Month: January 2019

As we know, the only political skill that Trump has is to throw red meat to his base. For the first two years of his administration, that had some effect; the GOP controlled both houses of Congress, and the real short-term threat to a large number of incumbents was a primary challenger, not the Democrats, so appeals to the base were a useful way of keeping wayward Republicans in line.

Today, not so much. Trump can huff and blow and appeal to the base all he wants; Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have to care, and she won’t.

When will Trump figure out that his one trick doesn’t work anymore? He’s slow, so it won’t happen overnight.

If you analyze Trump’s wall speech, and put it in its proper context, you get something like this:

1. The wall issue incorporates two of the primary themes of the Trump campaign: (a) the world, and Mexico in particular, is full of evildoers from whom only I can provide America with protection; and (b) I am the world’s greatest negotiator, as seen weekly on “The Apprentice.” No wonder it’s a point of such importance to him! If he fails, he has undercut the fundamental premises of his presidency.
2. He made a tactical mistake by attaching more value to the wall than it merits, which means the Democrats can trade it for something meaningful to them, and the country.
3. He initially tried to sell the wall to the voters by taking the federal workers, whom he described as “Democrats,” and the American public hostage. The country is only too familiar with that tactic at this stage of his presidency, so it isn’t working.
4. Having failed with hostage taking, the speech was an attempt to create a different kind of leverage by getting the American people to pressure the Democrats. Unfortunately for him, he just lost an election that revolved (at his insistence) around this point, and he took two years to decide that the wall was worth a shutdown. America has already fully digested this issue, and doesn’t agree with him. In any event, he had already undercut his message of Democratic intransigence by publicly owning the shutdown well before it occurred.
5. The speech was just recycled material from the campaign, delivered in a manner and from a location that didn’t suit his style.
6. Pelosi and Schumer were wooden, too, but they made their point: the most pressing issue is the shutdown, not the wall.
7. The support of the base isn’t enough, by itself, to get him the wall, and he has no interest in reaching out to anyone else. His failures on this issue show the limitations of his brand of politics.
8. I won’t bother fact checking the speech. You already know that it was full of exaggerations and absurdities.
9. So where does this go now? GOP support for the shutdown is starting to erode. He could go the emergency route and trade an immediate political problem for a bigger political and legal problem later, he could accept a tiny face-saving concession and lie about it to the base, or he could agree to a larger deal in which he trades something of genuine value for the wall.
10. John Roberts and Mitch McConnell will not appreciate it if he picks the emergency option; the ensuing litigation will damage their interests regardless of the outcome. Since Trump almost never takes the long view, that probably won’t matter to him.

Donald Trump famously said that he loved the poorly educated. They returned the favor; surveys taken after the election indicated that they voted overwhelmingly for him.

This phenomenon is not limited to Trump. In Florida, it was common during the campaign to see commercials featuring GOP candidates talking up shop class and disparaging elitists who think everyone should go to college. Given that Republicans control all of state government, and most local governments, the theme seemed ridiculous, but it was an effort to show working people that they, and not the snooty Democrats, understand them and their values.

So how do the Democrats deal with this? The obvious answer is to avoid condescending to unskilled workers, but the fact is that most Democratic candidates don’t do that, anyway. Just try not to provide any ammunition on this point and point out that most of the GOP candidates portraying themselves as proud supporters of shop class are actually wealthy college graduates.

Given that the Democrats are the nurturing, welfare state loving “mommy” party and the GOP is the swaggering “daddy” party, it is hardly surprising that a gender gap is an enduring feature of American politics. Trump, however, has driven the gap to new levels. Angry men are his core constituents.

The Democratic nominee, regardless of who he or she is, will feature a female-friendly platform in 2020. As a result, if the Democrats want to win back at least some of the angry men, the key variable is the identity of the nominee. Here are my thoughts on the matter:

1. If I could design a perfect 2020 nominee, it would be a man. There are no perfect nominees, however, and electability cannot be reduced to a simple formula based on identity. If the most electable candidate turns out, after extensive vetting, to be a woman, so be it.
2. Many of the angry men are pissed off for a variety of reasons that go beyond gender, and cannot be reached. The Democrats are reaching for swing voters, not for everyone.
3. The “Clinton problem” that I described in a previous post is, to my knowledge, limited to Warren. The other female putative candidates don’t really remind me of Hillary, although that remains to be seen.
4. Harris would bring a slight whiff of glamor to the race that might actually be appealing to men. The dynamics of a Harris-Trump race would be fascinating. Just the thought of it intrigues me.

So how does this turn out in the end? To be honest, I have no idea, and neither do you.

AOC’s proposal to increase the top marginal income tax rate to 70 percent is getting lots of attention in the media. Conservatives predictably find it ridiculous; left-center pundits and economists think it is perfectly reasonable. Who’s right?

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

1. The arguments in favor of the 70 percent rate are: (a) nothing in the data for the period between Truman and Reagan suggests that a 70 percent rate destroys growth; (b) there are recent studies by reputable economists supporting even higher rates; and (c) the marginal utility of a dollar for a billionaire is far less than it is for a less affluent person.
2. However: (a) capital is far more mobile today than it was prior to 1980; (b) there are also far more places for it to land; (c) recent experiments with supertax rates in the UK and France didn’t really work; and (d) Trump is proof that wealthy people value their last dollar as much as any of the others.
3. The incentive issue is typically framed in terms of a wealthy person’s willingness to work, but that really isn’t the problem. The real issue relates to risk-taking, and entrepreneurial behavior; projected returns on marginal investments at a higher tax rate may well fail to justify the risk of the investment, which thus will not happen. That is a negative consequence for employment and the economy in general.

Personally, I think 70 percent is too high. 50 percent strikes me as an appropriate balance. The marginal rate issue, however, cannot be viewed as a stand-alone; the real question is whether the money raised will be put to a good enough use to justify the increase. That is a topic for a different day.

Readers my age or older will undoubtedly remember the iconic movie “The Graduate,” starring Dustin Hoffman. The gist of the movie is that Hoffman’s character, an idealistic Baby Boomer and a newly-minted college graduate, is thrown into a world run by the corrupt, materialistic World War II generation, symbolized by the seductress Mrs. Robinson. In the end, of course, Ben’s idealism prevails, and all is right in the world.

Today, of course, the World War II generation is called the “Greatest Generation,” and the no-longer idealistic Baby Boomers are predominantly Trump voters. Trump himself is technically a Boomer. How’s that for a twist of fate!

The question for today is, how can the Democrats get the votes of more members of the Trump generation? The elderly vote Republican, even though the GOP leadership periodically threatens their cherished Social Security and Medicare benefits, for two reasons. First, they are more socially conservative than Millennials, and do not care for “political correctness”; second, they just don’t believe that the Republicans, as a matter of self-interest, would screw them over like that. Simply crying wolf over possible Social Security and Medicare cuts, based on quotes from Paul Ryan or Mick Mulvaney, isn’t credible to them.

In my opinion, the best way to win the votes of the elderly is to propose to shore up Social Security and Medicare with funds obtained by rolling back portions of the Trump tax cut. That would put the GOP on the spot, and force them to choose between their most reliable voters and the donor class. It’s a win-win from both a policy and a political perspective.

The idea of America’s preeminent rocker performing on Broadway may sound a bit incongruous to some, but it really isn’t. If you listen carefully to the entirety of “Born to Run,” you can hear the embryo of a musical in it–most notably in “Jungleland.” Furthermore, the directness and simplicity of his music and his bruised, but romantic, lyrics work perfectly on stage. Springsteen was viewed by some as an heir to Dylan 40 years ago, but it is really more accurate to draw a line from him to Rodgers and Hammerstein.

If you have Netflix, you will want to see it; it’s never dull. The spoken parts are actually more interesting than the music, but “Born in the USA” as sort of a swampy blues song is of particular interest. The songs mesh appropriately with the narrative. It’s a success at every level.

You know the paradox: people in red states gladly accept benefits from a welfare state that was created by Democrats, but consistently vote for Republicans who want to slash those benefits, because GOP candidates respect their culture, promise them their old jobs back, and tell them to blame the illegal immigrants for their problems. Most of that platform is a scam, but it works.

So what can the federal government (at least, when it’s open) do to assist these people? It is primarily a state and local responsibility, unless you assume that tariffs are the answer, which they aren’t. However, Washington can make sure that adequate funds are provided for education and infrastructure in depressed areas, and it would help low-skilled workers if the burden of financing the welfare state were shifted to the country as a whole, not employers and employees.

A new Democratic House member called for impeaching Trump yesterday in, shall we say, unusually colorful language. It was a bit over the top, and it unnecessarily provided red meat to Trump’s base. There is no doubt, however, that the blue base agreed with those sentiments. In fact, I suspect that if you had the t-shirt concession with that message, you could make a fortune.

I might even buy one.

On a related note, David Leonhardt makes the case for impeachment in today’s NYT. His argument, based largely on the experience with Nixon, is that the potential allegations are legally viable and that Republican support for Trump might collapse at some point in the future. I agree with the former, but not the latter, because conditions today are different than they were in Nixon’s last days. Specifically:

1. Nixon didn’t court the base the way Trump does (i.e., no one ever compared him to Cyrus the Great);
2. While Nixon was a crook, he at least understood the rules and overtly showed them some respect; and
3. Nixon didn’t have Fox News to make the case for him 24/7/365.

I just don’t think there is any plausible set of circumstances in which Trump could lose enough of his base to get 67 votes for conviction in the Senate. He’s only leaving if he resigns or he loses the election.

Imagine that you are the mayor of Nowhere, USA. The town’s largest employer–a widget manufacturer–died ten years ago, the victim of foreign competition. Your town has been withering away ever since. The population is declining, all of your talented young people can’t wait to leave, and opioid use is skyrocketing. It’s a depressingly familiar scenario.

What can you do? Here’s some unsolicited advice:

1. Don’t think for a minute that you can woo employers to Nowhere with low taxes and minimal regulations. You’re competing with a million other, similar places in the US, and a billion overseas. It will never work.
2. The key is wise public investment. Put money in infrastructure and education. Have a plan for a striking-looking and interesting downtown. Provide public matching funds to repurpose and refurbish valuable old buildings. Invest in parks and other measures to improve the quality of life in your community.
3. Above all, identify what makes your town unique, and market it aggressively.

Unfortunately, it is very possible that none of that will work; there will be no money available for investment, and there is nothing special about your town that you can market successfully. If so, the town is probably going to die. It is, alas, the “destruction” part of “creative destruction,” and it isn’t pretty, notwithstanding the hymns of praise from right-wing economists and philosophers.

A: Her dancing video was somehow viewed by Republicans as a greater threat to the national well-being than Trump’s lying.

Q: Who is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

There are basically two lines of thought about the origins of the opioid crisis in declining rural areas in America. The first is that it is a symptom of spiritual sickness; after all, poor people in less affluent countries elsewhere who believe in God and have a strong sense of community don’t take drugs. The second is that it is the inevitable result of the creative destruction caused by globalization and automation. People take opioids because, well, what else is there to do in the wasteland?

It is doubtful that the federal government would have a viable answer if either of these themes were true. However, other countries with similar socio-economic conditions don’t have the same opioid problem, so its roots must lie elsewhere. And they do–in the availability of the drugs, the manner in which they are prescribed, and the lack of appropriate treatment options. Those problems can be fixed if the will, intelligence, and funding are present. In some communities, they are, and the situation is already improving.

One of my favorite lines about farmers is that they attribute success to themselves and to God, and failure to the government. It appears, however, that they have carved out an exception for Donald Trump. His trade wars are costing them dearly, but most of them still believe in him, as evidenced by the results of the 2018 election. And why not: who wouldn’t vote for Cyrus the Great?

So how long will this last? No one really knows, because Trump oscillates between pandering to his base and sticking it to the Chinese. In all likelihood, however, the effects of the trade war will be felt by American farmers long after Trump calls a cease-fire.

At least they’ll have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. They may not pay the bills, but they count for something.

Everyone knows that one of Trump’s favorite negotiating tactics is to create leverage by taking hostages. We also know he has no respect for the rule of law. As a result, he is openly willing to intervene in the judicial system in favor of lawbreaking foreign companies and individuals in exchange for other trade advantages.

In light of this, is it any surprise that the Chinese, Russians, and Turks have used their respective law enforcement processes to take hostages, to be used as bargaining chips with us? They’ve probably read “The Art of the Deal,” too.

“Sexism,” cries the left. Donald Trump is unlikable, but no one ever makes an issue of it. “Likability” is a standard applied only to women. It’s completely unfair.

Well, not exactly. Remember the contrast that was made in 2000 between George W. Bush, the man you would want to have a beer with, and Al Gore? Remember the comments that everyone (including Trump) makes about Ted Cruz? Likability–it’s not just for women anymore.

Personally, I would say that “likability” is an imprecise description of the issue; the ability to inspire people is part of the politician’s job description, regardless of gender. Trump may not be “likable,” but he undoubtedly can move his base, mostly through anger and fear. Just because we don’t approve of his style doesn’t mean it isn’t an important part of his skill set.

Does Warren have anything like that? She’ll have plenty of opportunity to prove herself during the campaign.