Tag Archives: news

Further Thoughts on the Alien Enemies Act.

Posted on by
Reply

            The Alien Enemies Act is constitutional.  The Supreme Court found it so in a 1948 case when it endorsed the order of a lower court that a German-American Nazi had to leave the country.  Trump’s use of the law to justify deportations seems illegitimate.  Still, the commentary on it seems equally revealing. 

            “It’s an 18th century law…”[1]  “We cannot allow antiquated laws to continue enabling discriminatory practices.”[2]  Well, both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are creations of the 18th Century.  Marbury v. Madison and the Emancipation Proclamation are products of the 19th Century.  So, age is no issue if you like the results, but it is an issue if you don’t like them?    This argument is a flight from honest thought. 

            “No one has tried to argue that that invasion or predatory incursion language could be used in any context other than a conventional war.”[3]  Except that is just what Trump has argued, backed by his Department of Justice.  The Supreme Court has neither rejected nor affirmed Trump’s argument.[4]  Does the author mean to say that the argument is illegitimate because it is not hallowed by time?  This is the opposite of the previous argument.  Furthermore, Plessy v. Ferguson stood as “settled law” for almost a century.  So, hallowed by time. 

            “Historian Joseph Ellis called support for the Alien Enemies Act “unquestionably the biggest blunder” of Adams’ presidency.”[5]  So, an expert attacks the law as wrong right from the beginning.  We defer (or should defer) to expert opinion on the efficacy of vaccines.  Therefore, we should defer to expert opinion on the foolishness of a law passed in the many days ago?  JMO, but Adams’ “biggest blunder” was his support for the Sedition Act, which led to the prosecution of a number of Democratic-Republican journalists.  The Sedition Act was hard to pass because it raised so many doubts even among Federalists.  The application of the Act against political rivals aroused opposition to the Federalists.  John Adams became the first one-term president as a result.  It was repealed after the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800.  In contrast, Presidents running declared wars against foreign powers have found it a useful tool.  During the Biden administration, bills to repeal the act were introduced in Congress in 2021 and 2023.  Neither bill made it out of committee.[6]  In both cases, the Democrats held the majority in the relevant chamber.  Some Democrats saw utility in keeping the Act.  Is this a case of a respected expert bending his analysis to oppose Trump? 

            That leaves the question of whether Trump’s use of the law in these circumstances is constitutional.  Currently, “the Supreme Court has limited the deportations without ruling on whether Trump may invoke the act.”[7]  So Trump’s actions may yet turn out to be constitutional.    

In the 1948 case, four Justices dissented, arguing that “Due process does not perish when war comes.”[8]  This is a complicated issue, but the one to fight on.  The rest is anti-Trump fluff. 

[1] “The Alien Enemies Act,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 11. 

[2] Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota), quoted in “A push for repeal,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 11. 

[3] Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, quoted in “The Alien Enemies Act,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 11. 

[4] “Supreme Court allows deportations to El Salvador,” The Week, 18 April 2025, p. 5.

[5] Ellis quoted in “The Alien Enemies Act,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 11. 

[6] “A push for repeal,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 11. 

[7] “The Alien Enemies Act,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 11. 

[8] Quoted in “The Alien Enemies Act,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 11. 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 19.

Posted on by
Reply

            I think that Donald Trump is a bad man with some good ideas and some bad ideas.  He seems prone to stick with the bad ideas (and bad people, like Pete Hogwallop[1]) while rabbiting around on the good ideas.  He may well represent a threat to Democracy.  Or not.  His method, much more this term than in the first, is the bull-rush.  Doing “everything, everywhere, all at once.”  Testing, even blowing through, established limits of all sorts; moving very fast and keeping it up across time; forcing changes that may or may not endure.  He’s a wrecking ball and a disruptor, not a builder. 

            Trump also is not a “politician.”  In contemporary America, a “politician” is a career public employee who gets his/her/their contract renewed every 2, 4, or 6 years by playing it safe within the terms of their own constituency.  Most of them rise by following what the Romans used to call the “cursus honorum” (“course of honors/offices”).[2]  They’re committed to never doing anything “risky.”[3]  Trump thinks that these people are Nithings.[4]  He’s pretty much right about most of them.[5] 

            But what is the alternative to Trump?  Leave things the way they were?  Keep going along the same lines that produced gigantic deficits and a national debt that seems likely to end in default?  A creeping expansion of the Executive Branch and rule through regulation, executive orders, and executive agreements, rather than legislation?  A withering of the Legislative Branch through its own indifference to its responsibilities?  A well-advanced politicization of the Judicial Branch?  That’s going to end in the election of Supreme Court Justices.  An economy that prioritizes Finance over everything else, including Manufacturing?  A neglect of American military power in an era of rising danger?  A materialist, consumerist culture—against which Jimmy Carter warned long ago—that has reduced us to a “Country Made of Ice Cream”?  How is any of that going to be reformed in a timely fashion by continuing with “the way we do things around here”? 

[1] Start at 4:05.  Pa always said never trust a Hogwallop! 

[2] Cursus honorum – Wikipedia 

[3] The NYT is risk averse in its attitude toward change.  New York Times risky – Search

[4] Old English term.  See the first meaning given.  NITHING definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary 

[5] But not all of them.  Gina Raimondo for the Democrats and Mike Gallagher for the Republicans offer hope. 

Battering elite universities.

Posted on by
Reply

The Second Addams Administration is pounding on Science. On the one hand, there’s R.F.K., Jr. “Nuff said there. On the other hand, the handful of “elite” universities (the Ivy League, the “public Ivies,” and the other great private universities like Stanford and Chicago) are all being menaced with loss of government research dollars and with investigations.

I suggest, just for the sake of argument, that there is a difference between the two prongs of the offensive. Kennedy’s actions pose a serious threat to public health. We’re talking about the increased potential for dead children and other living things.

The attack on the universities is different from this. What Trump and Republicans really want is to put a stop to the left-wing tilt in liberal arts and humanities faculties and in law schools. The great problem here for the administration is that the government doesn’t have much purchase on these people. The amount of public money spent on support for the liberal arts and law schools is minute in comparison to the money spent on Science and Engineering. There are the miniscule (but very welcome) sums paid by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts. There are the miserly sums dispensed to support National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The latter amount to welfare for the intellectual left middle class. These are the parts of the universities and public culture that produce and disseminate D.I.E. scholarship and teaching. Turn off the tap on these funds and universities won’t even blink. “Professor Smithers, you have to be willing to sacrifice for your lonely pursuit of Truth and Beauty.”

If the administration wants to force universities to snap a choke chain on D.I.E. stuff, then it has to act like Willy Sutton. Go “where the money is.” Which it is doing by withdrawing funds for scientific research. If the universities want to tap turned back on, then they need to correct course in the liberal arts and the law schools. Sure, it’s humiliating to bend the knee to someone like Donald Trump. What’s more important to the universities, scientific research on cancer or an inter-sectional reading of bell hooks?

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.” 

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.

Diary of the Second Addams Administration.

Posted on by
Reply

            Is the bureaucracy of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States lean, agile, innovative, and filled with able idealists?  Or is it bloated, hide-bound, unwieldy, and ill-suited to the needs of the new century?  It’s a fair question to ask. 

President Donald Trump and Court Wizard Elon Musk appear to believe that it is the latter, rather than the former.  For Trump, there seems to be the added flaw in the bureaucracy’s hostility to him during his first term.  He may well want “revenge” both for their past hostility and to prevent anticipated resistance in his second term.  For his part, Musk portrayed himself as battling an “unelected bureaucracy” in order to “restore the will of the people.” 

Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has taken on the task of reducing the federal workforce.[1]  In mid-February 2025, DOGE began firing people in big chunks and very rapidly.  In addition to the thousands of US AID workers on the chopping block, the Department of Agriculture took a heavy hit: 4,000 at the Department and a further 3,400 at its subordinate National Forest Service.  Health and Human Services lost 5,200; the Energy Department lost 2,000; and the Department of Veterans Affairs lost 1,000.[2]  Within these departments, some areas were hit particularly hard: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Nuclear Security Administration.  More lay-offs took place at the Federal Aviation Agency and the National Park Service.[3]  All this is alarming to terrifying. 

At the same time, and with murky intent, DOGE went after the vast troves of data on ordinary Americans held by the federal government in the data centers of the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury, and other agencies.[4] 

In his first term, Trump caught a lot of criticism for treating China as a real danger by plastering it with tariffs, trying to build a wall at the southern border to resist massive illegal immigration, and denigrating our NATO allies.  Then Joe Biden kept the tariffs, Russia’s attack on Ukraine revealed that the European allies have been pacifists for decades, and the failure to resist illegal immigration helped cost the Democrats the 2024 election.  Now, some Democrats are admitting that a problem exists, even while they drag on Trump’s coat-tails.  One journalist at the Washington Post accepted that problems did exist with the federal bureaucracy, but objected to indiscriminate mass firing.  On the other hand, others stuck to their last, claiming that the firings were part of “a coup.”  Competent civil servants would be driven out to make space for incompetent Trump loyalists.  That argument is hard to refute when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Kash Patel, and Peter Hegseth can be offered as evidence. 

Two questions arise.  One, is Trump just trying to scare the bureaucracy into compliance?  Two, how can a log-jammed legislature reform and reduce a behemoth? 

[1] “Trump makes mass layoffs across government,” The Week, 28 February 2025, p. 4. 

[2] Currently, the federal government employs about 2.1 million civilians and about 600,000 military personnel. 

[3] For context, the Department of Agriculture which includes the National Forest Service, employed 93,000 people at the end of the Biden administration, so the cuts amount to about 7.5 percent of the workforce; Health and Human Services employed about 83,000 people, so the cuts amount to about 6 percent of the workforce; The Department of Energy employed 14,000 civilians and 93,000 contractors, so the cuts amounted to 14 percent of the civilian workforce; and the Department of Veteran Affairs employed over 400,000 people, so the cuts are microscopic. 

[4] Why do they need such information?  They aren’t saying.  Why not?  They’re up to something. 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 6.

Posted on by
Reply

            President Donald Trump tasked “Special Government Employee” Elon Musk with downsizing government.[1]  Musk, it is often pointed out, is an “unelected billionaire.”[2]  Musk immediately exhibited the drive and ruthlessness that made him a billionaire in the first place.  In his own offensive phrase, he and his myrmidons “spent the weekend feeding US AID into the wood chipper.”[3]  He also sent his people into the Treasury Department Finance section, the General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Education.  In most cases, they seemed to be after the computer and record systems.[4]  Along the way, Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.) e-mailed federal employees offering a choice between resigning now and receiving eight months’ pay or risking being fired at some point in the future. 

            Criticism followed.  Senator Charles Schumer warned that “an unelected shadow government is conducting a hostile takeover of the federal government.”  Yale historian Timothy Snyder called it “a coup.”  Journalist David Rothkopf warned of the approach of “the worst form of malevolent dictatorship.”  Senator Elizabeth Warren insisted that “Elon Musk is seizing the power that belongs to the American people.”[5]

            Lawyers saw the Musk task force’s actions as “wildly illegal” and unconstitutional.  Neither they nor President Trump can close down federal agencies created by Congress or impound funds appropriated by Congress. 

            A final, perhaps revealing, criticism is of the people doing Musk’s work.  They are “a coterie of engineers barely out of college.”  They are “young” and they are “engineers.”  In contrast, Charles Schumer is 74, Elizabeth Warren is 75, Dick Durbin is 79, Mark Warner is 70, Amy Klobuchar is 64, Tammy Baldwin is 62, Cory Booker is 55, Chris Murphy is 52.  All are lawyers.  Many of the younger-than-them people on their staffs doubtless are also lawyers. 

            Do engineers and lawyers think in different ways?  Not being one or the other, it’s difficult to say.  However, law schools instill a reverence for precedent.[6]  Engineering schools emphasize problem-solving and simplification.[7]  On the second issue of older versus younger, there are both stereotypes and more evidence-based analyses.[8]  It should surprise no one that young engineers think and act differently from aged lawyers.  One thing that is clear is that the “Old Order” is unable to address our national problems.  Will a “New Order” make them worse? 

[1] Musk is commonly identified as “the world’s richest person,” rather than as the “creator of several massively innovative companies—including one that may have to bring back two astronauts stranded on Gilligan’s Satellite.

[2] All Cabinet members are “unelected.”  According to a 2021 article in Forbes, the median wealth in the “poor man’s cabinet” of Joe Biden was $5.5 million; average wealth was $6.8 million.  The figures were far higher for the first Trump cabinet, and for the first Obama cabinet.  Musk isn’t a cabinet-member, but the principle is the same. 

[3] Bing Videos  Well, he likes the Coen Brothers. 

[4] “Musk launches offensive on government agencies,” The Week, 14 February 2025, p. 4. 

[5] Although, in fact, the American people delegated all those powers to their elected government.  The current head of the Executive Branch of that government is Donald Trump. 

[6] Precedent – Wikipedia 

[7] There is an interesting analysis at Do Engineers Think Differently? Yes, Learn The 6 Ways | Engineer Calcs

[8] See: Old Versus Young: The Cultural Generation Gap | The Pew Charitable Trusts and II. Generations Apart — and Together | Pew Research Center 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 5.

Posted on by
Reply

            From the adoption of the Constitution until 1974, Presidents were assumed to have the power—inherent in their office–to not spend money appropriated by Congress.[1]  In 1801, Thomas Jefferson chose to prioritize debt reduction over national defense.  He impounded $50,000 that had been appropriated for gunboats requested by the Navy.  Many of his successors impounded funds. 

By the early 1970s, members of Congress believed that President Richard Nixon was abusing his official powers in a variety of ways.  One example came in his impoundment of appropriated funds.  Nixon held up spending on “water pollution control, education and health programs and highway and housing construction.”[2]  The amount came to “$53.2‐billion during its first five years in office.”[3]  In the context of other struggles with President Nixon, House Speaker Carl Albert called it a struggle between Congress and “one-man rule.”  On a broadly bipartisan basis, Congress struck back.  The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 barred the President from impounding funds appropriated by Congress.[4]  It did permit a Presidential request for “rescission” if approved by Congress.[5]  Already mired in “Watergate,” Nixon signed the bill into law.  As a result of Nixon’s surrender, the law was never tested before the Supreme Court.  Do extreme cases make good law? 

That doesn’t mean that Presidents think that impoundment is a bad idea.  Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all supported the restoration of the authority stripped from the office because of that damn fool Nixon.  Other unsuccessful candidates for President—John McCain, Al Gore, and John Kerry—supported restoring the authority to impound.[6]   

Which brings us to President Trump.  During the campaign, he promised to “squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings.”[7]  From the get-go he stopped appropriated spending on D.I.E. initiatives; payments to non-governmental organizations; foreign aid (for a 90 day review period); and all federal loans and grants (almost immediately rescinded).  Trump wants to bring the issue to the Supreme Court for the hearing it didn’t get in the 1970s. 

The key issue here is self-restraint.  The ballooning national debt, fueled by unbalanced annual budgets, threatens the financial stability of the government.  Nixon’s abuse of the powers of his office went well beyond what other presidents had done, alarming many people in both parties.  Trump seems determined to disrupt the established “way we do things around here” patterns that have taken the United States to the brink of multiple crises.  He, too, is alarming people in both parties.  He wouldn’t be on the verge of shifting the balance of power if all of us had shown more self-restraint.  Not meant as an exculpation of Trump.   

[1] Impoundment of appropriated funds – Wikipedia 

[2] Richard D. Lyons, “Nixon’s Impounding of Billions in Federal Money Is Complicated Issue, Abounding in  Misconceptions,” NYT, 7 October 1973. 

[3] Compared to $39 billion impounded by Lyndon Johnson. 

[4] Passed by the House 385-23 (204 Democrats and 181 Republicans voting in favor); passed by the Senate 80-0 (50 Democrats and 29 Republicans). 

[5] Since then, Congress has rarely approved rescission requests, so Presidents rarely request them.     

[6] President Joe Biden did not.

[7] Charlie Savage, “Are Presidents Empowered to Block Spending Authorized by Congress?” NYT, 29 January 2025. 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 4.

Posted on by
Reply

            “Teflon Don.” 

            Republicans long accused Democrats of waging “lawfare” against Donald Trump, either to bait the Republicans into making him their candidate so that Joe Biden could beat him in November 2024 or to render him incapable of holding office without asking the voters what they preferred.  There is something to be said on both sides of some of the cases, and nothing at all that can be said against others.[1]   

            In early December 2024, Special Counsel Jack Smith asked a judge to dismiss—without prejudice—two cases against President-elect Donald Trump.  Department of Justice policy bars prosecuting a sitting president.  In late January 2025, Judge Juan Merchan decided that he couldn’t “encroach…on the highest office in the land” by jailing President-elect Donald Trump for his conviction in the New York City hush-money case.  The conviction stands.[2] 

            Soon afterward, President Trump issued a blanket pardon for almost 1,600 people convicted by federal prosecutors for their part in the 6 January 2021 riot.  Why did he do this when two-thirds of Americans opposed pardons for “violent” offenders?  Even his Vice President, J.D. Vance had not expected him to go that far. 

            Trump went beyond just releasing the worst of his supporters.  He appointed another supporter, Edward Martin, Jr., as interim United States attorney for Washington, D.C.  Martin immediately ordered that all pending cases be dismissed.  Then he ordered a review of the use of felony obstruction charges against the rioters.  Democrats feared that the released rioters might feel empowered to threaten their prosecutors.[3] 

            On his way out the door, “I’m-still-President” Joe Biden—predictably, understandably—broke his promise not to pardon his son Hunter Biden.  He pardoned him for both those things of which he had been convicted and of anything else he might have done since 2014.  Biden argued that Hunter had been “selectively and unfairly prosecuted” by Biden’s own Justice Department.[4]  Believing that Trump would seek “revenge” on everyone who displeased him, Biden issued pardons to people like Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, the members of the House 6 January investigative committee, and the Capitol police officers who testified before the committee.  He also pardoned another five members of his family.[5] 

            Angry Special Counsels took their last shots.  David Weiss, who had investigated Hunter Biden, denounced Joe Biden’s “baseless allegations.”  Jack Smith, who had investigated Trump, insisted that he could have convicted him if he hadn’t been able to shelter in the White House.[6] 

“I fought the law and the law…lost.”  Grubby versus Filthy. 

[1] Alvin Bragg and Laetitia James both ran for their state elective offices with promises to prosecute Trump.  Fani Willis may have had a partisan motivation, but she built a substantial (perhaps overly ambitious) case.  Jack Smith seems to have had Trump dead to right on the purloined documents case.  He probably had at least as good a case as did Willis on the election interference case.  For Republican charges of “lawfare,” see “Trump: Beyond the reach of law,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 17. 

[2] “Trump: Prosecutions end with a whimper,” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 17. 

[3] “Impunity: MAGA violence is A-OK,” The Week, 7 February 2025, p. 16. 

[4] “Biden: Why he broke his promise not to pardon Hunter,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 6. 

[5] “Biden: A flurry of last-minute pardons,” The Week, 31 January 2025, p. 17. 

[6] The Week, 24 January 2025, pp. 6 and 7. 

“The System Is Blinking Red” 3.

Posted on by
Reply

            In 1989-1990, the Soviet Union collapsed.  With it went the credibility of autarkic, centrally-planned economies.  Determined to maintain its monopoly on power, the Communist Party of the Peoples’ Republic of China hastened to adopt a new course.  It opened China to the global market and capitalist methods.  Essentially, use foreign-supplied capital and technology to become the workshop of the world.  Start by making cheap simple stuff, then climb up the ladder.  Pull its people out of impoverished rural life into urban prosperity.  Pull China out of Developing Country status into global power. 

American business and political leaders took an optimistic view of these developments.  China would be a cheap producers of consumer goods for Western markets, raising living standards for Western peoples by lowering costs.  China would become a consumer of high-end  Western products and expertise.  An economic revolution in China would create a growing—and increasingly assertive—middle class.  This would nudge China toward political democracy.[1]  Naturally, there would be some job losses suffered in the West.  Experience with the rise of Japan in the 1970s and 1980s showed that displaced workers would shuffle into new jobs. 

In 2001, China won admission to the World Trade Organization.  Many restrictions on Chinese exports were removed.  Things did not work out as planned.  China moved much faster than expected and on a much larger scale than had been expected.  “Many U.S. manufacturing towns couldn’t compete.”[2]  Factories downsized.  Manufacturing shrank as a source of employment in many towns.  Some workers were laid off, but most were attritted through retirement.  They were not replaced.  Most of the displaced workers were White and Black men without a college education. 

Then, it seemed, the hard-hit areas bounced back.  They didn’t return to the original state.  Instead, “affected areas recover[ed] primarily by adding workers to non-manufacturing who were below working age when the shock occurred.  Entrants are disproportionately native-born Hispanics, foreign-born immigrants, women, and the college-educated, who find employment in relatively low-wage service sectors such as medical services, education, retail, and hospitality.”[3] 

Readers may question the argument that “towns” came back, while “workers” did not.  “Those communities experienced higher unemployment, lower wages, higher use of food stamps, higher disability payments, higher rates of single parenthood and child poverty, and elevated mortality.”[4]  Would make a good movie if John Sayles was still working.[5] 

The natural response is to connect all this distress to the rejection of globalism and—eventually—to the rise of Donald Trump.  What stands out, though, is the failed hopes of the people who set China policy and their failed sense of social solidarity when the choices they made had a harmful impact on ordinary people.  Now US AID is on the block. 

[1] That’s how it had worked in Western Europe in the 18th and 19th Centuries.  Why wouldn’t it be the same with China? 

[2] Justin Lahart, “How ‘China Shock’ Upended U.S. Workers,” WSJ, 5 February 2025.  Lahart is reporting on a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by David Autor, et al. 

[3] Places versus People: The Ins and Outs of Labor Market Adjustment to Globalization | NBER 

[4] Justin Lahart, “How ‘China Shock’ Upended U.S. Workers,” WSJ, 5 February 2025. 

[5] See: “Sunshine State” (2002) and “Casa de los babys” (2003).