It never ceases to amaze (me, at least) how people can become so fixated on the daily flow of “news” that they miss the forest for the trees. Or the substance for the tweets, as it were. My MAGA friends are quite literally dancing in the streets, celebrating each new Executive Order as if they change things (sometimes they do, often they don’t, as I pointed out back in the Biden era). Liberal/Progressive friends seem to carom from one level of outrage to another; I’m hoping the sedatives kick in soon, because it appears (like Spinal Tap) “these go to eleven.”
Between cautioning each group on their mental well-being (I’m NOT the therapist in the family), I realized something about the larger trends behind all this, and I did so from an unlikely source: the “old gray lady,” aka the New York Times. MAGA wing, stay with me now!
For its many sins of omission (not to mention commission), the Times really does try to get to the bottom of things. Ezra Klein was one of the first challenging Biden’s continued fitness for office, for example. And lately he had an interview of note with conservative legal scholar/historian Yuval Levin (read/listen here). And further to the Times’ credit, they have in-house conservative Ross Douthat interviewing figures on the right to discuss the actual ideological ferment (yes, there is) on that side of the spectrum; his talk with Steve Bannon is worth your time (and I know, my liberal friends view Bannon as “The Lesser Satan,” but you’ll enjoy/be shocked at his take about the Broligarchy and the need for a strong Consumer Financial Protection Bureau).
For those unwilling to spend the time learning, I’ll cut to the chase by sharing what I discerned listening to these sources and thinking about them.
First, Trump is a genuine phenomenon, but Trumpism is not a “thing.” There can be no doubt about Trump as a unique character, and this being the Trump era. Scream all you want, it’s reality you’re fighting against, not Trump. But Trumpism, even generalized as MAGA, is not a coherent movement. It’s a polyglot coalition held together by the uniqueness of Donald J. Trump. I’m not saying it’s unimportant, or faux. Just don’t expect it to long outlast the Trump presidency. Whatever direction J.D. Vance or Don Jr. (or whomever) takes the movement, it will be very different. Nobody is Trump, and those who try to be Trump (remember Marco Rubio and his “small hands” comment?) fail miserably. There is further evidence for this point in the election results: Trump has never gotten to a popular vote majority (not that that matters for elections, but it does tell you something about the electorate) in three tries, even though he won twice and lost once, all narrowly. His is a populist movement, but it appears to be at best a plurality, not a majority.
Second, the Trump phenomenon is a symptom, not the cause of America’s challenging situation. The Founders built our government with a separation of powers (note the plural), not a division of power (singular). The executive, legislative, and judicial branches have very different powers. By far the most important and powerful is the legislative branch (i.e., the Congress), which controls the power of the purse, must advise and consent on the Judicial branch members (and can legislate their jurisdiction), and can impeach the other two branch’s members. To be effective, the legislative branch must build a durable majority (sometimes even a veto-proof one) in order to take full command of its authority. When it can’t, it cedes that authority (in practice) to either the President or the Supreme Court. As the American electorate has become more evenly divided over the past thirty years, such Congressional majorities have evaporated. Which results in “do-nothing” congressional terms that satisfy no one. Which results in increasing calls for strong (some would say strongman) leadership from the presidency, or greater judicial oversight of vague congressional formulations (both of which we see now).
By the way, this was as the Founders intended: Congress being the most powerful branch, they wanted it to act only when it could build a durable majority, lest we become a nation where each succeeding administration (or legislative session) simply undoes what the preceding one did (sound like today? Yup). So the main problem we have is not the electoral college, nor the size of the Supreme Court, nor the two-party system, nor “first past the post” primaries, nor gerrymandering, nor–well–fill in the blank. It’s the simple fact that Americans are evenly divided, and both parties seek primarily to shore up the base rather than do politics with the other side.
Third, we are on the cusp of a third era of modern America. The first was the New Deal, which ran from the 1940s to the 1980s. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) built an enduring coalition that fundamentally changed America. He was so personally popular he was able to ignore the Washingtonian limit of two presidential terms, and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress continuously from 1933 to 1981, with only two, two year exceptions! Even when Republicans won the White House, they accepted the permanence of the New Deal and only tinkered at the margins.
That all changed with the advent of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The second era of modern America could be called the Global/Internationalist era, wherein the defining characteristic was a commitment to free trade. While the Congress and White House changed hands repeatedly, both parties played along with the idea that more free trade was better for the world, better for the United States, and better for Americans. The triumph of capitalism over communism proved this in Russia with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and even in China with the Chinese Communist Party decision that “to get rich is glorious!” Economists assured us that via the magic of comparative advantage, if every country played by the rules and traded freely, all would benefit.*
See, there’s always the asterisk. In macroeconomic terms, this is all undeniably true. However, the benefits are not equally distributed: there are always winners and losers. The losers in this case were middle- and lower- or working-class Americans who found themselves without decent paying jobs, let alone careers. They did get cheap sh!t from China, so they had that going for them. Oh, and the elites of the world, the highly educated, those with access to capital due to family, university degree, or initial business success, were wildly rewarded. That era officially ended with the 2008 financial crisis.
Since then, the American public has been in search of the next formulation or era. Progressives/Liberals put forward a sweeping set of individual rights (gay marriage, abortion on demand, trans rights, immigrant rights, etc), new government benefits (“ObamaCare,” student loan ‘forgiveness’) and controls (guns, internet censorship). Conservatives offered tax breaks (which generally favor the wealthiest), new religious protections, and opposition to “woke” ideology. The American public bought neither side’s arguments in total. They selected one from side A, one from side B, oftentimes contradictory choices (especially when it came to paying for benefits).
The one constant has been a growing awareness that economically, the free trade proposition has been a losing one for the average American worker. The trend first became noticeable during the Obama administration, when the Democratic party wrongly believed it had established a lasting demographic coalition of the working class, people of color, and progressives. When white working class voters started to leave the party, party stalwarts attributed it to simple racism: they weren’t ready for a black President, so good riddance. Most working class voters were still in the party, so what?
Then the trend continued during the Clinton campaign, with more white working class male voters leaving, culminating in Trump’s first unfathomable election. The knee-jerk reaction among Democrats was that Trump attracted those same racists and added white working class sexists (who couldn’t stomach a woman in the White House), so that was all the problem was. Trump was an aberrant candidate who rode an aberration in the electorate to one-time victory, probably with the help of Russia. Nothing to see here. Joe Biden’s victory cemented this view, bringing back some–but not many, just enough– of those working class voters.
Trump’s second inexplicable victory showed remarkable gains in groups which confounded the Democrats’ reading of the electorate: working class men, Latinos, blacks, youth, and women all demonstrated a real shift despite supposedly Trump being a threat not only to their rights and their benefits, but also to democracy. Those voters overwhelmingly voted on the economy, and thought Trump would do a better job managing it for them.
While cultural issues played a part, it’s somewhat misleading. The most memorable campaign ad was Trump’s “She’s for they/them, Trump is for you.” This did not attract voters because it was anti-woke, or anti-trans, or anti-anything else. It worked because it coincided with those voters’ beliefs about the two party’s priorities: Trump on the economy, Democrats on social issues. Kamala Harris did not run a campaign heavy on identity politics; she practically ran away from it. But you can’t talk about something all the time for years (as a party) and then suddenly pivot away in a campaign. Voters thought that such issues were what was important to Democrats, and in many ways the voters were right. The voters weren’t necessarily against those issues, but they most certainly were more interested in economic ones. And they turned back to Trump.
Is that the end of the story? No. While politically this is the Trump era, who the ultimate winner of this new era is, is up for grabs. The working class of all races is in play, it’s a majority of the electorate, and it wants to see action on the economy. These voters are patient: they don’t expect prices to drop tomorrow, but prices sure-as-cheap-Chinese-sh!t better stop going up like clockwork. They want to see more and better jobs, lower taxes, and yes a little bravado from our federal government. They would also like less regulation, and the same or better benefits. I didn’t say all their claims are reasonable or even consistent, did I? Most of all, they don’t want to see business-as-usual when it comes to the economy, because that means more of the global/internationalist way.
Whichever party addresses those issues will cement the backing of this large group, probably for a decade or more. The good news is, if they meet some or most of the voters’ demands, that party will have earned the right to govern with a durable majority.
Do you think much about “why?” you are a citizen? For most Americans, it’s simply an existential state: I am, therefore I am an American. Or perhaps, I am an American, therefore I pay taxes. As an expat, citizenship has more immediate resonance. I remain an American citizen: I vote, pay taxes (state & federal), carry a US passport, and retain all the rights and obligations that ensue. I am also a foreigner. I carry a card (my residentepermanente) with me at all times that explains my status in Mexico, as Mexican law requires. When I walk around in public, it is quite obvious ‘I’m not from around here,’ partly because I’m too blanco, too tall, and I walk with the quintessentially American ‘I’m in charge here’ stride. Citizenship affects my daily life.
Every nation has to decide how it determines who is a citizen. There are basically two options, known legally in Latin as Jus Sanguinus (the right of blood) or Jus Solis (the right of soil, as in location). In the former, you are what either of your parents is; under the latter, you are what you are based on where you were born. Neither is an absolute condition. Countries with birthright citizenship exempt the children of foreign diplomats, for example, and nations with blood citizenship often place limits of how far back you can claim descent (parents? grandparents? great-grandparents?).
The vast majority of nations today employ blood citizenship, and have throughout history. Birthright citizenship is a fairly new concept, historically, mostly used by new nations in the Western Hemisphere who were trying to encourage a growing population. These same countries also employed a version of immigration which basically allowed anybody (or at least anybody white, back in the day) to enter and then claim citizenship. There was a lot of land, not enough people, so those were the rules. Among the countries that had birthright citizenship and either restricted or eliminated it recently are Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and India.
While it has always been the practice in the United States, the Constitution is silent on the issue. What? Aren’t there people screaming that President Trump’s order is UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Yes, yes there are. The original text of the Constitution has no language about citizenship rules, birthright or blood. The common practice was birthright, but that was all it was: common law. After the Civil War, some people wanted to exclude freed slaves from citizenship, and they claimed the slaves did not belong here as they were brought here against their will (further punishment, what a concept!). The 14th Amendment was written with specific text to cover this case and end the discussion. Here’s the important section:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Amendment XIV, US Constitution, 1868
Some folks on Trump’s side of the argument are trying to make a great deal out of the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” claiming that illegal aliens are not this (subject to the jurisdiction thereof) and therefore their children are not US citizens. The problem with this argument is those illegal immigrants are most certainly subject to our laws, most specifically, they may be deported. One would have to first claim they couldn’t be deported, which is hardly the case.
What about the concept of signing an Executive Order to change a Constitutional principal? Odd business, that, but not as off-the-wall as you might think. First off, many of the people claiming this is completely unacceptable didn’t blanch at then-president Biden’s attempt to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment with a statement, not even a formal order. Also, since the birthright concept is based on multiple judicial rulings (not the original text of the Constitution), generating a court case by promulgating an Executive Order and lawsuits to halt it is perfectly acceptable. Better to begin the formal amendment process in my opinion, but there is nothing to exclude getting a favorable review from the US Supreme Court, either.
As to the legal arguments: An originalist legal interpretation of the Constitution might hold this was specific language dealing with a specific case (freed slaves), and probably does not apply universally. However, the US Supreme Court did rule in the case of the United States vs Wong Kim Ark in 1898 that the same birthright rules apply to the children of immigrants. But hold your horses, that case involved legal immigrants! This is where things get really interesting.
The Justices in that case made birthright citizenship crystal clear, but they also pointed out two obvious exceptions. One was the aforementioned exclusion of children of diplomats, the other children born to a foreign occupying army. Yes, the Supreme Court stated that if a foreign army occupied US territory, and those soldiers had children in that territory, those children would not be US citizens. But why these exceptions? The diplomatic one is a reciprocal courtesy, one of those areas where the need to engage in foreign discourse creates one-off exceptions to normal rules (like the limited extra-territoriality of embassies). But the occupier’s children? Basically, they don’t belong here, which is a value judgment. Thus even the seminal case affirming birthright citizenship has in its majority opinion language allowing for exclusion.
Will the courts use that? Of course the lower courts will hold that the matter is settled, and it is, according to precedent. The question is: is the precedent correct? That is a decision for the US Supreme Court. Overturning birthright citizenship would mean overturning a century of legal holdings, so the odds are long against it, but not impossible, especially if an originalist legal argument can build a simple majority among the justices.
The better question, lost in the pro/anti Trump noise: is birthright citizenship working for America today? There is nothing about the concept that screams “authoritarian” or “racist”, unless you think countries like the UK, Ireland, and New Zealand have those attributes. There is nothing inherently American in birthright citizenship, that is, nothing essential for America’s self-concept. It is a historical legacy, true. But how is it working?
“Au contraire!” Professor David W. Blight responds in The Atlantic. He calls birthright citizenship “A Sacred Guarantee,” and he’s right, with respect to freed slaves. But his argument goes further to suggest what’s really at stake is equality before the law, which is also in the 14th Amendment. But that’s a separate section, unaffected by the citizenship clause. And the Supreme Court has already held that equality before the law extends beyond citizenship to everyone physically in the Unites States, including foreign diplomats, visitors, and even enemy Prisoners of War (an issue which cropped up with respect to the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)!
Even before the 14th Amendment, America employed birthright citizenship because we wanted to encourage population growth, and not that many people wanted to come. Is that still the case? There are documented cases of birth tourism, where pregnant women from countries like China pay to to gain an entry visa near a due-date, then stay and deliver a brand new American citizen before returning home. The numbers are not large, but I know no one who thinks this is a good idea. There are also “accidental Americans,” people who were born in America to visiting foreign parents who later get a note from the US IRS explaining they owe taxes and fines for not submitting annual returns! And of course the millions of children of illegal immigrants (or the undocumented, if you prefer) present another form of challenge. Try to detain them as a family and the courts have held you can’t hold the children as they have done nothing wrong. Try to deport the parents and you risk splitting up a family. Why do we privilege those who flout the immigration system but then have children, too?
Some suggest dire consequences if birthright citizenship is banished. Much of this is simple hysteria: other forms of citizenship are in force all over the world, so it’s not exactly an unknown concept. For example, the vast majority of people in the USA at the time the law–or its interpretation —is changed would be simply “grandfathered” in as citizens. So, no, I wouldn’t have to go back and prove my parents were Americans. Going forward one would, but that is increasingly the way of things, as anybody who went and got the new REAL ID knows.
The Washington Post recently had a scary story about the possibility of mothers in labor being turned away from hospitals because they don’t have a US passport. They warned about the administrative burden for hospitals having to “affirm” citizenship of newborns. There is even the emotional account of a woman whose premature labor results in her son being born before President Trump’s edict goes into effect, thus “I know he will be able to live in peace in this country.” The problem with such “reporting”? Hospitals can’t turn anyone away for their papers: it’s the law (and it is how many illegal/undocumented persons get emergency room health care). A birth certificate doesn’t need to be issued in the hospital; it was a matter of convenience that can easily be transferred back to the local government. And an administrative burden? Really? Like hospitals don’t require forms and proofs already? Finally, the mother and child story almost prove the point: is this how citizenship should work?
Carlos Lozada (himself a naturalized American citizen) wrote in the New York Times “the practice (birthright citizenship) has become an essential trait of our national character.” What does that even mean? Is it unchanging and unchangeable? Slavery was an essential trait of our national character for ninety years, too.
There is a valuable debate to be had about our existing immigration and citizenship laws. It is necessary and overdue, but must be had without unnecessary inflammatory rhetoric. Very many nations, nations we respect, use blood citizenship. America has used birthright citizenship for a very long time. This issue should not be decided based on who proposes it, or what racist ulterior motives can be ascribed to them. It should be decided on one point alone: what works best for America today?
At the end of most US presidential administrations, there are a rash of pardons or commutations. The pardon power, the ability to forgive, is among the President’s sole prerogatives and is sweeping (the only enumerated limitation is for crimes of impeachment; everything else is fair game!). There are norms (like not pardoning your family or cronies), rules (a process for people to apply for pardons), and customs (pardons are for crimes already committed, not those in the future). But these are not absolute limits.
Pardons happen throughout a term in office, but most frequently at the end of an administration primarily because they are lousy politics. The person pardoned may be happy, as well as their supporters, but there is usually a court, a jury, and victims who will be outraged. There is also the problem of recidivism: the person you pardon may go out and commit another crime, invariably calling into question why they are free in the first place. Better for that to happen when you’re out of office.
The recent ending of the Biden administration and the beginning of President Trump’s second term yielded a unique situation with many pardons on both sides of the inauguration. And it also yielded another fine example of partisans looking at the wrong thing, leaving a real problem unaddressed while trying to score attention points with hypocrisy.
Let’s start with the new President. Trump issued blanket pardons for the January 6th defendants, calling them hostages and heroes. According to sources who met with him prior to the decision, he was leaning toward the outcome Vice President Vance foreshadowed: pardons for those who were nonviolent. But something triggered Trump (one legacy media source claimed it was Biden’s last pardon actions) and he went instead with a sweeping action.
Needless to say, he was wrong. There are people who were at the Capitol that day that do not belong in prison, but there were many who committed violent or destructive acts. They should not be free. Self-described patriotism is not an excuse for riot any more than deprivation is an excuse for looting. And “Biden did it first” is also not a reason. Trump also pardoned a convicted drug kingpin, apparently believing he was unfairly targeted (I certainly hope so!). And he’s looking at some other cases where police officers were charged with criminal offenses that perhaps represent overreach by local federal prosecutors. These are a mixed bag of actions which are overwhelmingly negative.
In his last days in office, President Biden went on a pardoning spree. He reneged on earlier promises and pardoned his son. He claimed it was to prevent the incoming administration from conducting a vendetta against Hunter, but this was factually incorrect, as the pardon also included offenses to which Hunter had already pled guilty, and was so sweeping as to include anything he might have done over a long period of time. Then he added pardons for a variety of other family members, mostly people who were listed in court records as having been names used on accounts for the transfer of foreign funds into Hunter and James (the President’s brother) Biden’s business dealings. Next were several people (January 6th Committee and staff, General Milley, Dr. Fauci) whom Biden believed Trump may go after in the future. Finally, he issued sweeping pardons for people involved in nonviolent federal crimes, which included drug distribution, financial fraud, and embezzlement.
The truly preventative pardons were probably a good idea, if for no other reason than to protect President Trump from his worst instincts. Many of the other pardons were horrid and specious. Biden pardoned drug dealers directly responsible for many deaths, and fraudsters who ruined many people’s lives. He commuted federal death sentences ostensibly due to his faith, but not for racists (perhaps Biden has his own rite in the Catholic Church). Even people who had defended Biden throughout his tenure called the actions shameful and inexplicable.
If you’re thinking this is a “both sides” argument, your thinking is part of the problem. What we have here is not a partisan issue: it is a bipartisan example of the abuse of power, and “both sides” should address it as such. What do I think?
Leaders in the House and Senate should initiate a constitutional amendment to the President’s pardoning powers. The amendment should limit pardons to past actions and for periods of time not to exceed four years. It should ban pardons within the final six months of a presidential term. Perhaps limit the crimes to which pardons can be applied, or place other conditions on them. I’m sure there are other considerations people of good will can suggest.
Rather than play a game of “I’m outraged by your President’s actions!” while turning a blind eye to mine, we should seize the opportunity provided to address the problem. The process to amend should be limited to the issue at hand and kept as simple and straight-forward as possible, which means it needn’t run for years.
Within days we will be living again under the Presidency of Donald J. Trump. For some of my friends, this is the welcome return of the MAGA King. For a few, it is a time to wait-n-see what happens next. For still others, it is the dark skies of Mordor looming over America. This post is for the last group.
How to survive another four years of Trump? First off, realize you’ve already lived through eight-plus years. Yes, history will record this period, including the Biden interregnum, as The Trump Era. He has dominated the news cycle, social media, and politics since he rode down the golden escalator at Trump Tower back in 2015. So you’re not at the midway point, you’ve already survived over two-thirds of his reign. Democracy didn’t Die in Darkness (per the Washington Post), although it certainly got a scare back on January 6th, 2021. However you looked at it back then, you and the Republic (a term I never tire in reminding people is our form of government, de facto and de jure) withstood even a once-in-a-century pandemic during his term. You can do this.
What about in practical terms? If you believed all the people telling you Trump=Hitler, you might have noticed many of them were lying to you. I’m not saying you were wrong, just that many of the people who swore that Trump represented the TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It) didn’t really mean it, even though they said it. You don’t welcome Hitler into the White House for tea and cookies. You don’t publicly yuck it up at a funeral with Adolph. You don’t go to Berchtesgaden (I mean Mar-a-lago) and kiss the ring of the fuhrer, whether you’re a tech bro, a media talking-head, or Governor of the great state of Canada.
“Did you hear the one about . . . ?”
I believe even some of my friends who fervently stated the Hitler analogy didn’t really mean it, either, since voting or donating or social media posting or tweeting is hardly an adequate response to the enormity of an oncoming Reich. The only people who survived the Third Reich with their reputations intact were the ones who took up armed resistance. Even Pope Pius XII (You know, the one some try to smear as “Hitler’s Pope”) organized a secret attempt to kill Hitler. When you cite the greatest enormity of modern history as your analogy, you make extreme demands for action. Not tweets. I’m not calling anybody out to take up arms: just the opposite. Moderate your opposition and align it with fervent, principled work for the policies you do support. And give up the Hitler language.
Go on a social media diet. I don’t know anybody who says “the time I spend on (Facebook/TikTok/X) makes me smarter or a better person.” Do you? If things posted there inflame you, do like the punch line in the old doctor’s joke: Just stop doing it! I shake my head whenever an intelligent, well-meaning friend shares a post/tweet with something like, “you need to read this.” The next tweet with something useful will be the first. And please, don’t be that person who responds to a mega-star and their millions of followers with a back tweet. It’s like the neighbor to walks out their back door and starts screaming at the government: ineffective, weird, and a troubling commentary about the neighbor, not the government.
Review your news choices for bias. There are excellent sources of media analysis here and here, but even these don’t capture coverage bias (the bias represented by what the media source chooses to cover or ignore). I knew well-informed people who denied there was an immigration crisis until New York City screamed “uncle” and the Biden administration admitted to a “challenge.” I knew others who were shocked by Biden’s performance during the debate. You don’t watch media sources from diverse perspectives to change your mind; you do it to learn what the other side cares about and how they characterize the issues. Or you just make it all up in your head. If you don’t believe media coverage bias is an important issue for both sides, you are in deep trouble.
Resolve to ignore any article, post, or message with headlines straight from social-media speak. “Trump pwns the libs” is just as bad as “You won’t believe how Pelosi shocked the Prez.” Such headlines or leaders are the hallmark of click-bait, usually designed to get you excited enough to click through, but as nutritionally empty as a bag of Pizza Rolls (slogan: no animal, mineral or vegetable was harmed in the making of this food product). Long-time media sources that were once reputable (think Time, Newsweek, The New Republic) now join in the shock headlines of the social media influencers. If you only do this, you won’t believe how much better your life will be!
Choose your focus. The MAGA and Resistance movements agree on one thing: Donald Trump is the center of the universe. The sun and the planets, the policies and fate of the nation all revolve around . . . him. For the rest of us, he’s a character: entertaining, vulgar, proud, crude, strong, venal, you name it. If President Trump announces he’s going to lean on Denmark to annex Greenland on January 21st, what exactly does that mean to you? Perhaps it is your Buddhist monk protest moment, or perhaps you wait to see what that really means. I am not totally of the “take Trump seriously but not literally” camp. When he says things, he does so for a purpose. If he says something outrageous and nobody reacts, he may just proceed. But not everything he says demands your attention. Because President Trump loves knowing he is living rent-free in your head, and he will play to that. It’s your choice entirely if you play along.
Avoid TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Some in the MAGA movement or on the right label anyone or anything not agreeing with Trump as TDS. I am far more selective: I reserve it for those who feel the need to go to any length to criticize him, regardless of reality or simple politics. Let me explain. If Trump says his inauguration crowd is the biggest in human history, you don’t need to go on a social-media jihad using AI-supported photogrammetry to disprove it. You don’t need to assert that Trump isn’t rich because he isn’t the richest person in the world, the continent, America, New York City, or probably even Florida. He’s so rich he keeps incurring additional judgments in the millions of dollars just to keep defaming the woman who accused him of sexual misconduct! You don’t need to claim he is only rich because his dad was, when Trump’s current wealth is oodles more than that of his father. You don’t need to constantly add “first convicted felon” to every mention of his Presidency. A thought experiment on that last one. If Trump’s legal situation were applied to say, George Soros, you might be pointing out that until the appeals process is exhausted, his status is not final. If it was applied to Hunter Biden, you might point out the unique political nature of the prosecution (Joe Biden did!). If it was just some local businessman in the Bronx, you would probably read about it and say, “they took State misdemeanors, added an undisclosed federal charge, and bundled them into a felony? Wha-a-a-a-a-t?” In any case, it’s irrelevant, however it comes out.
Consider the art of the deal. No, not Trump’s book, but the concept. I’ve said all along, Donald Trump is a man of few fixed principals. One of them is he sees himself as a “wheeler-dealer” as my Mother used to say. You offer him a way to be more famous, or rich, or successful, and he might change sides on any issue. Democrats missed this opportunity during his first term, and if you are politically active, consider suggesting to your Representatives, Senators, Governors, whomever, that they try to cut deals. I was only half-joking when I said that Progressives should propose a major increase in the Affordable Care Act under the title TrumpCare. Think he wouldn’t consider it?
Review Paschal’s Wager. Blaise Paschal put forward an argument, called Paschal’s Wager, for belief in God. It is considered by many to be the first historically-confirmed decision matrix. I will give you a Trumpified version of it here: Either Trump is a Hitlerian Dictator, or not. Either you call him one, or you don’t. This forms four quadrants with different outcomes. If Trump is a dictator and you call him out, you get credit for being right. However, he will have you killed, and if all you did was call him out, those who remember you will wonder why you did so little. Outcome: that’s a small upside and large downside. If Trump is a dictator and you don’t call him out, you will suffer personal anguish at failing to do so. Outcome: all downside. If Trump is not a dictator and you call him one, you look foolish and incur the possibility of future “boy cries wolf” problems. Outcome: all downside. If Trump is not a dictator and you don’t engage in calling him one? Normalcy. Outcome: All upside. And greater peace of mind. Mind you, if you assign different probabilities to the two sets of alternatives, what you should choose changes. But if they’re all equal probabilities, which gives you the best life?
Now I know there are still some of my most progressive friends who, if they are still reading, actually take umbrage with my making light of such a serious situation. They feel they alone are correct and that Trump is an Existential Threat. If Trump really is a dictator, then he is the first dictator in modern history to voluntarily give up power. I know he tried to foil the process, but it was a miserable and weak attempt, and then he yielded. And now he is the first dictator to return to office democratically, too (Juan Perón was ousted in a coup, so his return is different). I’m not sure what kind of dictator that is.
Love him, hate him, or just getting the popcorn and watching, he will soon be the President. In conclusion, I reach back to my youth and the immortal words of Alfred E. Neuman, “What, Me Worry?”
You may not recognize the name, but you’ve no doubt seen the Peter Principle in action. Laurence Peter coined the term in a 1969 book, identifying the fact that many people continue to rise in an organizational hierarchy until they reach the point where their skills are insufficient, and then they fail. But not just fail, also drag down the organization, too. Imagine the top salesman who gets promoted to front-line manager, or the first-level supervisor who focuses just on keeping her employees happy because they will perform better. They get promoted based on past performance, but their skills no longer match the challenges they face. The salesman needs to stop trying to sell and instead manage. The manager must now focus on leadership, which sometimes entails telling people unpleasant truths.
Some people rise to the new challenge, and some organizations try hard to evaluate based on potential as much as past performance. But the Peter Principle remains far too common in our daily lives.
That didn’t age well!
Take for instance our soon-to-be-former President, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.. By all accounts, young Joe Biden was a modest man “with much to be modest about” in Churchill’s memorable take-down of his rival Clement Attlee. He was never a great student, a great athlete, a great leader. As a child of the lower middle class, he keenly felt the uncomfortable disapproval of the wealthy and elite. But he was, however, ambitious to prove he belonged. That combination of ambition and disapproval fueled him to work hard, but also to fib a little. Then a lot. As the good sisters (nuns) taught Joe and me, each sin makes it easier to sin again.
Despite this character flaw (or perhaps enabled by it), Biden was a successful retail Democratic politician. He used his stories to buff up his “middle class Joe” bona fides, which were already quite strong. He identified with workers, families, and average Americans. He ran for a local council position in 1970 and won, then for US Senator from Delaware in 1972 and won again (in a real upset). Up to this point he was just another promising local politician, but the death of his wife and baby daughter in a car crash weeks after the election made him into a public figure of bipartisan sympathy.
Biden rode that good feeling into perennial re-election in Delaware, while gradually climbing the Senate’s seniority lists. While he strongly advocated for traditional Democratic party positions, he was most well-known for either gaffes (everyone should read this 1974 profile of him from Washingtonian magazine) or extreme changes of position. He said he would approve a Robert Bork nomination for the Supreme Court before supervising the rejection of the same, was against “gays in the military” but later for, was mildly pro-life then pro-choice, was against the first Gulf War but for the second one, pro-integration but anti-busing, a key supporter of tough anti-crime laws which he later called “his biggest mistake.” Depending upon your politics, he was open to change or morally flexible.
Biden remained a powerful Senator who could be reliably re-elected, knew the rules and peculiarities of the institution, and could get things done, but he still harbored desires for the Oval Office. His next opportunity came in 2008. He lasted only as far as the initial Iowa caucuses, where he received support from less than 1% of the attendees. When eventual nominee Barrack Obama needed someone older, “knowledgeable” in foreign-policy, and reassuring to working-class white voters, Biden found himself a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
While the personal relationship between the two men was strong, it was regularly tested by Biden’s frequent gaffes, which the staff referred to as “Joe bombs.” Biden made off-color comments, took policy positions publicly without pre-coordinating them with the President, but served effectively as contrarian voice in policy discussions and a conduit to the Congress. He felt he was in the driver’s seat for the 2016 race until his son Beau died, leaving the family devastated. Joe passed on his golden opportunity, leaving Hillary Clinton to lead the ticket which was upset by Donald Trump.
Fate took a hand as they say, and the 2020 electorate was looking for a normal, routine, sedate adult, while the campaign would be limited due to the pandemic. Joe was free to limit his gaffe opportunities, and President Trump was simply unable to resist tweeting his campaign from one outrage to another. And you know the rest of the story.
That’s the Joe Biden story. Scranton Joe would have made a great mayor, as he was at his best in retail politics. His family wouldn’t have had the temptations it later suffered, and favoritism or small-scale corruption are often overlooked at the local level. He might even have made a very good Governor, for a small state with fewer foreign connections. This would have avoided the frequent foreign policy mistakes. But Joe had some good luck and more ambition than talent, ending up in the Senate. Nothing in his Senate service stood out. When you read more about it, you see countless times where he either temporized, changed positions suddenly, or was simply out of his depth. He was as often criticized by his own party as by his opponents. He certainly never attracted an ounce of support to be President, until Barrack Obama needed someone vanilla to balance his ticket.
Even there, Joe was still the one getting caught on mike about “a big f*cking deal”, or jumping the President to support gay marriage, or being against the Bin Laden raid. Hillary Clinton was always going to be the next nominee, and it was only the shock of her loss, the trauma of the first Trump term, and the tragedy of the COVID pandemic that gave him an opportunity.
Everything Joe did subsequently was consistent with someone over-matched by the office. Rescinding Trump’s border policies en masse without understanding the consequences? Carrying out the Afghanistan withdrawal without adequate planning or an eye to what happens next? Listening to advisers stroke his ego as the new FDR and pump billions into an overheating economy? Temporizing over Ukraine when it mattered most? Insisting he was totally fit for duty when his public appearances clearly showed otherwise? Waiting until the Democratic establishment had to threaten him to withdraw from the race, then literally ending the nominee discussion by throwing his support behind his Vice President? Swearing the justice system is fair and he would never issue a pardon to his son, until he later said it was biased and he did issue one? And remember, we still await the tell-all books from his White House and campaign staffs, which will no doubt be full of more examples.
Setting aside the shock many Democrats and Progressives feel at the election results, nothing about Biden’s tenure was surprising, including how it ended. Joe would have been better a big fish in a small pond, rather than the (un)lucky preeminent example of a Peter Principle President. But that is what he will be remembered as, because that is what he is.
Having served your US federal government for thirty-eight years (yes, I like to say I was press-ganged into service as a child. Back then, they grabbed unsuspecting waifs off the street and took them to DC as laborers), I later realized I knew a lot about how the government really works. Lessons of which the average citizen was unaware. Some of these might be simply informative. A few have applications in regular life. Given the inflamed state of our society today, I submit them for your consideration:
You don’t have to make your opinion known. You can work in an incredibly politicized area like government policy and NOT opine about politics. This used to be the standard practice among the bureaucracy. It started to erode about the time “not my President” bumper stickers started showing up in federal employee parking lots after the disputed 2000 election (Bush v. Gore, and all that). It really took off with the “resistance” to President Trump. Now even allegedly nonpartisan types like intelligence community officials weigh in with their party preferences. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
I learned early on in the career that it wasn’t my job to critique who the voters sent into office. My job was to bring my expertise to bear within the limits of “supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, . . . ” and nothing else. Critique policies to the leaders espousing them? Of course. But publicly criticize them or their policies? Never, and don’t get me started on those who privately try to subvert such policies. There is a time and a place for those who resign in protest, but there is a place in hell for eternity for those who take it upon themselves to undermine American policy (looking at you, Eddie Snowden). I know some friends cheer on those who work against leaders they dislike, and see them as heroic. I would only caution those who do so: you do not want federal bureaucrats getting the notion it’s ok for them to decide what the government should do. Because when they do, they’ll decide they don’t need the voters.
The overwhelming majority of the federal workforce is well-meaning, dedicated, hard-working, and competent. There are 2.2 million full-time federal employees, almost 3 million if you include part-timers. It’s the largest employer in the nation, forty percent larger than Walmart or Amazon (the runners up). Because of its size alone, there are good and bad employees. There are executives who strive to keep the common good in mind at all times, and careerists looking for promotions at any cost. There are agencies with a deep sense of purpose, and some which seem to be looking for something to do. There are malingerers already retired-on-active-duty and workaholics who put in eighty-hour weeks (but only get paid for forty).
Federal government employment has some unique qualities. It requires relinquishing certain rights, like the right to campaign publicly for a party or candidate. It insists on strict hiring processes to avoid nepotism, and protects workers from political favoritism. It pays lower-skilled positions at an above-market rate, and higher-skilled positions at a below-market rate. All these things have both positive and negative effects of the workforce.
Note this does NOT include uniformed military members!
One thing that unifies this grand, diverse group is a sense of patriotic purpose leavened with expertise. If you want to clean up pollution, you learn about environmental science and get a job at the Environmental Protection Agency. If you want to protect the border, you study law enforcement and seek work at Customs and Border Protection. When I was working the strategic arms negotiations, across the table at my US policy sessions was a representative from the US Arms Control & Disarmament Agency (ACDA). That rep studied international relations (like me), but was dedicated to reducing the number of weapons in the world, while I represented the Pentagon and (at least) more and better weapons for our side. We argued incessantly, but I never believed the other rep had anything but American success as a goal and solid expertise as a means.
I received (courtesy of your tax dollars, ¡Gracias!) loads of training, including two Masters Degrees, a stint at the Federal Executive Institute, executive education courses at Harvard, Columbia, and Oxford, and a failed typing course (still two-fingered, thank you very much!). I got to see all types and manners of federal employees, and they fit the generalization with which I started this section. They aren’t infallible, they get things wrong (see Covid, 2019). But they’re executing laws they didn’t write under the direction of leaders they didn’t choose for people they don’t ever see. That’s why they don’t get paid much, but don’t get fired much, either.
If you think the media just started to portray the government inaccurately, you haven’t been paying attention. When I returned to Washington, DC in 1987, I started that job working on arms control. I had heard all about how dangerous Ronald Reagan was, I had seen firsthand the enormous anti-American rallies in West Germany, read the stories about the Machiavellian characters in the Reagan Administration. Now I was a back-bencher, sitting in meetings with these same characters. And I learned the press was full of shite, as they say in Ireland.
Sometimes the different factions arguing over policy would leak tainted information about their opponents or policies, and the media would lap it up (sometimes gullibly, sometimes willingly, always because it made for good copy, which was that era’s equivalent to today’s “eyeballs.”). Other times some important meeting would be held and nothing would leak, so the reporters just made stories up. Oftentimes the media attributed bad intentions to policies they didn’t like, or questioned the ethics of officials they disfavored. If called on it, they simply offered, “you can tell me the real story” which, of course, would be a leak, too.
All this was happening back when the press publicly described itself as nonpartisan and independent, a fourth estate which kept tabs on the government, and when media was comfortably atop a communications hierarchy that attracted sufficient advertising and revenue. So today when media sources are often at risk of folding, “eyeballs” are everything, and reporters at the New York Times and Washington Post insist that balance or fairness are pro-fascism, mind what you read and believe. Because it’s probably at best partly true, and that’s the worst kind of lie.
Having a friend in the federal government doesn’t help. People sometimes think, “hey, my cousin works for the FBI, maybe she can help me with this IRS letter.” Short answer: no. It seems natural, right? If your aunt worked at the bank, you might expect the bank manager to give you at least an opportunity to talk about a loan. If your sister was with the DMV, you’d expect to not wait in line for your license renewal. But for federal employees, it is against the law to represent a third party (that is, a friend, family member, or frankly anybody) back to the federal government. The key word here is represent, which is a formal thing. Could I call up a friend at another agency and ask some questions about a process, or the best way to do something? Absolutely. But could I call that same person up and say, “My uncle wants to get a small business loan from your agency’s program; how can you help?” Only if I wanted to get fired and prosecuted.
If you want to live forever, become a government program. Every department, bureau, agency and administration has a perfectly legitimate problem it was designed to solve. In some cases, those problems will never be solved; I’m thinking here of the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community, which we’ll need until after the Parousia. In some cases, the agency evolves to do other things. The Secret Service was started in the 19th century to combat currency counterfeiting (if you watched the old Wild, Wild West television show, you already knew that!). Then President McKinley got assassinated and they got the mission to protect the President. But others simply morph over time. I was against the establishment of intelligence elements in the Department of Homeland Security, because I reasoned that if all they needed to do was be an information conduit, that was better done by technology and rules, nor organizations. If you put analysts and collectors together, eventually they’ll go looking for threats to collect against. And you’ll have an analyst writing about the possibility of Islamic terrorists turning Desert Storm vets into domestic violent extremists, or the dangers of rad-trad Catholics.
Once a government program starts, it is well-nigh impossible to end it. Bureaucracies are full of true-believers who are almost incapable of considering, “what if our mission simply went away.” I was involved with two reductions-in-force and several re-organizations. At more than one position, I offered to eliminate functions or elements. Most of the time, the very offer was met with horror. It was the one thing no one in the workforce or leadership (generally) would consider. So you have to have an external forcing-function if you ever want to reconsider what the government is doing and how much it is spending.
Related to the previous point, the federal government is a hardy, perennial, invasive crop. It thrives almost anywhere you plant it, and it tends to spread. If your agency works to clean the soil, eventually someone points out that the water is dirty, too, and dirty water endangers the soil, so you need to clean it too. Then the air. Then emissions, then second-hand smoke, then bovine flatulence. Each step seems incremental and logical at the time, but in the aggregate it makes one wonder where it stops. Because it never does. And of course it takes a few more federal government employees to do the new missions.
There are some things only the federal government can do. Even in those areas, the people and their representatives must take care when charging the federal bureaucracy with a mission, keeping in mind the traits I cited above. The bureaucracy has a natural tendency to want to solve problems, but that can be a problem unto itself. The federal government is neither a deep-seated conspiracy (the “Deep State”) nor a Confederacy of Dunces. It’s patriotic Americans showing up and doing a job. Some good, some less so. And everything they do has been approved by both the Congress and the White House, and sanctioned by the Supreme Court. Next time you want to scream, “who put these clowns in charge?” remember: you did, I did, we all did.
What is the first duty of government? Security. International law cites that for a government to be recognized as legitimate, it must effectively control the territory it claims (international security). And for a government to remain legitimate, it must provide security for the citizens it claims to represent (domestic security). So crime (the amount of it, the types of it) is always a political issue.
You would not be wrong if you felt uncertain about the state of crime in America today. Almost sixty percent of Americans say crime is increasing. There are many people, most of them politicians, telling you that the data prove crime is at an all-time low, or crime is rampant, or you’re a racist for even being concerned about it. The first two are right; the last one is entirely up to you. Let’s dig in to the issue to get past the spin and see what’s really happening, because (1) it’s an important issue and (2) it’s a great example of how statistics can be used for good or ill!
There are two sources of crime data for America, both of them in the Department of Justice (under the Attorney General): the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The BJS data is compiled by a random survey method of Americans, the FBI uses data reported by over 18,000 American law enforcement elements (everything from State Police to Sheriffs to tribal organizations). Comparing the two, we learn that only about half of all crimes are reported (the BJS data is twice the FBI data!). Both data sets tend to move in the same direction (crime overall and types of crime vary in the same way, that is for example, less murder, even if we don’t know for sure the total number of murders).
What do we know for sure? Only a little. First, while the FBI counts crimes and the BJS has a survey, the fact that almost half of all crimes go unreported means our data can only be used in a general way. The apparent specificity of the FBI data is undermined by several factors. Local authorities do not have to report to the FBI. There are inducements to do so, but no true forcing mechanism. So some do and some don’t. Also, while the FBI has rules for how to report, there is some subjectivity. “The kid who threw a rock through the window of the only black-owned business in town. Was that vandalism or a hate crime, too? Did we have to charge it? What if it qualifies as a felony (by cost) but we charged it as a misdemeanor?” You get the point. On top of this, the FBI recently switched its data system for Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR), so some agencies stopped reporting, then restarted, others joined, some left. None of this is best practices for sound data. The phrase among statisticians is “garbage in, garbage out.”
Still, there is a principle in statistics that if you are sampling data, it is unlikely you’re only getting the outliers. So the data are good enough for general trends. When Presidents say “violent crime is down 35% under my administration,” they are at best fibbing. They might be able to claim it is down (35% is pretty large to be an outlier), but in no way should the data be taken as that specific. What are the basic trends in the data?
Pew Research helpfully captured the major trend lines in crime statistics
No one can mistake the trend lines: rates of property crimes and violent crimes are both way down from thirty years ago. The line zigs and zags, meaning it could go up in a given year, like it did during the pandemic in 2020. And local conditions vary: Chicago had a murder peak for a year or two before things calmed down. Yet overall there are far fewer violent crimes than before.
Yet most Americans believe crime is getting worse. How can that be? Statistically, you are extremely unlikely to be a victim of violent crime, and very unlikely to be a witness of one. You are somewhat unlikely to be a victim of property crime, and you are just unlikely to be a witness of one. Which is to say some crimes are more common, and more of us witness them. When you get to the point of knowing someone who experiences or witnesses such crimes, the probabilities begin to switch from “unlikely” to “likely” because you keep increasing the number of people under consideration.
And then there are “crimes of disorder.” These are the actions like public intoxication/drug use, prostitution, indecency, vandalism, petty theft, shoplifting, aggressive driving, fare-jumping, etc., that are the ones most likely to go unreported. In some cases they may not even be literal crimes anymore. They are also the most frequent “crimes” and the ones you are most likely to witness. And witnessing all those events makes one feel unsafe, regardless of whatever the FBI is telling you. When a disheveled man muttering to himself gets on your subway car, you instantly flashback to stories you heard on the news. Even if nothing happens, it turns your quiet commute listening to music on your earbuds into a tension-filled ride watching for the moment he goes off. When he does, it may or may not be a crime. No crime, but no peace either. And crimes of disorder have gone through the roof (data).
What have we learned about effective crime control policies? For one, they require active policing. The so-called Ferguson effect, named for the spike in violent crime after the riots in Ferguson, Missouri (caused by the police shooting of Micheal Brown, who never put his hands up and never said “don’t shoot”) is real. The effect happened again in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests/riots: tell police they’re not wanted and not trusted, and they will retreat, which empowers all kinds of criminal activity.
However, active policing doesn’t requite trampling constitutional rights. “Broken windows” policing, the idea that enforcing small rules against vandalism helps prevent a community sliding into a cycle of increasing criminal violence, works. But turning that policy into a massive “stop-and-frisk” exercise simply eliminates any trust between the community and the police. People want a friendly cop on the block, someone with whom they can talk and engage; they don’t want to be stopped and searched every time they leave their house.
Criminals may not be good at delayed gratification, but they aren’t stupid. Tell criminals they won’t be charged for shop-lifting less than $950 at a time (looking at you, California!) and they will demonstrate amazing math abilities when swarming a retailer. Abolish cash bail and criminals will go on a spree, because if the fear of jail doesn’t deter you in the first place, the fear of more jail eventually won’t either. Being in jail without bail does, ‘tho. As San Francisco learned, telling people their feeling of insecurity is all in their heads as they step over a drug-addled body on the street and into a pile of human feces while headed to the CVS where everything is under lock-n-key, is a losing proposition.
So if violent crime is going down, and police know what to do to fight it, why do we feel so insecure? In America, we have been on a libertarian/progressive bender with respect to crime and punishment. Not everywhere, nor all the time, but often enough to show up in regular people’s lives. In the war on drugs, the US has surrendered. We are gradually decriminalizing or legalizing cannabis in various forms, under the argument it’s no worse than alcohol (I will point out here that there are a nearly unlimited number of things which can fit into this category, so the argument is ridiculous, but hey, it has won). Courts previously ruled that homeless people could not be incarcerated for occupying public spaces. Over-policing like the stop-n-frisk effort undermined public confidence in the police and the broken windows theory. Various progressive groups cited arguable data to suggest that arrests and convictions were racially biased, leading to policies like cashless bail, the aforementioned green-light on shoplifting, and elimination of minimum sentencing.
What went wrong? If shoplifting isn’t punished, you will get more of it, like any other crime. If marijuana use is legal, cops aren’t going to police public use unless it’s egregious, and forget about possession with the intent to distribute (which in many cases was still illegal). If the homeless are free to live on the streets, they will (literally) do their business there, too. And if every police stop becomes a potential case of racial bias, cops will retreat from the very communities most at risk. Of course, when automated traffic cameras display the same “racism” noted in live police stops, it undercuts the argument.
My more perceptive progressive friends may point out that some of these same changes in law or enforcement were enacted successfully in Europe. And that’s true, to an extent. Decriminalization (drugs, prostitution) and an emphasis on rehabilitation or redirection to counselling have met with some success initially in Europe. One major difference there is cultural: Portugal’s famous drug decriminalization approach was based on a Portuguese culture which strongly disapproves of drug use. Another is they fund rehab. A third is they enforce what few limits they have. We didn’t. And even a place like Amsterdam which had the longest-running, most successful, libertarian approach to social “crimes” (i.e., drugs use and prostitution) is reconsidering. It is little wonder that wherever such approaches were developed in libertarian or progressive parts of America, they have failed miserably.
So it is absolutely true that violent and property crimes are greatly reduced. It’s also true that most Americans are witnessing a general lawlessness that is not conducive to feeling safe.
In the run-up to the election, the Democrats were highlighting how great the US economy was doing, while the Republicans were calling it a disaster. Let’s just draw this lesson: never tell the voters that what they’re experiencing is wrong. Voters have a choice, and telling them they are delusional has never been a winning campaign slogan.
But in reality, both sides were correct. By all the traditional measures, the US economy was blowing the socks off the rest of the world. And for everyday working-class Americans, it sucked. How can this be? That’s the difference between the national economy and personal economy.
Let’s start with the optimistic side, the one proffered by the Democrats. Before the election, the last set of inflation indicators came in at an 2.1% annual rate, which is almost exactly on target for the Federal Reserve (aka the Fed), and that’s what they want, to make for a economy which is running smoothly and is predictable enough for the business community to plan upon. This was down from a post-pandemic peak of 8.3%, and the reduction came within a period of only twenty-four months, which was unprecedented. In effect, the Fed got the soft landing it sought, curbing inflation without causing a recession, which was the usual method used in the past. Economists will be studying and writing about this for decades, it’s that unusual.
President Biden gets very little credit for this, as is appropriate. He tried to spend much more early in his term, which might have sent inflation out of control; he was only stopped by Senator Manchin, despite the Fed’s warnings. Even the Fed was late to the game, agreeing briefly with the Biden administration that inflation was only temporary, but as the data mounted, they quickly changed their tune and took it on with aplomb and courage.
Note the pandemic/post-pandemic surge!
Meanwhile, the money sent to individuals by both Presidents Trump and Biden kept people afloat, and freed them from jobs in businesses which may or may not survive the pandemic. In the end, this sparked a rash of new small business creation, a traditional source of American economic dynamism which had withered after the Obama years. Nations which sent money to keep people in jobs at the same company didn’t fare as well.
All of which is to say that America came out of the Covid lock-down in better shape economically than most every large economy, recovered quicker, and accelerated from there. Don’t believe me? Try these statistics from The Economist:
America is 50% of world GDP today, up from 40% in 1990.
China’s GDP was 75% of ours, now it’s only 66% and lagging.
Output per person is 30% higher than Canada/Europe, which is roughly double the 1990 levels.
My personal favorite: in Mississippi (America’s poorest state), workers earn more on average than Brits, Germans, or Canadians.
But how could Americans feel worse off when we had it better than everybody else? First off, no one knows or cares how everybody else feels. We all exist in our own economic bubbles. No worker ever thinks, “Gee, I’m glad we only have 8% inflation here, Turkiye has 53%!” What they think is, “hamburger was $6.00 a pound last year, and it’s $7.00 a pound now.” And when inflation drops to 2%, all they think is, “hamburger was $6.00 a pound last year, and now it’s $7.12 a pound.” Disinflation or the lessening of inflation is NOT deflation, so until consumers settle in and accept the new, higher prices, they will be upset.
But wait, weren’t wages going up more than prices? So weren’t those workers complaining unfairly, as they were better off despite the inflated prices? It is a fact that wage growth among the poorest workers was greater than price inflation. But this is where psychology comes into play. People on the working edge of poverty seek stability: they are often referred to as living “paycheck to paycheck” meaning they are one missed paycheck or large unexpected expense away from disaster. So when prices are going up in real time (every time they go to the store) but their pay jumps annually or irregularly, it adds to their stress, regardless if the totals for the year work to their advantage. And, workers attribute pay raises to their merit: I deserved this raise, I earned it. Price rises are done by somebody else to me, so it’s them (the government, the business, the bad guys) screwing me over. If I get a raise, I want it to show up in an improved lifestyle for my family, not just to keep up with what “the man” is doing to me.
On top of the inflation issue, working-class families faced an affordability crisis. Affordable housing, whether to rent or buy, became rare. Cities practiced an updated form of redlining designed to keep wealthy urban enclaves free of “those people” (working class folks of whatever race). Housing starts moved further and further out into the suburbs, where you could still build, but builders make more profit building McMansions out there, not duplexes or multi-family low-rises. Various forms of insurance rose above the inflation rate. Medical and child care expenses did the same. And don’t even contemplate the cost of a college education, which was the credential to success. Notice that none of these (even college) was considered discretionary spending for a family.
And this wasn’t just a post-pandemic event. The reigning orthodoxy in economics for the past fifty years has been dubbed neo-liberalism. It holds that if every country trades freely (no tariffs, no state subsidies, no other impediments to free trade) and all producers and consumers are free to compete in the market, everybody will benefit. On the macro scale, meaning for the world as a whole, this is demonstratively true. The world recently ran a little experiment, where China went from communism to state-controlled capitalism, got invited into the World Trade Organization, and it moved over 800 million people from poverty and created a Chinese middle class. Nothing like that has ever happened in the history of the world. And it happened without completely free trade, just “freer” trade.
The same thing happened with NAFTA, the original free-trade agreement between Canada, the US, and Mexico. It created a middle class in Mexico with good jobs in steady careers, leading to real democracy (before it was a one-party state) and a booming economy, which then greatly dropped the level of out-migration to the United States. So looking through the telescope at the big picture, it benefited everyone.
But looking through the microscope at your specific picture as a middle-class American manufacturing worker, something different happened. Competing against non-unionized workers in developing countries, or manufacturing sectors subsidized by foreign governments, those American workers lost out. True, those American workers could now buy much cheaper products from China, and all those Chinese people were not starving. But the price to the American worker was a steady decrease in their relative pay and benefits, or a loss of the job/career altogether.
Neo-liberal economists had an answer for this: the government will provide greater benefits to such workers, and training to transition to other career fields. Here are the problems with this otherwise brilliant plan. First, you’re a worker, and you want to do a job, not get a handout. That’s not just pride, that’s self-respect. Second, if you have grown up in a family of three generations of auto workers, you may not take kindly to a plan to re-train as a nurse in an assisted living facility. Oh, it’s a job with increasing demand, and one that can’t be off-shored to China, but it’s also not something you want to do. The same goes for schemes to turn manufacturing workers into coders, teachers, or day-care providers (all fields with job growth). At this point the neo-liberal economist would wash his hands and say, “well, if they don’t want to adjust, that’s on them.” Which works on the macro-economic scale, but not in Akron, or Mobile, or Pasadena.
All this has been going on for roughly fifty years. Look at this chart from Pew Research. Two things should jump out at you: first, the middle class has decreased as a share by over 16% (10 percentage points= a sixteen percent decrease). Second, the poor share has increased over ten percent, and the rich share has increased over a whopping seventy percent. When you look at those numbers, you must admit our economy has moved more people from poor and middle class into rich than the other direction, which is striking. You must also notice that for roughly every two middle class persons making it into the rich category, one middle class person became poor.* This is the outcome we described above: an economy where growth and productivity is roaring, envied by other countries, but where the working class claws desperately to keep up and feels like it’s getting worse, . . . because for them, it is.
The Democrats have previously seen unions and government intervention as the means of redress to this challenge; Republicans typically saw it as a matter for the free market to address. Neither is sufficient. Unions in general have proven too feeble and corrupt to protect workers, government intervention just introduces unintended consequences to the market, and the free market left to its own devices sees no problem here. The escape of working class voters from the Democratic party in this election may be a wake-up call for them; there is already a pro-worker movement in the GOP (check out the American Compass, which JD Vance supports) looking to change its perspective.
The good news is we’re facing this challenge with a roaring economy behind us, which means we have resources at hand. The bad news is that also lets some folks think we don’t have to address the challenge. But our national and personal economies depend upon it!
* In a real statistical analysis, this is not strictly true, as some rich people became poor and vice versa, but as a generalization it holds.
I was going to do a postmortem of the 2024 election, when I thought better of it. There are a few results that jump out, but what’s really important is clearer when the last three elections are looked at as a trilogy.
Great cartoon!
Join me in the Wayback machine to April, 2011. President Obama is finishing off a first term and at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. As the event requires, he takes jabs at himself, the media, his political opponents, and also at one unusual target: a rich New York land developer and reality TV star named Donald J. Trump. Seems Trump had been the most vocal spokesman for “birtherism,” claiming Obama wasn’t born in the United States. The President, indignant at the charge, refused to respond to it until it grew into an issue, at which point he released his birth certificate to end the charade. And so he took some swipes at “the Donald.”
Some progressives believe this was the genesis of the Trump candidacy: revenge for a public insult. However, people close to Trump, including those who sat at his table that night, say he took Obama’s ribbing well (he was less happy with Seth Myers’ jokes, probably because he saw the comedian as a nobody who had no right to make jokes about Trump). Trump and his closest advisors all say he felt he could do a better job than any politician as President, and he was only looking for the right opportunity.
It came in 2016, when the GOP nomination was up for grabs, and the leading candidate was Jeb Bush (who seemed more obliged than enthusiastic) with a host of newcomers. Trump’s brash style separated him from the pack, and he proceeded to win pluralities of primary votes without ever getting a majority, knocking off the other contenders one at a time, until only Marco Rubio was left standing. Rubio tried to adopt Trump’s personae (remember the whole story about “small hands”?) but it didn’t work, and the GOP resigned itself to going down in glorious defeat.
Then the Democratic Party leadership said, “hold my beer.” When Obama pushed aside Hillary Clinton’s first campaign for the nomination, she agreed to be his Secretary of State. Her plan was simple: get a Cabinet position and some foreign policy bona fides, spend all your time outside of DC, and wait for the opportunity to run again. She planned to become “the most traveled” Secretary of State in US history (this she accomplished), which ironically led to her need to have classified information sent to her through her personal e-mail account, and thus the whole Comey investigation. But the implicit party deal was: behave as a loyal party member, and when the time comes, Obama will endorse you and the party will clear your path. Forgotten in all this was that her first campaign had been a disaster: it’s why a one-term Senator from Illinois with a funny name and no federal experience quickly eclipsed her. That and, as Obama said in a debate to Hillary, “you’re likable enough” (addressing the simple fact that everyone who met her found her at best irritating).
True to his word, Obama told his Vice President, Joe Biden, to stand down in his desire to be Obama’s successor. Which was a relief to most Democrats, as no one (except Dr. Jill Biden) had ever woken up in the morning and said, “what we need is a Biden presidency.” His past efforts had always ended in failure without receiving a single percent of any votes. When the Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders ignited hope with his candidacy, the Democratic party (note, these are the ones for democracy and free-n-fair elections) put their collective thumbs on the scale to prohibit any outcome but Hillary Clinton as the nominee.
All of which set up the hubristic 2016 campaign between Clinton and Trump. Democrats were certain there was no way their seasoned, veteran leader could lose to this guy. A common commentary among talking heads was “how would this even be close?” (foreshadowing here) They actually debated using the campaign slogan, “it’s her turn” as if the outcome was fore-ordained. Trump for his part lurched from calling all Mexican immigrants “rapists and criminals” to admitting he could “grab women by the p***y” on a tape released the week before the election. Clinton suffered through the sturm und drang of James Comey’s “her investigation is on/off/on.”
Trump won by 80,000 votes in three states. Nobody saw the outcome coming, least of all Trump, who hadn’t seriously planned a transition effort. What the Democrats missed was (1) the country was sick and tired of the ancienregime, which included all Clintons and Bushes, who had been monopolizing the political arena for twenty-plus years, and (2) just how unlikable Hillary Clinton was. Even a grasping, greedy reality TV star seemed a more approachable choice. Hillary completed the story by becoming a bitter political crone blaming everyone but herself from the confines of her home in the Westchester, New York, woods.
Years of Donald Trump’s tweets, threats (real or imagined), and bluster left the entire country exhausted precisely when a once-in-a-lifetime (we hope) pandemic hit. The Democrats, desperate to limit Trump to one term, held an open primary for the 2020 election, resulting in twenty-nine major candidates. This quickly whittled down to eighteen. After the Iowa and Nevada caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, Bernie Sanders and former South Bend, Indiana, mayor Pete Buttigieg were the leaders. Sensing they had candidates who might not be ready to confront President Trump, party leaders pinned their hopes on the South Carolina primary, which Joe Biden won going away. His moderate opponents were convinced to withdraw (remember, this is the party for choice!), consolidating enough support for the chosen leader, Biden, to hold off the non-party member Bernie Sanders.
During the early debates, Senator Kamala Harris ran an uber-progressive campaign and lit into Joe Biden, suggesting he was responsible for the oppressive bussing she experienced growing up in Oakland. This was odd in that Biden had a strong record and ties to african-american voters in the party. She quickly flamed out after the debates, and would have been forgotten, but Biden made the rash pledge to put a woman on the ticket if he were selected as the nominee. When he won, the likely ticket-mates were few and far between, and he ended up with Kamala.
Biden ran a low-key campaign, mostly from his home in Delaware, ostensibly due to the ongoing pandemic. It also conveniently limited his opportunity for gaffes, something he admitted he was prone to. He promised a moderate presidency emphasizing stability and decency, to “unify the country.” President Trump refused to stop tweeting nonsense and vitriol, right through the post-election Capitol riot on January 6th. Biden had the victory in hand when the voters realized he didn’t even know how to tweet. While receiving the most votes for President by any candidate in history, he ended up winning (the electoral vote, the only one that matters) by only 43,000 votes in three states!
Sadly for the Biden-Harris administration, they were no more effective against the COVID virus than the Trump administration had been. Biden had won both Houses of Congress, and sometime after the election he decided this was a mandate for a progressive rework of the federal government. Out went the emphasis on compromise and in came a series of big, then bigger, finally biggest government programs. Progressives sensed an opportunity unlike anything since FDR. Some of this was in response to the Democrats’ belief that Obama had been too hesitant to respond to crises in his two terms, and now was the time for greater action. Some of it was a completely justified stimulus for an ailing economy, to avoid a depression. Most of it was progressivism run amok.
Biden’s extravagant domestic spending fueled inflation, while his extraordinary caution led foreign leaders to see opportunities to strike. Biden spent much time decrying Trump, who seethed on the sidelines claiming the election was stolen (it wasn’t). Biden’s position as morally above the tawdry self-dealing of the Trump family was belied by his family’s business dealings with wealthy and duplicitous Chinese and Romanian businessmen. Biden made a great show of rescinding hundreds of Trump policies, especially about the border, but was then unwilling to address the massive influx it created. The inevitable end was foreshadowed very early, when he didn’t rescind Trump’s mistaken commitment to withdraw from Afghanistan, and instead meddled in the planning, resulting in the most horrifying foreign policy photo op since Saigon, 1973.
From this, . . .
to this!
Biden’s approval rating never recovered. Meanwhile, Trump consolidated control of the Republican party, forcing out anyone who wasn’t willing to concede to his contention the 2020 result was stolen. While a whopping eighty percent of the voters wanted anybody but Biden and Trump as the 2024 candidates, the two leaders remained locked in a manichean struggle (who was good and who was evil was in the eye of each party).
Trump continued his raging and sometimes incoherent attacks, while evidence mounted that Biden was working only a few hours a day, and mostly for canned photo-ops. He showed up for some big-ticket events, like the State of the Union speech, and gave an impressive performance. But as the campaign began in earnest, his more frequent public appearances became grist for the idea he wasn’t up for a real campaign (remember his basement campaign in 2020) let alone another four years of the presidency. The White House and the Democrats erected an elaborate house-of-cards defense of Biden, calling him ‘vigorous’ and saying he ‘ran circles around the staff.’ All of which came crashing down when the Biden who appeared opposite Trump for a debate was a pitiable, befuddled old guy.
While Biden simply insisted he “had a bad night,” Democrats panicked. He continued to avoid public events or pressers, but when asked, insisted he was still the nominee and in it to win it. Each time Joe said the matter was closed, Nancy Pelosi said “we’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse.” No wait, she said “when the President makes up his mind, we will support him.” Same difference. The party of democracy told its sitting President, the guy who won all the primaries and had all the delegates, to shuffle off the ticket not because he wasn’t up to the job, or the campaign, but because he as going to lose.
“Goin’ to Chicago . . “
Faced with legal issues over campaign financing, loyal black Democratic voters who wanted to see the Vice President elevated, and facing the specter of an open convention in Chicago (how did that work out the last time?), the party leaders quickly coalesced around Kamala Harris. Immediately forgotten were the three bad years of Vice Presidential publicity, her failed 2020 campaign, or the rumblings the month before that Biden couldn’t leave the ticket to Kamala because she wasn’t up to the challenge.
Having snatched potential victory from the jaws of defeat, the Harris campaign took stock of its situation. She needed money, and proceeded to accumulate more than a billion dollars in weeks, a record which will probably not be broken for a long time. She settled upon a positive campaign featuring “joy” as an antidote to the ever-darker musing at Trump’s rallies. She selected as Vice President Minnesota Governor Tim Waltz, who had impeccable progressive credentials, but was also the liberal caricature of a common Midwesterner. The media went into overdrive, ignoring the lack of access and acting as amplifiers for the party. I watched ABC World News Tonight with David Muir almost every night, and the first fifteen minutes were positive clips from Harris events or spokespersons interspersed which whatever outrage Trump said that day. The polls were already turning around, as voters remembered they wanted “anybody but Biden and Trump.”
A funny thing happened on the way to the coronation. Harris could only avoid interviews for so long, and when she started doing them, it became apparent to everyone not in the Democratic Party leadership that she couldn’t answer basic questions, or when she tried, made it worse. She served up heaping helpings of word salad or acted irritably, a trait evident way back when Lester Holt asked her about visiting the border. Meanwhile her running mate went from charming local guy to weird uncle in record time. Whether it was his lying about a DUI, leaving his unit on the verge of deployment, or mis-stating a combat record, his folksiness degraded into his self-description as “a knucklehead.” And his prancing around on stage didn’t help. And while it was a sideshow, the media’s attempt to paint a philanderer who slapped his girlfriend silly in public as the new face of positive masculinity was an affront to both common sense and decency.
Harris was focused enough to destroy Trump in a debate, after which the GOP decided to let Harris do to herself what Trump could not. Trump’s Vice President pick, Senator JD Vance, had been written off by the media (who once adored him) as some kind of character from the Handmaid’s Tale. When Tim met JD for a debate, the result was lopsided. The Democrats and media started to waterboard everything Trump said into actionable threats, while the problems of new and untested-on-the-national-stage candidates hampered any positive vibes.
While pollsters tried to squeeze something definitive out of their data, everything kept coming up a near tie. Which is how we went into election night. Trump won again, although when all the votes are cast it will probably be by a few votes in a couple of states.
Why did I relive all this trauma? Because the story is consistent, and can only be understood as a tale in three parts.
Part one is the Democrats. Remember the Wayback machine? We started with the Wayback machine. If we went back to that night, and we sat down with Democratic party leaders and described Trump in all his glory over the next three elections (the vulgarity, the name-calling, January 6th, Roe v. Wade, and on and on), then we told them democracy itself was at stake, and they would violate every norm of it to get the right candidates, would they have said the following: OK, we lead with Hillary Clinton, then Joe Biden, then this Kamala lady from California (she was then its Attorney General)?
Of course not. They told us Trump was an unqualified misogynist, then he was dangerous and unstable, and finally he was a greedy fascist. And then they ran, first, the most hated woman in America, second, a non-entity who had never won anything at the national level, and finally a little-known progressive politician with no seasoning or national campaign experience. That is either world-class political malpractice, elitism (“we know better”) beyond belief, or they didn’t really mean what they said about him. Or all three. This was so bad, we must embrace the power of “AND.”
I lean towards elitism as the main culprit. It showed up with the frequent refrain about”how can we lose to this guy?”, the willingness to engage in ever-more-shrill exaggerations (a Liz Cheney firing squad? Really?), the disdain for the common man’s pain (“you don’t understand how well the economy is doing”), and the epithets (deplorables, racists, fascists, garbage, etc.).
The second part was the Republican, no, wait, the MAGA party. Maybe there are still some classic Republicans out there in hiding. Some went completely into Trump Derangement Syndrome (e.g., the Cheneys) and endorsed Harris. How anyone who had conventional Republican credentials could do this is beyond me. Others went into defiance and just got “primaried” out of office. The rest became compliant. Those powerful enough (McConnell, DeSantis) laid low and avoided eye-contact with the MAGA king. Lesser types were forced to genuflect at the MAGA altar of election denial. The old GOP had neo-conservatives, culture warriors, free-marketeers, and some libertarians. Now it has MAGA hats. Perhaps it will continue to evolve PT (post-Trump); that remains to be seen. Clearly Trump has decided enough is enough, and specifically picked JD Vance as heir apparent.
The voters were the third part for the story. You will find some pretty sophisticated analyses out there showing how much of what I described is explained by a general, worldwide discontent with the governing authorities and systems. This explains Trump’s first win and second loss (he was the establishment at the time), Macron’s emasculation in France, the routing of Merkel’s side in Germany, the rise of right-wing parties in Europe, Milei in Argentina, Meloni in Italy, and so forth. Doesn’t matter if they’re right or left or wrong, out they go.
But this analysis has its own bias: it comes from elites, and it lets them conveniently avoid the deeper question. See, the voters are being emotional, not rational, it’s not our (the elite’s) fault. But why are voters rejecting leaders across the political spectrum? Because voters will only tolerate being ignored, being lectured, being condescended to for so long. For example, in most advanced western nations, neoliberalism (the free movement of capital, people, and trade) was supported by both sides. It worked well for the world as a whole, not so well for individuals in certain countries. And those individuals vote. It started small, built over time, and eventually overthrew leadership. In Mexico, it drove a left-wing populist (AMLO) into power, and his chosen successor, too.
You can see this outcome in many forms over the last twenty years: Brexit was one, as was the MAGA movement. Neoliberlism posited that borders were a thing of the past, as was national identity, a crude hangover from the twentieth century. Funny thing is, elites who love neoliberalism generally aren’t futbol fans; if they were, they would have known that nationalism didn’t die, it simply changed into something less warlike (soccer). People want to belong to something, not be an atomized consumer recipient of big government largesse. Europeans loved travelling across the Schengen area without ever showing a passport, right up to when millions of illegal immigrants started doing the same.
In America, the voters revolted over very being told they shouldn’t mind losing jobs to China, shouldn’t mind introducing large numbers of foreign immigrants to small local communities, shouldn’t mind the disorder which accompanies lax policing and drug decriminalization, shouldn’t mind having odd or novel social theories taught to their children. When they objected, they were denounced. Sometimes they stopped arguing publicly (this is why the polls are so often off), but never changed their minds, they just changed their votes.
If the trends persist as the final votes are counted, Trump-the-misogynist won married women. Trump-the-bigot won Hispanic men. Trump-the-billionaire won the paycheck-to-paycheck vote. And of course he won men, white men, and increasing shares of blacks, Asians, and Jews. He won heavily Puerto Rican districts despite his comedian’s attempt to label the island “garbage,” and nearly swept the totally Hispanic, formerly Democratic Texas border communities, who know something about immigration (legal and illegal).
One question before election night was “will this be a re-form or realignment election?” The former would be Harris rallying the Obama coalition to victory; the latter Trump taking the working class (all races) away from the Democrats. It’s clear now it was the latter. Whether that is temporary or not is still in question. If Trump can’t make life better for the voters as he promised, they’ll look elsewhere in 2028. That is mostly JD Vance’s challenge, as Trump will be an eminence grise in the next presidential election.
The winner was simply Trump. Who were the losers? Not Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. While he deserves blame for a lack of humility in running again, and she proved ineffective in a national campaign, Biden’s pride and Harris’ competence were well-understood long ago. The Democratic party worked long and hard to get the results it received on November 4th, and they are the biggest losers. The soul-searching has begun, and maybe they’ll recover. Here are some thoughts :
trading non-college educated working class voters for college-educated women is a losing proposition.
thinking women have only one view about abortion is a mistake.
defending every progressive cultural movement dissipates your energies.
telling voters how they should feel is disastrous.
calling voters names feels good until you lose.
The other great losers are the legacy media. I know the history of media in America: I don’t expect unbiased coverage. Major newspapers began as political party sheets, publishing whatever their preferred party wanted. Even the concept of “professional journalism” was mostly a patina of non-partisanship, as the professional journalists were almost uniformly liberal/progressive types. But in the Trump era the media went all in.
Smaller, more partisan types (New Republic, Daily Beast, MSNBC) were rabid in their coverage, and the larger media (ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times and the Washington Post) felt they had to compete. Things got so out of hand that journalists regularly “rioted” over anything that wasn’t critical of Trump, and the Post lost two-hundred thousand subscribers for not endorsing Harris/Walz (While the decision was handled terribly, Post readers/writers should remember that but for Jeff Bezos’ millions, the Post would be have been a $1 sale item on eBay). Fox News was about as bad, and there are even more right-wing crazy small web pubs than left-wing ones, but all of these are nakedly partisan, not pretending to be the neutral arbiters that the networks and newspapers claim.
Don’t believe me, believe the voters. With all these media types relentlessly covering Trump’s every off-color comment, highlighting Democratic talking points about fascism and misogyny, critiquing every Trump comment as a lie (Glenn Kessler, Post fact-checker, characterized Trump’s pre-election comment that “we’re leading in the polls” as his 20, 218 lie. That’s real quality work, there), it had little to no effect on voters, other than to drive regard for the media into the toilet.
What should we take from all this? The economy, immigration, and abortion were the top three issues.
The country must address the economic needs of the working class, pronto. That may mean higher prices as we protect (or recreate) domestic industry. That may mean loosening restrictions on housing starts to create greater supply where it’s wanted, in the cities. That may mean shifting the tax burden to higher income types while exempting tips and social security. That will mean reducing regulation, which was probably the most successful part of Trump’s first term.
Immigration must be normalized, legalized, and controlled, which will be painful and ugly at first. We can’t just build a wall, we have to change people’s minds about why they try to come. That means deporting those who have gone through the whole immigration process, been denied, but stayed. That will make for tragic stories, and that’s the cost of decades of neglect. Of course we’ll need legislative reform to create a system that encourages the immigrants we want, and discourages those we don’t. And foreign relations which force countries to assist us in this endeavor, or face serious political and economic consequences if they don’t.
We’ll need a truce in the federal abortion wars. The voters clearly want one. They are willing to decide the issue at the state level, and Trump apparently is too. Pro-lifers must switch from legislating a ban to changing the culture back to where it was for millennia: abortion is something heinous that must be avoided but will never go completely away. Pro-choicers must accept that abortion wasn’t even the most important issue for all women, and will never again be a “fundamental” national right.
Many other serious issues face America. Trump is now the greatest second act in American history, easily eclipsing Richard Nixon (oldies will remember his “you won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around any more!” speech). Whether you wear a red hat or not, we’re all living in the Trump era, as history will now note. There will be no brown shirts goose-stepping past the White House at the Inaugural parade. Trump will be Trump on X and in the news: astonishing some, appalling others, but unchanged.
As Trump gets his second chance, so do those who so opposed him. As I wrote on social media recently (and I’ll write again in a future blog post), Trump is ultimately about Trump and making deals. If his political opponents stop and think, they can cut deals with him that would have been impossible with the former Republican party. Or they can march in pink hats and scream and cry.
When I was a new Second Lieutenant in West Germany (1983), manning the NATO frontier during the Cold War, a very self-important TV movie appeared:
Seizing on the angst produced by the media in the wake of Ronald Reagan’s (Ronald Ray-guns, get it?) election, the movie sought to bring home the horrors of nuclear war to the general public, less the new President be inclined to start one (didn’t I say self-important?). It was interesting as a movie, with good special effects for its pre-digital age, but terribly preachy.
The opening scenes were unusual: people in small-town America going about their business, all the while news reports on radios or televisions playing in the background clearly reported on a gathering international storm. Folks remained oblivious, so much so that as the missiles launch from the corn fields, people are still wondering whether it’s just an exercise!
Twenty years later, climate activists cheered on a second disaster flick with much the same title and message, much better special effects, much worse plot, even more preachiness. This one took a few liberties with climate science, but did so in service of a greater good (always the case, no?). A sudden collapse of the Gulf Stream (actually the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC) leads to Arctic hurricanes and an overnight ice age for most of the northern hemisphere. Again, people are going about their business and unaware until the ocean over-spills Manhattan.
These are not those times.
In a few days, we’ll have an election in the United States, and a new (or renewed) President. Both sides have assured us that if their opponents win there will be a fascist dictatorship or total criminal anarchy, runaway inflation or a ruined dollar, the real handmaid’s tale or abortion vans patrolling our streets (at least at the Democratic National Convention, that last one was true). While all things are possible, none of these are likely.
First off, while both sides claim that “the people” are unaware of how truly awful the other side is, they are wrong. Nobody is unaware of the candidates, the parties, or the policies (to the extent they are stated). Both sides are keenly aware and on the watch for the worst, which is in itself a check on the system.
Second, the US governmental system is designed specifically for such circumstances. Power is diffused, shared, with checks and balances. While a single party may control both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, there are still the courts (ask President Trump how his control of the Supreme Court has been working!). There is the filibuster in the Senate, unless of course the party worried most about democracy decides it is inconvenient. The margins are so close that either party’s majority in the Houses is likely to be single-digit, thus empowering even the smallest factions within the party to grind things to a halt.
Third, there is the simple fact of culture and its momentum. It’s easy to wave your hand and say “let it be so,” but that doesn’t change anything in the end. Border walls proved to be very hard for President Trump to build; likewise it was easy for President Biden to overturn Trump’s executive orders on the border, but not to deal with the consequences. Pro-lifers learned that overturning Roe v. Wade simply made the nation open for a conversation about abortion (you can’t argue much about fundamental rights), but that didn’t mean most people now wanted a nation-wide abortion ban. Culture changes slowly, despite the wishes of activists. Just ask all those electric car proponents.
Finally, despite all the doom-n-gloom talk, things are looking up (more detailed blog posts coming on the reasons why). Believe it or not, inflation has been largely tamed. Yes, there’s still a significant affordability problem (housing, rent, groceries) but that’s a different problem requiring different solutions. Inflation is insidious and more threatening, and we should all be happy it is under control. The US economy is out-performing every other national economy on almost every measure, and all the trend lines are for more of the same. Violent crime is down, even if other crimes of disorder are up and the data are very general. It will take real effort to screw things up, although perhaps the next administration will be up to the task (there’s my pessimistic side butting in).
Other reasons I’m optimistic? Social media is all talk. People tend to forget that. “I’m moving from the US if X is elected” is nonsense, as are most other social media claims. There will be claims and counter claims about the election, regardless of outcome. I expect if former President Trump wins, some progressive somewhere will literally self-immolate. If Vice President Harris wins, some group will threaten to march on the Capitol. Good luck with that. As the January 6th rioters (and plotters) learned, you can’t stop the process. You can get shot in the face.
President Trump is not a fascist; I doubt he could spell it if you spotted him an “f” and an “a.” He is rude, crass, and lacking in normal inhibitions. And he talks too much, exaggerates too much, promises too much. Vice President Harris was born in Oakland, and after much thought, I have decided she is the living embodiment of Gertrude Stein’s immortal put-down of that city (Oakland): “there is no there, there.” She is a vacant vessel, an empty pants suit as it were. She is not a Communist, nor a Socialist, not even a Democratic Socialist (wherever that is). She is probably not even a Progressive, but she could play one on TV, if it suited the election vibes (see her brief 2020 campaign). Like her opponent, she cannot summon the support to fundamentally alter the system, nor does she have the conviction to do so.
Americans all want the same thing: to get on with life. We’re too busy living to be holding a grudge, regardless of what we post. It’s part of our genius. We fought the British a couple of times, but ended up loving their royalty, their accents, and Downton Abbey. We regularly invoked the French as haughty and evil, and fought world wars to save them. We depicted the Germans and the Japanese as inhuman savages, burnt their countries to the ground, rebuilt them, and now we love driving Mercedes and Lexus. We fought a bloody civil war and almost immediately said “let bygones be bygones” (too soon for the slaves we emancipated). It’s our way.
I’m not saying things won’t get rough. You can’t go this far down the road of divisive rhetoric and simply do an about-face and double back to civility. There will be protests, lawsuits, recriminations, probably even some violence. But it will only go further if both sides insist that it does. And while social media (and some mainstream outlets) will convince you you’re part of a vast army ready to respond, you’re not. You don’t agree with everything the parties and candidates say, you don’t want to fight it out in the streets.
Yes, right now we’re deeply divided. And we have deep problems (immigration, affordability, national debt, education, population decline) to confront. But ask any economist, any politician, any citizen anywhere if they would trade places with America, and they would.
So take a deep breath. Be concerned if your side lost, and watch what the other side does “like a hawk.” Don’t contribute to the noise by trying to “pwn” the other side with memes on social media. If you do, don’t complain when they do the same; you’re both equally contributing to divisiveness. You can’t ask someone to listen to the better angels of their nature while telling them they’re a Nazi (or a Communist, or . . . )
And look at the bright side: the post-Trump era will start soon, either in two months, or in four years!
