Month: August 2024

It is fair to describe Donald Trump as a man of no convictions when it comes to abortion; he was pro-choice most of his life, but he turned pro-life in order to win the nomination in 2016, and now he’s Mr. States’ Rights. His only real motivation is to use the issue to win power. J.D. Vance, on the other hand, is genuinely anti-abortion, but he chose to swallow his scruples in order to further his political ambitions. I will leave it to the reader to decide which of these positions is morally worse.

Harris, on the other hand, is a conviction politician when it comes to reproductive rights. Does that matter? Yes, because it means you can trust what she says on that issue. Trump and Vance will change positions on a dime if it serves their interests. No promise they make, regardless of how public it is, will be worth the paper it is printed on.

To the left wing of the Democratic Party, Obama was a failed president. Why? Because, when given a huge majority in Congress and the opportunity to fundamentally remake America–to, in my terminology, put an end to the dollar store economy–Obama bailed out the banks and increased inequality. He asked for a stimulus that was way too small and then embraced austerity almost immediately, thus prolonging the recession unnecessarily. Biden, on the other hand, went big with his stimulus and embraced the concept of dramatically reducing inequality during the pandemic. He was the more consequential president.

Jonathan Chait is having none of it. In his view, Obama was far more important. His successes in staving off economic disaster in 2009 will be remembered far more favorably by historians than by the left. Obamacare is a far more significant piece of legislation than the IRA or the infrastructure bill. He accomplished this by moving to the center, unlike Biden, who moved to the left after he was elected. The lesson of this for Harris is that she, too, should move to the center.

Is either side reading history correctly? I would say no. The left is wrong to undervalue Obama’s successes in saving the American economy without much of a playbook in 2009. Yes, he bailed out the banks and worked with capitalists instead of smashing them, but that was the price of regaining economic stability; reducing inequality by turning the Great Recession into a depression and impoverishing rich and poor alike was not a legitimate objective. It is not accurate, however, to suggest that the successes of the Obama years were the result of moving to the center; Obama only managed to legislate when he had the huge majority between 2008 and 2010. After that, it was pretty much status quo.

It is true that Biden moved to the left, at least in rhetorical terms, in the late stages of his campaign and during the first two years of his presidency. It is also true, however, that he only had a tiny majority in both houses, and that his legislative triumphs were the result of negotiations with Manchin and Sinema and even with some Republicans. He was actually a more bipartisan president than Obama, the leftist economic rhetoric notwithstanding, because he had to be.

What can Harris learn from the supposed distinction between Obama and Biden? Not a damn thing. If she wins, she will be lucky if she has even the tiny Biden majority in Congress. She won’t be able to get much meaningful legislation through the system. Her presidency will look like the second term of Obama and Clinton–a little bit of incremental change accomplished through negotiations with centrist Democrats and a few reasonable Republicans. Her biggest accomplishment will be to keep Trump out of power, not to put an end to the dollar store economy.

Ronald Reagan famously benefited from the euphoria arising from American successes in the 1984 Summer Olympics. Could Harris profit from a similar vibe after Paris?

Not to the same extent, certainly; the 1984 Olympics uniquely were held at home during a period of rapid recovery after the Fed significantly reduced interest rates. But the ambience associated with the Olympics–Americans of all colors and creeds happily rooting for victorious athletes representing a united country–is inconsistent with Trump’s dystopian vision of the nation. Anything that persuades the undecided that America isn’t going to hell in a handbasket has to help at least a little bit.

In an act of breathtaking cynicism, Trump suddenly announced he supported eliminating income taxes on tips while he was in Nevada. His real purpose, of course, was to win the state, not to help workers. Not to be outdone, Harris followed suit about a week ago. Does this idea make sense, other than politically?

The answer to that question is an emphatic no. First of all, it would blow yet another large hole in the budget. Second, it would create an artificial distinction between two essentially identical forms of income that would cause employers and employees alike to game the system. All over America, service providers would see their wages slashed, and the demands for tax-free tips would become deafening, even possibly from doctors and lawyers. Finally, from the perspective of a consumer, the pressure to tip people who clearly don’t deserve it has become unbearable. This would make it a thousand times worse. Is that what we really want?

C: The last time I saw you, you were extremely depressed about your options with the election. Has anything changed?

M: Things are better, but hardly good.

C: Let’s break that down into its two components. Why are things better?

M: Because Biden is out of the picture. He clearly wasn’t physically or mentally capable of governing America for another four years, and he didn’t have any use for businessmen like me.

C: Is Harris an improvement?

M: I don’t know yet. She can’t be much worse.

C: So why are things hardly good?

M: Let’s talk about my alternatives. I’ll start with Harris.

C: OK.

M: I don’t have any idea what she stands for. My guess is that she’s sort of an opportunistic centrist who will say anything to get elected. I’ve heard some things about her being more friendly to business than Biden–particularly with regard to Silicon Valley–but she hasn’t said anything meaningful about the economy that sets her apart from him. Until she tells me otherwise, I have to assume she supports raising my taxes and sticking her nose in my business. I obviously don’t support that.

C: So she has a lot to prove to you?

M: Exactly.

C: What about Trump?

M: He wouldn’t raise my taxes, but he would be a disaster in two different ways.

C: Which are?

M: First, his tariffs. Cars are built with lots of imported parts. The tariffs will raise car prices, which will cost me business and money.

C: Makes sense. And the second one?

M: His phobia about electric cars. Our company is committed to EVs. We can’t be a world leader without them. Trump hates them. He wants to rebuild the economy of the past. He’ll just crush our business and leave everybody poorer.

C: But Trump has eased up on EVs since he got Musk’s support. Doesn’t that make you feel better?

M: No, because I don’t sell Teslas, and Musk is only in it for himself. There’s nothing to prevent Trump from taking actions in office that make money for Musk and hurt all of his competitors. Besides, you can’t trust anything Trump says about anything. He could go back to bashing EVs at any moment.

C: So who is the lesser of the evils?

M: I don’t know yet. I need to hear a lot more from Harris. I probably won’t decide for another month or so.

C: Thanks for your time.

A few years ago, I wrote a post in which I argued that, since rural residents were the only true Americans, they should be entitled to additional votes for their livestock. The post was, of course, satire.

J.D. Vance has advocated that parents with children should be entitled to additional votes. He has since dismissed this proposal as a thought experiment, by which he means that it is impracticable, not that he considers it conceptually wrong.

Is there any meaningful difference between my satire and his thought experiment?

If Trump wins the election, Vance will be his heir apparent, and DeSantis will be lost in the political wilderness for the foreseeable future. But what if Trump loses? Will DeSantis be able to win over the base in 2028 by saying “I told you so?”

I doubt it, for three reasons. First, the base has never shown any inclination to forgive disloyalty, which DeSantis displayed by running against Trump before his time. Second, DeSantis will retain all of the personality defects that made him a poor candidate the last time around. Finally, Vance has economic ideas that, whether you agree with them or not (I obviously don’t), are actually intended to help struggling American workers. DeSantis has never shown that he wants to improve anyone’s life; all he wants to do is stick it to woke people.

I’ve been watching the Olympics since 1968. The most memorable games for me were in 1972, both for good and for ill, but I have at least shards of memories of all of them.

1984 was unique in that it induced euphoria among Americans that ultimately had implications for the election. For the quality of the spectacle and the competition, however, you could make a very good case that this one was the best in my lifetime.

The French–left, right, and center alike–have reason to be proud. Partisan strife will resume tomorrow.

Ezra Klein argues that Harris has flipped a switch. Biden was determined to win by reminding the American people of how big and bad and dangerous Trump is; Harris is trying to diminish him and make him look bizarre and contemptible. In other words, Biden called Trump a man on horseback; Harris says he’s a man on golf cart. Is Klein right, and can the new tactics work?

As to the first question, everything I see says yes. I have mixed feelings about the second. On the one hand, I have pointed out on numerous occasions that debate opponents who patronize Trump have the most success. In addition, the notion that Trump will behave even more outrageously to get attention, and thus offend centrist voters even further, makes some sense. On the other hand, it is a mistake to completely disregard the danger that Trump presents to liberal democracy in America. If you’re not genuinely afraid of what a Trump presidency could mean for us, you haven’t been paying attention.

Vance and Trump are already starting to raise questions about Walz’ military service. Are we about to see a repeat of the successful campaign against John Kerry?

No, for three reasons. First, Walz is not at the top of the ticket. Second, Kerry was running during wartime, so he was compelled to put his military credentials at the center of his campaign. Walz is on the ticket because he comes from a rural area and sounds like everyone’s favorite uncle; the military part is just gravy. Finally, Trump, you will recall, is “Cadet Bone Spurs.” What can he say about Walz except to thank him for his service?

The rising cost of housing, higher education, and child care was a thorn in the side of Americans long before Biden, and is worse now. Why do we have these problems, and what is the GOP proposing to do about them?

Housing costs went up dramatically during the pandemic as a result of an increased demand for additional living space. In addition, supply chain problems were an issue, the lack of construction workers slowed down building projects, and local and state land use regulations drove up costs by reducing densities and limiting the amount of land available for development. The issue with higher education is the business model of private universities, which have created large bureaucracies and built resort-like facilities in an attempt to attract wealthy students, while redistributing some of the excess to deserving poor students. With regard to child care, I honestly don’t know why the problem exists; it certainly isn’t high unit labor costs.

Simply throwing money at these problems won’t work. In some cases, deregulation could be a big part of the answer; that falls cleanly into the wheelhouse of the right. The GOP isn’t proposing any solutions to the problems, however; its “solution” is to have faith in Donald Trump, the well-known magician, who will actually make things worse by engaging in culture wars with our universities, deporting construction workers, supporting exclusionary zoning in suburbs, and cutting federal payments to parents.

Let’s hope the GOP’s lack of interest in policy is noted during the campaign, because it matters.

By most objective standards, life in America is pretty good right now. The unemployment rate is low, the markets are doing well, and inflation is under control. We are funding wars in Gaza and Ukraine, but not fighting them ourselves. Sure, we have issues, but nothing beyond the realm of normal political discussion. The system can address them in the normal course of business, and things will be even better.

Not according to Trump and the GOP, however. They believe we are one step away from the apocalypse. World War III is just around the corner. We are already in a recession, and the inflation rate is comparable to that of Germany in 1923. Trans and woke people are destroying our schools and corrupting our kids. Illegal immigrants are running wild across the country, committing violent crimes and sucking up what little housing is available. Only a strongman can save us from the chaos.

What Trump is really saying is that you should trust him rather than the plain evidence in front of your face. That, my friends, is “weird.”

It is safe to assume they are the following, in order:

1. Stay in power as long as possible;
2. Manipulate America into a wider war with Iran that is purely in Israel’s interests; and
3. Help Trump get elected.

Agreeing to a cease-fire accomplishes none of these objectives; in fact, it is inconsistent with all of them. As a result, even though the Israeli military and a large segment of the public wants a cease-fire, it won’t happen unless it is the prelude to a wider war.

And what of the wider war? It would be horribly risky; Israel’s very existence would be at stake. It would, however, accomplish the first two objectives, and possibly the third. It cannot be dismissed at this point.

Prominent members of the New Right are in a panic about birth rates. They are demanding more children. And yet, they are the first in line to insist that women and children seeking asylum in our country must be deported ASAP.

On its face, it makes no sense. Can you explain it to me?

Here’s the list:

1. IDENTITY ISSUES: Harris is just brushing off Trump’s identity-based attacks, which is wise, since they only alienate swing voters. In any event, the facts on identity speak for themselves, and the electorate of 2024 is younger and less amenable to racist attacks than the electorate of 2016.
2. THE FUTURE, NOT THE PAST: Trump is a reactionary. His vision of America is an idealized (from the white Christian nationalist point of view) version of the 1950s. Basing the discussion in today’s reality, embracing change, and refusing to go backwards is the best antidote for that approach.
3. FREEDOM, NOT DEMOCRACY: Saving “democracy” is too abstract for the average voter. Talking about how the GOP is coming for specific freedoms will make more of an impression. That is what Harris is doing.