He wanted to make his country great again. How would that be done? Not simply by adding useless wealth and consumption, but by increasing the population, promoting traditional social values, and running a large trade surplus. National self-sufficiency and social and political stability were the ultimate objectives.
Is it Xi or J.D.? You decide.
It’s official–Mark Robinson is the worst candidate for a major political office I have ever seen. He has no chance of winning an election he should win, and he may even cost Trump North Carolina, which would effectively cost the man on golf cart the presidency. The Democrats put pressure on Biden to withdraw under somewhat similar circumstances, but the Republicans are doing nothing of the sort to Robinson even though the stakes could hardly be higher. What does this tell us?
While the Democrats are a normal political party that seeks to win and exercise power, the Republicans are controlled by MAGA. With the exception of Trump, it cares less about winning elections than owning the libs. It has no positive vision for America, but it wants to stick it to the people it hates. It will forgive any kind of transgressive behavior or opinion–in fact, the more outrageous and extreme, the better–as a form of protest against the establishment even at the risk of losing votes. The only thing it won’t tolerate is the willingness to concede any ground to the corrupt system.
Like Matt Gaetz and Ken Paxton, just to name a few, Robinson has angrily asserted his innocence and blamed his problems on the liberal media. That’s what a true MAGA person does regardless of the truth or falsity of the allegations. As a result, the base won’t desert him in spite of the potential consequences.
Ross Douthat argues that both parties are doing their best to keep ideology out of the campaign. Is he right?
As to Harris and the Democrats, yes, and mostly for the reasons he cites in his column. For the blue team, the overriding objective is to keep Trump out of power; injecting big, expensive dreams of a better future into the campaign would be controversial and threaten party unity. In addition, the budget deficit, inflation, the Supreme Court, and the lack of votes in the Senate all make enacting an ambitious agenda implausible. It makes sense for Harris to play small ball and let Trump be the issue in the campaign.
But as to Trump and the GOP, not really, because Douthat doesn’t take MAGA seriously as an ideology. MAGA’s goal is to give Donald Trump unlimited power to do whatever he wants, which clearly includes making blue America–feminazis, whiny minorities, liberal university professors, woke businessmen, grasping bureaucrats, and the MSM– as poor, powerless, and miserable as possible. MAGA doesn’t care about policy and lacks any realistic vision of a more prosperous and virtuous America, but it knows what it hates, so it is willing to accept any position on any issue that will ultimately help Trump win power. That may not be a comprehensive ideology in the sense that the Godly Society is, but the Godly Society is unpopular with the American people and is inconsistent with liberal democracy, so it will have to wait until Trump swings his wrecking ball first.
If you want to know how I’m feeling about the election, look at the cover of the October edition of The Atlantic. It will tell you everything you need to know.
We know why Trump picked Vance as his running mate; clearly overconfident, he thought he didn’t need to appeal to undecided voters, so he wanted someone who would keep the base happy by consistently owning the libs. On that count, at least, Vance has been a success. But Vance isn’t just a troll; he’s an intelligent ideologue who wants to convert America to the Godly Society against its wishes. Why would he sell out by telling lies about Haitians eating pets?
Trump sees MAGA voters purely as a means to give himself arbitrary power over America. MAGA goes along with this because it believes Trump will burn the current (and in its eyes, corrupt) version of America down. Vance sees the destruction of American liberal democracy by Trump and MAGA as the first step in the creation of the Godly Society. In the short run, therefore, Vance and MAGA are allies.
Once the system has been destroyed by Trump and MAGA, what will come next in actual practice? I think MTG’s New Confederacy, a selectively libertarian nation in which red states are given the freedom to be as beastly and repressive to powerless groups as possible, is a better bet than Vance’s Godly Society or Musk’s techno-aristocracy. But it is early days, so we really don’t know.
Trump and DeSantis are doing battle once again in Florida. DeSantis opposes the proposed amendment to the state constitution to permit the recreational marijuana, while Trump supports it.
What does this mean? As I’ve noted before, reactionaries are not monolithic; the predominant strain is libertarian and secular, while a smaller, but noisier, group is religious–largely Catholic. Trump represents the first group; DeSantis and, ironically, J.D. Vance are in the second group.
They represent two completely different ideas of a just America. DeSantis and Vance want to use the state to impose the Godly Society on us; Trump just wants to use it to deport illegal immigrants and get revenge on his opponents. They only agree on what they hate, which is, of course, people like you and me.
Q: You indicated that you thought unauthorized border crossings should be decriminalized during a 2019 debate. You were put in charge of finding and solving the root causes of illegal immigration by Biden, but the unauthorized crossings only got worse. You and Biden only implemented tough and successful regulations a few months before the election. Why should Americans trust you on this issue?
A: We need to put this in historical context. You will recall that Trump’s solution to the border issue was extreme cruelty, including the family separation policy. That caused the Democratic Party to lurch to the left on immigration issues. Only Joe Biden resisted that. I got caught up in it because I thought that’s where the votes were in the primary. I changed my position once I became part of the Democratic ticket.
When Joe and I took office, we were determined to implement a policy that was tough, orderly, and humane, as opposed to Trump, who was just cruel. I was tasked with the job of dealing with Central American leaders to reduce immigration from their countries. I was successful; that isn’t where the problem is now.
A number of things happened to make our job more difficult. First of all, we started seeing masses of immigrants from different countries that were experiencing political instability, such as Venezuela. The instability there is to some extent on the hands of Trump and the GOP. Second, Title 42, the primary way in which Trump was regulating border crossings, became unenforceable due to the end of the pandemic. Third, we were sued by a number of pro-immigrant groups who argued that we were just as bad as Trump; they had some success in court. Finally, the system was grossly underfunded, but Congress refused to help.
We ultimately worked with Republicans to come up with a bipartisan bill that would properly fund the system and give us legal remedies to some loopholes in the system. Trump succeeded in killing the bill because he wanted to run on the issue, not solve it. We then adopted regulations that incorporated a lot of the ideas in the bill. It would have been better to do that by legislation, because we know the regulations are vulnerable to legal challenge. As long as the judicial system doesn’t overturn those regulations, however, the system is working.
In the end, the American public has to make a choice. Trump’s plan to use the military and local officials to undertake massive raids, and to build huge deportation camps, is probably illegal and certainly un-American. Is that what we as a country want? Do we want cruelty to replace sensible policy? That will be up to the voters.
Life in the time of Trump.
The great debate is done.
Trump believes he kicked some ass
No one else thinks he won.
The polls say Trump’s a bit behind.
It could go either way.
I’ll sit and watch with my heart in my throat
On an endless Election Day.
The Israeli government is understandably distressed that Hezbollah missiles have made the northern part of the country a war zone. A significant part of Israel is currently uninhabitable. What should the government do?
It has two options. The first alternative is to reach a cease-fire agreement on Gaza, which will eliminate the justification for the ongoing Hezbollah attacks. The second is to launch an offensive in Lebanon. This option will result in thousands of Israeli casualties–soldiers and civilians alike–with no guarantee of success. It could also result in the direct involvement of Iran, and possibly even a nuclear conflict.
Naturally, the government seems to prefer Option 2. Biden will have to do everything in his power to prevent it from happening. This will have to include making it clear that America will assist Israel in its efforts to defend its territory but will not finance or contribute weapons to an offensive war that is inconsistent with America’s interests.
Q: Inflation substantially increased during the Biden-Harris administration. How much responsibility do you take for that?
A: Let’s look at the numbers. At the time of the 2020 election, the economy had been crushed by the pandemic and Trump’s chaotic response to it. Unemployment was coming down but was over six percent. Americans couldn’t safely leave their homes to work. They needed help.
We gave it to them. As a result, our recovery was the fastest in the world. Child poverty fell dramatically. Unemployment went down below four percent for a time and is still slightly over four percent today even though the size of the workforce has grown significantly since 2021. If our spending resulted in inflation that was slightly higher than Europe’s, we don’t apologize for that, because the overall picture was favorable.
Inflation was a worldwide phenomenon resulting primarily from supply chain problems and changes to spending patterns arising from the pandemic. The best analyses indicate that our safety net spending probably added about two percent to it. Since that spending alleviated mass hardship and fueled our rapid recovery, it was worth it.
Today, the Fed is ready to cut interest rates. The battle against inflation, in a sense, has been won. But certain kinds of inflation, like the cost of housing and medical care, predated the pandemic and still persist. We are dealing with them with programs to cut the cost of medicine and to build millions of new dwelling units. These programs will make life better for average Americans.
Trump, on the other hand, wants to impose what amounts to a national sales tax on consumers that will be experienced as a new round of inflation. His plans to deport millions of workers will also wreck businesses and cause prices to go up. He is the last person on the planet to accuse us of stoking inflation.
Israel somehow managed to program the pagers of Hezbollah functionaries in a way that caused them to explode. As a display of Israeli cyberpower, this would be hard to beat. By itself, however, this action does not change the military dynamics at the Lebanese border; it is a provocation, not a first strike. Why did the Israelis do it?
It is clear that the cabinet is spoiling for war with Hezbollah, as evidenced by recent statements by Israeli officials to their American counterparts. Hezbollah will be humiliated and is likely to retaliate in a significant way. The Israelis could then use that retaliation as a justification for war. Then what?
An offensive war against Hezbollah is completely contrary to the policy of the US government. Bibi and his buddies will nonetheless be demanding a blank check in Lebanon. That will put Biden and Harris in a very difficult position; to agree is bad policy and will offend Arab-American voters, but to refuse the blank check will give an opening to Trump with Jewish voters and national security hawks.
There was always a danger that Bibi would engage in a wider war in order to keep himself in power and to help Trump. I think that is what is going on here.
Everything depends on how vigorously Hezbollah responds. There is some reason to believe they will be cautious. We’ll see.
C: I haven’t talked to you since April. A lot has happened since then. How do you see the state of the race?
S: Great! We’re going to win!
M: Slightly improved, but leaving a lot to be desired.
C: Mark, let’s start with you. What do you mean by “slightly improved?”
M: Well, first of all, Biden is gone, so we don’t have to worry about having a president who can’t do the job. Second, Harris has proved that she is up to the task. Third, she sounds pretty reasonable. She doesn’t want to raise taxes on me as much as Biden did. That’s an improvement.
C: But why only a slight one?
M: She still wants to raise my taxes. If she gives up on the tax increase, we’re left basically with the status quo. I could live with that. It would be better than having a guy who wants huge tariffs and the economy of the past. Not to mention the dog eating thing.
S: I always knew you were a RINO.
C: Sebastian, why are you so confident? The polls say Trump is slightly behind.
S: The American people love Trump. The polls never accurately reflect that. He’ll outperform his polls, just as he did in 2016 and 2020.
C: Anything else?
S: America is never going to make a black and Asian female president. It’s just not going to happen. Harris has no chance unless the Democrats cheat even more than they did in 2020. That’s always a possibility, of course. Just changing the ticket after Biden’s bad debate was a form a cheating.
C: How do the two of you feel about J.D. Vance? In some ways, he’s the public face of the campaign, and he doesn’t poll well.
M: He’s a disaster. He wants to turn America into a theocracy. He has no respect for businessmen. He terrifies my wife.
S: I have mixed feelings. On the positive side, he’s a good surrogate for Trump, because he always fights. That’s the biggest part of the job. On the other hand, I’m not keen on the theocracy stuff. He needs to stick to talking about the border and inflation and shut up about cat ladies. That doesn’t help.
C: What did you think of the debate?
M: Trump reminded everyone he’s not fit to be president. The only remaining question is whether Harris is even worse. I’m somewhat reassured on that point, but not completely.
S: Trump kicked ass! He was very aggressive. He attacked most of the time. He mobilized the base. That’s what his campaign is all about.
C: Do you really think that Trump can win just with the support of the base?
S: Mostly, yes. People like my RINO friend here will have to vote for him because he’ll cut their taxes, and the only thing they care about is money. That plus the base is enough to win.
M: Don’t be so sure that I’ll vote for him. He scares the crap out of me.
C: I’ll see you both in about a month. Thanks for your time.
Q: Donald Trump maintains that crime has increased dramatically during the Biden-Harris years, largely as a result of your immigration policies. How do you respond to that allegation?
A: A number of observations are pertinent here. First, the overwhelming majority of crimes are dealt with by the states, not the federal government, so regardless of what Trump believes and says, the president doesn’t have a magic wand to make criminals go away. The president is not Batman.
Second, it is quite clear from the statistics that immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens born in America. Trump just uses a few anecdotes to make you think that criminal aliens are running wild in our streets. It is one of his lies.
Third, giving the police unrestricted powers to do whatever they want is not a good way to reduce crime, because it reduces the trust they need from the community. We have worked hard to make law enforcement more effective, not more brutal. We have no regrets about that.
Finally, the increase in crime that Trump complains about was the result of the pandemic, and started in 2020, when he was president. The George Floyd episode and the riots that resulted from it took place on his watch, not ours. Crime has been going down for the last few years. It is about back to where it was before the pandemic. So, just based on the numbers, the Trump argument is complete rubbish.
The winner of the American presidential election speaks for the people and is thus the embodiment of the general will. He is sovereign. As a result, his power cannot be limited. Everything he does is by definition legal.
That is Trump’s theory of the American political system. It owes nothing to Locke and Madison and everything to Rousseau. Where it leads has been obvious since 1792.
Q: You and President Biden have not banned fracking, and you have promised not to do so, but you said you supported a fracking ban during your campaign in 2019. Why should the American public believe you won’t do it once you are in office?
A: Unlike Donald Trump, we actually believe that climate change is an existential threat to the American people. It isn’t just a hypothetical problem for the future anymore; the American people are experiencing it every day in the form of soaring insurance rates, which are making housing unaffordable in some areas. Not to mention the deaths and the property damage people are suffering from excessive heat, wildfires, and hurricanes. Donald Trump thinks storm victims are just acceptable collateral damage and throws them paper towels. We actually want to protect them.
As a result, Joe and I pushed the Inflation Reduction Act through Congress. It is a landmark piece of legislation. It will help us with the transition to a clean energy economy, particularly with electric cars. But the transition takes time. It is a massive undertaking. It won’t happen overnight.
During the transition period, we need to generate as much oil and gas domestically as possible. And it is only fair to point out that oil and gas production have reached record highs during our administration.
And so, the answer to the question is, I won’t ban fracking because the American people can’t be left holding the bag with soaring energy costs during the transition period. That would make no sense.