Cromwell

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.

In his latest attempt to pull policy out of a prominent part of his anatomy, Trump is now proposing to make overtime pay tax-free. Is that a good idea?

Of course not! There is no logical justification for treating overtime income differently from other income; the new rule, if approved, would simply encourage workers and employers to collaborate to manipulate the system; it would blow yet another hole in the budget; and it would create a disincentive for employers to hire more workers to meet their needs.

The good news here is that the latest random pander is just another pathetic effort by Trump to prove to workers that he cares about them. He doesn’t. This promise, like the one on tips, has all of the value of a diploma from Trump University; it will disappear into the mists as soon as he takes office. The pledges about tax cuts for the wealthy, on the other hand, can be believed.

If you’re as morbidly fascinated by the New Right as I am, you will enjoy an article in today’s Politico about J.D. Vance and elitism. The gist of the article is that Vance, following several prominent New Right thinkers with common complaints about contemporary America but very different concepts of the just society, views his elite credentials as a feature, not a bug, of his ideology. The idea is that a new elite with proper right-wing ideas will connect with the masses through populism, win elections, and then use their skills to take over the administrative state and remake America. Populism is thus the mechanism by which the counter-elite can gain power and subsequently impose views that have little support among Americans today on the entire country.

A small intellectual elite building relationships with the masses, gaining power, and then using it to remake society even over the short-term wishes of the public–this sounds a lot like Bolshevism, no?

The election is still a coin flip. We will probably go to bed that November night without knowing the winner. But at some point, most likely a few days later, the identity of our next president will become clear. Assume, for purposes of argument, that it is Harris. What will Trump do then?

In some respects, the situation will not be as dire as it was in 2020. Trump does not have control over the military or the DOJ this time, so a coup is much less likely. He won’t have any influence over what the Vice President does, and most of his potential legal theories about the invalidity of mail voting will be foreclosed this time around due to previous judicial decisions, the end of the pandemic, and new state legislation. The Capitol will be heavily guarded in January 2025, so mob action in Washington won’t work, either. In short, Trump will have far fewer options than he did in 2020 and 2021.

He will, of course, be screaming about fraud. The battle will be fought on two fronts. First of all, he will file baseless lawsuits claiming fraud, more as a public relations message than as a serious attempt to overturn the election results. The more significant action will take place at elections offices and around the legislatures in swing states. You can expect state and local MAGA officials to do their best to prevent certification in the ordinary course of business, and GOP legislatures, prompted by right-wing mobs, to try to overturn the popular will. That’s when things will get really sticky.

Oh, and I’m guessing some local governments and even some deep red state governments will openly refuse to accept anyone except Trump as our next president. Don’t be surprised if there is some violence as a result, as federal troops may have to intervene to restore order.

The Economist insists on giving the Fed the credit for the fall in inflation. Is that accurate?

Objectively, no. Increasing interest rates did nothing to resolve supply chain problems arising from the pandemic, which were the principal cause of higher inflation. Housing costs, if anything, were increased as a result of the fall in supply caused by “golden handcuffs.” Gas and food prices are unresponsive to changes in interest rates. Higher rates increased the deficit and, therefore, public spending. Greedflation became less of a problem when consumers started using their power to fight back. And so on.

But that is not the entire story; there is a subjective component to inflation, as well. Future expectations of inflation are driven by the beliefs of the public. Even some left-leaning economists argued that higher rates were required. The Fed took rapid action and talked tough. As a result, the public came to believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Fed was doing what was necessary to fight inflation. In the end, belief became reality; expectations were kept under control, and the war was won.

The answer to the question, then, is partly yes and partly no.

Harris was clearly nervous at the beginning of the debate. When faced with difficult questions, she too often reverted to talking points rather than providing the American people with credible answers. But after about the first ten minutes, she was a steamroller. She reduced Trump to a scowling, angry old man who couldn’t stop ranting about the kids on his lawn. It was great.

Harris proved to any reasonable undecided voter that she was strong and reasonable enough to be president. She made it clear, with considerable help from Trump, that she was more fit–or at least less unfit–to run the country. She accomplished all of her objectives. I couldn’t have asked for much more.

Look for lots of commercials featuring Trump’s ridiculous responses in the near future.

As I’ve noted many times, Trump wants to bring back the economy of the 1950s–one dominated by burly men working in manufacturing, mining, and construction jobs. It is highly unlikely that his scheme of tariffs and deportations will be enough to accomplish his objective. But does he plan to bring back the entirety of the reactionary economy, or just selected pieces of it?

The 1950s were notable for a low level of inequality as a result of extremely high marginal income tax rates and powerful unions. Trump’s vision of America encompasses none of these. It is part Reactionary, part PBP, and completely incoherent.