Author: hamilton1788

Life in the time of Trump:

Bob Mueller’s on his tracks.

Subpoenas here;

Indictments there;

He’s digging for the facts.

Trump screams there’s no collusion

But his claims may not be true.

Will his foes move to impeach him?

Will the red turn into blue?

As authoritarian regimes around the world understand only too well, our liberal democratic values have been an effective source of soft power for decades.  They can be promoted in the following ways:

1.  Most American governments have been vocal advocates for our values.  Visible support for dissidents within authoritarian regimes, criticism for human rights violations, and even military intervention to stop humanitarian disasters are part of this package.
2.   If the need to support authoritarian regimes against greater evils makes talking about our values impractical in particular instances, our system can at least serve as a shining example of the success of those values.

Trump doesn’t do either of these things.  He made it clear almost immediately that America would no longer lecture friendly authoritarian governments;  human rights are only a stick with which to beat Iran, North Korea, and Cuba.  As to the shining example, Trump has consistently maintained that we have a “deep state,” that our media put out fake news, that our tactics overseas are no more scrupulous than our competitors’, that the judicial system is biased against him, and that the rule of law is a fraud.

Xi surely can’t believe his good fortune.  He cultivates soft power;  Trump throws ours away.

Yesterday, our fearless leader entertained us with the following:

1.  He tweeted in opposition to a surveillance bill supported by his administration in response to some comments on “Fox and Friends.”  He later took it back, while denying that he took anything back.
2.  Having provoked an unnecessary crisis by revoking legal protections for Dreamers, and having called for a bipartisan resolution to that crisis, he apparently rejected the bipartisan approach that was offered to him.
3.  He gave a deranged interview to the WSJ in which, among other things, he implied that he had contacted Kim Jong-Un directly, which is almost certainly not true.
4.  And, of course, he damaged America’s reputation around the world with his racist comments about Haiti, Africans, and Norwegians.

Today, he may put us on the fast track for a war with Iran.  Or not.  Who knows? That unpredictability is a feature of his government, not a bug.

A local weatherman used to describe our winter weather as “JAPDIP,” which stood for “just another perfect day in paradise.”  If you see “JAADIT” on this blog in the future, it means “just another average day in Trumpworld.”

Now they tell me that mountains and rivers make it hard to build the wall.  Who knew?

There was an old commercial (I think it was for an insurance company) in which a pregnant woman and her husband are waiting for a doctor in a hospital room. Buster Posey, the catcher for the San Francisco Giants, appears instead and offers to assist with the delivery, based on the supposed similarities between catching and the medical profession.  The husband wants to go for it, but his wife says no.

I think of this commercial when I contemplate the notion of President Winfrey.

Being a politician is a job that requires a particular skill set.  Some of these skills, like basic intelligence and the ability to communicate with the public, are probably common among celebrities.  Others, such as a grasp of policy, aren’t.

As a result, you can color me unenthusiastic about the prospect of an Oprah candidacy.  We already have a completely unqualified celebrity as our president, and the implications are now obvious to everyone.  She would be better, but I’m looking for a real politician, not Buster Posey.

As we know, what came to be known as Obamacare had its intellectual roots in the bowels of the Republican Party.  The GOP ultimately turned on it, however, for the following reasons:

1.  Anything supported by Obama, by definition, had to be bad;
2.  The individual mandate to purchase private insurance was viewed as an inappropriate and unconstitutional intrusion on personal liberty; and
3.  The redistribution of wealth inherent in the subsidies, community rating, and  Medicaid expansion were anathema to CLs and Reactionaries.

The GOP has addressed #2 in the tax bill.  In doing so without repealing the rest of the program, however, they have placed additional burdens, not on the undeserving poor, but on old and relatively affluent people who do not qualify for Medicaid or for subsidies.  It will also be more difficult for them to repeal the rest of the program without the individual mandate as a lightning rod.

And so, by accomplishing one of their objectives, the GOP has made accomplishing the other two much more difficult, and has increased costs for people who disproportionately vote Republican.  Nice going, guys.

It is, of course, completely hypocritical for Trump to be playing so much golf when he criticized Obama for doing the same thing, but I don’t agree with the people who think he should be spending more time working–in fact, I think he should be encouraged to spend as much time on the course as possible.  After all, it’s hard to work on a plan to blow up the world when you’re grinding over a three-footer for par on 18.

I’m not as enthusiastic about “executive time.”  Those are the periods in which he gets the bogus information from his friends and Fox News that he apparently uses as the basis for his decisions.

Maybe they should remove the televisions from the White House and build a driving range, instead.

Here is where the factions stand on cuts to “welfare” programs:

1.  CLs:  You can put it on the board . . . yes!  John Galt would be a happy man tonight.  Those people need to be kicked out of their hammock of dependency.
2.  Reactionaries:  Absolutely, yes.  We’re all about defending the interests of hard-working white Americans against the claims of the undeserving poor, many of whom are minorities who don’t belong here, anyway.
3.  PBPs:  We agree in concept, but we’re concerned that we’ll get bad press, that a backlash will result, and we’ll lose our tax cuts.  Proceed with caution, if at all.
4.  CDs:  Taking money from the poor is morally wrong.

The votes for this are there in the House, but the Senate would be a slog.  It would look a lot like Obamacare repeal.  My best guess is that it won’t happen.

On the senator named Lindsey Graham.

Now he tells us that Trump is the man.

He called him a kook.

But he trusts him with nukes.

For his country, he gives not a damn.

Sunday’s NYT included an article discussing Trump’s use of Twitter and how it creates dissonance in our foreign policy.  I’ve posted on that subject before, and the article added little to my previous comments.

What the article missed was the element of deliberation that goes into Trump’s tweets.  Unlike any of his predecessors, and based on his experience as a businessman responsible only to himself, Trump believes that unpredictability is a virtue, not a vice.  If mixed signals leave everyone guessing what he’ll do next, that keeps his options open, and has the additional advantage of focusing the world’s attention on him, where it so obviously belongs.

Of course, Trump has responsibilities to the American public, and to the world as a whole, as president that he didn’t have as a self-employed businessman.  He simply doesn’t accept them, and we are left in peril as a result.

It appears that Trump is about to announce a number of protectionist actions, mostly aimed at China, later this week.  Here is where the factions stand on protectionism:

1.  CLs:  No way, Jose!  Protectionist actions are an unwarranted infringement on the free market and economic liberty.
2.  PBPs:  Protectionism will cost us lots of money.  We’re opposed.
3.  CDs:  Not our thing, either way.
4.  Reactionaries:  Now we’re talking!  Bring back our lost manufacturing jobs!  It’ll be the fifties all over again!  #MAGA!

It should be obvious from this analysis that Trump wouldn’t have the votes to impose protectionism through legislation.  Unfortunately for us, he can lawfully do plenty of damage on his own.  The real issue politically is whether the PBPs will abandon him, even after the big business-friendly tax cut, if he follows the Reactionary line on protectionism.  It probably depends on whether the business in question is dependent on foreign markets or not.

1.  Sexual harassment and abuses of power are just wrong–period.  I don’t need a lecture on that any more than I need to be told that murder and theft are wrong.
2.  Who was the audience for this display?  If the message was directed solely at Hollywood, that makes sense, but why make tens of millions of Americans who don’t work in Hollywood listen to it?  If, on the other hand, it was directed at society as a whole, why would anyone assume that a group of rich, glamorous actresses have the right to speak for all American women, most of whom have little choice but to grin and bear it under similar circumstances?
3.  My guess is that most women from red states came away with the sense that this was just an orgy of political correctness, and that Harvey Weinstein was serving as a proxy for Donald Trump.  I’m not sure I would disagree with that, and I will be surprised if it does any lasting good.

The factions will respond as follows to proposed additional infrastructure spending:

1.  CLs:  Ugh!  Starve the beast!  Starve the beast!
2.  PBPs:  Anything that promotes future growth is fine with us.  If it involves privatization, that’s the icing on the cake.
3.  CDs:  Works for us.
4.  Reactionaries:  Sounds like a good way to #MAGA.  Some underemployed white men might get better jobs out of it, too.

The CLs control enough votes to prevent a bill with large amounts of additional federal spending from being approved.   As a result, there are only two ways to get legislation through the system:  either water down the federal involvement to the point that the bill is meaningless; or push it through with Democratic support and split the GOP.   My guess is that neither will happen.

There are essentially four reasons why people voted for Trump in 2016:

1.  I agree with Trump’s white nationalist program:  20 percent of the electorate.
2.  I would vote for a ham sandwich over any Democrat:  20 percent.
3.  I have reservations about Trump, but I will take my chances with the devil I don’t know over “Crooked Hillary”:  5 percent.
4.  We need a successful businessman to put an end to dysfunction in Washington:  5 percent.

The Democrats can’t reach the first two groups.  The last two are clearly in play, and are subject to the Democrats’ control.  What they need to avoid is nominating a candidate who replaces the last two rationales with:  Trump may be awful, but he’s still better than x, given his unsavory past; and I don’t like Trump, but I prefer him to x, because he wants to raise my taxes.

Paul Ryan, of course, wants to move on to cut Social Security and Medicare. Here’s where the factions stand on that:

CLs:  Cutting federal spending is, by definition, a blow for freedom!  Go for it!  You da man!

Reactionaries:  Whoa, Nellie!  We’re all in favor of cutting welfare for undeserving minorities, but we old white working people paid a lot of money into the system over the years, and we want what’s coming to us.  Keep your government hands off our money!

PBPs:  Cutting entitlements is perfectly OK in concept, but in reality, it could lead to a political backlash and a Democratic victory in 2020.  Our tax cuts could be in danger.  We’re opposed unless the Democrats buy in.

CDs:  Cutting programs for the poor and elderly, particularly to finance regressive tax cuts, is just wrong.

There aren’t enough CLs to carry the day, so it probably won’t happen.