Tag Archives: politics

Some American Opinion in Summer 2025.

Posted on by
Reply

            In late June 2025, 80 percent of Americans supported using vaccines to prevent diseases.  “Only” 20 percent opposed vaccines.[1]  Twenty percent still seems like a lot.  In September 2025, the figures remained essentially the same: 78 percent versus 22 percent.  In the September 2025 poll, the spectrum ranged from 93 percent of Democrats to 72 percent of Independents to 67 percent of Republicans.[2]  That’s a 26-point difference between Democrats and Republicans, so a yawning crevasse between the two major parties. 

On the one hand, the great majority of Americans approve of vaccines, regardless of party.  Arguably, RFK, Jr.’s crusade against vaccines is going to get him canned after the November 2026 mid-terms, if not before.  On the other hand, there’s a 21-point differences between Democrats and Independents as well as a 5-point difference between Independents and Republicans.  In short, Democrats ae near-unanimous on vaccines. Independents and Republics have a lot more unbelievers.  So, there’s the Democrats and there’s everyone else. 

            Since 2001 we’ve had the dot.com bubble, the housing bubble, the Perdue Pharma Oxycontin scandal, and the “China Shock.”   In 2021, 60 percent of Americans still had a favorable view of Capitalism.  Since then we’ve had the economic upheavals caused by Covid, AI, and a nasty bout of inflation.  Today only 54 percent view Capitalism favorably.[3]  That means that 46 percent disapprove of Capitalism or Don’t Know what they think. 

As with vaccines, there is a marked partisan divide.  Almost three-quarters (74 percent) of Republican have a favorable view of Capitalism, while only 42 percent of Democrats have a favorable view.  What’s the theoretical alternative to Capitalism?  Socialism!  Well, 57 percent of Americans disapprove of Socialism,[4] compared with 39 percent who take a favorable view. 

            Playing with the numbers a bit.  A little over half (54 percent) take a favorable view of Capitalism and almost the same share (57 percent) disapprove of Socialism. So, that’s one block.  It is largely Republican.  At the same time, 26 percent of Republicans either don’t approve of Capitalism (at least in its present form) or Don’t Know what they think.  How can you be a Republican and NOT approve of Capitalism?  Well, you could be a Republican for cultural issues that are more important to you than the economic system.  Say, on abortion or illegal immigration. 

In contrast, 42 percent of Democrats have a favorable view of Capitalism, while 58 percent have an unfavorable view or Don’t Know what they think.  It may be reasonable to conjecture that there is a big overlap between that 58 percent of Democrats who don’t have a favorable view of Capitalism and the 39 percent of Americans who have a favorable view of Socialism.  That leaves 19 percent who don’t approve of either Capitalism or Socialism. 

            It may mean that many Democrats and some Republicans favor a “reformed” Capitalism, rather than its present form.  That doesn’t mean that they support Socialism.  

            In any event, vaccines are more credible than is Capitalism.  You don’t see that much in the news.  Bound to be younger people who believe in Socialism.  The Future belongs to Them. 

[1] NBC News poll, reported in “Poll Watch,” The Week, 4-11 July 2025, p. 17. 

[2] NBC News poll reported in “Poll Watch,” The Week, 19 September 2025. 

[3] Gallup poll reported in “Poll Watch,” The Week, 19 September 2025, p. 17. 

[4] NO, that doesn’t mean that people who live in New York City aren’t Americans. 

How the US Lost Manufacturing 1.

Posted on by
Reply

            How did the United States rise to economic and industrial predominance in the world?  First, the North American continent held a vast trove of natural resources of many kinds.  All that was needed was finding ways to extract and transform those resources.  Second, the country suffered from a perennial labor-scarcity.  Even massive immigration in the “long 19th Century” could not fill the breach, so Americans turned to technological and organizational innovations to increase productivity.  Third, all this took a great deal of capital.  The “Founders” created a pro-business environment that both helped generate American capital and attracted foreign (especially British) capital.  By the dawn of the 20th Century, the United States had the greatest industrial economy in the world.  The two World Wars laid low every other industrial country, while they strengthened that of the United States.  By mid-century, American industry (and agriculture, and finance, and science and technology) bestrode the world.  In one symbol of both the industrial power and the diversity of the American economy, about a third (35 percent) of all private-sector jobs were in manufacturing.[1]  This situation lasted through the end of the 1950s. 

            What were some results of that rise to predominance? 

            In the wake of the Second World War, the United States held a uniquely favorable position.  All of the other major industrial nations were either bankrupt or war-ravaged and bankrupt.  The Stalinist command-economy could compel Russians and conquered Eastern Europeans to make painful sacrifices to rebuild their economies without American aid.  Elsewhere (Western Europe, Japan) relied upon American assistance.  Later, the Americans added military protection against Soviet aggression. 

            The Americans used their leverage to remake the international economic system.  The “Bretton Woods System” (International Monetary Fund, World Bank); the first steps that would lead to the European Union; and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor the World Trade Organization (WTO) all came from American designs.  A progressively more “open” world economy came about between 1945 and 2025. 

            The Western European and Japanese economies revived with a speed that astonished people who had seen the wrecked economies and societies at war’s end.  They not only recovered, but generated an unprecedented and widespread prosperity.  It should be obvious, but may not be to most Americans, that the vast majority of this recovery and progress sprang from the hard work of the people who received American aid.  Especially in Germany and Japan, hard work, ready adaptation to new circumstances, and self-restraint became cultural values and not merely the harsh necessities of the moment.  These countries also built government systems of “social provision” that shocked many Americans. 

            How did the United States fall from that predominant position? 

            The economies that the United States had helped to revive began to become competitors.  This had always been expected, if only in some misty future.  First, they began to supply many of their own needs, then they began to compete in “third markets” (neither Western Europe, not America).  In Asia and Latin America, countries began to emulate the earlier industrializing countries.  Their initial advantage lay in very cheap labor.  They began by producing simple, non-durable goods at a very low cost for export to foreign markets, especially the American market. 

At the same time, from the mid-1960s onward, the American economy began to shift its center of gravity.  The service sector[2] began to grow rapidly.  Manufacturing held steady in numbers of employees until about 1980.  At the same time, manufacturers began the long trend toward shifting new production to the “Sun Belt,” especially the Southern states.[3] 

With an expanding service sector, Americans seem to have been ready to surrender the lowest level of manufacturing to foreigners in return for more stuff bought cheaper.  Those countries didn’t stay at the lowest level.  Having earned and learned from low-level industrialization, many of them sought to move up the food-chain.  South Korea, for example, developed a steel industry and a ship-building industry. 

            Then, beginning in 2001, China was admitted to the World Trade Organization.  China has an immense population.  Through the end of the Mao Zedong period, they were mostly trapped in low-productivity farming.  Post-Mao governments set out to change China in a more revolutionary and constructive way than Mao had ever imagined.  China would open its markets to foreign business, draw in foreign investment, shift its population from “the idiocy of rural life” to the “dark, Satanic mills” of new industrial cities, and conquer foreign markets for manufactured goods.  It took China less that a decade to surpass the United States as the world’s leading exporter of manufactured goods.  What the United States has retained and developed is its role as the leading exporter of services, including intellectual property.[4] 

In this account, the American economy shifted its chief function from extracting primary products (so, primary sector) to transforming them into finished goods (secondary sector) to providing diverse services (tertiary sector).  It’s easy to see this as a normative evolution of all capitalist economies.  American aid to Western Europe and Japan after the Second World War helped those places get back on track.  Similarly, American development aid assisted developing economies begin the path on which others were well-advanced.  Over the years, America shedding low-value industrial jobs and shifting people up the hierarchy into high value service jobs facilitated the global rise in development and living standards. 

Only in the case of post-Mao China did the institutions and policies created by the United States after the Second World War succeed all too well.  The “China Shock” wreaked havoc on American industry (and not only American industry).  That had painful social and economic consequences.  From one point of view, it had been impossible to foresee the scale and rapidity of China’s growth in manufacturing power.  So, is the problem how to return China to the old post-war model through practicing self-restraint and focusing on domestic consumers?  To become a “normal” nation in American terms? 

[1] Justin Lahart, “How the U.S. Slipped From Top Manufacturing Perch,” WSJ, 14 April 2025. 

[2] Doctors, lawyers, bankers, teachers, and so on, rather than just people “flipping hamburgers” as Mike Dukakis seemed to imagine. 

[3] In a sense, the Southern states were “developing economies” within America’s own borders.  Wages were lower, labor unions weren’t well-established, and state governments were pro-development.  For more, see: American Union, stay away from me uh. | waroftheworldblog 

[4] Justin Lahart, “How the U.S. Slipped From Top Manufacturing Perch,” WSJ, 14 April 2025.   

Puzzled.

Posted on by
Reply

Are we doing too much to support our ally Israel? First, by launching and tenaciously continuing a war that Hamas cannot win, Hamas is at least as responsible as Israel for the massive death toll in Gaza. Still, have we erred by supplying Israel with so much ordnance? That’s without me knowing just how much ordnance we have supplied to Israel. Second, by attacking Iran’s key nuclear-weapons development facilities, we are entering a war whose long-term course is unknowable. (The same is true of any war, as Desmond Morton observed.) Israel is right to fear Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, given Iran’s professed desire to destroy Israel. Are we right to be concerned about the destruction of Israel to the point where we take military action?

Are we doing too little to support our friend, if not ally, Ukraine? Vladimir Putin has repeatedly professed his desire to destroy Ukraine as an independent state. So far, the United States and the Europeans have supplied a great deal of military hardware and training to support Ukraine’s self-defense effort, along with financial aid to keep the Ukrainian civil economy afloat. There is such a demographic imbalance between the opposing forces, that I wonder if armaments alone will enable Ukraine to survive. Should we be concerned about the destruction of Ukraine to the point where we take military action with our own forces?

Then there’s Taiwan.

What is the “right” amount of support to supply to an ally or friend at war? How do we tell what is the “right” level? Are Israel and Ukraine the same or are they apples and oranges?

Q and A.

Posted on by
Reply

            Question: How does a democratic society operate in a modern world characterized by highly complex systems.  Examples of such systems include the Economy, Science, Medicine, Transportation, International Relations and National Defense. 

            Answer: It functions through delegation.  Initially, such delegation took the form of elected representatives and through federalism.  Bit by bit over the last century, the important problems raised by increasing complexity, the “Seventy-Five Years War,” and the desire for truly national policies have expanded the delegation to subject-area Experts.  Some of this “Expertise” is housed within the federal departments and agencies, some of it in semi-independent organizations, some in colleges and universities, and some of it in private bodies.  Experts act as Stewards of these complex systems for the common good. 

            Question: What do the Experts get in exchange for operating their Stewardship? 

            Answer: “Honor, Power, Riches, Fame, and the Love of Women.”[1]  All in moderation or, at least, the appearance of moderation.  This is a version of the “Social Contract.” 

            Question: What happens if one party violates the “contract”?   

            Answer: The contract ceases to be enforceable on the other party.[2] 

            Question: Have the “Experts” violated the contract?  It seems to me that they have and repeatedly and egregiously.  There is a partial list of examples.[3] 

            Question: Has the mass of ordinary people violated the contract? 

            Answer: Maybe or Arguably, they have.  I’ve thought about the “Experts.”  They make an inviting target.  I haven’t thought as much about ordinary people.  I should.  Off the top of my head—or my grievance pile—there are the following observations:

            No one—regardless of social class or gender or sexual orientation, or ethnicity–wants to pay taxes, or serve in the military,[4] or serve on a jury. 

            Nobody seems to care about massive national debt that will lead to default. 

            We have an economy driven by the consumption of immense quantities of cheap garbage from Walmart, Amazon, and Apple. 

            The swelling numbers of people afflicted by obesity and Type II diabetes.  These are afflictions of choice, even if that choice is manipulated by Big Food. 

            The educational decline manifested in falling standardized test scores. 

            The fascination with celebrities, athletes, musicians, and other louts. 

            Today’s “common man” as a far cry from the “common man” of Aaron Copland’s day.[5]    

            Yes, I know: Curmudgeon yelling at the rain.  Doesn’t make me wrong. 

[1] Sigmund Freud, quoted by Ward Just in the story of the same title in Ward Just, Twenty-One Selected Stories (1990).   

[2] See: The Declaration of Independence. 

[3] What Should You Read? | waroftheworldblog 

[4] Well, since the creation of the “All Volunteer Force” at the end of the Vietnam War, about one percent of Americans have been willing to serve in the military.  These were not the dregs of society the common imagination.  Most often, they have been people from the South and West and often with some kind of family link to military service. 

[5] Fanfare for the Common Man – Aaron Copland 

Tell-Some.

Posted on by
Reply

            Reports of a new book on the presidency of Joe Biden have begun to appear.  It focuses on the troubled man revealed for all the world to see in his catastrophic debate with Donald Trump.[1]  Biden had been 77 years old when he finally was inaugurated in January 2021.  He would have been 82 at his second inauguration.  The job of President of the United States would be daunting to almost anyone at any age.  To be president in old age would be a much greater challenge.  The authors have called upon a host of—mostly anonymous—sources to document the failing powers of an ambitious man of modest abilities.[2] 

            Even during the original 2020 campaign, Biden had begun to forget the names of people he had known for a long time.  His condition worsened as his term progressed.  He confused one person with another.  In one case with nasty implications, he confused Xavier Becerra, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security.[3]  Cabinet meetings had to work from a written script.  Concern went as far as speculation about the president’s possible need for a wheelchair during a second term. 

            Apparently, those around Biden recognized his advancing physical and mental fragility.  Still, no one took it up with the president himself or, in any forceful way, with those closest to him.  The silence was widespread.  “No Democrats in the White House or on Capitol Hill raised any doubts, either privately with the president or publicly, about Biden’s second run” say the authors of the book. 

            Washington is a gossipy town filled with predatory people.  If the President makes the usual appearances and meets with donors, Congress people, Senators, the people from the CIA doing the daily Presidential brief, then these people would spot his problems the way a leopard spots a limp.  If the President disappears from all the usual appearances and communicates only through his closest staff, then that would be noticed as well.  Questions would arise. 

            The heightened attention and more frequent appearances running with the re-election campaign brought Biden’s limitations to the attention of many more people.  Democratic congressmen and donors (like George Clooney) were alarmed by the wreck of a man they now encountered.  People from the Obama presidency (William Daley, David Plouffe) tried to line up alternatives to Biden, to no avail.  Were Washington insiders just fooled?  Did they hope for the best in the election with the expectation that Biden would die or be removed in a second term? 

Most likely, many people hope to not be held to account for their parts in foisting off a dotard on the American people.[4]  Instead, “Dr. Jill and the Inner Circle” are being made into the goats.  The book provides a good deal of material for people to use against Jill Biden.  She is described as a “fierce advocate for her husband.”    She “grew more involved in his decision-making as he grew older.”  OK, which decisions?  “Just” re-election?  Foreign policy? 

[1] The book is Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again (due out on 20 May 2025).  The book is discussed in Reid J. Epstein, “Book Promises New Data on Biden’s Mental Decline,” NYT, 15 May 2025. 

[2] Unless you think that keeping Robert Bork off the Supreme Court and getting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court is a positive record. 

[3] On the upside, he didn’t confuse either one of them with Janet Yellen, the Secretary of the Treasury. 

[4] It’s impossible to know, at present, if this operation ran only once (before the 2024 election) or if it ran twice (before the 2020 election as well). 

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. 

The Alien Enemies Act. Or, the Aliens Are Enemies Act.

Posted on by
Reply

            As the result of historical experience during the French and Indian Wars, Anglo-Americans regarded France as the enemy and Britain as their benevolent parent-country.  Then the British and their American colonists fell out.  War followed.  During the Revolutionary War, the self-proclaimed United States signed an alliance with the French monarchy.  France loaned money to the Americans and declared war on Britain.  France also sent military forces to America.  The Franco-American alliance remained in effect after the war.  Then the French Revolution broke out, France overthrew the monarchy and declared itself a Republic, and declared war (1792) on everyone except the Man in the Moon and the Americans. 

            Americans divided sharply on how to deal with France.  Many people (often Federalists) hated the French version of revolution.  Many other people (mostly Democratic-Republicans) sympathized, at the least, with the aims of the French revolutionaries.  The issue became a partisan matter.  Congress seized the opportunity to repudiate repayment of the French war loans because they were onerous (1793).  Congress then ratified the “Jay Treaty” which settled disputes between the United States and Britain (1794).  France responded by allowing French “privateers” to seize a lot of American merchant ships in the Atlantic and the Caribbean.  Trying to fend off a war, the Americans sent a delegation to negotiate with France (1797-1798).  This ended badly and a “Quasi-War” at sea broke out (1798-1801).[1] 

            President John Adams and the Federalist majorities in Congress passed a package of four “Alien and Sedition Laws” (1798).  Formally, Adams feared that the French would try to spread their revolutionary ideology to the United States.  Informally, the Federalists had come to see the Democratic-Republicans as inclined toward the same policies as the French.  So, stomp on them. 

            The “Alien Friends Act” allowed the President to deport anyone considered to be “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.”  The law sun-setted after two years, and the government didn’t make much of an effort to enforce it anyway. 

            The “Naturalization Act” extended the residence requirement before obtaining citizenship from 5 years to 14 years.  Lots of/most immigrants voted Democratic-Republicans once they got the right to vote.  The law was repealed in 1802. 

            The “Sedition Act” criminalized saying mean things about Federalists in government.  A whole bunch of Democratic-Republican writers for the media of the day were prosecuted.  (My personal favorite is Jame Callender.)  The law expired in 1801. 

            The “Alien Enemies Act” granted the President the authority to arrest, imprison, or deport any non-citizen during a time when the United States was at war with, either formally or informally, a foreign country from which that non-citizen originated.[2]  The informal part gave the president the right to act in something like the undeclared “Quasi-War” or if an attack occurred when Congress could not be consulted immediately.  The Act has never been repealed.  The Act has been used in the War of 1812, the First World War, and the Second World War. 

            So, can an old law be re-interpreted for new purposes?  If so, who can re-interpret it? 

[1] XYZ Affair – Wikipedia (sort of a “Town Mouse and Country Mouse” affair) and Quasi-War – Wikipedia 

[2] OK, that’s a long and clotted sentence.  The point is, the United States is not now at war with or suffering a “predatory incursion” ordered by a foreign country.  People free-lancing a “predatory incursion” isn’t covered by the language of the law.  Ipso fatso, President Trump doesn’t have a leg to stand on. 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 18.

Posted on by
Reply

            Americans have come to depend on cheap Chinese products.  Conversely, China has come to depend on massive exports of its goods to the United States.  Hence, President Donald Trump’s imposition of a 145 percent tariff on imports from China will shock both the American and Chinese systems.[1] 

            What does the United States get from China?  At least 75 percent of electric fans, dolls, video game consoles, tricycles, food processors, and smart phones.[2]  Apple, Dell, and Hewlett-Packard all source many of their products from Asia (China, Taiwan).  The tariffs could push the price of a basic iPhone 16 from $799 to $1,140.[3]  China also produces and exports renewable energy equipment, lithium batteries, and electric vehicles. 

            Much of the American reaction to the trade war with China has been “Eeeek!”  One newspaper warned  of “an economic crisis that could leave America poorer for generations.”  A West Coast port executive said that “essentially all shipments out of China for major retailers and manufacturers have ceased.”  As a result, one business economist[4] warned of “empty shelves in U.S. stores in a few weeks,” and “Covid-like shortages for consumers.”  These stoppages will cascade into job losses for longshoremen, truckers and railroads, and retail sales.[5] There could be a grievous toy shortage at Christmas because 80 percent of America’s toys are made in China.[6] 

What does China get from the United States?  Soybeans.  Some kinds of computer chips.  And many jobs.  All the stuff no longer going to America either has to be sold somewhere else, or stock-piled in warehouses, or not made at all.  Neither of the last two is sustainable, politically or economically, for long.  So China has to find a new target for its exports. 

Which country will blink first?  Is there a reasonable compromise that can be negotiated? 

Trump has wobbled on China to a degree.  He exempted some consumer electronics (smart phones, laptops) from most of the China tariffs.  He also indicated that he was ready to negotiate with China and that Xi Jinping had called him.  At the same time, he seems determined to “decouple” the economies of the two countries.[7]  At the very least, he said, “China will probably eat those tariffs.  Everything is going to be fine.” 

For their part, the Chinese seem not to have anticipated the “speed and ferocity” of the American trade counter-attack on China’s economic strategy.[8]  China’s public response has been to dig in.  “Bowing to a bully is like drinking poison to quench thirst.”[9]  Threats of retaliation abound.  When Trump said that Xi Jinping had called about tariffs, the Chinese Foreign Ministry basically called Trump a liar.  Hard to know which of those two to believe. 

[1] “Decoupling: The U.S.-China trade divorce, The Week, 25 April 2025, p. 34.    

[2] Ibid.

[3] “Inflation: How tariffs could push up prices,” The Week, 18 April 2025, p. 17.    

[4] As in an economist employed by a business, in this case an asset management firm. 

[5] “Trump shrugs off warnings over trade war costs,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 4. 

[6] Feels heartless denying kids their hearts’ desire at Christmas.  Still, Boxing Day can be a time for repentance. 

[7] The historian Stephen Kotkin has observed that Trump often talks out of both sides of his mouth, but if you look at what he actually does, you can tell what he really means.  His remarks bore on Iran’s nuclear program.  He thinks Trump means to stop it, whatever that may require.  There’s no reason not to apply the same view to China trade. 

[8] “Decoupling: The U.S.-China trade divorce, The Week, 25 April 2025, p. 34. 

[9] Given China’s behavior toward its neighbors in Taiwan and the Philippines, this is comic. 

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?