Author: hamilton1788

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.

On the Democrat candidate Warren.

Her speeches are frequently borin’.

When she’s up on the stage

Will she be all the rage?

Will the voters be sleepin’ and snorin’?

In a sense, the fate of pay-go doesn’t matter; nothing important that the Democratic House proposes is going to become law, anyway. In a broader sense, however, it does; the debate on the rules will set the tone for a fiscal and economic argument between fundis and realos that will entertain us through the campaign, and possibly thereafter.

The left is correct to say that it is stupid to impose spending limits during severe economic downturns. It is also stupid, however, to say that no limits should apply at a time when unemployment is below 4 percent. We aren’t exactly living in the Great Depression, and the economic laws of gravity still apply; running huge deficits will lead to crowding-out, inflation, higher interest rates, and a squeeze on the welfare state.

The GOP has set the tone by pretending that its enormous tax cuts pay for themselves. The country will ultimately pay the price for it. The Democrats may want to have their own fiscal party, but someone has to be the adults in the room, and it had better be them, because no one else is volunteering for the job.

Neoconservatives are essentially the CD faction of the Republican Party operating abroad. They believe passionately in human rights, the universality of liberal democratic principles, and the enforcement of international law. All of these, in their view, are ultimately guaranteed, and imposed where necessary, by American military force. Hence, among other interventions, the Iraq War.

“America First” is just about a perfect negation of neoconservative ideas. Trump does not give a fig about human rights. Instead of promoting democracy, he openly embraces strongmen, who, in his opinion, provide more stability and are more reliable negotiating partners than elected leaders. He thinks the rule of law, both at home and abroad, is for chumps, and only money and power matter. He believes America’s liberal democratic “allies” are just rip-off artists who should pay more for their protection. Hence, his contempt for Angela Merkel, and his open affection for Putin, Xi, and Kim.

Neocons are among Trump’s most vocal opponents. Does that translate into support for the Democrats? Not necessarily; they worry about potential Democratic nominees who are unwilling to bear any burden and pay any price to maintain liberal democratic principles abroad. To a neocon, these people are just left-wing versions of Trump.

Are they? There is plenty of middle ground for the Democrats here; I call it the “Obama consensus.” More on that in the coming weeks.

If you watch and listen carefully, there are significant differences between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. Warren is to the left of Clinton, of course, but the more important differences revolve around their respective backgrounds. Clinton spent most of her life in politics; as a result, she developed plenty of scar tissue and generated connections, particularly in the African-American community, that were indispensable to her in her campaigns. Warren, on the other hand, is a professor, and a wonk. She came late to politics, and it shows.

On balance, their similarities probably outweigh the differences. Both are white middle-aged women with a strong interest in policy and limited natural political gifts. Both are very bright, and both are said to be perfectly personable if you get to know them. Neither is a great speaker. Neither is very good at making strong personal connections on short notice.

Could Warren beat Trump? Under the right circumstances, yes. However, it doesn’t bode well for her that the MSM are running stories about her weaknesses as a politician that sound very much like the narrative about Clinton. She might be a good president, but a below average nominee.

If you thought 2018 was a stomach-churning roller coaster of a year, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Here are my predictions for 2019:

1. WILL TRUMP BE IMPEACHED? Barring clear evidence of a quid pro quo with the Russians and an erosion of support from his base, no.
2. WHAT WILL MUELLER SAY? There will be plenty of credible evidence supporting obstruction of justice and conspiracy counts for impeachment, but not enough to indict. Both parties will claim victory.
3. WILL THERE BE A DEBT CEILING CRISIS? Yes. Let’s hope neither party is crazy enough to force a default, but it could happen.
4. WILL THERE BE A RECESSION? More likely than not, and it will be a self-inflicted wound, as the markets absorb more Trump unpredictability than they can handle. Trump will, of course, blame everyone but himself.
5. WILL THERE BE WAR WITH NORTH KOREA? Trump seems perfectly happy to continue to pretend that he has resolved the North Korean issue, so it will only happen if Kim wants one. That is unlikely.
6. WILL THERE BE WAR WITH IRAN? Probably, although it could be postponed until 2020. As I’ve noted before, Plan A won’t work, which leaves war or surrender as Plan B. Trump will need success in a wag the dog war to boost his ratings, and MBS and Netanyahu will be in his ear every day. They will ultimately get what they want.
7. A HARD OR SOFT BREXIT? Hope for soft (or better yet, a second referendum), but bet on hard.
8. WILL PUTIN TURN THE SCREWS ON UKRAINE? Why wouldn’t he? Europe is divided and effectively leaderless, and Trump certainly isn’t going to stop him.
9. WILL TRUMP ABANDON THE TRADE WAR WITH CHINA? This is a tough one. On the one hand, the war with China is the one thing that Trump actually believes in; on the other, he can’t get re-elected if he keeps damaging his base. It could go either way.
10. WILL THE WALL BE BUILT? Sure, and Mexico is going to pay for it, too. LOL.

The issues have taken shape, and the lines are now drawn: 2019 will be a year of open conflict between Trump, his trusty base, and Fox News against a wide range of adversaries, including the following:

1. House Democrats, on the budget, the debt ceiling, investigations, and much more;
2. Mueller, on his report;
3. The MSM, on practically everything;
4. The Fed, on interest rates;
5. China, on trade issues and the South China Sea;
6. The foreign policy blob, on the Middle East and Afghanistan;
7. Iran, on a host of issues; and
8. The judiciary, also on a wide range of issues.

My predictions for the year will follow tomorrow.

2017 was a year of experiment in Trumpland. The man on golf cart didn’t expect to win the election and had little idea of what to do when he did. Lacking firm views of how to govern, he was persuaded to hire and accept guidance from the “axis of adults.” While the corrosive quality of his rhetoric remained the same, he acted, with some notable exceptions (e.g., gratuitously offending our allies; refusing to condemn overt racists), as a conventional Republican. He won on the tax cut and lost on Obamacare, but he didn’t run the show in either instance. The markets, and many world leaders, decided to ignore his tweets and pay attention only to his actions.

2018, on the other hand, was a year of discovery. New allegations of misconduct rained down on the administration on a daily basis. Mueller’s work intensified. Now confident that he could run the country in the same manner as his real estate business, Trump decided he didn’t need the “axis of adults,” so he replaced them with the “circle of sycophants” and governed more and more often with his golden gut. The Democrats won the midterm elections and prepared to investigate Trump and his family. The long-awaited trade wars finally began. The year ended with a partial government shutdown and no clear solution in sight.

What will 2019 bring? That will be the subject of my next post.

I read three reasonably interesting columns/articles about climate change last week. The first was an op-ed by a senator from Wyoming arguing that the appropriate response to climate change was to support technological breakthroughs (particularly, of course, for “clean coal”); the second was an analysis in Vox of the “Green New Deal; and the third was a call to abandon carbon taxes in light of the recent events in France. The first, of course, was fanciful and self-interested, as “clean coal” is a punch line to a joke; the second provided evidence supporting the old German saying that “the green tree has red roots;” and the third was unduly, although understandably, defeatist.

There really isn’t any dispute that we need to encourage innovation in a big way in order to keep climate change under control. The question is, how can that best be achieved?

There are only three choices. The first is by forcing technology through regulation. The second is by subsidizing new technologies, which runs the risk of creating Solyndras. The third is by taxing carbon and leaving the rest of the process to the market.

Logically, the GOP should prefer Option #3, since it opposes unnecessary government spending and intervention in markets. And, indeed, some right-leaning economists have expressed support for a carbon tax, particularly when paired with other kinds of tax cuts. Will that position prevail after 2020? More likely, the GOP will simply avoid the issue by continuing to deny that climate change even exists. That way, they don’t have to make any difficult choices that offend their donors.

We all know how Donald Trump negotiates, partly because he ghostwrote several books on the subject, and partly because we’ve been watching it for the last two years. Here are some of his attitudes and tactics:

1. Life is nothing more than an endless series of negotiations, in which the strong and clever prevail over the weak and foolish.
2. Take maximum positions.
3. Be unpredictable and keep your opponent off-balance.
4. Don’t be afraid to pound the table or to walk away.
5. Find, create, and use leverage to the maximum extent possible.
6. If you somehow lose, spin it as a win.

The Democrats think the wall is stupid, expensive, and a very poor symbol for America. They are willing to trade it for something more valuable, however. Trump, for his part, is conflicted about the wall. On the one hand, he is afraid of losing people like Ann Coulter, and, for once, he has taken his promises on the subject literally. On the other hand, he has to know it won’t really work, so he doesn’t want to give up anything of real value in exchange for it. He’s also desperate for something he can call a “win.”

So how is this going? The Democrats’ approach has been Trumpian to the core. They are refusing to negotiate in the hope that negative polls will force Trump to surrender. Trump, for his part, is trying to create leverage by blaming the Democrats (not working), by threatening to close the border altogether, and by arguing that the employees he’s injuring are predominantly Democrats, anyway.

So how does this end? I only see two possibilities. First, Trump could make a deal for something the Democrats really value, such as relief for DREAMERs. Second, the Democrats could move slightly on the amount of money offered, and Trump will simply lie and call it a “wall” and, therefore, a “win.”

The second is more likely, but we’ll see.