT the place for a tirade about “The David Muir Cartoon Show.” 

[3] Department of Justice Inspector General investigated the FISA warrants issued to allow communication intercepts of one of Donald Trump’s campaign advisors in 2016.  He found no “documentary or testimonial evidence” of wrong-doing.  All he found were a series of inexplicable “errors” made by very experienced investigative personnel that all tended in one direction.  The same appears to be the case with the apses made by the Secret Service detail assigned to protect Trump.  OTOH, there’s a legitimate case that the existing Secret Service is inadequately funded and staffed to meet its responsibilities.  Many complain that they are over-worked and under-paid.  As a result, nearly 20 percent of Secret Service employees left in fiscal 2022 and 2023.  For a quick, well-informed take on systemic problems of the Secret Service, see: In ‘Zero Fail,’ Carol Leonnig Says Secret Service Is Underfunded And Overworked : NPR 

[4] Comically, many of the shirts are manufactured by the Chinese consumer goods giant Temu.  Pattern – Temu 

[5] Stephen Colbert, Howard Stern, “The View,” and “Call Her Daddy.” 

JMO 3 November 2019.

Posted on by
Reply

“Donald Trump is a terrible person.”—Mick Mulvaney.  Agreed.  I voted against him the last time and I plan to vote against him the next time.   (Unless Elizabeth Warren is the Democratic nominee.  I don’t care to have my hard-earned retirement savings destroyed.)

Donald Trump was right to confront China in a forceful way over its trade practices.  Some Americans had suffered from those practices for many years.  Many of them lost jobs.  No one else cared very much.  “Capitalism is creative destruction.  Lump it.”  It’s ludicrous now to say that Trump’s tariff policies are illegitimate because they are forcing up prices of some consumer goods.  Lump it.

Donald Trump was right to open negotiations with North Korea over the nuclear weapons issue, and he was right to meet with Kim Jong-loon.  Severe economic sanctions have been imposed on North Korea for a long time without any sign that they of forcing North Korea to abandon its nuclear programs.  If we’re willing to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, then why shouldn’t we negotiate with North Korea?  Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Joseph Stalin and Richard Nixon met with Mao Zedong.  Why shouldn’t Donald Trump meet with an arguably less evil and less insane foreign leader?

Donald Trump was right to support cutting the corporate tax.  The American tax was much higher than international norms.  It deterred foreign companies from investing in America and it encouraged American companies to keep their foreign earnings over-seas, where they paid a lower tax rate.

Donald Trump is right to try to end the “endless wars” and to avoid becoming involved in new ones.  The invasion of Afghanistan had to take place.  It was the only fast way of getting hold of Osama bin Laden in revenge for 9/11. Having missed our punch in 2003-2004, the United States made the fatal error of staying in Afghanistan in hopes of transforming a primitive society into a modern democracy.  Endless disaster have followed.  Nothing—Nothing–can justify the attack on Iraq in 2003, let alone the botched occupation policy that followed.  A long chain of human and foreign policy disasters have unspooled from that crime a decade and a half ago.

Recognizing the destructive futility of these wars, President Barack Obama claimed he wanted to get out of them.  He did reduce the American presence in Afghanistan—over the resistance of the Pentagon—but he didn’t end American participation in a war that the Taliban is fated to win.  President Obama did manage to end the American military presence in Iraq.  He then allowed the country to be partially sucked back in to prevent Iran—our “enemy” in all things other than the nuclear agreement—from crushing ISIS and expanding its influence.  President Obama, at the price of considerable personal humiliation, managed to keep the United States from being drawn directly into the Syrian civil war.

Donald Trump has done some important things right.  Yes, he’s done them in a ham-handed way.  He has done them in violation of long-standing policies, bureaucratic procedures, and norms.  Those policies, procedures, and norms were the very things that got the country into these messes in the first place.

Even if he is impeached, it is unlikely that Trump’s successors will reverse course.  They’ll just try to break less china while criticizing Trump as a terrible person.

American Opinion in June 2019.

Posted on by
Reply

According to a recent poll, ten percent of Americans believe that Donald Trump is the best president of their lifetime.[1]  Trump’s support was concentrated among older, white, men.  In particular, according to a Pew Trust analysis, “49 percent of those aged 30‒49 feel warmly toward him, 60 percent of those aged 50‒64 do, as did 56 percent of those over 65 years of age.”[2]  So, the enthusiastic ten percent may come from older voters.

In contrast to most voters, both Trump supporters and Trump opponents have some historical basis for judging “best” and “worst” presidents.  If someone was 50 in 2016, then they were born in 1966; if someone was 60 in 2016, then they were born in 1956; if someone was 70 in 2016, then they were born in 1946.  If we postulate that people start to become politically aware at age 20, then 2016 Trump voters became politically aware between 1966 and 1986.

What do they have to work with in terms of historical experience of the presidency?  They have late-stage Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, the social turmoil associated with the “Great Society”); Richard Nixon (Vietnam, Watergate); Gerald Ford (the first “oil shock” and inflation); Jimmy Carter (second “oil shock,” inflation, Iran hostage crisis); Ronald Reagan (Paul Volker wringing out inflation, defeat of the “evil empire,” Iran-Contra); George H. W. Bush (Preppy in the White House, first Iraq War, “read my hips”); Bill Clinton (Eddie Haskell in the White House); George W. Bush (Frat Boy in the White House, 9/11, the flunked war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina); Barack Obama (Affordable Care Act, but also the Stimulus bill, rule by decree).

Experienced voters might be forgiven (although they will not be forgiven) for thinking that in their lifetime American government has run amuck and that the quality of presidents has deteriorated.  This ignores the reality that we have lived through very turbulent times that demanded government responses.  Many of these problems found no easy solution.  Still, is it possible that the typical voter follows the meta-narrative, rather than the micro-narrative?

Polls also showed that Trump appealed most to those with only a high-school education, but least to those with a college BA or more.  Well, auto-workers and steel-workers and a bunch of other workers used to be able to earn a middle-class income walking off the graduation stage and into an industrial job.  These people used to be a) Democratic voters, and b) the salt of the earth in Democratic discourse.[3]  Why did they stray, assuming it was the voters, rather than the party, that strayed?  Then, how does the educational profile of Trump voters compare with the educational profile of African-Americans?  Data suggest that educational attainment among African-Americans, measured in terms of BAs, is about two-thirds that of whites.[4]  How different is this from the educational profile of Trump voters?

The Pew poll also showed that core Trump voters believed—correctly—that free trade had harmed their own interests.  They believed that he would address illegal immigration, which they regarded as a serious problem.  They thought he was an awful person who might get things done.  “Those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.”

[1] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 14 June 2019, p. 17.

[2] See: https://www.thoughtco.com/meet-the-people-behind-donald-trumps-popularity-4068073

[3] See: Norman Rockwell, “Freedom of Speech.”  https://www.periodpaper.com/products/1945-print-norman-rockwell-vermont-man-freedom-of-speech-open-forum-oil-painting-126405-xaa5-061

[4] See graph: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/28/us-education-still-separate-and-unequal

Memoirs of the Addams Administration 9.

Posted on by
1

A calmer, more coherent, and less confrontational Donald Trump offered his first address to Congress.[1]  “Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed.  Every problem can be solved.”  He didn’t have Theodore Sorenson as his speech-writer, but that’s still a pretty up-beat statement.  Everyone noted the new tone.  Over half (57 percent) of Americans felt a “very positive reaction” to the new-and-improved Trump, while 21 percent felt “somewhat favorably.”  That’s better than three-quarters (78 percent) of Americans.  On the other hand, 22 percent took a dim view (or no view) of the speech.  That suggests that the majority of Americans are at least open to Trump’s ideas, provided he doesn’t act like a moron in presenting them.  It also suggests that the die-hard opposition to Trump is restricted to a MoveOn ghetto.  Could this Donald Trump have been elected president?  What if he had given this speech on inauguration day?

What are Donald Trump’s policies exactly?  That is hard to tell and the speech did little to clear up this question.  He wants a big infrastructure plan, and a border wall, a lot more money for defense and a lot less money for the snail darter, tax cuts for someone, and a replacement for the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Republicans have been desperately trying to fill in the gaps with regard to the ACA.[2]  In the current version, “subsidies” to low income people to help them buy health insurance will be replaced with “tax credits” (worth more than those people pay in taxes) to purchase health insurance; it would replace the ACA’s federal subsidies to states that expand Medicaid with federal subsidies to states that create “risk-pools” to insure those with pre-existing conditions.[3]  Some of the problems of Republicans arise from the self-repeal of those covered by the ACA.  Many young people have not purchased insurance, regardless of the make-believe mandate.  This has distorted the financial model of the exchanges.  Many thinly-populated areas—red states—pay higher premiums and have less choice of provider than do densely-populated—blue state—areas.  The ACA sought to entice states to expand Medicaid by offering a temporary increase of federal cost-sharing from 60 percent to 100 percent, but down-played the subsequent reduction that would leave these states freighted with additional costs.  The ACA sought to eliminate product differentiation by requiring all the insurance plans to offer the same set of liberal mandated benefits.[4]  In short, is the current ACA an inadequately-financed effort to by-pass the market economy?  And all that implies.

At least for the moment, Trump’s astonishing victory has lifted the dead hand of Ronald Reagan off the Republican Party. For decades, Republicans have tried to our-Reagan Reagan.  Now they have to think anew an act anew.  Then, if Democrats don’t believe in the Trump administration, investors do believe.[5]  At least for now.  The much-delayed recovery of the economy from the financial crisis slump of 2008-2009 provides an underlying force.  President Trump’s endorsement of tax cuts, infrastructure projects, and deregulation have all poured fuel on the underlying fire.  However, trade war and tariff protection are implicit in “America First.”  With 44 percent of the goods and services sold by Standard and Poor 500 companies going abroad, people are skittish.  It’s still early days, so they aren’t alone.

[1] “A sunnier Trump lays out his policy goals,” The Week, 10 March 2017, p. 4.

[2] While the mainstream media (MSM) have been lambasting Republicans for trying to repeal and replace the ACA, the exchanges have been failing and premiums soaring.

[3] Just as the Obama administration found itself compelled by reality to follow some main lines of the Bush II foreign policy, the Trump administration finds itself compelled by reality to follow some main lines of the Obama domestic policy.  Anyway, that’s what I think at the moment.  Probably I’m wrong on both counts.

[4] “GOP divided over Obamacare repeal plan,” The Week, 10 March 2017, p. 5.

[5] “Conservatism: The Party of Reagan embraces Trump” and “Stocks: will the Trump rally last?” The Week, 10 March 2017, pp. 6, 33.