Tag Archives: news

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 13.

Posted on by
Reply

            The Agenda: Why does health care cost so much? 

One theory is that, traditionally, medicine could not really do much for the sick and injured.  For almost all of human history, science and medicine knew nothing of many things.  Anesthesia and antiseptics for example, or what was a “normal” blood pressure or heart rate.  “Doctors” could be “real” or they could be “quacks” and you couldn’t tell the difference.  Surgeons could lop off arms or legs with a fair chance that the patient would survive.  They could do nothing about deep puncture wounds to the thorax.  They could administer heroic doses of laxatives and they could “bleed” patients to restore the balance of humors in the body.  As for psychiatry, Ben Franklin once helped out his sister by paying for her disturbed son to be chained up in a farmer’s barn to keep him from harm. 

Then, from the mid-19th Century onward, a medical revolution occurred.  It was just as dramatic—and probably more important—than the various political revolutions that have enlivened journalism over the same period.  Invasive surgery became safe and commonplace.  Drugs treated many diseases.  Vaccination warded off a host of terrible killers.  Then, in the second half of the 20th Century, still greater marvels appeared.  However, these ones were vastly more costly than the earlier innovations.  Organ transplants and fertility treatments, for example, are very costly.  Chronic illnesses in a population with an extending life-span is a new development.  In sum, modern medicine is just really expensive.  The best solution is to socialize the costs through government taxation and payments to providers. 

Another theory is that none of this is the real explanation for high health costs.[1]  It isn’t ALL medical costs that are so high.  It is only AMERICAN medical costs that are so high.  On a per capital basis, health care is about twice as expensive as it is in other advanced countries (i.e. Western Europe, Japan).  European doctors with comparable education and skills earn about half of what American doctors earn.  Members of the administrative hierarchy in hospitals and medical networks earn high salaries.  Medical tests, surgeries, and prescription drugs are far more expensive in the United States than they are elsewhere. 

According to this second theory, if you want more affordable medicine, you’re going to have to take it out of the incomes of the health profiteers.  This means everyone from your GP to the pharmaceutical companies.  Trying to compress incomes to cut costs for consumers (patients) will involve battling powerful entrenched interest groups, everyone from the American Medical Association to Big Pharma. 

In all of this, the health insurance industry plays the Bad Guy.  They’re the ones who interact with customers/consumers/patients.  Often they bring bad news.  Some charge is denied, or you still haven’t exhausted your out-of-pocket obligations, or you need to get your doctor to re-authorize some prescription that you’ve been taking—and will be taking—for years.  In truth, health insurers make a profit that is less than half of the average profit for corporation on the S&P 500. 

It is interesting that none of this has come up in discussion of Secretary of Health and Human Services nominee Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.[2]  What could/will Trump force through? 

[1] “The reason health care is so costly,” The Week, 27 December-3 January 2024, p. 14. 

[2] “RFK Jr. softens positions amid Senate scrutiny,” The Week, 27 December-3 January 2024, p. 4. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 10.

Posted on by
Reply

The Agenda: deporting the illegals and others. 

Broadly, immigrants vulnerable to President-Elect Donald Trump’s promised “mass deportations” fall into three categories.[1]  First, there are the illegal immigrants, whom Democrats long preferred to call “undocumented immigrants,” as if there had been some kind of bureaucratic snafu.  Second, there are those seeking asylum in the United States on the grounds that they face grave danger in their own home county.[2]  Third, there are those in the United States who have been granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS).[3] 

There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.  One careful estimate for the period February 2021 through October 2023 suggested that 4.2 million people had found entry into the United States.  Of these, about 2.5-2.6 million had been released into the country, while 1.6 million were estimated to have evaded all contact with the Border Patrol.  A further 2.8 million were expelled immediately back to Mexico.[4] 

Who goes first?  Thomas Homan, Trump’s nominated ICE commissioner, says that illegal immigrants who have committed crimes in the United States in addition to having entered the country illegally, will head the list.  Homan also has said that Texas provides a good model for national policy.  Texas governor Greg Abbott’s “Operation Lone Star” has called out the National Guard and put physical barriers along and in the Rio Grande.  Texas has also sent about 120,000 illegal immigrants to Democrat-led cities in the North. 

For a good while now, some Democrat-led cities have declared themselves “sanctuary” cities where local authorities will not co-operate with ICE.  These same cities often receive federal funding for various programs.  The Trump administration could try to compel co-operation by holding back these funds. 

One question is “Can this policy succeed?”  A second question is “What will it cost?”   The latter question has two sides to it.  On the one hand, there is a monetary expense to the government.  One estimate is that deporting a million people a year would cost $88 billion a year.  On the other hand, the illegals work in great numbers in construction, farming, restaurants, and hospitality.  Who will take those jobs if the illegals are deported?  American teenagers and college kids?  The homeless?  Folks for whom coding “boot camp” didn’t work out?  Another cost will come in fewer houses built, less fruits and vegetables in the grocery stores, slower service in restaurants, and longer turn-around times for hotel rooms.  All of it at a higher price. 

So why do it?  One answer is “Democracy, that’s why.”  According to an Ipsos poll,[5] fifty percent of Americans favor shutting down the U.S.-Mexican border.  Citizens live under the laws of their country.  To see the laws openly flaunted may be infuriating.  To see the spike in demand on various kinds of humanitarian support services in places where the illegal immigrants first arrive may be infuriating.  The pay-off through their eventual contributions to the country may be hard to discern in the current moment.  It’s a tough parlay to make. 

[1] “Immigration: Preparing for the crackdown,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 17. 

[2] In 2023, about 750,000 people applied for asylum.  Outmatched: The U.S. Asylum System Faces Record Demands p. 3.  Many of the illegals released from custody are asylum-seekers. 

[3] There were 1.2 million people with TPS in March 2024.  How TPS has expanded under the Biden administration | Pew Research Center 

[4] Lori Robertson, Breaking Down the Immigration Figures – FactCheck.org  27 February 2024.  Old-timers may wonder if the “gotaway” estimates resemble the Vietnam War “body counts” of our youth. 

[5] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 17. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 9.

Posted on by
Reply

            Is it emblematic of American politics and the media that we are talking so much about individual people, rather than about the deep problems facing America that the people have been nominated to address?  For example, Donald Trump has nominated Peter Hegseth for Secretary of Defense.[1]  It seems beyond doubt that Hegseth is utterly unqualified for the job.[2]  Yet it took Hegseth’s nomination to elicit a warning that “Head-spinning technological changes are revolutionizing combat” and China is “expanding its nuclear forces and space capabilities.”  Not much of a pressing topic in coverage of the Biden administration, but now cited as a justification for rejecting Hegseth.[3] 

Is the Federal Bureau of Investigation in need of sweeping change and reform?  Well, it was excoriated in the Report of the 9-11 Commission.  Some thought was then given to removing the FBI’s counter-intelligence division and creating an entirely new agency.  The FBI promised to do better, so it managed to hold on to this responsibility.  Now, though, one observer claimed that the intelligence agencies “are in desperate need of reform.”  If the FBI does need reform, then what sort of person is best suited to head the FBI?  Do we want “a rabid critic of the very institution he’s being asked to lead”?  As opposed to what, a senior career FBI official who believes that things are pretty much OK the way they are? 

Donald Trump believes that the FBI does need “reform.” The basis for his belief is “Crossfire Hurricane,” which conducted a prolonged investigation of an accusation that Trump knew—not “believed,” but knew—to be false.  That investigation badly disrupted his first term as President.  The investigations by Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, and John Durham, a Special Prosecutor appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr, documented the origins of the allegations of “collusion” in a dirty trick carried out by the Hillary Clinton campaign.  It was facilitated and prolonged by inexplicable “errors” committed by members of the investigation team. 

President-Elect Trump nominated Kash Patel to replace FBI Director Christopher Wray, although Wray still has three years to run in his ten-year term.  Other than Republican Senators, almost everyone from the left to the right thought this a terrible idea.  William Kristol, for example, warned that Patel would “use the FBI to carry out Trump’s professed agenda of political retribution.”  Worse, it would put a Trump loyalist in charge of the FBI, the national police force.  If Patel gets the job, wrote David Frum, “the seizure of power [Trump] unsuccessfully attempted in 2021 could be underway in 2025.”  Unfortunately, Republican Senators are the only people with opinions that matter. 

In addition to escaping two impeachments unscathed and unrepentant, Trump has also escaped Special Counsel Jack Smith.[4]  Smith closed down his inquiries because of the Justice Department ban on prosecuting a sitting president.  A judge dismissed the charges “without prejudice.”  He can be prosecuted again in 2029, once he’s an elderly man with a poor memory. 

[1] “Trump taps ‘Deep State” critic Patel to lead FBI,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p.4. 

[2] Not only unqualified, but unqualified in multiple ways.  People seem confident that if he managed to not mess up in one way, then he would mess up in another. 

[3] See: “The System Is Blinking Red” 2. | waroftheworldblog 

[4] “Trump: Beyond the reach of the law,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 17. 

“It’s pretty bad.”

Posted on by
5

            President Joe Biden has pardoned his son Hunter Biden. After promising on national television not to pardon him. 

I’d a done the same.  For my sons of course, not for Hunter Biden.  I understand why Joe Biden did it.[1]  I don’t hold it against him.  Fathers among the “commentariat” are either going to skip the chance to be interviewed or say what I just said. 

That said, “it’s pretty bad.”[2] 

For one thing, there are a lot of people who are in prison now or who have been in prison for some other equivalent crime.  What relief do they get?  None.  Apparently, according to a person being interviewed on the PBS “News Hour” last night, President Joe Biden has an unusually thin record on granting pardons.  He’s not a naturally empathetic or merciful guy.  So the pardon for Hunter seems to me to be an even greater injustice than it appears at first blush. 

Then, there’s the nature of the pardon.  A while ago, Hunter had a plea deal with the Feds go south at the last minute.[3]  There were a couple of reasons for that.  One of them was the scope of what was covered by the plea deal.  Hunter’s lawyers claimed that the plea deal covered anything that he had ever done.  The Feds claimed that it covered only the gun and tax charges. 

Hunter Biden’s lawyers may have had the rights of it.  However, a firestorm had blown up because two Internal Revenue Service investigators swore under oath that there had been Department of Justice meddling with their investigation.  Republicans and the media jumped on these allegations with varying degrees of ferocity.  So, the Feds may have crawfished at the last moment.  No blanket plea deal for Hunter Biden. 

Now, in the lees of his Presidency,[4] Joe Biden has granted Hunter Biden a blanket pardon for anything he did or may have done in the last ten years.  Same as the plea deal he didn’t get before.  The sweeping nature of the pardon makes me wonder if there are serious things as yet unknown to the public.  If so, were they known to, but not investigated by, the Department of Justice under the Trump and Biden administrations? 

In any case, there is likely to be a rat hunt under the direction of whoever ends up as Attorney General in the Trump administration.  Just because they can’t prosecute Hunter Biden doesn’t mean that they can’t investigate.  And compel testimony.  And prosecute for perjury if it can be proved.  Trump is no more empathetic or merciful than is Joe Biden. 

[1] I got called to participate in an intervention.  Drugs.  We do the intervention and the person agrees to go into a treatment center; the person does a bunk along the way; we spend a lot of time looking for him/her/they before he/she/they finally surfaces.  Along the way, I call the police, asking if I can nark on the person, get him/her/they off the street.  The cop says, “If he/she/they have a problem with drugs, jail is the last place you want him/her/them: easier to get drugs there than on the street.”  NB: Language adapted to modern times. 

[2] One of my sons, who has not needed a pardon. 

[3] For a quick overview, see: Weiss special counsel investigation – Wikipedia 

[4] It must be a sad and bitter time for him.  Finally elected to the office for which he had always hungered, his policies inflicted hardship on low-income people; he suffered a humiliating defeat on national television in the debate with Doanld Trump; then got tossed overboard by a mutiny among the colleagues with whom he had spent his working life; then saw his hand-picked Vice President and hand-picked successor candidate go down in flames; then saw himself blamed by many Democrats for having caused the defeat.  In these circumstances, he may well have felt that he was owed SOMETHING by this rotten system. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 8.

Posted on by
Reply

Then there’s the money-bags people.  Trump has promised an economic policy based on cutting taxes, cutting regulations, increasing domestic energy production, and imposing high tariffs on all and sundry.  He has said that he will do all this without unleashing a new round of inflation or causing interest rates to rise.  That’s not an easy combination to make.  Trump has nominated Scott Bessent for Secretary of the Treasury.[1]  He’s a billionaire hedge-fund manager.  So Wall Street is greatly relieved.  They see him as the adult in the room.[2]

Bessent appears to be a late-adapter of tariffs.  Sort of the threshold cost of entry for an econ job with the Addams administration.  The Trump-Biden tariff war against China has had an effect.  By 2023, imports from China had fallen to 14 percent of total imports.  That is the lowest level in almost twenty years.  Conversely, imports from Mexico[3] rose to 15.4 percent and imports from Canada hit 13.6 percent of the total.[4]  Yet Trump has been threatening high tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports.  These will push up consumer prices, complicating Bessent’s job.  Bessent is said to hope that the mere threat of more tariffs will compel foreign countries to adjust their policies to America’s advantage. 

Bessent is going to have some competition for the control of economic policy.  For one thing, Howard Lutnick wanted that job, but had to settle for Secretary of Commerce.  That still gives him a voice in economic policy.  He may—or may not—resent Bessent getting the job.  People don’t climb to the heights of Wall Street without having sharp elbows. 

Then Russell Vought, head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the first Addams administration, got a second bite at the apple.  Trump has described him as “an aggressive cost cutter and deregulator.”  Media critics agreed, reporting that Vought had called for cutting $2 trillion from Medicaid, and $400 billion from food stamps.  Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are going to be running a non-governmental, purely advisory “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE).[5]  It looks like OMB will be the place where the recommendations go for implementation. 

Another tool in the kit for the administration may be “impoundment.”[6]  This idea arose during the Nixon administration.  Basically, just because the Legislative Branch appropriates money for some purpose doesn’t mean that the Executive Branch has to spend it.  In 1974, Congress passed a law saying the President couldn’t “impound” funds.  Trump says the law is unconstitutional.  He may have the Supreme Court to back him up. 

            Finally, Trump nominated Congresswoman Lori Chavez-DeRemer to lead the Department of Labor.  She’s pro-union and Teamsters President Sean O’Brien had recommended her for the slot.  He nomination alarmed the Wall Street Journal, perhaps because it suggested that Trump’s support for the working-class voter isn’t purely rhetorical.  Better that the administration should “spur economic growth and a robust job market” in hopes that some of the money will reach workers. 

[1] “Treasury: Bessent choice reassures Wall Street,” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 32. 

[2] See: H.R. McMaster, John Bolton, Bill Barr, etc., etc. 

[3] Possibly from China by way of Mexico. 

[4] “The bottom line,” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 32. 

[5] At least until Musk quits in disgust or he runs off Ramaswamy because Musk doesn’t play well with others. 

[6] “What next?” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 4. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 7.

Posted on by
Reply

            President-elect Donald Trump continued to stock his cabinet like a trout stream.[1]  His picks elicited complaints that his cabinet lacks ideological coherence.  Or, alternatively, they’re all of one “authoritarian” mind, just like Trump himself.[2] 

For Attorney-General2.0, he nominated Pam Bondi, a former Attorney-General of Florida.  Bondi is already disdained by some for having derided Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. 

            Having nominated the anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Trump then nominated Dr. Janette Nesheiwat to be Surgeon General; Dr. Martin Makary to head the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and Dave Weldon to head the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). 

            Most of these nominations set off alarm bells among Democrats, although not so much as had Matt Gaetz.[3]  All the health nominees were decried as holding “ideas that are outside the medical mainstream.”  Doctors and scientists fear “the injection of politics into realms once reserved for academics.”  For her part, Attorney-General nominee Bondi was guilty of “rabid partisanship” while she was Florida’s Attorney-General.  Now Bondi will be the “most dangerous” Attorney-General the country has ever had.[4] 

            Trump has promised to shut down the Department of Education (DOE) and return responsibility entirely to the states.[5]  What does the DOE do?  It directs federal tax (or borrowing) dollars to low-income school districts filled with low-income (and often low-performing) students; and it manages university student loan programs.  Republicans think American public schools perform badly.  Republicans think bureaucratized school systems and unaccountable teachers are the source of the problem.  Republicans think that the solution to these problems are education vouchers, charter schools, and eliminating the DOE. Trump nominated Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education.  McMahon knows a lot about entertainment (specifically pro wrestling), but not much about education.  Maybe Trump anticipates a cage fight with people with Education degrees.    

            Republicans also think that American universities are messed-up.  In their view, the liberal arts and humanities faculties are leftists propagandizing young people.[6]  So the many leftists in the liberal arts and humanities are alarmed at the government using money and accreditation to get them in a Full-Nelson.  The reality is that the vast majority of undergraduates are pursuing degrees in business or other professions.  Liberal arts “core” requirements are much reduced compared to earlier times.  And you have to be listening to get propagandized.  The hyper-ventilating on both sides is uncalled for. 

            Probably will make people pine for the “chaos” of the first Addams administration. 

[1] “Trump fills out his Cabinet with loyalists and billionaires,” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 4. 

[2] Writing this stuff so soon after the election must be like eating sand. 

[3] What could? 

[4] This would make her more dangerous that Roger Taney, Roger B. Taney – Wikipedia; or A. Mitchell Palmer A. Mitchell Palmer – Wikipedia  Big shoes to fill. 

[5] “McMahon: Will she dismantle DOE?” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 16.  So, like control of abortion. 

[6] Nothing really tops George Wallace’s denunciation of “pointy-headed intellectuals who can’t even park their bicycles straight on the campus.” 

ChiMerica 5.

Posted on by
Reply

            For decades after the death of Mao Zedong, China’s national policies were set by Deng Xiaoping and his like-minded successors.  China opened itself to the world, carried out major reforms, and pursued rapid economic growth.  An enhanced international power would surely come as a result of these policies.  Yet, it seemed to many foreign observers, that China would progressively integrate itself into a larger world system.  These hopes have been abridged.

How should we understand Xi Jinping, leader-for-life of contemporary China?  A recent book on Xi’s political thought as revealed in his speeches and writings cast some light on the issue.[1]  Xi possesses—or is possessed by—vast ambition for China.  He aims at the “rejuvenation” of his country by a Leninist dictatorship.  He wants to return China to its one-time status as the greatest nation in the world.  On the one hand, Xi’s aims mean asserting the power of the Communist Party as the guide of the nation in all political and economic matters.  He found the Chinese Communist Party demoralized by a loss of purpose.  He found it riddled with corruption.  Xi’s anti-corruption campaigns began by purging many of his enemies or rivals, but they seem not to have stopped there.  Xi’s reassertion of party primacy gives him a powerful lever to guide and to mobilize the Chinese people.   

On the other hand, Xi’s aims require displacing the United States from its long role as guardian of what might be called “American Asia”: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Vietnam.  As one of the means to this end, China has carried out a massive military build-up.  China has been asserting its claim to the South China Sea as a kind of Chinese lake, rather than an open international waterway. 

            Xi’s ambition is bad for the United States and bad for the states of “American Asia.”  Among these states, Japan serves as the linch-pin of the American position and it is a natural bete-noire for Xi.  Japan’s brutal behavior in Asia during the Second World War gives Xi’s propaganda a lot to work with in mobilizing Chinese opinion.  China’s battering of the fishing fleets and coast guards of the peripheral states around the South China Sea aims at controlling one of Japan’s main lines of trade. 

            Xi has been at this for a dozen years.  He has set his target date for the completion of China’s rejuvenation as 2050.  The end date is well after Xi will have shuffled off the scene.  He has been working hard to instill “Xi Jinping Thought” as the guiding ideology for his country. 

            The United States has been struggling to respond to the new China.  The presidential transition from the Democrat Joe Biden to the Republican Donald Trump requires a review of the essential questions.  How widely understood is the seriousness of China’s challenge?  Can anyone craft a plan for a successful response to China’s challenge?  Is it possible for the United States to mobilize the military and diplomatic resources needed to meet the challenge?   

            Countries close to China seem to profess the most confidence in the American alliance.  Perhaps they have no choice but to believe it.  Countries farther away in Southeast Asia are more skeptical.  One theory is that the evident inadequate level of American military power gives them pause.  So, is America bluffing when it claims that it will support its allies?  If so, then Asian countries will spot that like a leopard spots a limp. 

[1] Steve Tsang and Olivia Cheung, The Political Thought of Xi Jinping (2025), brought to my attention by Walter Russell Mead, “Does Biden Take China’s Threat Seriously?” WSJ, 9 April 2024. 

In a Bunch.

Posted on by
Reply

            Elon Musk is the owner of SpaceX, Tesla, X (called Twitter), “and, oh, some other stuff.”  He is the current “world’s wealthiest person.”  When NASA and Boeing couldn’t find a way to safely retrieve two astronauts from the space station, they asked Musk.  He obliged. 

            During the first Trump administration, Musk became exercised over what he saw as Progressives’ censorship of speech that they disliked.[1]  He bought Twitter, then used it as a platform to support Trump’s run for a second term.  He also spent $190 million in support of Trump during the months before the November 2024 election.  Now he is a court “favorite.”[2] 

Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have been instructed to create an extra-governmental “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE).  Their mission, should they decide to accept it, is to identify “trillions [as in $2 trillion] in possible budget cuts.”  More than that, they will “slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federl Agencies.”[3]

This development stirred up the hornets.  Normally, government officials and politicians spend a lifetime in public employment.  Their wealth is in the stock market and real estate investment.  If necessary, it can be placed in blind trusts.  This creates a reassuring sense of propriety among the public.  Not Elon Musk.  Like Donald Trump, he’s going to continue operating his big and important firms even while looking for places to cut spending (i.e. jobs).  “Look, and by the way,” he’s a Libertarian with a lot of government contracts.  So not fair! 

Democrats warn that Musk “could reap a windfall from deregulatory moves” if he has some kind of leverage on government agencies that regulate his business empire.  That’s a more than fair point, so it is fair to ask how much leverage he would have.  The “DOGE” would be a non-governmental advisory committee, not a real government department.[4]  The “DOGE” could recommend changes, but they would need Congressional action to take effect. 

Then there is Musk’s record on overhauling his own companies.  After he bought Twitter, he fired 80 percent of the employees.  That definitely got expenses down.  Will he recommend the same thing to the federal government?  Cutting the Departments of Education seems like a no-brainer, while foreclosing on the Housing and Urban Development would free up office space.  It would be necessary to cut 85 percent of government’s non-entitlements, non-defense, and non-interest payments to get $2 trillion out of the budget. 

If it can’t all be got that way, then sacred cows are going to “Bovine University.”[5]  Some people believe that Trump and Musk are “planning to cut Social Security and Medicare.”  Perhaps all of the chopping by Musk and Ramaswamy in the rest of the government is intended to show that the national finances cannot be repaired without “changes” (either cuts or efficiencies) to these two programs.  All this—mindlessly—leaves higher taxes off the table. 

[1] “Payback: The United States of Elon Musk,” The Week, 22 November 2024, p. 34. 

[2] See: Favourite – Wikipedia  It’s actually kind of reassuring. 

[3] “Trump’s MAGA administration takes shape,” The Week, 22 November 2024, p. 4. 

[4] Without wanting to stretch the point too far, during the Cold War the U.S. government had a group of “wise men” to consult on international crises.  See: Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made (2013).  Curiously, Isaacson now is at work on a biography of Musk.  Similarly, the “9-11 Commission” made important suggestions about improving government action against foreign terrorism.  It isn’t clear how these recommendations have been followed. 

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR_4h5A5z_A 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 6.

Posted on by
Reply

            Filling the President’s Cabinet dominated the news this past week. Almost all the nominees called forth groans and denunciations.  Some nominees brought more than that.  The nomination of clownish Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General set off a firestorm.[1]  He was the subject of an on-going Ethics Committee investigation.[2]  Gaetz quickly resigned from Congress, allowing the Ethics Committee to not release the report if it chose.[3]  However, Gaetz’s nomination as Attorney General made a lot of Senators hungry to see the report.  Some of these Senators were Republicans.  Conservative media joined in.  Gaetz was labeled as totally unqualified because he has never run anything or prosecuted a case, so how is he supposed to run the Department of Justice?  Trump expressed his unconditional support for Gaetz and had been talking about finagling the use of “recess appointments” to get his choices in office without Senate hearings or a vote.  The latter proposal also encountered a fierce attack from Republicans.  Then, suddenly and almost quietly, Gaetz withdrew his name from consideration for Attorney General.  He didn’t want to be a “distraction.”[4] 

            Then there’s Peter Hegseth, nominated as Secretary of Defense.[5]  Like Gaetz, Hegseth has no formal qualifications to run a gigantic organization, let alone the one charged with national defense.  He’s a former National Guard officer and long-time Fox News personality.  To make matters worse, he is suspected of being some kind of Christiaan nationalist,[6] and news leaked of a settlement with a woman who had accused him of sexual assault.[7] 

            Is Hegseth the wrong man for the wrong task or the wrong man for the right task?  In the eyes of many Progressives, it is the former.  They dread the American military being put to enforcing President Trump’s domestic policies: mass deportations of illegal immigrants, reversing the use of the military as a D.I.E. lab, or even suppressing domestic political opposition.  For many Trump supporters and even some of his opponents, the mission is putting a stop to the pointless, badly-run “forever wars.”[8] 

            Something like the same thing is true of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nominated as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.[9]  He’s an anti-vaxxer and has a number of other odd ideas, to put it mildly.  Then there’s the whole thing with dead animals of various kinds.  OTOH, Kennedy’s been outspoken on a real childhood health crisis, and is a critic of Big Food with all its homogenization, additives, and advertising.  The latter hardly off-set the former. 

            So, a string of bad nominees, but some good ideas behind the nominations.  Is it possible to keep the good while getting rid of the bad?  Or do “good” people accept “the way things are”?

[1] “Trump doubles down on Gaetz nomination,” The Week, 29 November 2024, p. 4. 

[2] He had been accused of sex trafficking; having sex with a 17 year-old; using illegal drugs; and misusing campaign funds. 

[3] The Committee has a history of not releasing reports on accused Members who do the right thing by resigning.

[4] Will Ron DeSantis appoint him to Marco Rubio’s Senate seat if Rubio becomes Secretary of State? 

[5] “Trump’s plans for military purge take shape,” The Week, 29 November 2024, p. 5. 

[6] Cross of Jerusalem tattoo on his chest; “Deus le veult” tattoo on one arm.  Both of which make him sound non-Muslim and perhaps anti-Muslim. 

[7] So far, the truth of the allegations is contested. 

[8] Staying in Afghanistan for any purpose other than getting their hands on Osama bin Laden’s bullet-riddled corpse; the whole of the Iraq mishagosh; overthrowing Ghadaffi in Libya, then walking away as the place burns down. 

[9] “RFK Jr.: Is he a threat to public health?” The Week, 29 November 2024, p. 6. 

The Knives Are Out.

Posted on by
Reply

            Donald Trump hammered Kamala Harris in the presidential elections.  Now the Democrats have organized a circular firing squad. 

            According to one theory. Joe Biden is to blame.[1]  The dotard made himself very unpopular with voters because of the bad stuff—chiefly inflation and immigration–that happened during his administration.  Perhaps lusting for power and office, he decided to run for re-election back in 2022.  Then the June debate with Trump revealed the great and terrible Oz to the public.  Still Biden clung to the nomination for another month.  Had he announced that he would not seek re-election in 2022, or had he even bailed immediately after the debate, the Democrats could have had some time to find a strong candidate. 

            According to one theory, Kamala Harris was a “stiff,” and not in the Celine Dion “stiff person syndrome” sense of the term.  She gave speeches and ticked-off sanitized talking points, while Trump was free-associating on “The Joe Rogan Experience.”  An un-inspiring candidate failed to draw the votes that the dynamic and charismatic Joe Biden had excited in 2020.  (Wait, what?)  “Democrats sat out the election,” said one writer.[2] 

            According to one theory, the problem for Democrats was not with “Populism,” but with “Populists.”  Democrats who won where Kamala Harris lost “ran to the left on economic issues.”[3]  They attacked “corporate greed” and high prices.[4]  The key here is “economic issues,” not “cultural issues” or D.I.E. initiatives.  Confederate bathrooms and transgender monuments played no role in the campaigns of the Democratic victors in these cases.  “Kamala’s for They/Them” jammed their own pronoun-posturing into the guts of the Democrats and twisted it.  “Defund the police” came back to haunt Democrats, no matter how hard they later leaned into John Kerry-esque “I voted for it before I voted against it” dodging around.  The Democrats had indulged in an orgy of “condescension and cancellation,” so it’s no wonder they lost the last shreds of their base in the “blue collar/working class/real America” vote.[5] 

            According to one theory, it’s the fault of the voters.[6]  The people who put Trump in the White House are “the most badly informed electorate in modern American history.”  About 57 percent of voters had less than a bachelor degree; while 24 percent had a bachelor degree and 19 percent had a graduate degree of some sort.  Of voters with less than a bachelor degree, an average of 41 percent voted for Harris, and an average of 57 percent voted for Trump.  Of these latter two groups, 53 percent of those with bachelor degrees voted for Harris and 43 percent voted for Trump; while 59 percent of those with graduate degrees voted for Harris and 38 percent voted for Trump.  So, if low educational attainment correlated with Trump voters and high educational attainment, why were so many of those without bachelor degrees Harris voters and why were so many with bachelors and graduate degrees Trump voters?  Apparently, educational level doesn’t have much to do with being “informed.” 

            What does affect being “informed”?  How about lived experience?  According to exit polls, 46 percent of voters said that their family’s financial situation was worse than four years before.  Of these people, 81 percent voted for Trump and 17 percent for Harris.  Conversely, 24 percent of voters said that their family’s financial situation was actually better than four years previously.  Of these voters, 82 percent voted for Harris and 14 percent for Trump.  When asked about the inflation in the past year, 75 percent replied that it had caused moderate or severe hardship.  On average, 62 percent of these respondents voted for Trump.  Of those who said that inflation caused no hardship, 77 percent voted for Harris.[7]  Put crudely, Trump voters were inflation-victims and Harris voters were inflation-profiteers.  I don’t think that’s what Franklin D. Roosevelt or Harry S. Truman had in mind for the Democratic Party. 

[1] “This is all Biden’s fault”—Josh Barro in the NYT, quoted in “Election 2024: How Trump won,” The Week, 22 November 2024, p. 16. 

[2] Patrick Murray, Monmouth University, quoted in “Election 2024: How Trump won,” The Week, 22 November 2024, p. 16.  Actually, about 950,000 of them voted for Trump and another 72 million voted for Harris.  About 8.5 million did sit out the election.  Probably busy filling out the immigration papers for Canada. 

[3] David Leonhardt of the NYT, quoted in “Democrats: Where does the party go from here?” The Week, 22 November 2024, p. 6. 

[4] Final story is not yet written for Casey versus McCormick in Pennsylvania Senate race. 

[5] Maureen Dowd of the NYT, quoted in “Democrats: Where does the party go from here?” The Week, 22 November 2024, p. 6; “Democrats: Why Harris lost so badly,” The Week, 15 November 2024, p. 6.

[6] See: Jim Bouton (and Neil Offen), I Managed Good, But Boy Did They Play Bad (1973).  Good book to know if you like baseball. 

[7] 2024 United States presidential election – Wikipedia