The last time America saw a paleo-conservative leaning candidate was
Pat Buchanan in 1996. An early win in Louisiana caused Buchanan to place second in Iowa and first
in New Hampshire. Lacking money, Buchanan was steamrolled by the establishment in Arizona and, in terms
of paleo-conservatism, many thought he was the Last of the Mohicans. Trump's campaign is Buchananesque
with one difference: Trump has money, and loads of it. He can fend off any attack and self-finance his
campaign. He is establishment kryptonite. -- by Joseph R. Murray II
(Orlando Sentinel, Aug 12, 2015)
"There is one political party in this country, and that is the party of money.
It has two branches, the Republicans and the Democrats, the chief difference between which is
that the Democrats are better at concealing their scorn for the average man."
-- Gore Vidal
“The Democrats are the foxes, and the Republicans are the wolves – and they both want to
devour you.” So what does that make Libertarians? Avian flu viruses?”
-- Leonard Pinkney
The race is no contest when you own both horses. That is why no matter which political party
is in power nothing really changes other than the packaging. The puppets who drink at the champagne
fountains of the powerful do the bidding of their masters. The people are superfluous to the process.
In the “democracy” that America has evolved to, money counts more than people.
In past elections, the votes were counted, now they are going to start weighing them.
“(T)he rich elites of (the USA) have far more in common with their counterparts in London,
Paris, and Tokyo than with their fellow American citizens … the rich disconnect themselves
from the civic life of the nation and from any concern about its well being except as a place
to extract loot. Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and
ruling it, but not of it.”
As comment in
Economist's View stated "Trump has a four point platform that was anti-neoliberal in its essence":
Non-interventionism. End the wars for the expansion of American neoliberal empire.
Détente was Russia. Abolishing NATO and saving money on this. Let European defend themselves.
No to neoliberal globalization. Abolishing of transnational treaties that favor
large multinationals such as TPP, NAFTA, etc. Tariffs and other means of punishing
corporations who move production overseas. Repatriation of foreign profits to the USA and
closing of tax holes which allow to keep profits in tax heavens without paying a dime to the
US government.
No to neoliberal "transnational job market" -- free movement of labor. Criminal
prosecution and deportation of illegal immigrants. Cutting intake of refugees. Curtailing
legal immigration, especially fake and abused programs like H1B. Making it more difficult for
people from countries with substantial terrorist risk to enter the USA including temporary
prohibition of issuing visas from certain (pretty populous) Muslim countries.
No to the multiculturalism. Stress on "Christian past" and "white heritage" of
American society and the role of whites in building the country. Rejection of advertising
"special rights" of minorities such as black population, LGBT, woman, etc. Promotion them as
"identity wedges" in elections was the trick so dear to DemoRats and, especially Hillary
(gender) and
Obama (race card).
That means that Trump election platform on an intuitive level has caught several important
problem that were created in the US society by dismantling of the "New Deal" and rampant
neoliberalism practiced since Reagan ("Greed is good" mantra).
Of cause, after election he decided to practice the same "bait and switch" maneuver as Obama.
Generally he folded in less then 100 days. Not without help from DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats)
which created a witch hunt over "Russian ties" with their dreams of the second Watergate.
But in any case, this platform still provides a path to election victory in any forthcoming
election, as problems listed are real , are not solved, and are extremely important for lower 90%
of Americans. Tulsi Gabbard so far is that only democratic politician that IMHO qualifies.
Sanders is way too old and somewhat inconsistent on No.1.
Before you read, though, take a moment to watch less than two minutes of
Donald Trump above, from his victory speech after winning in Michigan and Mississippi. I’ve cued
it up to start at the remarks I want to highlight, Trump discussing our trade deficit.
Now Thomas
Frank, writing in
The Guardian. He starts by noting the utter invisibility of real working Americans to
our elite class, including our media elites, and especially our liberal media elites (my emphasis
throughout):
Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here’s why
When he isn’t spewing insults, the Republican frontrunner is hammering home a powerful message
about free trade and its victims
Let us now address the greatest American mystery at the moment: what motivates the supporters
of Republican presidential candidate
Donald Trump?
I call it a “mystery” because the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump’s
fan base show up in amazing numbers for the candidate, filling stadiums and airport hangars, but
their views, by and large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages, these
publications take care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but “blue-collar”
is one they persistently overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that
universe that when New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wanted to “engage” a Trump supporter
last week, he
made one up, along with this imaginary person’s responses to his questions.
When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally
consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement,
they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable
of powering a movement like Trump’s, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican
party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.
The conclusion of these writers is this:
The Trump movement is a one-note phenomenon, a vast surge of race-hate. Its partisans are not
only incomprehensible, they are not really worth comprehending.
And yet…
A lot of people are racists, including those not supporting Trump. But people have other
concerns as well, especially working people. They are dying faster than they used to,
from drugs and despair, and they fear for their jobs and their families, for very good reasons.
This economy is failing them.
They also hate — and understand — “free trade.”
Trump Also Talks Trade
Donald Trump talks about more than just race and immigration. He talks about trade and the trade
deficit, an issue that powered Bernie Sanders to his Michigan victory as well. From the New York
Times:
Trade and Jobs Key to Victory for Bernie Sanders
Democratic presidential candidate had campaigned in Traverse City, Mich., in decades until
Senator Bernie Sanders pulled up to the concert hall near the Sears store on Friday. Some 2,000
people mobbed him when he arrived, roaring in approval as he called the country’s trade policies,
and Hillary Clinton’s support for them, “disastrous.”
“If the people of Michigan want to make a decision about which candidate stood with workers
against corporate America and against these disastrous trade agreements, that candidate is Bernie
Sanders,” Mr. Sanders said in Traverse City, about 250 miles north of Detroit.
Mr. Sanders pulled off a
startling upset in Michigan on Tuesday by traveling to communities far from Detroit and by
hammering Mrs. Clinton on an issue that resonated in this still-struggling state: her past support
for trade deals that workers here believe robbed them of manufacturing jobs. Almost three-fifths
of voters said that trade with other countries was more likely to take away jobs, according
to exit polls by Edison Research, and those voters favored Mr. Sanders by a margin of more
than 10 points.
There is no question — America’s billionaire-friendly, job-destroying trade policy is toxic —
again,
literally. That’s why Obama and his bipartisan “free trade” enablers in Congress have to pass
TPP, if they can, in post-election lame duck session. TPP is also toxic to political careers, and
only lame ducks and the recently-elected can vote for it.
Frank again on Trump:
Last week, I decided to watch several hours of Trump speeches for myself. I saw the man ramble
and boast and threaten and even seem to gloat when protesters were ejected from the arenas in
which he spoke. I was disgusted by these things, as I have been disgusted by Trump for 20 years.
But I also noticed something surprising. In
each of the
speeches I watched, Trump spent a good part of his time talking about an entirely legitimate
issue, one that could even be called left-wing.
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking
about it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan
to build a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame. He did
it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his
political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about … trade.
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the
many companies that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he
will make to those companies’ CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move
back to the US.
On the subject more generally, Frank adds:
Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional
class, which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials
and Democratic power brokers, what they call “free trade” is something so obviously good and noble
it doesn’t require explanation or inquiry or
even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and no amount of facts
can move them from their Econ 101 dream.
To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There’s
a
video going around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier
air conditioning plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is
being moved to Monterrey, Mexico and that they’re all going to lose their jobs.
As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we’ve had in this country since
the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence
of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the
North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.
Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what
it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language
about the need to “stay competitive” and “the extremely price-sensitive marketplace.” A worker
shouts “Fuck you!” at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can “share”
his “information”. His information about all of them losing their jobs.
Frank goes to greater length, and again, please
click through. But you get the idea. This is what Trump is speaking to, whether he means what
he says or not, and this is what his voters are responding to, whether they like his racism or not.
After all, haven’t you, at least once, voted for someone with qualities you dislike because of policies
you do like?
Whose Fault Is This? Both Parties, But Especially the Democratic Elites
One final point. Frank takes on the issue of responsibility:
Trump’s words articulate the populist backlash against liberalism that has been building slowly
for decades … Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit
that we liberals bear some [or most] of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the
working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much
easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality
of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly
failed.
I am certain, if this comes up in a general election debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald
Trump, she could very likely get her clock cleaned; not certainly, but certainly very likely. First,
she can only equivocate, and Trump will have none of it. (Trump: “Let me understand. You were for
this before you were against it? So … will you be for it again next year? I’m just trying to understand.”)
Second, this is a change election, Trump is one of only two change candidates in the race, and
Clinton is not the other one.
Here’s that Carrier Air Conditioning
“we’re moving to Mexico” video that Frank mentioned above. Take a look, but prepare to feel some
pain as you watch:
"... "Employment in the United States has increased steadily over the last seven years, one of the longest periods of economic growth in American history. There are about 10 million more working Americans today than when President Obama took office. ..."
"... "David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., estimated in a famous paper that increased trade with China did eliminate roughly one million factory jobs in the United States between 2000 and 2007. However, an important implication of his findings is that such job losses largely ended almost a decade ago. ..."
"... It is also worth noting that even though our trade deficit has declined from its 2006 peak (the non-oil deficit has recently been rising again), workers are constantly being displaced by imports. The Bureau of Labor Statistic reports there have been an average of 110,000 layoffs or discharges a month in manufacturing thus far this year. If just a quarter of these are trade-related, it would imply that more than 300,000 workers a year are losing their jobs due to trade. ..."
"... The second point is the wage effect, which can go beyond the direct impact of job loss. The oil market can give us a useful way of thinking about this issue. Suppose that Saudi Arabia or some other major producer ramps up its oil production by 1 million barrels of oil a day. This will put downward pressure on world prices, which will have the effect of lowering prices in the United States as well. This could mean, for example, that instead of getting $50 for a barrel of oil, producers in North Dakota will only get $40 a barrel. This will mean less money for workers and companies in the oil industry. In the case of workers, it will mean fewer jobs and lower pay. ..."
"... This can happen even if there is very little direct impact of trade. The increased supply of Saudi oil may result in some modest reduction in U.S. exports of oil, but the impact on price will be much larger. The analogous story with trade in manufactured goods is that the potential to import low cost goods from Mexico, China, or other countries can have the effect of lowering wages in the United States, even if the goods are not actually imported. ..."
"... Finally, the balance of trade will have an impact on the overall level of employment in the economy when the economy is below its full employment level of output. Until the Great Recession, most economists did not think that trade could affect the overall level of employment, but only the composition. This meant that trade could cause us to lose manufacturing jobs in the Midwest, but these job losses would be offset by gains in Silicon Valley and other tech centers. This could still mean bad news for the manufacturing workers who lost their jobs, but the net effect for the country as a whole would still be positive. ..."
"... The Great Recession changed this view, as many economists came to believe that the United States is facing a period of secular stagnation: a sustained period in which lack of demand in the economy constrains growth and employment. In this context, the trade deficit is a major cause of the lack of demand since it is spending that is creating demand in other countries rather than the United States. If we could reduce the annual trade deficit by $100 billion then as a first approximation it will have the same impact on the economy as a stimulus of $100 billion. ..."
"... There is no generally accepted explanation as to why so many prime age workers would suddenly decide they didn't feel like working, but one often invoked candidate is the loss of manufacturing jobs. The argument in this story is that the manufacturing sector provided relatively good paying jobs for people without college degrees. With so many of these jobs now gone, these workers can't find jobs. If this argument is true, then it means that trade has cost the country a large number of jobs even if the economy is back at full employment. ..."
Given his history of promoting racism, xenophobia, sexism and his recently exposed boasts about sexual assaults, not many people
want to be associated with Donald Trump. However that doesn't mean everything that comes out of his mouth is wrong.
In the debate on Sunday Donald Trump made a comment to the effect that because of the North American Free Trade Agreement and
other trade deals, "we lost our jobs." The New York Times was quick to say * this was wrong.
"We didn't.
"Employment in the United States has increased steadily over the last seven years, one of the longest periods of economic
growth in American history. There are about 10 million more working Americans today than when President Obama took office.
"David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., estimated in a famous paper that increased trade with China did eliminate roughly
one million factory jobs in the United States between 2000 and 2007. However, an important implication of his findings is that
such job losses largely ended almost a decade ago.
"And there's no evidence the North American Free Trade Agreement caused similar job losses.
"The Congressional Research Service concluded in 2015 that the 'net overall effect of Nafta on the U.S. economy appears to
have been relatively modest.' "
There are a few things to sort out here. First, the basic point in the first paragraph is absolutely true, although it's not
clear that it's relevant to the trade debate. The United States economy typically grows and adds jobs, around 1.6 million a year
for the last quarter century. So any claim that trade has kept the U.S. from creating jobs is absurd on its face. The actual issue
is the rate of job creation and the quality of the jobs.
Here there are three issues to consider.
1) The direct job loss – the jobs that were displaced due to imports substituting for domestically produced goods and services;
2) The wage effects – the downward pressure on the wages of workers that retain their jobs that can result from job loss and
also the threat of job loss;
3) The impact of a trade deficit on the level of demand in the economy.
Taking these in turn we now have some pretty solid evidence on some of the job loss attributable to trade. David Autor's work
** found that imports from China cost the economy more than 2 million jobs in the years from 2000-2007.
"Estimates of the net impact of aggregate demand and reallocation effects imply that import growth from China between 1999
and 2011 led to an employment reduction of 2.4 million workers" (page 29).
These are workers who are directly displaced by import competition. In addition, as the article goes on to note, there were
more workers who likely lost their jobs to the multiplier effect in the local economies most directly affected by imports.
The impact of trade with China was more dramatic than trade with Mexico and other countries because of the huge growth in imports
over a short period of time. However, even if the impact from trade with other countries was smaller, it still would have a substantial
effect on the communities affected.
It is also worth noting that even though our trade deficit has declined from its 2006 peak (the non-oil deficit has recently
been rising again), workers are constantly being displaced by imports. The Bureau of Labor Statistic reports there have been an
average of 110,000 layoffs or discharges a month in manufacturing thus far this year. If just a quarter of these are trade-related,
it would imply that more than 300,000 workers a year are losing their jobs due to trade.
Of course people lose jobs for other reasons also, like increased productivity. So the fact there is job loss associated with
trade doesn't make it bad, but it is not wrong to see this as a serious problem.
The second point is the wage effect, which can go beyond the direct impact of job loss. The oil market can give us a useful
way of thinking about this issue. Suppose that Saudi Arabia or some other major producer ramps up its oil production by 1 million
barrels of oil a day. This will put downward pressure on world prices, which will have the effect of lowering prices in the United
States as well. This could mean, for example, that instead of getting $50 for a barrel of oil, producers in North Dakota will
only get $40 a barrel. This will mean less money for workers and companies in the oil industry. In the case of workers, it will
mean fewer jobs and lower pay.
This can happen even if there is very little direct impact of trade. The increased supply of Saudi oil may result in some modest
reduction in U.S. exports of oil, but the impact on price will be much larger. The analogous story with trade in manufactured
goods is that the potential to import low cost goods from Mexico, China, or other countries can have the effect of lowering wages
in the United States, even if the goods are not actually imported.
Kate Bronfenbrenner, a professor of industrial relations at Cornell, documented one way in which the potential to import can
have the effect of lowering wages. She found *** that employers regularly used the threat of moving operations to Mexico as a
way to thwart unionization drives. While most workers are not typically involved in unionization drives, it is easy to imagine
this dynamic playing out in other contexts where employers use the real or imagined threat from import competition as a reason
for holding down wages. The implication is the impact of trade on wages is likely to be even larger than the direct effect of
the goods actually brought into the country.
Finally, the balance of trade will have an impact on the overall level of employment in the economy when the economy is below
its full employment level of output. Until the Great Recession, most economists did not think that trade could affect the overall
level of employment, but only the composition. This meant that trade could cause us to lose manufacturing jobs in the Midwest,
but these job losses would be offset by gains in Silicon Valley and other tech centers. This could still mean bad news for the
manufacturing workers who lost their jobs, but the net effect for the country as a whole would still be positive.
The Great Recession changed this view, as many economists came to believe that the United States is facing a period of secular
stagnation: a sustained period in which lack of demand in the economy constrains growth and employment. In this context, the trade
deficit is a major cause of the lack of demand since it is spending that is creating demand in other countries rather than the
United States. If we could reduce the annual trade deficit by $100 billion then as a first approximation it will have the same
impact on the economy as a stimulus of $100 billion.
From this perspective, the trade deficit is a major source of job loss. Our current trade deficit of $500 billion a year (@2.8
percent of GDP) is a major drag on demand and employment. For this reason, a politician would be absolutely right to cite trade
as a big factor in the weakness of the labor market.
It is worth noting that many economists (including many at the Federal Reserve Board) now believe that the economy is close
to its full employment level of output, in which case trade is not now a net cause of job loss even if it had been earlier in
the recovery. There are two points to be made on this view.
First, there are many prominent economists, such as Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, who argue that the economy is still well
below its full employment level of output. So this is at least a debatable position.
Second, if we accept that the economy is near full employment it implies that close to 2 million prime age workers (ages 25-54)
have permanently left the labor market compared to 2007 levels of labor force participation. (The gap is close to 4 million if
we use 2000 as our comparison year.)
There is no generally accepted explanation as to why so many prime age workers would suddenly decide they didn't feel like
working, but one often invoked candidate is the loss of manufacturing jobs. The argument in this story is that the manufacturing
sector provided relatively good paying jobs for people without college degrees. With so many of these jobs now gone, these workers
can't find jobs. If this argument is true, then it means that trade has cost the country a large number of jobs even if the economy
is back at full employment.
In short, there are good reasons for a politician to complain about trade as a major source of our economic problems. There
is much research and economic theory that supports this position.
Lesson for 2020 -- Trump is a shape and color shifting chameleon. His statement that he "escaped GOP "mainstream republicans"
(read hard core neoliberals) shackles" was a blatant lie. He never escaped and did not even have intent to escape... He did
their bidding, which was most clearly demonstrated in Trump tax cut
Notable quotes:
"... Trump later tweeted "the shackles have been taken off me". ..."
"... It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to. ..."
"... With the exception of cheating Bernie out of the nom the Dems have always proven to be far more loyal to each other than the Republicans! ..."
"... Disloyal R's are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary. They come at you from all sides. They don't know how to win - I will teach them! ..."
Donald Trump is attacking House Speaker Paul Ryan. He's calling him ''very weak and ineffective''
a day after the House speaker said he would not campaign for the Republican nominee.
Ryan told Republican lawmakers on a conference call Monday that he would focus instead on helping
the party keep control of the House.
Trump referred to that call in his tweet Tuesday morning. He said Ryan ''had a bad conference
call where his members went wild at his disloyalty.''
Trump later tweeted "the shackles have been taken off me".
The real estate mogul also claimed Democrats were more loyal to their party than Republicans.
House Speaker Paul Ryan all but abandoned Donald Trump, obliterating whatever bounce he may
have received from Sunday's debate.
It was his second tweet of the morning targeting Ryan. The other said Ryan's ''zero support''
was making it hard for Trump to do well.
Ryan did face some pushback from members upset he was abandoning Trump. The House Speaker continues
to endorse the nominee.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Despite winning the second debate in a landslide (every poll), it is hard to do well when
Paul Ryan and others give zero support!
8:16 AM - 11 Oct 2016
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Our very weak and ineffective leader, Paul Ryan, had a bad conference call where his members
went wild at his disloyalty.
9:05 AM - 11 Oct 2016
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America
the way I want to.
10:00 AM - 11 Oct 2016
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
With the exception of cheating Bernie out of the nom the Dems have always proven to
be far more loyal to each other than the Republicans!
10:15 AM - 11 Oct 2016 · Queens, NY, United States
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Disloyal R's are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary. They come at you from all
sides. They don't know how to win - I will teach them!
This is from 2016 election cycle but still relevant. Money quote: "Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's
faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all
the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse. "
Despicable neoliberal MSM do not like to discuss real issue that facing people in 220 elections. They like to discuss personalities.
Propagandists of Vichy left like Madcow spend hours discussing Ukrainegate instead of real issues facing the nation.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump has promised to make deregulation one of the focal points of his presidency. If Trump is elected, the trend toward rising market concentration and all of the problems that come with it are likely to continue. ..."
"... If Clinton is elected, it's unlikely that her administration would be active enough in antitrust enforcement for my taste. But at least she acknowledges that something needs to be done about this growing problem, and any movement toward more aggressive enforcement of antitrust regulation would be more than welcome. ..."
"... Once again we have a stark 'choice' in this election...one party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them. Like flipping a coin: heads, the predator class wins; tails, we lose. ..."
"... "Vote third party to register your disgust..." and waste the opportunity, at least in a few states, to affect the national outcome (in many states the outcome is not in doubt, so, thanks to our stupid electoral college system, millions of voters could equally well stay home, vote third party, or write in their dog). ..."
"... But then it dawned on me: antitrust enforcement is largely up to the president and his picked advisers. If Democrats really think it is so damned important, why has Clinton's old boss Barack Obama done so very, very little with it? ..."
"... Josh Mason thinks a Clinton administration may push on corporate short-termism if not on anti-trust. We'll see, but seeing as the Obama administration didn't do much I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary doesn't either. ..."
"... They ignored the housing bubble, don't seem to understand the connection between manufacturing and wealth (close your eyes and imagine your life with no manufactured goods, because they are all imported and your economy only produces a few low value-added raw materials such as timber or exotic animals) then you will see that allowing the US to deindustrialize was a really, world-historic mistake. ..."
"... Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse. ..."
Donald Trump has promised to make deregulation one of the focal points of his presidency. If Trump is elected, the trend
toward rising market concentration and all of the problems that come with it are likely to continue.
We'll hear the usual arguments about ineffective government and the magic of markets to justify ignoring the problem.
If Clinton is elected, it's unlikely that her administration would be active enough in antitrust enforcement for my taste.
But at least she acknowledges that something needs to be done about this growing problem, and any movement toward more aggressive
enforcement of antitrust regulation would be more than welcome.
"We'll hear the usual arguments about ineffective government" which has been amply demonstrated during the last 7 years by negligible
enforcement of anti-trust laws.
Once again we have a stark 'choice' in this election...one party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just
get rid of them. Like flipping a coin: heads, the predator class wins; tails, we lose.
Vote third party to register your disgust and to open the process to people who don't just represent the predator class.
"Vote third party to register your disgust..." and waste the opportunity, at least in a few states, to affect the national
outcome (in many states the outcome is not in doubt, so, thanks to our stupid electoral college system, millions of voters could
equally well stay home, vote third party, or write in their dog).
Thomas Frank: "I was pleased to learn, for example, that this year's Democratic platform includes strong language on antitrust
enforcement, and that Hillary Clinton has hinted she intends to take the matter up as president. Hooray! Taking on too-powerful
corporations would be healthy, I thought when I first learned that, and also enormously popular. But then it dawned on me:
antitrust enforcement is largely up to the president and his picked advisers. If Democrats really think it is so damned important,
why has Clinton's old boss Barack Obama done so very, very little with it?"
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/07/some-clintons-pledges-sound-great-until-you-remember-whos-president
One party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them...a distinction without a difference.
Who do you prefer to have guarding the chicken house...a fox or a coyote? Sane people would say, 'neither.'
Yes and Clinton supporters attacked Sanders over this during the primaries.
Josh Mason thinks a Clinton administration may push on corporate short-termism if not on anti-trust. We'll see, but seeing
as the Obama administration didn't do much I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary doesn't either.
"At Vox,* Rachelle Sampson has a piece on corporate short-termism. Supports my sense that this is an area where there may be
space to move left in a Clinton administration."
Economists have said for thirty years that free trade will benefit the US. Increasingly the country looks like a poor non-industrialized
third world country. Why should anyone trust US economists?
They ignored the housing bubble, don't seem to understand the connection between manufacturing and wealth (close your eyes
and imagine your life with no manufactured goods, because they are all imported and your economy only produces a few low value-added
raw materials such as timber or exotic animals) then you will see that allowing the US to deindustrialize was a really, world-historic
mistake.
Trust in experts is what has transformed the US from a world leader in 1969 with the moon landing to a country with no high
speed rail, no modern infrastructure, incapable of producing a computer or ipad or ship.
Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial
collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free
traders disappear from our public discourse.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com
.
Leaders are routinely confronted with philosophical dilemmas. Here's a classic one for our Trumptopian times: If you make enemies
out of your friends and friends out of your enemies, where does that leave you? What does winning (or losing) really look like? Is
a world in which walls of every sort encircle America's borders a goal worth seeking? And what would be left in a future fragmented
international economic system marked by tit-for-tat tariffs, travel restrictions, and hyper-nationalism? Ultimately, how will such
a world affect regular people? Let's cut through all of this for the moment and ask one crucial question about our present cult-of-personality
era in American politics: Other than accumulating more wealth and influence for himself,
his children
, and the
Trump family empire , what's Donald J. Trump's end game as president? If his goal is to keep this country from being, as he likes
to complain, " the world's
piggy bank ," then his words, threats, and actions are concerning. However bombastic and disdainful of a history he appears to
know little about, he is already making the world a less stable, less affordable, and more fear-driven place. In the end, it's even
possible that, despite the upbeat economic news of the moment, he could almost single-handedly smash that piggy bank himself, as
he has many of his own
business
ventures . Still, give him credit for one thing: Donald Trump has lent remarkable new meaning to the old phrase "the imperial
presidency." The members of his administration, largely a set of aging white men, either conform to his erratic wishes or get fired.
In other words, he's running domestic politics in much the same fashion as he oversaw the boardroom on his reality-TV show The
Apprentice . Now, he's begun running the country's foreign policy in the same personalized, take-no-prisoners, you're-fired
style. From the moment he hit the Oval Office, he's made it clear at home and abroad that it's his way or the highway. If only,
of course, it really was that simple. What he will learn, if "learning process" and "President Trump" can even occupy the same sentence,
is that "firing" Canada, the European Union (EU), or for that matter China has a cost. What the American working and the middle classes
will see (sooner than anyone imagines) is that actions of his sort have unexpected global consequences. They could cost the United
States and the rest of the world big-time. If he were indeed emperor and his subjects (that would be us) grasped where his policies
might be leading, they would be preparing a revolt. In the end, they -- again, that's us -- will be the ones paying the price in
this global chess match.
The Art of Trump's Deals
So far, President Trump has only taken America out of trade deals or threatened to do so if other countries don't behave
in a way that satisfies him. On his
third day in the White House, he honored his campaign promise to remove the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
a decision that opened space for our allies and competitors, China in particular, to negotiate deals without us. Since that grand
exit, there has, in fact, been a boom in side deals involving China and other Pacific Rim countries that has weakened, not strengthened,
Washington's global bargaining position. Meanwhile, closer to home, the Trump administration has engaged in a barrage of NAFTA-baiting
that is isolating us from our regional partners, Canada and Mexico.
Conversely, the art-of-the-deal aficionado has yet to sign a single new bilateral trade deal. Despite steadfast claims that he
would serve up the best deals ever, we have been left with little so far but various tariffs and an onslaught against American trading
partners. His one claim to bilateral-trade-deal fame was the
renegotiation of a six-year-old
deal with South Korea in March that doubled the number of cars each US manufacturer could export to South Korea (without having to
pass as many safety standards).
As White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders
put
it , when speaking of Kim Jong-un's North Korea, "The President is, I think, the ultimate negotiator and dealmaker when it comes
to any type of conversation." She left out the obvious footnote, however: any type that doesn't involve international trade.
In the past four months, Trump has imposed tariffs, exempting certain countries, only to reimpose them at his whim. If trust were
a coveted commodity, when it came to the present White House, it would now be trading at zero. His supporters undoubtedly see this
approach as the fulfillment of his many campaign promises and part of his
classic method of keeping both friends and enemies guessing until he's ready to go in for the kill. At the heart of this approach,
however, lies a certain global madness, for he now is sparking a set of trade wars that could, in the end,
cost millions of American jobs.
The Allies
On May 31st, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross
confirmed that Canada, Mexico, and the EU would all be hit with 10 percent aluminum and 25 percent steel tariffs that had first
made headlines in March. When it came to those two products, at least, the new tariffs bore no relation to the previous average 3
percent tariff on US-EU traded goods.
In that way, Trump's tariffs, initially supposed to be
aimed at
China (a country whose president he's praised to the skies and whose trade policies he's lashed out at endlessly), went global.
And not surprisingly, America's closest allies weren't taking his maneuver lightly. As the verbal-abuse level rose and what looked
like a possible race to the bottom of international etiquette intensified, they threatened to strike back.
In June, President Trump ordered
that a promised 25 percent tariff on
$50 billion worth of imported
goods from China also be imposed. In response, the Chinese, like the Europeans, the Canadians, and the Mexicans, immediately
promised a massive response in kind. Trump countered by threatening another
$200 billion in tariffs against China. In the meantime, the White House is targeting its initial moves largely against products
related to that country's "
Made in China 2025 " initiative, the Chinese government's strategic plan aimed at making the country a major competitor in advanced
industries and manufacturing.
Meanwhile, Mexico began adopting retaliatory tariffs on American imports. Although it has a far smaller economy than the United
States, it's still the second-largest importer of US products, buying a whopping
$277 billion of them last year. Only Canada buys
more. In a mood of defiance stoked by the president's
hostility to its people, Mexico
executed its own trade gambit, imposing
$3 billion in 15
percent–25 percent tariffs against US exports, including pork, apples, potatoes, bourbon, and cheese.
While those Mexican revenge tariffs still remain limited, covering
just 1 percent
of all exports from north of the border, they do target particular industries hard, especially ones that seem connected to President
Trump's voting "base." Mexico, for instance, is by far the largest buyer of US pork exports, 25 percent of which were sold there
last year. What its 20 percent tariff on pork means, then, is that many US producers will now find themselves unable to compete in
the Mexican market. Other countries may follow suit. The result: a possible loss of up to 110,000 jobs in the pork industry.
Our second North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partner (for whose prime minister, Justin Trudeau, there is "
a special place in hell ," according to a key Trumpian trade negotiator) plans to invoke tariffs of up to 25 percent on about
$13 billion in US products beginning on July 1st. Items impacted
range "from ballpoint
pens and dishwasher detergent to toilet paper and playing cards sailboats, washing machines, dish washers, and lawn mowers." Across
the Atlantic, the EU has similarly announced retaliatory tariffs of 25 percent on 200 US products, including such American-made classics
as Harley-Davidson motorcycles, blue jeans, and bourbon.
Trump Disses the Former G7
As the explosive Group of Seven, or G7, summit in Quebec showed, the Trump administration is increasingly isolating itself from
its allies in palpable ways and, in the process, significantly impairing the country's negotiating power. If you combine the economies
of what might now be thought of as the G6 and add in the rest of the EU, its economic power is collectively larger than that of the
United States. Under the circumstances, even a small diversion of trade thanks to Trump-induced tariff wars could have costly consequences.
President Trump did try one "all-in" poker move at that summit. With his game face on, he first suggested the possibility of wiping
out all tariffs and trade restrictions between the United States and the rest of the G7, a bluff met with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Before he left for his meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore, he even suggested that the G7 leaders "consider
removing every single tariff or trade barrier on American goods." In return, he claimed he would do the same "for products from their
countries." As it turned out, however, that wasn't actually a venture into economic diplomacy, just the carrot before the stick,
and even it was tied to lingering
threats of severe penalties.
The current incipient trade war was actually launched by the Trump administration in March in the name of American "
national security
." What should have been highlighted, however, was the possible "national insecurity" in which it placed the country's (and the
world's) future. After all, a similar isolationist stance in the 1920s and the subsequent market crash of 1929 sparked the global
Great Depression,
opening the way for the utter devastation of World War II.
European Union countries were
incredulous when Trump insisted, as he had many times before, that the "U.S. is a victim of unfair trade practices," citing the
country's trade deficits, especially with
Germany and China. At the G7 summit, European leaders did their best to explain to him that his country isn't actually being
treated unfairly. As French President Emmanuel Macron
explained , "France runs trade
deficits with Germany and the United Kingdom on manufactured goods, even though all three countries are part of the EU single market
and have zero tariffs between them."
Looks like Trump adopted Victoria Nuland "Fuck the EU" attitude ;-). There might be nasty
surprises down the road as this is uncharted territory: destruction of neoliberal
globalization.
Trump proved to be a really bad negotiator. he reduced the USA to a schoolyard bully who
beats up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big.
As the owner of world reserve currency the USA is able to tax US denominated transactions both via conversion fees and
inflation. As long as the USA has dollar as a reserve currency the USA has so called "exorbitant priviledge" : "In the
Bretton Woods system put in place in
1944, US dollars were convertible to gold. In France, it was called "America's
exorbitant privilege"[219]
as it resulted in an "asymmetric financial system" where foreigners "see themselves supporting American living standards and
subsidizing American multinationals"."... "De Gaulle openly criticised the
United States intervention in Vietnam and the "exorbitant
privilege" of the United States dollar. In his later years, his support for the slogan "Vive
le Québec libre" and his two vetoes of Britain's entry into the
European Economic
Community generated considerable controversy." Charles de Gaulle -
Wikipedia
Notable quotes:
"... Errrr, that so-called "piggy bank' just happens to; ..."
"... have the world's reserve currency ..."
"... dominates the entire planet militarily since the end of the Cold War ..."
"... dictates "regime change" around the world ..."
"... manipulates and controls the world's entire financial system, from the price of a barrel to every financial transaction in the SWIFT system. ..."
"... And Trump has the ignorance, the arrogance and the audacity to be pleading 'poverty?' ..."
"We had productive discussion on having fair and reciprocal" trade and market access.
"We're linked in the great effort to create a more just and prosperous world. And from the
standpoint of trade and creating more prosperous countries, I think they are starting to be
committed to more fair trade. We as a nation lost $870 billion on trade...I blame our leaders
and I congratulate leaders of other countries for taking advantage of our leaders."
"If they retaliate they're making a tremendous mistake because you see we have a
tremendous trade imbalance...the numbers are so much against them, we win that war 1000 times
out of a 1000."
"We're negotiating very hard, tariffs and barriers...the European Union is brutal to the
United States....the gig is up...there's nothing they can say."
"We're like the piggy bank that everybody's robbing."
"I would say the level of relationship is a ten - Angela, Emmanuel and Justin - we have a very good relationship. I won't
blame these people, unless they don't smarten up and make the trades fair."
Trump is now making the 20-hour flight to Singapore, where he will attend a historic summit with North Korea leader Kim Jong
Un. We'll now keep our eye out for the finalized communique from the group. The US is typically a leader in the crafting of the
statement. But this time, it's unclear if the US had any input at all into the statement, as only the leaders from Britain,
Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan as well as the presidents of the European Commission and European Council remain at the
meeting. But regardless of who writes it, the statement will probably be of little consequence, as UBS points out:
Several heads of state will be heading off on a taxpayer-financed "mini-break" in Canada today. In all of its incarnations
(over the past four years, we've gone from G-8 to G-6+1) the group hasn't really accomplished much since an initial burst of
enthusiasm with the Plaza Accords and Louvre Accords in the 1980s.
By the way, Trump is right on the tariffs in my view, Europeans should lower their tariffs
and not having the US raising it.
Trump: "We're The Piggy Bank That Everybody's Robbing"
Isn't Trump great in catch phrases? Trump's base will now regurgitate it to death.
Now reconcile Trump's remarks with reality:
Professor Werner: Germany is for instance not even allowed to receive delivery of US
Treasuries that it may have purchased as a result of the dollars earned through its current
account surplus: these Treasuries have to be held in custody by the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York, a privately owned bank: A promise on a promise. At the same time, German influence
over the pyramid structure of such promises has been declining rapidly since the abolition of
the German currency and introduction of the euro, controlled by an unaccountable
supranational international agency that cannot be influenced by any democratic assembly in
the eurozone. As a result, this structure of one-sided outflows of real goods and services
from Germany is likely to persist in the short and medium-term.
To add insult to injury:
Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs
The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist
organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the
movement's funds.
Okay, everyone set your "team" aside for a few minutes and let's look at the facts and
reality.
Do you really believe the rest of the world has trade advantages over the US? Well, let's
consider major industries.
Agriculture.....maybe, but only sightly. Our farmers are the richest in the workd....by
far.
Manufacturers.....probably so....because we gave it away to countries with slave labor.
Manufacturers jobs were jobs where people could earn a decent living...and that had to
go..can't be cutting into corporate profits with all that high cost labor.
Defense.....need I go here? We spend more than the next 11 countries combined! We sell
more as well.
Energy.....we rule thus space because we buy it with worthless printed fiat
debt...whenever we want to....and nd if you deny us, we will bomb the hell out of you and
take it.
Technology. ....Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Google, Amazon, Oracle, Dell, Cisco.....who can
touch that line up....not to mention all the on-line outfits like Facebook and Twitter.
Finance.....the best for last. We control the printing press that prints the dollar the
rest of the world needs. We control energy and foreign policy. Don't do what we like and we
will cut you off from SWIFT and devalue the hell out of your currency...and then move in for
the "regime" change to some one who plays ball the way we like it. 85% of all international
trade takes place in dollars everyday. We have the biggest banks, Wall Street, and infest the
world with our virus called the dollar so that we can Jeri their chain at will.
Now I ask you....just where the hell is the "trade imbalances"? Sure there are some
companies or job sectors that get a raw deal because our politicians give some foreigners
unfair trade advantages here and there, but as a whole, we dominate trade by far. The poor in
our country lives like kings compared to 5.5 billion of the world's population. Trump knows
this.....or he is stupid. He is pandering to his sheeple voting base that are easily duped
into believing someone is getting what is their's.
Hey, I am thankful to be an American and enjoy the advantages we have. But I am not going
to stick my head up Trump's ass and agree with this bullshit. It is misdirection (corporate
America and politicians are the problem here, not foreign countries) and a major distraction.
Because all the trade in the world isn't going to pull us out of this debt catastrophe that's
coming.
But, if we cut through all the verbiage, we will arrive at the elephant in the room.
American manufacturing jobs have been off-shored to low wage countries and the jobs which
have replaced them are, for the most part, minium wage service jobs. A man cannot buy a
house, marry and raise a family on a humburger-flippers wage. Even those minimum wage jobs
are often unavailable to Americans because millions of illegal aliens have been allowed into
the country and they are undercutting wages in the service sector. At the same time, the
better paid positions are being given to H-1B visa holders who undercut the American worker
(who is not infrequently forced to train his own replacement in order to access his
unemployment benefits.)
As the above paragraph demonstrates the oligarchs are being permitted to force down
American wages and the fact that we no longer make, but instead import, the things we need,
thus exporting our wealth and damaging our own workers is all the same to them. They grow
richer and they do not care about our country or our people. If they can make us all into
slaves it will suit them perfectly.
We need tariffs to enable our workers to compete against third world wages in countries
where the cost-of-living is less. (American wages may be stagnating or declining but our
cost-of-living is not declining.) We need to deport illegal aliens and to stop the flow of
them over our borders. (Build the wall.) We need to severely limit the H-1B visa programme
which is putting qualified Americans out of work. (When I came to the US in 1967 I was
permitted entry on the basis that I was coming to do a job for which there were not enough
American workers available. Why was that rule ever changed?)
You are making my point. China didn't "off shore" our jobs....our politicians and
corporations did. You can't fix that by going after other countries. You fix that by
penalizing companies for using slave labor workers from other countries. Tariffs are not
going to fix this. They will just raise prices on everyone.
I can't believe you Trumptards can't see this! Once again we will focus on a symptom and
ignore the real problem. Boy, Trump and his buddies from NYC and DC have really suffered
because of unfair trade practices, right? Why can't you people see that "government is the
problem" and misdirection your attention to China, Canada, Germany, Mexico, or whomever is
just that....misdirection.
I would tax the shit out of companies like Apple that make everything overseas with slave
labor and then ship it in here to sell to Americans at ridiculous prices.
Plenty of down votes but no one has proven that I am wrong on one point.
The EU countries have free college, health care, day care and just about everything else.
All paid for because they have no military spending.
It's all on the backs of the US tax payer. Or the fed, if you prefer.
Trump is working both angles. Forcing them to pay for their own defense. Forcing them to
allow US products with no trade disadvantages. Go MAGA and fuck the EU.
An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left
behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that
rang true:
Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders
in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and
so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national
figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that
may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed
the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total
impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin
soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky.
One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who
are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within
their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best
career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard
evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.
The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women).
Seems to be a series of pieces dealing with Vietnam POWs: the following linked item was interesting and provided a plausible explanation:
that the US failed to pay up agreed on reparations…
Remarkable and shocking. Wheels within wheels – this is the first time I have ever seen McCain's father connected with the infamous
Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic
audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. The conclusion regarding aspiring untenured historians is
quite downbeat:
Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this
must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed
and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the
Cover-Up.
International Trade Lessons for the New York Times
The New York Times told readers * that Mexico is preparing to "play the corn card" in its negotiations
with Donald Trump. The piece warns:
"Now corn has taken on a new role - as a powerful lever for Mexican officials in the run-up
to talks over Nafta, the North American Free Trade Agreement.
"The reason: Much of the corn that Mexico consumes comes from the United States, making it
America's top agricultural export to its southern neighbor. And even though President Trump appears
to be pulling back from his vows to completely overhaul Nafta, Mexico has taken his threats to
heart and has begun flexing its own muscle.
"The Mexican government is exploring buying its corn elsewhere - including Argentina or Brazil
- as well as increasing domestic production. In a fit of political pique, a Mexican senator even
submitted a bill to eliminate corn purchases from the United States within three years."
It then warns of the potential devastation from this threat:
"The prospect that the United States could lose its largest foreign market for corn and other
key products has shaken farming communities throughout the American Midwest, where corn production
is a vital part of the economy. The threat is particularly unsettling for many residents of the
Corn Belt because much of the region voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Trump in the presidential election.
" 'If we lose Mexico as a customer, it will be absolutely devastating to the ag economy,' said
Philip Gordon, 68, who grows corn, soybeans and wheat on a farm in Saline, Mich., that has been
in his family for 140 years."
Okay, I hate to spoil a good scare story with a dose of reality, but let's think this one through
for a moment. According to the piece, instead of buying corn from the United States, Mexico might
buy it from Argentina or Brazil. So, we'll lose our Mexican market to these two countries.
But who is buying corn from Argentina and Brazil now? If this corn had previously been going
to other countries, then presumably these other countries will be looking to buy corn from someone
else, like perhaps U.S. farmers?
It is of course possible that Argentina and Brazil will switch production away from other crops
to corn to meet Mexico's demand, but that would likely leave openings in these other crops for
U.S. farmers. The transition to new markets for corn crops or a switch from corn to the crops
vacated by Brazil and Argentina would not be costless, but it also may not imply the sort of devastation
promised by the New York Times.
See, market economies are flexible. This is something that economists know, as should reporters
who write on economic issues. This may undermine scare stories that are being told to push an
agenda, but life is tough.
Not mentioned is that Mexico is the home of corn, that thousands of farmers who used to make their
livings raising native corns lost their farms to market rate competition from the USA under NAFTA.
Embattled Trump Reneges on Health Vow
March 21, 2017
President Trump promised health insurance for all, but – now dependent on the political
protection of House Speaker Paul Ryan – he is supporting a plan that will push millions
outside the system, writes Michael Winship.
By Michael Winship
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump still insists he's going to Make America
Great Again! Mind you, it won't be a healthy or vigorous America - in fact, it will be
coughing and wheezing to the grave, but boy, will it be great!
If you ever needed further evidence that Trump doesn't give a single good goddamn
about the people who elected him, just look at his treacherous turnabout on health care.
This Republican "repeal and replace" bill stinks on so many levels I'm tempted to say
it should be taken far out to sea and dumped into the deepest depths of the Mariana Trench
but I have too much regard for marine life, even the kind with the big googly eyes and
the really scary teeth.
Remember that Trump was the carnival barker
who declared during the campaign
, "I am going to take care of everybody. I don't
care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than
they're taken care of now." And right before his inauguration
he told
The Washington Post
, "We're going to have insurance for everybody.
There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it.
That's not going to happen with us."
Then along comes the proposed Republican bill, which over a decade, according to
the now-famous report from the Congressional Budget Office
, would see 24 million
fewer Americans with coverage, doubling the number of uninsured. Trump's own supporters
would take it on the chin for
what he tweeted
is "our wonderful new health care bill."
According to
John McCormick at
Bloomberg News
: "Counties that backed him would get less
than a third of the relief that would go to counties where Hillary Clinton won. The two
individual tax cuts contained in the Republican plan to replace Obamacare apply only
to high-earning workers and investors, roughly those with incomes of at least $200,000
for individuals and $250,000 for married couples."
And remember all that nonsense about Obamacare's "death panels," a falsehood so rotten
to the core it was declared
PolitiFact's 2009 Lie of the Year
? Well, this Republican bill actually
would
kill people. Those older would pay more than the young, it would strip Planned Parenthood
of funding and Medicaid programs would be slashed. It would eliminate money for the
Prevention and Public Health Fund
, which provides epidemiology, immunization and
health-screening programs. And there would be no mandate that employers with 50 employees
or more provide coverage.
Julia Belluz at
Vox
reports
on:"[V]ery high-quality studies on the impacts
of health insurance on mortality, which come to some pretty clear estimates. This research
suggests that we would see more than 24,000 extra deaths per year in the US if 20 million
people lost their coverage. Again, 20 million is less than the
24 million
the CBO thinks will lose insurance by 2026. So the death toll from an
Obamacare repeal and replacement could be even higher."
Ignoring the Needy
Notice that Trump has barely lifted a finger to assist those who need genuine reform
that would bring quality care to all, the kind of help he promised as a candidate. Instead,
he has directed his energies at helping Speaker Paul Ryan win over right-wing House members
by promising to make the bill even crueler to those who need health care the most.
Take a look at this statement issued by tea partier and Alabama Republican Rep. Robert
Aderholt after meeting with Trump on Friday, a statement so mind-boggling it's worth
quoting in full
:
"President Trump called me to the Oval Office this morning to discuss the American
Healthcare Act, because of his understanding that I could not support the current language
of the bill. I expressed to the president my concern around the treatment of older, poorer
Americans in states like Alabama. I reminded him that he received overwhelming support
from Alabama's voters.
"The president listened to the fact that a 64-year-old person living near the poverty
line was going to see their insurance premiums go up from $1,700 to $14,600 per year.
The president looked me in the eye and said, 'These are my people and I will not let
them down. We will fix this for them.'
"I also asked the president point blank if this House bill was the one that he supported.
He told me he supports it '1,000 percent.' After receiving the president's word that
these concerns will be addressed, I changed my vote to yes."
Can you believe it? Trump's behind the bill 1,000 percent, the President claims, but
don't worry, we'll fix it. It's hard to decide which of the two men is behaving more
hypocritically: Trump saying he won't let the people down or Aderholt claiming to believe
the President actually will keep his word. Each is endorsing a cutthroat scheme that
will bring nothing but grief to the people but hundreds of billions in tax breaks to
the wealthy and vast profits to the insurance industry.
According to
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
: "The top 400 highest-income taxpayers
- whose annual incomes average more than $300 million apiece - each would receive an
average annual tax cut of about
$7 million
, we estimate from Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) data."
Andy Slavitt, who was President Obama's acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services
told
The Washington Post
, "This is a massive tax cut for unpopular industries
and wealthy individuals. It is about cutting care for lower-income people, seniors, people
with disabilities and kids to pay for the tax cut."
This is,
in the words of Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut,
"a dumpster fire of a bill that
was written on the back of a napkin behind closed doors because Republicans know this
is a disaster." But thanks to ineptitude and an inchoate, ill-planned rush to pass the
legislation, it looks as if the current Republican bill may be on its way to failure,
if not in the House then in the Senate.
Lucky us - for now. But if the GOP and Trump White House do manage to force on us
anything short of what's really needed – single-payer, universal health care - we're
doomed to live in a nation the motto of which may no longer be "In God We Trust" but
instead, "Die young and leave a good-looking corpse."
"... The ubiquity of Goldman Sachs veterans across numerous presidencies throughout history, both Republican and Democratic, has been well documented. But Donald Trump sold himself as something different, an economic nationalist determined to rankle Wall Street. He even ran campaign ads savaging bankers like Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein for their role in a "global power structure." ..."
"... That populist smokescreen is long gone now. ..."
"... After dalliances with unorthodox proposals for a Republican, Trump has settled into an agenda of tax cuts and deregulation - particularly for the financial industry. Cohn laid out the new paradigm in an interview with the Wall Street Journal last month, promising lighter supervision and even lower capital requirements for the financial sector. J. Christopher Giancarlo, Trump's choice to run the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which handles derivatives regulations, hijacked a federal advisory panel to recommend abandoning limits on commodity speculation, of the kind pursued by big banks like Goldman Sachs. ..."
"... Even in areas where populist sentiment was seen as pre-eminent, Trump has reportedly succumbed to the Wall Street advance. A dramatic piece in the Financial Times described a "civil war" within the White House over trade, pitting Trump's hard-liners like Bannon and trade policy adviser Peter Navarro against the likes of Cohn. It stated that Navarro was being sidelined, with Cohn taking a larger role in the negotiations over NAFTA, and with foreign leaders working through the National Economic Council rather than Navarro in trade talks. AFL-CIO official Thea Lee said in the story , "It appears the Wall Street wing is winning this battle." ..."
"... At the NEC, Cohn hired Andrew Quinn, a chief negotiator for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to coordinate international trade and development. A stewing Breitbart News called Quinn " the enemy within ." ..."
The continuity of Wall Street's dominant role in American politics - regardless of what party
sits in power or how reviled the financial industry finds itself across the country - was perhaps
never more evident than when Jake Siewert, now a Goldman Sachs spokesperson, on Tuesday
praised the selection of Jim Donovan, a Goldman Sachs managing director, for the No. 2 position
in the Treasury Department under Steve Mnuchin, himself a former Goldman Sachs partner.
"Jim is smart, extraordinarily versatile, and as hard-working as they come," Siewert gushed. "He'll
be an invaluable addition to the economic team."
The punch line?
Siewert was counselor at the Treasury Department to Timothy Geithner, as well as a White House
press secretary under Bill Clinton.
The ubiquity of
Goldman Sachs veterans across numerous presidencies throughout history, both Republican and Democratic,
has been well documented. But Donald Trump sold himself as something different, an economic nationalist
determined to rankle Wall Street. He even
ran campaign ads savaging bankers like Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein for their role in a "global
power structure."
That populist smokescreen is long gone now.
Mnuchin and Donovan are just two of five Goldman expats in high-level positions on Trump's team.
Steve Bannon spent a limited time at Goldman Sachs, but White House assistant Dina Powell, who headed
the bank's philanthropic efforts, and National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, Goldman's former
president, had higher-ranking positions for a longer period. Jay Clayton, Trump's nominee for the
Securities and Exchange Commission, was a partner for Goldman's main law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
Other big banks are represented inside team Trump as well. Several expats of Mnuchin's
OneWest Bank , which
repeatedly brutalized homeowners during the foreclosure crisis, have been rumored for key spots
at the banking regulators.
The same day as Donovan, Trump announced the nomination of David Malpass as treasury undersecretary
for international affairs. Malpass was the chief economist for Bear Stearns right before the investment
bank imploded. He literally wrote an opinion piece called "
Don't Panic About Credit
Markets " for the Wall Street Journal in August 2007, noting, "Housing and debt markets are not
that big a part of the U.S. economy."
But it's not just the presence of ex-bank executives that matters; it's the policy menu oriented
to Wall Street's wishes.
After dalliances with unorthodox proposals for a Republican, Trump has settled into an agenda
of tax cuts and deregulation - particularly for the financial industry. Cohn laid out the new paradigm
in an
interview with the Wall Street Journal last month, promising lighter supervision and even lower
capital requirements for the financial sector. J. Christopher Giancarlo,
Trump's choice to run the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which handles derivatives regulations,
hijacked a federal advisory panel to recommend abandoning limits on commodity speculation, of
the kind
pursued by big banks like Goldman Sachs.
Donovan is expected to play a major role in tax policy, which will be
overwhelmingly tilted to benefiting the wealthy, despite
claims from Mnuchin that the rich will see "no absolute tax cut." Even Trump's flailing health
care proposal is really little more than a
large tax cut for the wealthiest Americans , financed by cuts to the low-income Medicaid program.
Even in areas where populist sentiment was seen as pre-eminent, Trump has reportedly succumbed
to the Wall Street advance. A
dramatic
piece in the Financial Times described a "civil war" within the White House over trade, pitting
Trump's hard-liners like Bannon and trade policy adviser Peter Navarro against the likes of Cohn.
It stated that Navarro was being sidelined, with Cohn taking a larger role in the negotiations over
NAFTA, and with foreign leaders working through the National Economic Council rather than Navarro
in trade talks. AFL-CIO official Thea Lee
said in the story , "It appears the Wall Street wing is winning this battle."
At the NEC, Cohn hired Andrew Quinn, a chief negotiator for the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
to coordinate international trade and development. A stewing Breitbart News called Quinn "
the enemy within ."
Not enough has happened on trade to declare the winner of this internecine battle; indeed, the
Financial Times reported that Trump took Navarro's side in a recent Oval Office meeting. But in confirmation
hearings Tuesday, Robert Lighthizer, Trump's pick for U.S. trade representative,
praised his predecessor Michael Froman , architect of the TPP (and himself a former Citigroup
executive), arguing that some of that work could be used in constructing a successor to NAFTA. Lighthizer
also
vowed
tough enforcement of trade rules but said little about tariffs or the kinds of disruptive policies
Trump touted in the campaign, which Wall Street disfavors.
Not only do Goldman executives benefit, but so do their alumni: Cohn received
nearly $300 million in severance from Goldman after moving into government. He's vowed to
recuse himself from anything "directly" affecting his former company, but that doesn't necessarily
apply to tax and regulatory policies affecting the entire financial sector.
"... "There's been a real evolution," Philippe Renault-Guillemet, the retired head of a small manufacturing company, said as he handed out National Front leaflets in the market on a recent day. "A few years ago, they would insult us. It's changed ..."
"... With a month to go, the signs are mixed. Many voters, particularly affluent ones, at markets here and farther up the coast betray a traditional distaste for the far-right party. Yet others once repelled by a party with a heritage rooted in France's darkest political traditions - anti-Semitism, xenophobia and a penchant for the fist - are considering it. ..."
"... French politics are particularly volatile this election season. Traditional power centers - the governing Socialists and the center-right Republicans - are in turmoil. Ms. Le Pen's chief rival, Emmanuel Macron, is a youthful and untested politician running at the head of a new party. ..."
"... Those uncertainties - and a nagging sense that mainstream parties have failed to offer solutions to France's economic anemia - have left the National Front better positioned than at any time in its 45-year history. ..."
"... Frédéric Boccaletti, the party's leader in the Var, knows exactly what needs to be done. Last week, he and his fellow National Front activists gathered for an evening planning session in La Seyne-Sur-Mer, a working-class port town devastated by the closing of centuries-old naval shipyards nearly 20 years ago. Mr. Boccaletti, who is running for Parliament, keeps his headquarters here. ..."
"... It is not unlike the strategy that President Trump applied in the United States by campaigning in blue-collar, Democratic strongholds in rust-belt Ohio. No one thought he stood a chance there. Yet he won. ..."
"... "Now, we've got doctors, lawyers, the liberal professions with us," Mr. Boccaletti said. "Since the election of Marine" to the party's presidency in 2011, "it's all changed. ..."
"... The backlash against neoliberal globalization creates very strange alliances indeed. That was already visible during the last Presidential elections. When a considerable part of lower middle class professionals (including women) voted against Hillary. ..."
"... As Fred noted today (Why did so many white women vote for Donald Trump http://for.tn/2f51y7s ) there were many Trump supporters among white women with the college degree, for which Democrats identity politics prescribed voting for Hillary. ..."
"... I think this tendency might only became stronger in the next elections: neoliberal globalization is now viewed as something detrimental to the country future and current economic prosperity by many, usually not allied, segments of population. ..."
As French Election Nears, Le Pen Targets Voters Her Party Once Repelled
By ADAM NOSSITER
MARCH 19, 2017
SANARY-SUR-MER, France - The National Front's leafleteers are no longer spat upon. Its local
candidate's headquarters sit defiantly in a fraying Muslim neighborhood. And last week, Marine
Le Pen, the party's leader, packed thousands into a steamy meeting hall nearby for a pugnacious
speech mocking "the system" and vowing victory in this spring's French presidential election.
"There's been a real evolution," Philippe Renault-Guillemet, the retired head of a small
manufacturing company, said as he handed out National Front leaflets in the market on a recent
day. "A few years ago, they would insult us. It's changed."
It has long been accepted wisdom that Ms. Le Pen and her far-right party can make it through
the first round of the presidential voting on April 23, when she and four other candidates will
be on the ballot, but that she will never capture the majority needed to win in a runoff in May.
But a visit to this southeastern National Front stronghold suggests that Ms. Le Pen may be
succeeding in broadening her appeal to the point where a victory is more plausible, even if the
odds are still stacked against her.
With a month to go, the signs are mixed. Many voters, particularly affluent ones, at markets
here and farther up the coast betray a traditional distaste for the far-right party. Yet others
once repelled by a party with a heritage rooted in France's darkest political traditions - anti-Semitism,
xenophobia and a penchant for the fist - are considering it.
"I've said several times I would do it, but I've never had the courage," Christian Pignol,
a vendor of plants and vegetables at the Bandol market, said about voting for the National Front.
"This time may be the good one."
"It's the fear of the unknown," he continued, as several fellow vendors nodded. "People would
like to try it, but they are afraid. But maybe it's the solution. We've tried everything for 30,
40 years. We'd like to try it, but we're also afraid."
French politics are particularly volatile this election season. Traditional power centers
- the governing Socialists and the center-right Republicans - are in turmoil. Ms. Le Pen's chief
rival, Emmanuel Macron, is a youthful and untested politician running at the head of a new party.
Those uncertainties - and a nagging sense that mainstream parties have failed to offer
solutions to France's economic anemia - have left the National Front better positioned than at
any time in its 45-year history.
But if it is to win nationally, the party must do much better than even the 49 percent support
it won in this conservative Var department, home to three National Front mayors, in elections
in 2015. More critically, it must turn once-hostile areas of the country in Ms. Le Pen's favor
and attract new kinds of voters - professionals and the upper and middle classes. Political analysts
are skeptical.
Frédéric Boccaletti, the party's leader in the Var, knows exactly what needs to be done.
Last week, he and his fellow National Front activists gathered for an evening planning session
in La Seyne-Sur-Mer, a working-class port town devastated by the closing of centuries-old naval
shipyards nearly 20 years ago. Mr. Boccaletti, who is running for Parliament, keeps his headquarters
here.
"I'm telling you, you've got to go to the difficult neighborhoods - it's not what you think,"
Mr. Boccaletti told them, laughing slyly. "Our work has got to be in the areas that have resisted
us most" - meaning the coast's more affluent areas.
It is not unlike the strategy that President Trump applied in the United States by campaigning
in blue-collar, Democratic strongholds in rust-belt Ohio. No one thought he stood a chance there.
Yet he won.
"Now, we've got doctors, lawyers, the liberal professions with us," Mr. Boccaletti said.
"Since the election of Marine" to the party's presidency in 2011, "it's all changed."
The backlash against neoliberal globalization creates very strange alliances indeed. That
was already visible during the last Presidential elections. When a considerable part of lower
middle class professionals (including women) voted against Hillary.
As Fred noted today (Why did so many white women vote for Donald Trump
http://for.tn/2f51y7s ) there were many Trump
supporters among white women with the college degree, for which Democrats identity politics prescribed
voting for Hillary.
I think this tendency might only became stronger in the next elections: neoliberal globalization
is now viewed as something detrimental to the country future and current economic prosperity by
many, usually not allied, segments of population.
That's the *optimists'* take on the Trump administration.
It's clear they are incompetent, but I don't think we can be sanguine.
Mainly because, if something isn't outright unconstitutional, we are reliant on massive
numbers of citizens noticing the malevolence and becoming outraged enough to scare the few
squishy members of the GOP caucus into backing off.
But that's a fairly high bar.
On healthcare the GOP stepped on a rake, but that's an issue where many people are VERY
significantly affected in visible, immediate ways. It's funny that even Trump seems to
recognize this, so his admin is bravely leading from behind on the push to pass the
American Health Carnage Act.
But contrast healthcare with something like climate change. Trump proposes to erase not
only rules on immediate issues, but also very forward looking stuff like basic energy
technology research and the people and satellites used *just to study the climate*.
Is there a natural constituency of GOP base voters that is going to become activated
enough to stop this? If not, what might?
I don't see any barriers to a good portion of the malevolence, even if it is
incompetent. The Trump admin and the GOP have turned incompetence like a badge of honor and
their base voters love it.
Bat shit insanity on health
care preceded Trump. The truly incompetent one is the Speaker of the House. And he is
considered the policy wonk for the House Republicans. Trump is beyond awful but he is no
worse than your modern Republican Party.
True, and it has been a mild
surprise to me how poorly the GOP (ex-Trump) has executed on its agenda.
I always thought
they were *pretending* not to understand how healthcare economics worked to cynically gin
up anti-ACA talking points.
But it turns out, they really have no clue what they are talking about. They drank their
own kool aid. They are what Stephen Colbert used to describe as "batshit serious."
"... It would be Pharaohanic. Trump would leave his mark on America's landscape in a visible way--something that is, for somebody who has for two decades been playing the game of celebrity, a big win. ..."
"... The second was driven by the fact that there are an awful lot of small-government fanatics and some fiscal conservatives in the Trump coalition. That way would have generated a politics in which the normal fiscal infrastructure stimulus that both the situation and Trump's background seemed to call for would not happen. It would simply not be done. ..."
"... Instead, the Trump infrastructure plan would wind up building infrastructure on the government's dime. That infrastructure which would then have been given away to friends of the administration. They would then have charged monopoly prices for access to it. ..."
"... Little good as infrastructure -- monopolists charging monopoly prices are rarely public benefactors on any large scale. No good as stimulus. Think of Silvio Berlusconi, but not on an Italian but on a North American scale. ..."
"... And then, of course, there would be the Trump tax cut: another nail in the coffin of sane and prudent fiscal policy, and another brick in the wall of the Second Gilded Age. ..."
"... White House propaganda aides following their own propaganda agendas, and a Congress that seems to lack any sort of positive leadership. Not constructive infrastructure policy. Not bunga-bunga infrastructure policy. Simply no policy at all. ..."
What Happened to Trump Infrastructure Push?: Bunga-Bunga
Policy, or No Policy at All
There seemed, back in November, two ways the Trump
infrastructure fiscal expansion could have gone.
The first was driven by the facts that Trump seemed to
have ambitions that were "Pharaohanic", and that Trump had
been a real estate developer.
There were then no Trump plans for the infrastructure
program. There were, however, plans to have plans. And the
plans to have plans were aided by the fact that building
things was what you would expect someone who had been a real
estate developer to focus on. Since there were no plans,
there was an opportunity to develop for Donald Trump a real,
technocratic infrastructure plan. It would have had, from
Trump's perspective, three advantages:
It would actually work--it would boost American economic
growth, and so make people happy.
It would be Pharaohanic. Trump would leave his mark on
America's landscape in a visible way--something that is, for
somebody who has for two decades been playing the game of
celebrity, a big win.
It would make Trump's presidency both be and appear to be
a success, from the desired perspective of helping to make
America even greater than ever.
And the idea that the economy was already at full
employment, and did not need additional stimulus of any kind?
That extra stimulus would be offset by the Federal Reserve,
and that the overall effect on employment would be very
small? That, taking into account the Federal Reserve
reaction, the only major effect would be to raise interest
rates? Perhaps. But that would not have been a downside. If
you do seek--as we do--to normalize interest rates in the
medium term, and if you want to see whether there are
discouraged workers out there, moving away from monetary to
fiscal as the stimulative balancing item is exactly the right
thing to do. An extra $300 billion/year of bond funded
infrastructure would substantially normalize interest rates.
The second was driven by the fact that there are an awful
lot of small-government fanatics and some fiscal
conservatives in the Trump coalition. That way would have
generated a politics in which the normal fiscal
infrastructure stimulus that both the situation and Trump's
background seemed to call for would not happen. It would
simply not be done.
Instead, the Trump infrastructure plan would wind up
building infrastructure on the government's dime. That
infrastructure which would then have been given away to
friends of the administration. They would then have charged
monopoly prices for access to it.
Little good as infrastructure -- monopolists charging
monopoly prices are rarely public benefactors on any large
scale. No good as stimulus. Think of Silvio Berlusconi, but
not on an Italian but on a North American scale.
Another pointless episode of bunga-bunga policy.
The U.S. would have been likely to lose, substantially, if
that was what the Trump fiscal expansion had turned out to
be. And then, of course, there would be the Trump tax cut:
another nail in the coffin of sane and prudent fiscal policy,
and another brick in the wall of the Second Gilded Age.
We may still have this bunga-bunga policy.
But with each day that passes with not even a plan to plan
to have a plan, it looks more as though there is no Trump
administration--just the reality TV simulacrum of one,
cabinet members following their own administrative agendas,
White House propaganda aides following their own propaganda
agendas, and a Congress that seems to lack any sort of
positive leadership. Not constructive infrastructure policy.
Not bunga-bunga infrastructure policy. Simply no policy at
all.
Constructive infrastructure policy now looks completely
off the table.
Destructive bunga-bung infrastructure policy is still a
possibility, but a low probability one.
No infrastructure policy now looks like the way to bet at
even odds...
This is the complete talk (excluding the Q&A) of Noam Chomsky speaking at
Yale University on February 25, 1997
San Patch
Thank you, Noam Chomsky. Sharp, articulate, critical. Reminding us to cross-check our
favourite ideologies against the facts. Free markets, my arse. I salute Chomsky's courage, his
intellect and his humanity.
emir yi
He truly is the face of sheer honesty and intellectual openness. So admirable to be able to
be so critical of a system in which otherwise many including himself are subsumed.
Dimitrios Mavridopoulos
I strongly recommend his book World Orders: Old and New, where he substantiates all his
claims and accusations, in a far more coherent manner. He has a long chapter, where he
explains how the principles of free trade and classical economics, have been consistently
violated in history by the developed countries (imperial preference, tariffs,
state-intervention), while demanding that Third World countries conform to them, through the
IMF and the World Bank. Unfortunately he is not a gifted lecturer though he compensates by
being a moral titan
WASHINGTON - Republicans muscled through
committee approval of President Donald Trump's nominees for
Treasury and Health on Wednesday, suspending a key Senate
rule in the latest escalation of partisan tensions in
Congress.
Democrats boycotted a Finance Committee meeting and
Republicans responded by temporarily scuttling a rule
requiring at least one Democrat to be present for votes. The
committee then approved Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., to become
Health secretary and financier Steve Mnuchin to be Treasury
secretary by a pair of 14-0 votes.
Democrats had been demanding time to ask more questions
about both nominees. Democrats say there were unresolved
questions about both nominees' financial backgrounds.
Separately, the Senate planned to vote later in the day on
Trump's nomination of Rex Tillerson for secretary of state
after several Democrats crossed party lines to back the
former Exxon Mobil CEO.
Bernie Sanders just said on CBS that he is ready to work with Trump on
1) lowering drug prices by purchasing drugs from abroad and Medicare negotiate prices
2) infrastructure projects
3) better trade deals
Lets see if entrenched interests in the GOP and Democrat party let them work together. My guess
is NOT.
What that would accomplish is lay bare the corruption that is part of both parties.
Let's see if Trump actually wants to do any of those things Sanders wants. In other words will
he "reach across the aisle."
Let's see if Republicans in Congress cooperate.
I think it's unlikely although not impossible (as Krugman etc do)
Trump thinks of himself as a reality TV star. He likes the drama. But he seems to have no interest
in the details of policy. He found the border tax his advisers were floating as too complicated.
Depending on what the GOP does, we could get austerity rather
than fiscal expansion.
Tax cuts for the wealthy are not
much stimulus. The wealthy invest globally and could invest
to offshore jobs rather than in the US. Or they could drive a
bubble as what happened to the GWBush tax cuts.
Combine those with repeal of the ACA Medicaid and Medicare
cuts, there would be less money available to pay for
services.
Deporting immigrants reduces both demand and workers in the
economy.
Privatizing government functions typically results in grift
or worse and that money may go to the Caymans or elsewhere
offshore.
The Trump plan is to build infrastructure using tax breaks
How much of this happens remains to be see.
Ryan has a budget that cuts taxes and butchers spending =
austerity
"So investors betting on a big infrastructure push are almost
surely deluding themselves."
Since the election Sanjait has
suggested investors weren't betting on a big infrastructure
push. He has explained his thinking a couple of time but I
still don't understand it. It doesn't add up.
The quick resort to name calling, rather
than correcting someone with facts, is getting out of hand,
and is very counterproductive if one really wishes to make a
case.
In response to people looking for a Trump pivot at various
points over the last two years, biographar Michael D'Antonio
has said many times that there's no other 'there' to pivot
to.
In Pennsylvania he roused folks by talking vaguely
about bringing coal back, here in Oregon he changed nouns and
rolled out the logging version.
How do you come to any meaningful decision about what he's
going to do? I wouldn't bet on follow through on any policies
(well, except maybe The Wall) that don't benefit Trump
himself.
I think all of these investors are thinking that Republicans
control the White House and Congress so good things are
coming for investors and rent-extraction, like tax cuts.
In
a way they're right, but in a way they're just being
ideological.
The Democrats have tried *so hard* to show how good they
can be for Wall Street, and Wall Street doesn't really care.
The was my original comment about how it's kind of funny.
And Sanjait of course chimes in to say "no, no, there is
no investor euphoria, it's an illusion."
And now PGL tries to change the subject about how the
euphoria is fading. Maybe but NOBODY ELSE has commented on it
yet. NOBODY.
But the people here in comments don't really care one way
or the other, about what's right and wrong. They just want a
civil discussion.
"And now PGL tries to change the subject about how the
euphoria is fading."
Look at my post. I never even used the
term "euphoria". I talked about anticipated fiscal policy and
interest rates.
So once again PeterK flat out lied about what someone said
to smear them. This is the insult. Calling out this pathetic
liar is just putting the record straight.
No as long as this troll lies this way - we will call hin
on his lies.
The problem with Democrats and some of these prog neolib
pundits is they want to equate Wall Street and Main Street.
They want us all to be friends (so Wall Street can continue
screwing Main Street). They're whores and sellouts.
It's
why Bernie's primary campaign caught fire and why neolibs
like Krugman attacked him regularly.
I honestly don't think bringing coal back was of much
interest to people in Pennsylvania. It's ridiculous to focus
on that, because most people in PA (that I know) kind of
rolled their eyes at that one... including the people who
liked the other stuff.
From an historical perspective stock market prices are
remarkably high, even though interest rates are low.
From a
10 year perspective looking forward, with an earnings price
ratio of 3.55 and a dividend yield of 1.98, an investor can
anticipate an average yearly return of 5.53% on stocks
assuming the current price earnings ratio lasts the decade.
The 10 year Treasury bond yield is 2.39 so the risk
premium for stocks is currently 5.53 - 2.39 = 3.14.
The 3 month Treasury interest rate is at 0.52%, the 2 year
Treasury rate is 1.19%, the 5 year rate is 1.89%, while the
10 year is 2.39%.
The Vanguard Aa rated short-term investment grade bond
fund, with a maturity of 3.1 years and a duration of 2.6
years, has a yield of 1.87%. The Vanguard Aa rated
intermediate-term investment grade bond fund, with a maturity
of 6.0 years and a duration of 5.5 years, is yielding 2.67%.
The Vanguard Aa rated long-term investment grade bond fund,
with a maturity of 22.8 years and a duration of 13.2 years,
is yielding 3.85%. *
The Vanguard Ba rated high yield corporate bond fund, with
a maturity of 5.8 years and a duration of 4.5 years, is
yielding 4.89%.
The Vanguard unrated convertible corporate bond fund, with
an indefinite maturity and a duration of 4.1 years, is
yielding 1.85%.
The Vanguard A rated high yield tax exempt bond fund, with
a maturity of 17.1 years and a duration of 7.1 years, is
yielding 3.30%.
The Vanguard Aa rated intermediate-term tax exempt bond
fund, with a maturity of 8.5 years and a duration of 5.1
years, is yielding 2.16%.
The Vanguard Government National Mortgage Association bond
fund, with a maturity of 7.0 years and a duration of 4.8
years, is yielding 2.01%.
The Vanguard inflation protected Treasury bond fund, with
a maturity of 8.6 years and a duration of 8.1 years, is
yielding 0.06%.
* Vanguard yields are after cost. Federal Funds rates are
no more than 0.75%.
"While it's hard to know how much of the market's
optimism reflects expected policy changes under the new
administration, the rise in equities, interest rates, and the
dollar since the election is precisely the configuration that
standard macroeconomics would predict in anticipation of a
Trump-backed fiscal expansion. (A similar pattern occurred in
the early Reagan years, which was dominated by tax cuts,
increased military spending, higher deficits, and rate
increases by the Federal Reserve.)"
Krugman:
"So investors betting on a big infrastructure push are
almost surely deluding themselves."
PGL suggests the "optimism" is fading. Has anybody else
anywhere echoed his sentiments?
Oh it is not euphoria now - it is optimism. Is that your
new term for interest rates. You have been lying about what I
have said. I never used "euphoria" or "optimism" in anything
I wrote.
So yea - you lie 24/7. What to make it so obvious.
Trump Team Questions Value of Aid to Africa
By HELENE COOPER
The list of Africa-related queries from the transition
staff suggests an American retreat from development and
humanitarian goals.
[ Setting aside the sole question of domestic
infrastructure formation or emphasis, there is every reason
to think that the coming administration will not value and
foster international infrastructure formation. At a time when
infrastructure formation in developing countries is both
sorely necessary and showing special promise, I find this
worrisome indeed. ]
Paul Krugman's essay is all too convincing and worrisome in
that there is reason to think that domestic infrastructure
formation from the New Deal through the Eisenhower
administration was the basis for the fastest years of
American productivity growth in the last century.
Productivity growth for all our information technology
applications has slowed markedly since about 2005, and I
would argue a neglect of infrastructure formation is an
important or even essential factor.
The Most Technologically Progressive Decade of the Century
By Alexander J. Field
Abstract
There is now an emerging consensus that over the course of
U.S. economic history, multifactor productivity grew fastest
over a broad plateau between 1905 and 1966, and within that
period, in the two decades following 1929. This paper argues
that the bulk of the achieved productivity levels in 1948 had
already been attained before full scale war mobilization in
1942. It was not principally the war that laid the foundation
for postwar prosperity. It was technological progress across
a broad frontier of the American economy during the 1930s.
Interestingly and importantly, China has been emphasizing
infrastructure development in developing countries from Asia
to Africa. The response from Ethiopia to South Africa to
Nigeria to Laos, Cambodia and Pakistan... has been markedly
encouraging though little noted in American media.
If they can turn it into a way that GOP campaign contributors
can rip of the public it may get support in congress. Handing
over repairs on public bridges to private companies, followed
by big fat tolls - may be a go if Wall Street can get in on
it.
Exactly, it ends up costing a lot more. Its just that the
cost is on the utility bill rather than on your taxes. The
politicians don't want to commit suicide by raising taxes.
Then after decades of neglect of the infrastructure they face
a crisis.
All aboard for Africa's heartland – on a train built in
China
Inaugural journey on 750km line from Djibouti and the Suez
Canal to landlocked Ethiopian capital
By Laura Zhou
Silk Road route back in business as China train rolls into
London
After 16 days and 7,456 miles, the locomotive's arrival
heralds the dawn of a new commercial era
By Tracy McVeigh - Guardian
When the East Wind locomotive rumbles into east London
this week, it will be at the head of 34 carriages full of
socks, bags and wallets for London's tourist souvenir shops,
as well as the dust and grime accumulated through eight
countries and 7,456 miles.
The train will be the first to make the 16-day journey
from Yiwu in west China to Britain, reviving the ancient
trading Silk Road route and shunting in a new era of UK-China
relations.
Due to arrive on Wednesday, the train will have passed
through China, Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Germany,
Belgium and France before crossing under the Channel and
arriving in the east end of London at Barking rail freight
terminal.
Faster than a ship, cheaper than a plane, the East Wind
won't be quite the same train that left Yiwu on 2 January.
Differing rail gauges in countries along the route mean a
single locomotive cannot travel the whole route. But the
journey still marks a new departure in the 21st-century
global economy. The new train, which will start to run weekly
while demand is tested, is part of China's One Belt, One Road
policy – designed to open up the old Silk Road routes and
bring new trade opportunities, said Prof Magnus Marsden, an
anthropologist at Sussex University's School of Global
Studies, who has been studying the trading patterns in Yiwu.
China Railway has already begun rail services to 14 European
cities, including Madrid and Hamburg. As a result, Yiwu's
markets are now loaded with hams, cheese and wine from Spain
and German beer is available on every corner....
If he doesn't
push an infrastructure program, Dems should propose a
gigantic one themselves, and point out to the country that
Mr. Make-America-Great-Again is a small-thinking fraud.
Here's one. It's called the "Rebuild America Act".
When the Dems held the White House and Congress they put
forward another stimulus bill after the ARRA that never hit
the floor. The effect of that obstruction on the electorate
was zero.
Now somehow you think some bs that has no chance in the
world to get out of committee means something.
This is why progressives keep losing. There are too many
who live in an alternate universe.
Some republicans voting with the democrats might be enough...
but remember that republicans will do anything to stop the
Democrats from winning back the White House, which means they
will need to give in to Trump on a few key promises where
they disagree, or else ditch Trump to get Pence
"... But, if it seemed clear that there would be political consequences, their form and timing were far less obvious. Why did the backlash in the US come just when the economy seemed to be on the mend, rather than earlier? And why did it manifest itself in a lurch to the right? After all, it was the Republicans who had blocked assistance to those losing their jobs as a result of the globalization they pushed assiduously. It was the Republicans who, in 26 states, refused to allow the expansion of Medicaid, thereby denying health insurance to those at the bottom. And why was the victor somebody who made his living from taking advantage of others, openly admitted not paying his fair share of taxes, and made tax avoidance a point of pride? ..."
"... Donald Trump grasped the spirit of the time: things weren't going well, and many voters wanted change. Now they will get it: there will be no business as usual. ..."
NEW YORK – Every January, I try to craft a forecast for
the coming year. Economic forecasting is notoriously
difficult; but, notwithstanding the truth expressed in Harry
Truman's request for a one-armed economist (who wouldn't be
able to say "on the other hand"), my record has been
credible.
In recent years, I correctly foresaw that, in the absence
of stronger fiscal stimulus (which was not forthcoming in
either Europe or the United States), recovery from the Great
Recession of 2008 would be slow. In making these forecasts, I
have relied more on analysis of underlying economic forces
than on complex econometric models.
For example, at the beginning of 2016, it seemed clear
that the deficiencies of global aggregate demand that have
been manifest for the last several years were unlikely to
change dramatically. Thus, I thought that forecasters of a
stronger recovery were looking at the world through
rose-tinted glasses. Economic developments unfolded much as I
anticipated.
Not so the political events of 2016. I had been writing
for years that unless growing inequality – especially in the
US, but also in many countries throughout the world – was
addressed, there would be political consequences. But
inequality continued to worsen – with striking data showing
that average life expectancy in the US was on the decline.
These results were foreshadowed by a study last year, by
Anne Case and Angus Deaton, which showed that life expectancy
was on the decline for large segments of the population –
including America's so-called angry men of the Rust Belt.
But, with the incomes of the bottom 90% having stagnated
for close to a third of a century (and declining for a
significant proportion), the health data simply confirmed
that things were not going well for very large swaths of the
country. And while America might be at the extreme of this
trend, things were little better elsewhere.
But, if it seemed clear that there would be political
consequences, their form and timing were far less obvious.
Why did the backlash in the US come just when the economy
seemed to be on the mend, rather than earlier? And why did it
manifest itself in a lurch to the right? After all, it was
the Republicans who had blocked assistance to those losing
their jobs as a result of the globalization they pushed
assiduously. It was the Republicans who, in 26 states,
refused to allow the expansion of Medicaid, thereby denying
health insurance to those at the bottom. And why was the
victor somebody who made his living from taking advantage of
others, openly admitted not paying his fair share of taxes,
and made tax avoidance a point of pride?
Donald Trump grasped the spirit of the time: things
weren't going well, and many voters wanted change. Now they
will get it: there will be no business as usual.
But seldom
has there been more uncertainty. Which policies Trump will
pursue remains unknown, to say nothing of which will succeed
or what the consequences will be.
Trump seems hell-bent on having a trade war....
Joseph E. Stiglitz, recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in
Economic Sciences in 2001 and the John Bates Clark Medal in
1979, is University Professor at Columbia University.
"... Excellent article by an economist who understands that economic extends beyond markets and intersects with political enlightenment. Were more economists that inclusive and divorced from self promotion the study would have more effective application. ..."
"... For many today, greatness is simply a government in the business of actively governing, as opposed to shying away from it under one excuse or the other. One example: the meteoric rise of incomes for the wealthy, which is a direct result of less financial regulation. First discovered by Reagan, then perfected by Clinton, the method involves highlighting regulation as a dirty word and overstating its link to American Capitalism, and in the bargain achieving less work for government, plus bag brownie points for patriotism. ..."
"... But what it really was, was a reluctance to govern for almost thirty years. Thank goodness Trump called it out for the fraud it was, and Obama decided he would spend his last month making a show of "governing". ..."
"... So that's what greatness means to most today: Government, please show up for work every day and just do your job. Not draw lines in sand and unlock every bathroom in sight and let illegals in. Just your job please, that's all. Yes? Grrreaat, thank you Donald. ..."
"... I doubt many think that the greatness of America is just about money and power. But many corporations are run on exactly this limited idea of the greatness of corporations. ..."
"... And, unfortunately, these same misguided bottom-line corporations now control Congress and the GOP. Corporate control of Congress should not be primarily for increasing corporate profits. Part of the profits stemming from automation should be used to mitigate the tremendous disappearance of jobs that corporations are causing by introducing AI and automation. ..."
"... I have traveled overseas enough to have an idea of life in other countries. My father shared something with other veterans--a sense of belonging to something bigger than them based on being "in the service." ..."
"... That comradeship, born of intense experience while young, is rare. In terms of the sense of belonging to a city or state, the most successful of us move around and cities have lost most of what made them unique. ..."
"... there is no central cultural core to being American--as compared to being French or British--other than technology and the meritocracy of money, a personal sense of ownership in America on the part of a majority of Americans runs contrary to contemporary experience. ..."
"... The first step on this path is real social & economic justice for all in our wonderful country. The current economic inequality in the U.S. is a disgrace to any just & civil society. We must figure out a way to fairly deal with that & our other inequalities of education, opportunity & racial injustices, if we are to achieve our potential of being that 'shining city on the hill' that the rest of the world will want to follow. ..."
"... A Great Society cannot be great in any meaningful sense unless it is determinedly honest -- not just self-relievingly frank. Thus, although I was happy to see this article, which I judge to be 'exemplarily' honest, I had disappointment that, in an age when the term post-truth is being used to describe conversation in English-speaking society, it neglects to emphasize the essentiality of honesty in any debate about what being a great society entails. Adam Smith did his best to point that out, but the rich and powerful and especially those in public office and those of capitalistic ideological bent appear these days to be letting us all down in this respect. ..."
"... This article is long overdue. Mr Trump has never explained is what MADE America great in the past. If questioned, he demurred. His shallow approach to policy and his poor understanding of American history and civics makes any answer from him questionable. ..."
"... Our current Free Trade pacts make it too easy for employers to shift jobs abroad. Other countries protect their industries. We should do the same, by again placing tariffs on any goods which have been manufactured abroad which could be made here. This would not be "forcing employers to restore or maintain jobs". It would be saying that if you want to sell your products here, then you will either make them here or pay tariffs on them. ..."
"... The Free Trade pacts have an additional problem. They allow international corporations to sue us if they think that one of our laws or regulations is keeping them from making as much money as they otherwise could. These lawsuits are conducted in special courts whose decisions cannot be appealed. This allows international corporations to interfere with our democracy. They should not be allowed to sue us for enforcing our own laws. ..."
"... The issue isn't what the definition of "great" is. It's who America is great *for.* America is outstandingly great for a very slim slice at the tip-top of the economy. ..."
"... The GOP are now proving that they are traitors to the general welfare. They are determined to make this nation's chief goal be to protect the welfare of the wealthiest and best-connected. If we are depending on a free press or the voting booth to protect us, we are fooling ourselves. The forces that have seized our democracy are going to gut both the press, and our civil liberties, so that this country can never again be "of, for and by the people." It will henceforth be for the plutocrats. ..."
"... The rest of us should just go quietly, and die on our own. ..."
"Make America Great Again," the slogan of President-elect
Donald
J. Trump 's successful election campaign, has been etched in the national consciousness. But
it is hard to know what to make of those vague words.
We don't have a clear definition of "great," for example, or of the historical moment when, presumably,
America was truly great. From an economic standpoint, we can't be talking about national wealth,
because the country is wealthier than it has ever been: Real per capita household net worth has reached
a record high, as Federal Reserve Board data shows.
But the distribution of wealth has certainly changed: Inequality has widened significantly. Including
the effects of taxes and government transfer payments, real incomes for the bottom half of the population
increased only 21 percent from 1980 to 2014. That compares with a 194 percent increase for the richest
1 percent, according to a new study
by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.
That's why it makes sense that Mr. Trump's call for a return to greatness resonated especially
well among non-college-educated workers in Rust Belt states - people who have been hurt as good jobs
in their region disappeared. But forcing employers to restore or maintain jobs isn't reasonable,
and creating sustainable new jobs is a complex endeavor.
Difficult as job creation may be, making America great surely entails more than that, and it's
worth considering just what we should be trying to accomplish. Fortunately, political leaders and
scholars have been thinking about national greatness for a very long time, and the answer clearly
goes beyond achieving high levels of wealth.
Adam Smith, perhaps the first true economist, gave some answers in "
An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations ." That treatise is sometimes
thought of as a capitalist bible. It is at least partly about the achieving of greatness through
the pursuit of wealth in free markets. But Smith didn't believe that money alone assured national
stature. He also wrote
disapprovingly of the single-minded impulse to secure wealth, saying it was "the most universal
cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Instead, he emphasized that decent people should
seek real achievement - "not only praise, but praiseworthiness."
Strikingly, national greatness was a central issue in a previous presidential election campaign:
Lyndon B. Johnson , in 1964, called for the creation of a
Great Society, not merely a rich society or a powerful society. Instead, he spoke of achieving
equal opportunity and fulfillment. "The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge
to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents," he said. "It is a place where leisure is a welcome
chance to build and reflect, not a feared cause of boredom and restlessness."
President Johnson's words still ring true. Opportunity is not equal for everyone in America. Enforced
leisure has indeed become a feared cause of boredom and restlessness for those who have lost jobs,
who have lost overtime work, who hold part-time jobs when they desire full-time employment, or who
were pushed into unwanted early retirement.
But there are limits to what government can do.
Jane Jacobs , the great urbanist,
wrote
that great nations need great cities, yet they cannot easily create them. "The great capitals of
modern Europe did not become great cities because they were the capitals," Ms. Jacobs said. "Cause
and effect ran the other way. Paris was at first no more the seat of French kings than were the sites
of half a dozen other royal residences."
Cities grow organically, she said, capturing a certain dynamic, a virtuous circle, a specialized
culture of expertise, with one industry leading to another, and with a reputation that attracts motivated
and capable immigrants.
America still has cities like this, but a fact not widely remembered is that Detroit used to be
one of them. Its rise to greatness was gradual. As Ms. Jacobs wrote, milled flour in the 1820s and
1830s required boats to ship the flour on the Great Lakes, which led to steamboats, marine engines
and a proliferation of other industries, which set the stage for automobiles, which made Detroit
a global center for anyone interested in that technology.
I experienced the beauty and excitement of Detroit as a child there among relatives who had ties
to the auto industry. Today, residents of Detroit and other fading metropolises want their old cities
back, but generations of people must create the fresh ideas and industries that spawn great cities,
and they can't do it by fiat from Washington.
All of which is to say that government intervention to enhance greatness will not be a simple
matter. There is a risk that well-meaning change may make matters worse. Protectionist policies and
penalties for exporters of jobs may not increase long-term opportunities for Americans who have been
left behind. Large-scale reduction of environmental or social regulations or in health care benefits,
or in America's involvement in the wider world may increase our consumption, yet leave all of us
with a sense of deeper loss.
Greatness reflects not only prosperity, but it is also linked with an atmosphere, a social environment
that makes life meaningful. In President Johnson's words, greatness requires meeting not just "the
needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community."
Excellent article by an economist who understands that economic extends beyond markets
and intersects with political enlightenment. Were more economists that inclusive and divorced
from self promotion the study would have more effective application.
For many today, greatness is simply a government in the business of actively governing,
as opposed to shying away from it under one excuse or the other. One example: the meteoric rise
of incomes for the wealthy, which is a direct result of less financial regulation. First discovered
by Reagan, then perfected by Clinton, the method involves highlighting regulation as a dirty word
and overstating its link to American Capitalism, and in the bargain achieving less work for government,
plus bag brownie points for patriotism.
But what it really was, was a reluctance to govern for almost thirty years. Thank goodness
Trump called it out for the fraud it was, and Obama decided he would spend his last month making
a show of "governing".
But Reagan did not hesitate to govern on the international stage. That credit goes solely to
Obama, a president who's turned non-governance into something of an art. From refusing to regulate
bathroom etiquette, to egging people to have more casual sex (condoms on government, no worries,
go at it all you want), to unleashing 5 million illegals on domestic soil with a stroke of the
pen, this President has been the most ungoverning president in US history.
So that's what greatness means to most today: Government, please show up for work every
day and just do your job. Not draw lines in sand and unlock every bathroom in sight and let illegals
in. Just your job please, that's all. Yes? Grrreaat, thank you Donald.
I doubt many think that the greatness of America is just about money and power. But many
corporations are run on exactly this limited idea of the greatness of corporations.
And, unfortunately, these same misguided bottom-line corporations now control Congress
and the GOP. Corporate control of Congress should not be primarily for increasing corporate profits.
Part of the profits stemming from automation should be used to mitigate the tremendous disappearance
of jobs that corporations are causing by introducing AI and automation.
I was born in America in 1956 to native-born Americans. My father served starting right after
the Berlin Blockade, up through the Korean Conflict. My political consciousness was formed by
Vietnam, Kent State, the COINTELPRO Papers, the Pentagon Papers, the Church Committee reports.
My father had trust in the federal government, whereas I have none. I became a lawyer, and
married a lawyer. My brothers and my wife's sisters are all college-educated professionals.
Financially speaking, America has been very good to me. But as far as having any intellectual
or visceral concept of what America is, or what being an American means, I couldn't tell you.
I have traveled overseas enough to have an idea of life in other countries. My father shared
something with other veterans--a sense of belonging to something bigger than them based on being
"in the service."
That comradeship, born of intense experience while young, is rare. In terms of the
sense of belonging to a city or state, the most successful of us move around and cities have lost
most of what made them unique.
Given how very little we are expected to contribute to our city, state or country, or even
our neighbors, and as there is no central cultural core to being American--as compared to
being French or British--other than technology and the meritocracy of money, a personal sense
of ownership in America on the part of a majority of Americans runs contrary to contemporary experience.
I think this article touches on not only what will make America great, but also on how we should
act in order to show the rest of the world why liberal democracies are truly the path to prosperity
& peace in this oh so imperfect world.
How do we go about defeating ISIL & winning the smoldering economic/military contest with Russia
& China & other authoritarian regimes? By living righteously & daily demonstrating that treating
the planet & each other justly & humanely is the way to real happiness on Earth. & that we can
at the same time create plenty of wealth & life-fulfilling opportunities for all our citizens.
The first step on this path is real social & economic justice for all in our wonderful
country. The current economic inequality in the U.S. is a disgrace to any just & civil society.
We must figure out a way to fairly deal with that & our other inequalities of education, opportunity
& racial injustices, if we are to achieve our potential of being that 'shining city on the hill'
that the rest of the world will want to follow.
If the great liberal democracies of Europe & North America & the southern pacific region can
reinvigorate our optimism & our commitment to the communal values that have driven the world's
prosperity since WWII, we can surely convince the rest of the world through the awesome leverage
of 'social media' that our liberal values of education, fairness, & love for all of our fellow
humans is the true path to happiness & peace on Earth.
As a Britisher, educated at Wharton by the grace of an American-owned company, I feel gratitude
for American generosity; yet I am now a Canadian citizen, having decided that the US in the time
of Nixon could never be a place where my family could be happy. So I write this with mixed feelings.
A Great Society cannot be great in any meaningful sense unless it is determinedly honest
-- not just self-relievingly frank. Thus, although I was happy to see this article, which I judge
to be 'exemplarily' honest, I had disappointment that, in an age when the term post-truth is being
used to describe conversation in English-speaking society, it neglects to emphasize the essentiality
of honesty in any debate about what being a great society entails. Adam Smith did his best to
point that out, but the rich and powerful and especially those in public office and those of capitalistic
ideological bent appear these days to be letting us all down in this respect.
Having made a modest livelihood as an executive coach, I do not pretend that being honest (without
being self-relievingly so) is easy in high-level negotiations. Indeed it requires enormous courage,
intellect, empathy, and articulation skills. So I have enormous grief and considerable anxiety
for the state of US society today. But efforts like this one by the New York Times are certain
to be helpful. Thank you. I hope my contribution will be valuable to this fine newspaper and its
readers alike.
This article is long overdue. Mr Trump has never explained is what MADE America great in
the past. If questioned, he demurred. His shallow approach to policy and his poor understanding
of American history and civics makes any answer from him questionable.
Yet almost every policy and piece of legislation by Republicans seems aimed at making more
money for business. They assume it will trickle down to the workers (and we have seen over 30
years of how good that is working). So Republicans will ignore your plea or denigrate it. Doing
anything close to what you suggest gets in the way of making money.
"But forcing employers to restore or maintain jobs isn't reasonable, "
Our current Free Trade pacts make it too easy for employers to shift jobs abroad. Other
countries protect their industries. We should do the same, by again placing tariffs on any goods
which have been manufactured abroad which could be made here. This would not be "forcing employers
to restore or maintain jobs". It would be saying that if you want to sell your products here,
then you will either make them here or pay tariffs on them.
The Free Trade pacts have an additional problem. They allow international corporations
to sue us if they think that one of our laws or regulations is keeping them from making as much
money as they otherwise could. These lawsuits are conducted in special courts whose decisions
cannot be appealed. This allows international corporations to interfere with our democracy. They
should not be allowed to sue us for enforcing our own laws.
The issue isn't what the definition of "great" is. It's who America is great *for.* America
is outstandingly great for a very slim slice at the tip-top of the economy.
It's great for the Trumps and his cabinet members. These people have so much wealth that they
have bought our government. The gleeful look on McConnell's face last night after the GOP moved
to get rid of health care for millions, and to turn it back to the whim of the insurance companies,
said it all: America is great again for him. It's great for his owners.
The GOP are now proving that they are traitors to the general welfare. They are determined
to make this nation's chief goal be to protect the welfare of the wealthiest and best-connected.
If we are depending on a free press or the voting booth to protect us, we are fooling ourselves.
The forces that have seized our democracy are going to gut both the press, and our civil liberties,
so that this country can never again be "of, for and by the people." It will henceforth be for
the plutocrats.
The rest of us should just go quietly, and die on our own.
"... Our model for funding infrastructure is broken. Federal funding means project that are most needed by cities can be overlooked while projects that would destroy cities are funded. ..."
"... The neo in neoliberalism, however, establishes these principles on a significantly different analytic basis from those set forth by Adam Smith, as will become clear below. Moreover, neoliberalism is not simply a set of economic policies; it is not only about facilitating free trade, maximizing corporate profits, and challenging welfarism. ..."
"... But in so doing, it carries responsibility for the self to new heights: the rationally calculating individual bears full responsibility for the consequences of his or her action no matter how severe the constraints on this action-for example, lack of skills, education, and child care in a period of high unemployment and limited welfare benefits. ..."
"... A fully realized neoliberal citizenry would be the opposite of public-minded; indeed, it would barely exist as a public. The body politic ceases to be a body but is rather a group of individual entrepreneurs and consumers . . . ..."
"... consider the market rationality permeating universities today, from admissions and recruiting to the relentless consumer mentality of students as they consider university brand names, courses, and services, from faculty raiding and pay scales to promotion criteria. ..."
"... The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the market. ..."
There is nothing common between articles of Zingales and Schiller.
My impression is that Schiller might lost his calling: he might achieve even greater success
as a diplomat, if he took this career. He managed to tell something important about incompatibility
of [the slogan] "Make America Great Again" with neoliberalism without offending anybody. Which
is a pretty difficult thing to do.
Zingalles is just another Friedman-style market fundamentalist. Nothing new and nothing interesting.
Noah Smith is wrong here: "This idea is important because it meant that we shouldn't expect fiscal
stimulus to have much of an effect. Government checks are a temporary form of income, so Friedman's
theory predicts that it won't change spending patterns, as advocates such as John Maynard Keynes
believed."
Friedman's view about consumption demand is the same as the Life Cycle Model (Ando and Modligiani).
OK - these models do predict that tax rebates should not affect consumption. And yes there are
households who are borrower constrained so these rebates do impact their consumption.
But this is not the only form of fiscal stimulus. Infrastructure investment would increase
aggregate demand even under the Friedman view of consumption. This would hold even under the Barro-Ricardian
version of this theory. OK - John Cochrane is too stupid to know this. And I see Noah in his rush
to bash Milton Friedman has made the same mistake as Cochrane.
What Friedman got wrong is not including current income. People with high income spend a fraction
of that income and save the rest. Their demand is met, so the additional income mostly goes to
savings.
People with low income spend everything and still have unmet demands. Additional income for
them will go to meet those unmet demands (like fixing a toothache or replacing bald tires).
Friedman was biased against fiscal intervention in an economy and sought evidence to argue
against such policies
Our model for funding infrastructure is broken. Federal funding means project that are
most needed by cities can be overlooked while projects that would destroy cities are funded.
Federal infrastructure funding destroyed city neighborhoods leaving the neighboring areas degraded.
Meanwhile, necessary projects such as a new subway tunnel from NJ to Manhattan are blocked by
States who are ok if the city fails and growth moves to their side of the river.
Money should go directly to the cities. Infrastructure should be build to serve the people
who live, walk and work there, not to allow cars to drive through at high speeds as the engineers
propose. This infrastructure harms cities and becomes a future tax liability that cannot be met
if the built infrastructure it encourages is not valuable enough to support maintenance.
We are discovering that unlike our cities where structures can increase in value, strip malls
decline in value, often to worthlessness. Road building is increasingly mechanized and provides
less employment per project than in the past. Projects such as replacing leaking water pipes require
more labor.
Simon Wren Lewis leaves open the possibility that an increase in aggregate demand can increase
real GDP as we may not be at full employment (I'd change that from "may not be" to "are not")
but still comes out against tax cuts for the rich with this:
"There is a very strong case for more public sector investment on numerous grounds. But that
investment should go to where it is most needed and where it will be of most social benefit"
Re: Milton Friedman's Cherished Theory Is Laid to Rest - Bloomberg View
Friedman was not simply wrong. The key for understanding Friedman is that he was a political
hack, not a scientist.
His main achievement was creation (partially for money invested in him and Mont Pelerin Society
by financial oligarchy) of what is now called "neoliberal rationality": a pervert view of the
world, economics and social processes that now still dominates in the USA and most of Western
Europe. It is also a new mode of "govermentability".
Governmentality is distinguished from earlier forms of rule, in which national wealth is measured
as the size of territory or the personal fortune of the sovereign, by the recognition that national
economic well-being is tied to the rational management of the national population. Foucault defined
governmentality as:
"the ensemble formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses, and reflections, the calculations
and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power, which
has as its target population, as its principle form of knowledge political economy and as its
technical means, apparatuses of security"
A liberal political order may harbor either liberal or Keynesian economic policies -- it
may lean in the direction of maximizing liberty (its politically "conservative" tilt) or of
maximizing equality (its politically "liberal" tilt), but in contemporary political parlance,
it is no more or less a liberal democracy because of one leaning or the other.
Indeed, the American convention of referring to advocates of the welfare state as political
liberals is especially peculiar, given that American conservatives generally hew more closely
to both the classical economic and the political doctrines of liberalism -- it turns the meaning
of liberalism in the direction of liberality rather than liberty.
For our purposes, what is crucial is that the liberalism in what has come to be called neoliberalism
refers to liberalism's economic variant, recuperating selected pre-Keynesian assumptions about
the generation of wealth and its distribution, rather than to liberalism as a political doctrine,
as a set of political institutions, or as political practices. The neo in neoliberalism,
however, establishes these principles on a significantly different analytic basis from those
set forth by Adam Smith, as will become clear below. Moreover, neoliberalism is not simply
a set of economic policies; it is not only about facilitating free trade, maximizing corporate
profits, and challenging welfarism.
Rather, neoliberalism carries a social analysis that, when deployed as a form of
governmentality, reaches from the soul of the citizen-subject to education policy to practices
of empire. Neoliberal rationality, while foregrounding the market, is not only or even primarily
focused on the economy; it involves extending and disseminating market values to all institutions
and social action, even as the market itself remains a distinctive player.
... ... ...
1. The political sphere, along with every other dimension of contemporary existence,
is submitted to an economic rationality; or, put the other way around, not only is the human
being configured exhaustively as homo economicus, but all dimensions of human life are cast
in terms of a market rationality. While this entails submitting every action and policy
to considerations of profitability, equally important is the production of all human and institutional
action as rational entrepreneurial action, conducted according to a calculus of utility, benefit,
or satisfaction against a microeconomic grid of scarcity, supply and demand, and moral value-neutrality.
Neoliberalism does not simply assume that all aspects of social, cultural, and political life
can be reduced to such a calculus; rather, it develops institutional practices and rewards
for enacting this vision. That is, through discourse and policy promulgating its criteria,
neoliberalism produces rational actors and imposes a market rationale for decision making in
all spheres.
Importantly, then, neoliberalism involves a normative rather than ontological claim about
the pervasiveness of economic rationality and it advocates the institution building, policies,
and discourse development appropriate to such a claim. Neoliberalism is a constructivist project:
it does not presume the ontological givenness of a thoroughgoing economic rationality for all
domains of society but rather takes as its task the development, dissemination, and institutionalization
of such a rationality. This point is further developed in (2) below.
2. In contrast with the notorious laissez-faire and human propensity to "truck and barter"
stressed by classical economic liberalism, neoliberalism does not conceive of either the market
itself or rational economic behavior as purely natural. Both are constructed-organized
by law and political institutions, and requiring political intervention and orchestration.
Far from flourishing when left alone, the economy must be directed, buttressed, and protected
by law and policy as well as by the dissemination of social norms designed to facilitate competition,
free trade, and rational economic action on the part of every member and institution of society.
In Lemke's account, "In the Ordo-liberal scheme, the market does not amount to a natural
economic reality, with intrinsic laws that the art of government must bear in mind and respect;
instead, the market can be constituted and kept alive only by dint of political interventions.
. . . [C]ompetition, too, is not a natural fact. . . . [T]his fundamental economic mechanism
can function only if support is forthcoming to bolster a series of conditions, and adherence
to the latter must consistently be guaranteed by legal measures" (193).
The neoliberal formulation of the state and especially of specific legal arrangements and decisions
as the precondition and ongoing condition of the market does not mean that the market is controlled
by the state but precisely the opposite. The market is the organizing and regulative principle
of the state and society, along three different lines:
The state openly responds to needs of the market, whether through monetary and fiscal
policy, immigration policy, the treatment of criminals, or the structure of public education.
In so doing, the state is no longer encumbered by the danger of incurring the legitimation
deficits predicted by 1970s social theorists and political economists such as Nicos Poulantzas,
Jürgen Habermas, and James O'Connor.6 Rather, neoliberal rationality extended to the state
itself indexes the state's success according to its ability to sustain and foster the market
and ties state legitimacy to such success. This is a new form of legitimation, one that
"founds a state," according to Lemke, and contrasts with the Hegelian and French revolutionary
notion of the constitutional state as the emergent universal representative of the people.
As Lemke describes Foucault's account of Ordo-liberal thinking, "economic liberty produces
the legitimacy for a form of sovereignty limited to guaranteeing economic activity . . .
a state that was no longer defined in terms of an historical mission but legitimated itself
with reference to economic growth" (196).
The state itself is enfolded and animated by market rationality: that is, not simply
profitability but a generalized calculation of cost and benefit becomes the measure of all
state practices. Political discourse on all matters is framed in entrepreneurial terms;
the state must not simply concern itself with the market but think and behave like a market
actor across all of its functions, including law. 7
Putting (a) and (b) together, the health and growth of the economy is the basis of
state legitimacy, both because the state is forthrightly responsible for the health of the
economy and because of the economic rationality to which state practices have been submitted.
Thus, "It's the economy, stupid" becomes more than a campaign slogan; rather, it expresses
the principle of the state's legitimacy and the basis for state action-from constitutional
adjudication and campaign finance reform to welfare and education policy to foreign policy,
including warfare and the organization of "homeland security."
3. The extension of economic rationality to formerly noneconomic domains and institutions
reaches individual conduct, or, more precisely, prescribes the citizen-subject of a neoliberal
order. Whereas classical liberalism articulated a distinction, and at times even a tension,
among the criteria for individual moral, associational, and economic actions (hence the striking
differences in tone, subject matter, and even prescriptions between Adam Smith's Wealth of
Nations and his Theory of Moral Sentiments), neoliberalism normatively constructs and interpellates
individuals as entrepreneurial actors in every sphere of life.
It figures individuals as rational, calculating creatures whose moral autonomy is measured
by their capacity for "self-care"-the ability to provide for their own needs and service their
own ambitions. In making the individual fully responsible for her- or himself, neoliberalism
equates moral responsibility with rational action; it erases the discrepancy between economic
and moral behavior by configuring morality entirely as a matter of rational deliberation about
costs, benefits, and consequences.
But in so doing, it carries responsibility for the self to new heights: the rationally
calculating individual bears full responsibility for the consequences of his or her action
no matter how severe the constraints on this action-for example, lack of skills, education,
and child care in a period of high unemployment and limited welfare benefits.
Correspondingly, a "mismanaged life," the neoliberal appellation for failure to navigate
impediments to prosperity, becomes a new mode of depoliticizing social and economic powers
and at the same time reduces political citizenship to an unprecedented degree of passivity
and political complacency.
The model neoliberal citizen is one who strategizes for her- or himself among various social,
political, and economic options, not one who strives with others to alter or organize these
options. A fully realized neoliberal citizenry would be the opposite of public-minded;
indeed, it would barely exist as a public. The body politic ceases to be a body but is rather
a group of individual entrepreneurs and consumers . . . which is, of course, exactly how
voters are addressed in most American campaign discourse.8
Other evidence for progress in the development of such a citizenry is not far from hand:
consider the market rationality permeating universities today, from admissions and recruiting
to the relentless consumer mentality of students as they consider university brand names, courses,
and services, from faculty raiding and pay scales to promotion criteria. 9
Or consider the way in which consequential moral lapses (of a sexual or criminal nature)
by politicians, business executives, or church and university administrators are so often apologized
for as "mistakes in judgment," implying that it was the calculation that was wrong, not the
act, actor, or rationale.
The state is not without a project in the making of the neoliberal subject. It attempts
to construct prudent subjects through policies that organize such prudence: this is the basis
of a range of welfare reforms such as workfare and single-parent penalties, changes in the
criminal code such as the "three strikes law," and educational voucher schemes.
Because neoliberalism casts rational action as a norm rather than an ontology, social policy
is the means by which the state produces subjects whose compass is set entirely by their rational
assessment of the costs and benefits of certain acts, whether those acts pertain to teen pregnancy,
tax fraud, or retirement planning. The neoliberal citizen is calculating rather than rule abiding,
a Benthamite rather than a Hobbesian.
The state is one of many sites framing the calculations leading to social behaviors that
keep costs low and productivity high. This mode of governmentality (techniques of governing
that exceed express state action and orchestrate the subject's conduct toward himor herself)
convenes a "free" subject who rationally deliberates about alternative courses of action, makes
choices, and bears responsibility for the consequences of these choices. In this way, Lemke
argues, "the state leads and controls subjects without being responsible for them"; as individual
"entrepreneurs" in every aspect of life, subjects become wholly responsible for their well-being
and citizenship is reduced to success in this entrepreneurship (201).
Neoliberal subjects are controlled through their freedom-not simply, as thinkers from the
Frankfurt School through Foucault have argued, because freedom within an order of domination
can be an instrument of that domination, but because of neoliberalism's moralization of the
consequences of this freedom. Such control also means that the withdrawal of the state from
certain domains, followed by the privatization of certain state functions, does not amount
to a dismantling of government but rather constitutes a technique of governing; indeed, it
is the signature technique of neoliberal governance, in which rational economic action suffused
throughout society replaces express state rule or provision.
Neoliberalism shifts "the regulatory competence of the state onto 'responsible,' 'rational'
individuals [with the aim of] encourag[ing] individuals to give their lives a specific entrepreneurial
form" (Lemke, 202).
4. Finally, the suffusion of both the state and the subject with economic rationality
has the effect of radically transforming and narrowing the criteria for good social policy
vis-à-vis classical liberal democracy. Not only must social policy meet profitability tests,
incite and unblock competition, and produce rational subjects, it obeys the entrepreneurial
principle of "equal inequality for all" as it "multiples and expands entrepreneurial forms
with the body social" (Lemke, 195). This is the principle that links the neoliberal governmentalization
of the state with that of the social and the subject.
Taken together, the extension of economic rationality to all aspects of thought and activity,
the placement of the state in forthright and direct service to the economy, the rendering of
the state tout court as an enterprise organized by market rationality, the production of the
moral subject as an entrepreneurial subject, and the construction of social policy according
to these criteria might appear as a more intensive rather than fundamentally new form of the
saturation of social and political realms by capital. That is, the political rationality of
neoliberalism might be read as issuing from a stage of capitalism that simply underscores Marx's
argument that capital penetrates and transforms every aspect of life-remaking everything in
its image and reducing every value and activity to its cold rationale.
All that would be new here is the flagrant and relentless submission of the state and the
individual, the church and the university, morality, sex, marriage, and leisure practices to
this rationale. Or better, the only novelty would be the recently achieved hegemony of rational
choice theory in the human sciences, self-represented as an independent and objective branch
of knowledge rather than an expression of the dominance of capital. Another reading that would
figure neoliberalism as continuous with the past would theorize it through Weber's rationalization
thesis rather than Marx's argument about capital.
The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of
moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration
of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted
world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night
of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the
market.
Julio -> Libezkova...
I agree with this. But I think it's extraordinarily wordy, and fails to emphasize the deification
of private property which is at the root of it.
Brown - who I haven't read much of but like what I have - sounds a lot like Lasch.
Brown:
"The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of
moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration
of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted
world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night
of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the
market."
Lasch in Revolt of the Elites:
"... Individuals cannot learn to speak for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent
understanding of their happiness and well-being, in a world in which there are no values except
those of the market.... The market tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist
with institutions that operate according to principles that are antithetical to itself: schools
and universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market
tends to absorb them all. It puts an almost irresistible pressure on every activity to justify
itself in the only terms it recognizes: to become a business proposition, to pay its own way,
to show black ink on the bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship into professional
careerism, social work into the scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every
institution in its own image."
D
onald
Trump's administration will implement large tax cuts
and substantial financial deregulation. President Trump
may also change U.S. policies on trade, although
precisely what he will do is less clear-and the shift
may be more rhetorical than real. Trump is also likely
to substantially cut or privatize federal spending. To
the extent that his policies add up to a coherent
economic strategy, they are reminiscent of Ronald
Reagan's, but with an extra dose of cronyism and the
wild card of economic nationalism.
Trump himself and several of his key appointees are
also poster children for oligarchy and even
kleptocracy-government operated to serve the business
interests of elites, including top officials. The
intermingling of business, family, and government as
the Trump administration takes shape unfortunately
parallels what I have observed in corrupt developing
countries over the past 30 years, including during my
time as chief economist for the International Monetary
Fund.
President Trump is likely to please his supporters
in the short run.
Despite emerging contradictions between his
presidency and who he purported to be during the
campaign,
President Trump is
likely to please his supporters in the short run.
His tax cuts, promoted by supporters for their
supposed supply-side benefits, could provide a
temporary Keynesian jolt to demand. His gestures on
trade, like pressuring Carrier to keep jobs in Indiana,
will strike a tough posture and save a very small
number of jobs. But over time, Trump supporters-and the
rest of the country-will become profoundly disappointed
as economic security, opportunity, and prosperity are
undermined for most Americans.
Taxing, Spending, and Obfuscating
Amid this muddle, one thing is clear. There will be
a big tax cut for upper-income Americans-this is the
implication of Trump's pledges during the presidential
campaign, and this is also what Senate and House
Republicans want. Steven Mnuchin, the nominee for
Treasury secretary, says there will be no reduction in
the amount of tax actually paid by rich
Americans-arguing there will also be a limit on the
deductions they can take. But the math of Trump's
proposals is quite straightforward, and the result of
the planned reductions in personal, corporate, capital
gains, and inheritance taxes is that the rich will
undoubtedly pay less.
In other words, we will re-run a version of the
economic experiment previously conducted in the 1980s
under Reagan and again under George W. Bush. James Kwak
and I wrote a book,
White House Burning
, on
this issue, and there is really very little
disagreement among careful analysts on what happened
over the past 30 years. Lower taxes on rich people led
to higher post-tax income for them and not much by way
of higher incomes for others; inequality went up.
Despite supply-side claims, reduced revenues increased
budget deficits, giving Republicans a pretext for
deeper spending cuts. During the same time period,
manufacturing jobs declined, the median wage stagnated,
and the job market became increasingly polarized.
Albin Lohr-Jones/picture-alliance/dpa/AP
Images
Steven Mnuchin arrives at Trump Tower,
in New York.
As for economic insecurity-an issue emphasized by
Mr. Trump-this is about to get much worse. Health
insurance will be stripped away and partly privatized
at the behest of House Republicans, who also hope to
turn Medicare into some form of voucher
program-effectively reducing benefits for older and
lower-income Americans. They may face some resistance
from their colleagues in a closely divided Senate, but
Medicare already has a (voluntary) voucher component,
the so-called Medicare Advantage program, which enrolls
about a third of Medicare recipients. To provide
greater space for tax cuts, Medicaid and the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (previously
known as food stamps) will likely become some form of
block grant (a preset transfer amount to state and
local government)-which is really just a way to cut
these forms of assistance to people in need (many of
whom have jobs, but are paid very low wages).
It is literally impossible to have a rational
conversation-either about the data or about what
happened in our recent economic history-with some
leading House Republicans. Now this House Republican
belief system appears likely to motivate and guide
economic policy-Trump needs their support to pass
legislation, and he is working closely with them,
including Mike Pence, formerly a leading House
Republican, as vice president, and Representative Tom
Price, the nominee to be Secretary of Health and Human
Services.
As for measuring potential loss of revenue from tax
cuts, not to worry-the House Republicans have already
changed the rules to reflect so-called "dynamic
scoring." The Tax Policy Center estimates that under
Trump's tax plan, "federal revenues would fall by $6.2
trillion over the first decade before accounting for
added interest costs. Including interest costs, the
federal debt would rise by $7.2 trillion over the first
decade and by $20.9 trillion by 2036." But the official
scoring by the Congressional Budget Office will likely
show no such loss of revenue-because the Republican
Congress has already mandated that tax cuts will
stimulate economic growth by an enormous (and
implausible) amount. The alternative (i.e., distorted)
reality of Trump's campaign rhetoric is about to show
up also in the driest possible budget documents.
Watch carefully what happens on "infrastructure."
During the campaign, Trump seemed to support upgrading
our national road, rail, and air transportation
systems-and the need for renewal across the country
goes much deeper. But as more detailed plans become
evident, it seems likely that the actual Trump
infrastructure program will just be a cover story for
tax credits and privatizations-not genuine public
infrastructure.
Advertisement
Expect a very large increase in our budget deficit
and national debt, exactly as was forecast by reputable
analysts during the election campaign. This might
provide some short-term stimulus to the economy, as my
colleague Olivier Blanchard suggests. In that scenario,
there are longer-term problems in the form of higher
deficits and more debt. As Blanchard points out,
inequality is very likely to increase.
And in light of what has happened since the
election, it's not entirely clear that economic growth
will pick up-keep in mind we are already in a recovery
and the job creation numbers have been good for a long
while (nearly 200,000 net new jobs per month since
early 2010). And in recent weeks, stock prices have
increased, but the yield on bonds has also jumped
higher (up to 2.2 percent on the ten-year Treasury bond
on November 15 and now around 2.4 percent; compared
with 1.8 percent immediately before the election). This
is a big and unexpected move, signaling that investors
are worried about the potential impact on inflation.
It has been a long time since we had significant
inflation in the United States, and many people seem to
have forgotten how unpopular it is. Ronald Reagan told
Americans they should care about the "misery index"-the
sum of inflation and unemployment. And inflation is
almost always bad for people on lower incomes,
including pensions (which will not be fully indexed to
rising costs). Trump's supporters will not be so
delighted once the full implications of his tax cuts
and other macroeconomic policies begin to sink in.
Any Trump boom could also be short-circuited by the
deepening crisis in Europe, even without the added
assault of Trump-style protectionism.
Any Trump boom could also be
short-circuited by the deepening crisis in Europe, even
without the added assault of Trump-style protectionism.
With the fall of the Italian government and Italy on
the verge of a banking crisis-on top of the UK's Brexit
(planning to leave the European Union), and the rise of
far-right Marine Le Pen in France-the European Union
and its elements are coming under increasing pressure.
Ironically, the instigators of Europe's latest
economic crisis are Trump-style populists-and they draw
explicit inspiration from Trump's political brand. But
their success will weaken the European economy, and
hurt the U.S. economy and Trump's brand at home.
Financial Deregulation
House Republicans are dead set on repealing
financial regulation-rolling back the rules to what
they were before 2008. Excessive financial deregulation
leads to a predictable cycle of boom-bust-bailout, in
which rich people do very well, and millions of people
lose their jobs, their homes, and their futures.
During the last crisis, presumptive Treasury
Secretary Mnuchin bought IndyMac, a distressed bank,
receiving a great deal of help from the government-and
then sold it at a large profit. At the same time,
millions of Americans lost everything in the housing
crash and their appeals for assistance of any kind fell
on deaf ears. In fact, appeals for the reasonable
restructuring of loans made by IndyMac were apparently
also turned down; this lender has a reputation as
ruthless (and careless) in its foreclosure practices.
If the Treasury Department ends up being headed by
someone who gains from economic volatility, how careful
would officials really want to be? Trump himself spoke
of the housing crisis as a great opportunity-for him,
that is. Rich and powerful people often do well from
extreme booms and busts; most Americans do not.
Deregulating finance is always sold with the claim
that it will boost growth, and in the short run perhaps
the headline numbers will improve-but only because we
do not measure the economy with any regard for
macroeconomic risk. If we had risk-adjusted employment
and output (and corporate profits) during the George W.
Bush years, we would have realized that economic
expansion was based on unsustainable risk-taking in the
financial sector-manifest in the crisis of September
2008 and the deepest recession since the Great
Depression.
respres/Creative Commons
Trump himself spoke of the housing
crisis as a great opportunity-for him,
that is. If the Treasury Department ends
up being headed by someone who gains
from economic volatility, how careful
would officials really want to be?
In the House Republican mantra, honed over six years
of refusing to cooperate with President Barack Obama,
financial deregulation did not contribute to the
meltdown of 2008. These congressional representatives
fervently believe that growth has been slow because of
a supposedly high burden of regulation on
business-despite the fact that the United States is one
of the easiest places in the world to do business.
In reality, growth has been slow in recent years
precisely because the financial crisis was so
severe-and deregulation will set us up for another
crisis. The question is just how long this will take to
become evident to voters.
On finance, as well as on taxes, Trump and the House
Republicans are likely to work hard and effectively
together-creating what will become a more extreme
version of the unequal and unstable George W. Bush–era
economy. Expect consequences that are similar to what
happened during and after the Bush regime.
Trade
There were some defects in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), as both presidential candidates
discussed during the election campaign. But refusing to
implement the TPP agreement or altering the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is not likely to
bring back manufacturing jobs-just as gutting the
Environmental Protection Agency would not bring back
coal.
There is a defensible version of economic
nationalism, which includes investing in people
(education and opportunities), building public
infrastructure, and working to ensure that new
technology creates jobs. Transitioning to a
lower-carbon and greener economy can create both jobs
and exports.
In the short run, Trump may score some points with
his supporters by talking tough on trade, although
his corporate allies are likely to reduce that to
mostly rhetoric.
But Trump's strategy is very far from this.
In the short run, Trump may
score some points with his supporters by talking tough
on trade, although his corporate allies are likely to
reduce that to mostly rhetoric.
The president is
likely to have a number of high-profile photo ops, when
he strong-arms (or pays) a few corporations to keep a
small number of jobs in the United States.
The key part of reality missing from Trump's vision
is that manufacturing jobs have disappeared in recent
decades primarily because of automation-not because of
trade agreements or the supposedly high burden of
taxation and regulation on business; again, the United
States is one of the best and easiest places in the
world to start and run a company.
The surge in imports from China in the early 2000s
did have a negative impact on manufacturing, but this
effect is hard to undo-and threatening a trade war (or
talking on the phone with the president of Taiwan) will
either have no significant effect or prove disruptive.
Imposing tariffs on Chinese imports will result in
retaliation; trade wars do not typically lead to higher
growth or better jobs.
And one impact of Trump-a sharp appreciation of the
dollar since his election-runs directly against what he
wants to achieve. A stronger dollar means it is harder
for firms to export from the United States, while
imports become cheaper. The U.S. trade deficit (exports
minus imports) will increase if the dollar remains at
its current level.
Advertisement
If Trump's fiscal policies push interest rates
higher, as currently seems likely-either because of the
market reaction or how the Federal Reserve feels
compelled to respond-that will further strengthen the
dollar and undermine manufacturing jobs in the United
States. Again, the question is how long it will take
his supporters to notice that Trump oversold them on
what he would do. At some point, perhaps, this tips
over into the perception that they-and everyone
else-have actually been deceived.
Special Interests and Crony Capitalism
For now, Trump will retain some popularity, courtesy
of a fiscal stimulus and economic nationalism. But over
a longer period of time, reality will catch up with
him. And at the heart of what will go wrong with the
Trump administration-in perception and reality-is the
role of special interests.
Candidate Trump made a big deal of wanting to "drain
the swamp," by which he meant reducing the power of
special interests, including corporate lobbyists.
Perhaps his highest-profile pledge in this regard was
to introduce term limits for members of Congress-in
fact, this was the first in a long list of commitments
made in his Gettysburg speech on October 22, 2016. But
one day after the election, Mitch McConnell, Republican
leader in the Senate, said that there will be no such
term limits. This takes the issue completely off the
table.
On swamp-related issues more broadly, lobbyists were
running Trump's transition team, and the appointment
process looks like a feeding frenzy for special
interests, as they compete to get industry-friendly
people into key positions and to advance their
legislative agenda.
The bad news for the broader economy is that the
Trump circle could allocate to themselves tens of
billions of dollars, through government contracts,
insider trading, and other mechanisms.
The bad news for the broader
economy is that the Trump circle could allocate to
themselves tens of billions of dollars, through
government contracts, insider trading, and other
mechanisms.
The U.S. Constitution cleverly
creates an intricate set of checks and balances
precisely to put constraints on executive authority.
But with Republicans in control of the executive
branch, the legislature, and much of the judiciary
(including the Supreme Court), there will not be much
by way of disclosure, let alone effective oversight.
Representative Jason Chaffetz, chair of the powerful
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
says he will further investigate Hillary Clinton's use
of a private email server. How exactly that will help
ensure good governance over the next four years is
unclear. The potential self-dealing of President Trump,
his family, and his colleagues will cry out for serious
investigations, but there will be no congressional
venue for that unless Democrats take back the House or
the Senate in 2018.
The United States is a rich nation, with the most
advanced economy, military, and technology the world
has ever seen. We also have its most advanced
oligarchy. In the Trump iteration, special interests
seem likely to focus a great deal of attention on
enriching themselves and their friends-"the rules are
for other people" seems likely to become the motto of
this presidency.
Trump has already indicated that he may pursue
foreign policy in ways that advance his (or his
family's) private business interests. And of course,
Trump is famously proud of how he legally manipulates
the bankruptcy system-a skill he shares with Wilbur
Ross (incoming commerce secretary) and Steven Mnuchin
(Treasury secretary).
None of these people inspire confidence in the
outcomes for the broader economy. Most likely their
policies will further enrich powerful insiders, cut
effective worker earnings, and add little if anything
to the productive economy.
All oligarchs always say the same thing-their
projects are good for the country. And in the end, the
outcomes are always identical: They have the yachts and
the offshore accounts; everyone else gets nothing.
In Why Nations Fail, Daron Acemoglu and James
Robinson documented the myriad ways in which powerful
people around the world help themselves to economic
riches and, along the way, undermine political
institutions. There is often some short-term growth,
seen in the headline numbers, but oligarch-centric
economies are never inclusive-and lasting benefits
always prove elusive. In fact, as those authors
emphasize, oligarchic control is often a prelude to
nations running into serious crisis and state failure.
If, by the time of his inauguration, Trump refuses
to divest himself from his business interests-and if he
continues to refuse to publish his tax returns (which
would presumably show the full extent of his foreign
relationships)-then we are just another profoundly
oligarchic country, albeit with nuclear weapons.
What would be the U.S. role in the world if this
happens? Probably we will have little sway. How can you
lead other democracies when you are a laughingstock?
Some other corrupt countries might want to cooperate,
but this is worth very little. We are in the world of
G-Zero. No one is in charge and there is chaos in many
places. Only people who thrive on chaos will do well.
pgl said...
Simon Johnson has a long and interesting discussion of what
concerns him about the Trump economic plan. His big two
concerns can be summed up as lots of give aways for the rich
and a return to financial deregulation. Reagan II
unfortunately.
"The arguments are well known, but worth repeating. Tariffs by themselves may indeed reduce
imports, increase the demand for domestic goods, and increase output (although, even then, as
pointed out by Robert Mundell more than fifty years ago, the exchange rate may appreciate enough
to lead to lower output in the end).
But the "by themselves" assumption is just not right: Tariffs imposed by the United States
would most likely lead to a tariff war and thus decrease exports.
And the decrease in imports and exports would not be a wash. On the demand side, higher import
prices would lead the Fed to increase interest rates further. On the supply side, and in my opinion
more importantly, the tariffs would put into question global supply chains, disrupt production
and trade, and decrease productivity. The effects might be hard to quantify, but they would be
there."
"the collision of expansionary fiscal and counter-cyclical monetary policy will result in an
appreciated dollar. How much more appreciated?"
Blanchard and Chinn are simply noting what we have all learned from the great Robert Mundell
some 50 plus years ago. I get that Peter Navarro never grasped these concepts but it seems certain
readers of this blog have not either.
"... By Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers union. President Barack Obama appointed him to the President's Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. Follow him on Twitter @USWBlogger. Originally published at Alternet ..."
"... as long as the trade balance is zero ..."
"... Removing Buy-USA language shows exactly who he thinks his constituency is, and it isn't the good people of Janesville, Wisconsin. If liberals could sense an opportunity, they'd run him over with a steamroller. ..."
By Leo W. Gerard, president of the United
Steelworkers union. President Barack Obama appointed him to the President's
Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. Follow him on Twitter @USWBlogger.
Originally published at
Alternet
... ... ...
By advocating night after night for American Made,
President-elect Trump essentially warned Ryan not to strip the Buy-American
provisions out of the Water Resources Development Act. But
Ryan did it anyway
early in December when he got the act from the
Senate.
The act contained strong, permanent Buy America language when
the Senate sent it over. These provisions are significant because they use
tax dollars to create 33 percent more
U.S.
factory jobs
, something that is, again, important to voters,
68 percent
of whom told the Mellman Group & North Star Opinion Research
in November in a national survey conducted for the Alliance for American
Manufacturing that they were worried that the country had lost too many
manufacturing jobs.
In addition-and President-elect Trump knows this from the
response he gets at his rallies-Buy American policies are very popular.
Seventy-four percent
of voters say large infrastructure projects
financed by taxpayer money should be constructed with American-made
materials and American workers. And those who voted for President-elect
Trump agree more strongly – 79 percent of them say American-made should be
given preference over the lowest bidder.
This is a very big deal to iron and steel producers and workers
in the United States. Far too many mills are closed or partially shuttered
because of unfairly traded imports, and more than 16,000 steelworkers across
this country have been laid off over the past year.
China is the main culprit, but there are others. China produces
so much steel now that it has managed to inundate the world with more steel
than anyone needs. It is dumping steel on the world market at such low
prices that no one can compete. As a result, producers from places as far
flung as Mexico, the U.S., Canada, India, the U.K. and Spain are shutting
down and throwing workers out of their jobs.
China props up that excess steelmaking capacity with methods
that are illegal under the terms of the agreements it entered into to gain
access to the World Trade Organization and Permanent Normalized Trade
Relations with the United States. If steel is sold domestically, a country
can provide steel firms with subsidies like exemptions from utility payments
and taxes, interest-free loans and free land. But those free market-warping
subsidies violate international trade agreements when the steel is exported.
That's what China is doing. And it's killing American steel companies and
American jobs.
When Ryan eliminated the permanent Buy American provision in
the Water Bill, essentially saying it's fine to import illegally subsidized
Chinese iron and steel for taxpayer-financed water projects, he was also
saying it is fine to bankrupt American steel companies and destroy American
jobs.
If the United States is reduced to buying steel from China to
build its military tanks and armor, that's okay with Ryan, as long as he
maintains a great relationship with the lobbyists for the foreign
steelmakers. They pushed him hard to drop the Buy American provision through
Squire Patton Boggs, a Washington, D.C. lobby and law firm employing Ryan's
predecessor Speaker John Boehner and numerous
former
top GOP aides
.
He got hit with a
tweet
storm
after he chose Chinese jobs over American jobs, though. Buy
American supporters and members of the Congressional Steel Caucus began
pointing out on Twitter just how good #BuyAmerica is for American jobs and
the economy and cited @realDonaldTrump, the President-elect's Twitter handle
on every Tweet, which means his account was alerted.
This came from Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown:
"
.@RealDonaldTrump
:
Tell @SpeakerRyan to put #BuyAmerica back in Water bill. American tax
dollars for American jobs."
And steelworkers wrote protests on Ryan's Facebook page and
hundreds called Ryan and his anti-American-made congressional crew.
Ryan responded. Sort of. He restored one-year Buy American
language to the bill. Nothing like the permanent provisions achieved in
other federal laws, but it does keep the jobs for 12 months and the issue
alive until President-elect Trump can take on Ryan mano-a-mano on Buy
American after the inauguration.
Ryan has made clear his anti-American preference, so this will
be a royal rumble. But the Speaker should beware. The last time the
President-elect stepped into the ring with a heavyweight, it was with the
ring's owner, World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Vince McMahon, a former
professional wrestler. And McMahon left bald and defeated.
Altandmain
,
December 27, 2016 at 2:18 am
Perhaps the only good thing to come our of Trump is that he might
energize a populist base to support manufacturing. The Trump base really
needs to push hard on this matter.
The only other is that Trump is less likely to get involved in a war with
Russia.
Otherwise I would suspect that he has long betrayed his promises. He
won't be addressing corruption like he promised during the election. He's
already stuffed his cabinet with cronies. The good news is that elements of
his base are already crying foul. Let's hope that they can win on this one.
On the left, the battle with the Establishment Democrats is a serious
challenge for real change. They have learned nothing from 2016, the election
of Trump and how popular Sanders was. Either that or they have no desire to
admit they know, but won't admit the truth.
Nothing will change because nothing can change: if you have mixed all the
ingredients for a sponge cake and baked it in the oven, can the children
elect a leader to change it into a chocolate cake?
You forget that the ultimate strategy is to destroy the sponge cake
utterly and start over from scratch. Desperate people do not always act
"rationally." If the general public come to see the Trump administration
as having betrayed them, they do not have to switch to the Democrat team.
That's the Neo Democrat's mistake. TINA is not an "inevitable" strategy.
The Dems tried TINA with the "inevitable" H Clinton, and lost.
To torture your analogy somewhat, the 'sponge cake' can become fertilizer
for helping to grow something new.
+1. If Trump badly lets down his base, then the likelihood is that
they will turn to an even nuttier and more dangerous strand of the
right, not liberal Dems. Thats why its absolutely vital that the left
presents a coherent and popular alternative.
That, or even fewer people go to the polls, destabilizing and
delegitimizing the system further without providing a path to
productive change. The cake analogy is really only useful within
the context of electoral choice in our system. We're only being
offered box mix Red Velvet cake vs. box mix Devils Food cake. So
whether you need protein, or fermented cabbage, or calcium, or just
want coconut cake, you are SOL - you can't make any of those things
from those two box mixes, and those two box mixes both have too
many toxins and too few nutrients for the body politic to survive
on.
I think thats the big question mark. Will angry disappointed
voters just give up voting? Or will they keep picking
non-mainstream choices until eventually they succeed. I suspect
the former, but there is no doubt the establishment fears the
latter.
Recent history gives us an answer: the Republican base has
been upset with the establishment since GWB. But their voter
participation hasn't declined. They channeled it into the tea
party, and ever-crazier politicians, to the extent that the
'first wave' of tea party outsiders are now being chased out
be even crazier second and third wavers.
Remember that Newt Gingrich was the original barbarian at
the gate. And now he's almost a centrist statesman compared
to the people being supported by the Republican base. And
Paul Ryan was chosen by Mitt Romney precisely because he was
a tea party darling when elected, and now he's considered a
RINO as the base continues its walk into insanity.
or even fewer people go to the polls, destabilizing and
delegitimizing the system further
The CEOs of giant corporations and the billionaires who own
the United States don't care how many people actually vote. They
just want their privileges to be preserved, and that is far more
likely with low voter turnouts.
however, you can slice that sponge cake into thin layers,
lightly brush it with the liqueur of choice, layer it with fair
trade organic chocolate ganache, and voila, a chocolate cake to
die for! Bon Appetite and Let them eat cake.
That's for the Masters fco. We toiling masses, and now
even the toadying class, have to settle for Oreos. (And now
that the Oreo has been replaced by a Twinkie )
And FWIW, I'm not sure what 'left' or 'right' actually mean
anymore.
Fundamentally, we need new ways of thinking about economics.
If those manufacturing plants are all owned by offshore, or tax
haven veiled interests, there's no guarantee that the workers will
still get a fair pay for their work. What we need are manufacturing
skills, but also more equitable business structures.
Unsatisfactory metaphor. A cake is a finished product. Politics is an
ongoing process, with continually changing policies. If it were true that
nothing could change, we might still have strong unions–or be living in a
state of nature with no government or civilization at all.
One aspect left out of this analysis that I would like to see
incorporated is the argument Robert Brenner makes in "The Economics of
Global Turbulence." The gist of the book is a (drawn-out) citing of
statistics that confirm a classical Marxist 'declining profit rate' argument
that after factories become efficient enough, and this seems particularly
true for commodities like steel, there is really not a good way to bring
back employment in that sector. Basically, it seems as if a few dozen
Chinese steel factories can supply all of the steel for the whole world.
This would imply that even if we slapped tariffs high enough on Chinese
steel to cause the introduction of new plants in the US, it would still not
actually produce that many jobs. Whether it makes sense to take the Marxist
analysis one step further and say that few jobs = few profits is perhaps
debatable, but the core of the analysis seems sound to me and so I wonder
how much effect a buy American campaign could really have in high capital
industries like steel.
Joe Jordan, this is a perspective rather than an answer: Viewing the
benefits solely in jobs (or profits) is insufficient. Strategic resources
like steel require not only factories but skills. If domestic production
goes to zero, so does motivation for not only research to new processes,
but retention of base knowledge.
When we put the metal roof on this fall, our supplier talked about
Chinese steel panels being lesser quality, as well as the coating on
them. As they degrade faster than expected, new roofing will be required,
driving further demand. If Chinese subsidize steel for export beyond the
normal bezzle/vig level, the sector becomes unsustainable. The payoff is
can be in monopoly control, or in strategic timing. From "Unconditional
Warfare":
"Even though they are the same ancient territorial disputes,
nationality conflicts, religious clashes, and the delineation of spheres
of power in human history, and are still the several major agents of
people waging war from opposite directions, these traditional factors are
increasingly becoming more intertwined with grabbing resources,
contending for markets, controlling capital, trade sanctions, and other
economic factors, to the extent that they are even becoming secondary to
these factors."
Also:
"this is because the monopolizing of one type of technology is far
more difficult than inventing a type of technology."
I'm really glad to see someone reiterate this point, which Yves
has made repeatedly the past few years:
Strategic resources like steel require not only factories but
skills. If domestic production goes to zero, so does motivation
for not only research to new processes, but retention of base
knowledge.
It's not simply the quality of materials, and I personally have
nothing against the Chinese. (Rather the opposite: I have huge
admiration for what they have accomplished.) However, without
people working in manufacturing, there are entire categories of
knowledge that get lost.
I could make a solid case that one of our current problems is
too many business schools, too much financialization, and too many
lobbyists: all of those people are thinking about abstractions and
not enough practical hands-on understanding of how the world
actually works.
I sometimes think that I've learned more about economics from
planting, hoeing, weeding, and harvesting my veggie garden than
I've learned from university coursework. Economics is fundamentally
complex and unpredictable; like gardening, you just have to keep at
it and hedge your bets and pay attention.
Basically, we have a whole bunch of people who have never
assessed the quality of their soil, so - Paul Ryan being a classic
case! - they don't grasp the elemental reality that you can't grow
a crop in depleted soil. Good manufacturing policies are like
building up your humus (soil, related to the work "humility"). And
good business policies are like having good seeds, or good plant
cuttings; they come from good stock, and if well cared for have a
chance to produce ongoing prosperity.
Okay, off my soapbox . (Can hardly wait for the Gardening
Catalogs to start arriving next week! ;-)
I think a key problem in steel is that the Chinese (and India) have
been squeezing every last bit of product out of old outdated mills in
order to keep prices down. China has some of the most high tech mills in
the world side by side with Mao era backyard mills, still churning it
out. Its these old mills which are responsible for some of the worst
pollution this winter as the government has revved up yet another
construction boom. Its long overdue to shut down a lot of this capacity.
The Indians are somewhat notorious for buying up old mills in Europe and
elsewhere and basically working them to destruction, then walking away
when they can't squeeze out any more profit.
So I think the steel industry at the moment is not a competitive
industry in the classic supply and demand sense. If the US were to
seriously pursue an 'American first' policy that would be a major shock
to the industry. I've no idea how much capacity remains in the US
industry, but I'd suspect it would in the short term be very profitable
in the short term if there was a big shortfall. But that would I think be
short term, and wouldn't necessarily change long term trends in
profitability.
But environmentally, it would be great if an American first policy led
to a big shutdown in steel capacity elsewhere. Thats assuming the Chinese
and Indian didn't opt for a hugely expansionary policy to compensate.
I would only agree with this if the playing field were level. That is,
if Chinese mfg'ers comply with the same environmental, safety, and labor
regulations that the U.S. does, and still manages to provide lower cost
goods, then perhaps we should let them do it. (NB: I don't care about the
govt incentives; the U.S. has an industrial policy called defense that
comprises a larger GDP than any other country in the world).
But even then, the theory of comparative advantage only works
as
long as the trade balance is zero
. That is, it's fine to give up
steel production if you can find something else to export that you do
better. Even a zero profit producer provides value to the local economy
from all the wages paid to its employees, and the downstream activity of
its local suppliers.
Basically, it seems as if a few dozen Chinese steel factories can
supply all of the steel for the whole world. This would imply that
even if we slapped tariffs high enough on Chinese steel to cause the
introduction of new plants in the US, it would still not actually
produce that many jobs.
This seems to be a non sequitur - you appear to have missed a
supporting argument that would actually link these two statements. But
then so does most of the political establishment when they tell us TINA
as if they read it in the Bible.
If the US is legally required to "buy American" for infrastructure
products that's going to restore
some
jobs and preserve
steel-making know-how domestically. I think Trump's supporters would be
OK with that, even if it's not huge in terms of jobs numbers.
"First, the infrastructure spending won't lead to an increase in fiscal
spending, so it will not act as an economic stimulus. "
Not quite so. The other problem is private investment is going towards
areas of what should be termed as mal-investment. Most damaging is corporate
investment off shore – it costs money to destroy American jobs- but the Fed
is helping with ZIRP policy making it a little more cost effective to
destroy jobs. Then other private mal-investment areas are buying into a
overpriced stock market (it's used stock – companies don't get the funds for
investment), over priced bonds and – every passive investors' favorite –
selling corporate bonds to buy back corporate stock. This is like "black
hole" capitalism.
But the main problem with private infrastructure investment is it usually
entails the granting of market monopolies to private entities. This has
never ended well and results in price gouging of the consumer, unless there
is a well functioning regulating body controlling prices. But we are always
told regulation is bad .and the [monopoly]market setting prices is good and
crony capitalists are working in our best interests, even tho it doesn't
always seem that way .
So we're in an era where private investment has failed the country.
Pouring huge Federal stimulus on top of the current transmission paths leads
to some "trickle down", at best. Really, the most effective thing to do is
just steal all the money back. :)
Trump could get a good start by becoming our "Bankrupter in Chief".
Cancel the F-35, forcing Lockheed into a prepackaged bankruptcy like they
did with Government Motors. We'd then have Government Defense Contractor,
with the stockholder and bondholder liability gone off the balance sheet.
The factories would still be there – just a new and improved cost structure.
Then work out a similar approach for health, drugs and education. We'd be
amazed how easily our "private sector" collapses if Uncle Sam just stops
paying it for a little while. :)
@Craazyboy – Like your ideas about "steal all the money back" (I
believe M. Hudson calls this 'claw back' – of all the money stolen from
the public with the help of the Fed after the 2008 financial crisis) and
"Bankrupter in Chief". But I'm hoping you were just being 'craazy' and
don't really believe Trump and his cronies want to do 'good'.
Let's hope Trump and the boys from GSachs concentrate on setting up
toll booths and Maginot Lines on the nation's borders when they think
infrastructure. That way the damage they do could conceivably be undone
in 10 – 20 years. Take a look at
http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/06/28/taken-for-a-ride-on-the-interstate-highway-system/
Following the model it suggests would of course require them to think
longer term than their take the money and run, short term profit seeking
mentality most likely permits, i.e. publicly funded infrastructure which
sets the rules for the operation of 'free markets' for a century to come.
For example, they could construct, at public expense, a national power
grid anchored at the nation's largest, dirtiest coal mines instead of the
best solar or wind locations. That way coal could again become 'cheaper'
than wind or solar for decades to come. The general idea here is the
construction of infrastructure which offers the possibility of the
greatest LONG TERM profit, even at the expense of short term principles
like private ownership of public infrastructure.
I believe Trump has the proven job experience to be our "Bankrupter
in Chief". But, no, I don't have high hopes he will exercise his
strengths in that area.
I have bad dreams that Trump finds out that he can only hire
Mexican labor to build The Wall, because they're the only ones living
in the neighborhood.
But, as you point out, they can create their own 100 year TINA.
Another current example – health care. We can't have single payer –
because "in America we have health insurance companies!"
A new acronym is needed for TINA. How about TIANA – 'there is
ABSOLUTELY no alternative'? I just love the stuff "the smartest
guys in the room" come up with – for example, erecting tolls booths
on everything and then off-shoring, out-sourcing and downsizing the
jobs their customers need to be able to pay the tolls!
The statement is correct as written. No increase in fiscal spending
means that the increase in infrastructure spending has come about by
cutting spending somewhere else. We've separately written at great length
as to the problems with privatization, which is what these public-private
partnerships would amount to.
Even as liberals are still wallowing in psychobabble, we see some ways of
handling the Republican elites and the Trump administration, and even
handing them some defeats. Ryan is a Republican intellectual (Obama told us
so), and someone who is politically weak. Removing Buy-USA language shows
exactly who he thinks his constituency is, and it isn't the good people of
Janesville, Wisconsin. If liberals could sense an opportunity, they'd run
him over with a steamroller.
Meanwhile, we will see if it is possible to hang this conundrum on the
members of Trump's cabinet, who are used to being coddled executives and to
exporting other people's jobs whenever they felt like it. Another possible
opportunity. (Just don't look for the DLC wing to lead on this issue.)
So the predicted fascist regime already can't get its act together. What
we're seeing is Reagan Redux, and there were plenty of ways of defeating the
tactics of that last TV star.
Removing Buy-USA language shows exactly who he thinks his
constituency is, and it isn't the good people of Janesville, Wisconsin.
If liberals could sense an opportunity, they'd run him over with a
steamroller.
Very interesting comment. I'm not in Ryan's district but I know many
people who are. The district has been gerrymandered to make it easier for
Ryan to hold (he still has Janesville but no longer has D-leaning
Beloit), but the fact is he is hugely popular despite holding position
after position that is contrary to the (economic) interests of his
constituents. I wish it were different but my sense is Ryan could go
shoot people in Times Square and still be re-elected for as long as he
wants.
"Removing Buy-USA language shows exactly who he thinks his
constituency is, and it isn't the good people of Janesville,
Wisconsin. If liberals could sense an opportunity, they'd run him over
with a steamroller."
Liberals aren't (or perhaps are no longer) looking for opportunities
that benefit the 99%. Conservatives, of course, aren't either because
those politicians work for roughly the same hundred families as the
Liberal politicians do. A left-populist would easily win today, Sanders
would have landslided Trump. But, of course, left-populism is the one
great existential political danger to those hundred families' wealth
piles. Liberalism, conservatism or even right-populism can all be managed
and navigated–and indeed exploited. Left-populism, let's not forget, came
really
dangerously close to getting the executive this
year. Like to the point that the kayfabe was in danger and "the force"
was palpably in flux.
The table is really set for left-populism right now to the extent that
any special catalyst or nucleation point could push it into open battle
with those hundred families. A battle that will be extraordinarily
difficult for them to navigate. All of the anti-democratic cheats
combined: the systemic corruption, the gerrymandering, the crooked
primaries, the voter suppression and outright electoral fraud, the
captive media and so on combined, as impressive as they are, can only
tilt the playing field so far. Exceed or surmount the entry barriers, and
much of those corruptive infrastructures listed above fall as well. You
can only game any putative democracy so far, and while that is a long
way, it isn't ever absolute. It's like having an impressive system of
dikes holding back the ocean, it all can work perfectly up to its
engineering limits, but once those physical limits are exceeded, none of
it subsequently works as it should. The extreme amount of energy holding
the illusion in place only becomes readily–undeniably–apparent when that
amount of energy is suddenly insufficient.
Sanders getting within a whisker of the executive is, I think, one
hell of a lot more significant than people know or allow. But I think
perhaps the longer it takes for left-populism to prevail, the stronger
its momentum will be. I don't see the devastations of the current
bipartisan, globalist neoliberalism empowering any other group as well.
Trump will in all likelihood do great damage to right-populism, clearing
out the field even more.
: To be the reserve currency issue, you need to be willing to run trade
deficits on an ongoing basis so there is plenty of your currency in foreign
hands. That is equivalent to having your domestic demand support foreign
jobs, or exporting jobs. [
Yves
]
This may indicate that any job growth in the U.S. won't be from making
more stuff ('buy American'), but rather by restricting
immigration
('hire American').
A CIS analysis using data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current
Population Survey showed that since 2000, 71 percent of the net
increase in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job
in New Hampshire has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal), even
though the native-born accounted for 65 percent of population growth
among the working-age.
Yes, this is a conundrum. A high import duty makes dollars harder to
get to those foreigners that want to save in dollars, so pushes up the
price, somewhat negating the duty.
Immigration roughly doubled in 1990, to current 1 million per year. Maybe
32 million since 1975, 10% of current pop.
1 million per year current immigration adds up, 10 million since 2006 or,
if unchanged, another 10 million by 2026.
This blog talks of stagnant middle lower class wages since mid-seventies,
wonder what effect 32mm immigrants had on wages or 24mm current
unemployed or given up looking workers?
Who do we care about most unemployed here or unemployed over there?
What, exactly, is wrong about a wall, or drastically reducing
immigration? Once somebody gets citizenship their family members get
priority is this good policy for the bottom 50%? We do know that corps
would like to further drive down wages, explaining her hopes for open
borders.
And what about students? Is it good policy to educate foreigners instead
of locals? Who wants to explain their reasons to locals turned away? To
their families? (To influence future foreign leaders? Really? Xi was
educated here would you say he is therefore our good buddy?) so who is
hurt, and who is helped, if we end or reduce student visas?
What is the progressive position on America, or Americans, first? I
would say that when unemployment is truly low we could allow some
immigration, when we expand our universities to account for pop growth we
could allow some foreign participation.
No more foreign adventures. We are already confronting Russia big
time sack the neocons at state and war departments and CIA Slash
armaments spending. End the useless wasteful f35, redirect spending to
infra. Withdraw 'tactical' nukes surrounding Russia.
Enforce steel and other violations of WTO agreements with great vigor.
Maybe a tariff would catch the attention of those assuming they have
unfettered access to our markets and therefore have no need to cooperate
in other ways. I doubt our tariffs would lead to a trade war exporters
desperately need our markets because their own unemployment terrifies
them and or because austerity has killed their own. (We can explain that
unemployment is, for the first time in decades, beginning to terrify our
own pols.)
Support Brexit with guarantee that existing trade agreement remains in
place. the sooner the euro disaster crashes and burns the better.
I fully expect a fight to come over labeling and country of origin laws.
The automobile industry already stretches the definition of "made in
America" to its breaking point for tax purposes.
I spent some time looking for American made tools in the local Sears
store.
What surprised me was the socket ratchets, that used to have "Made in
the USA" stamped in them now had no country of origin shown. "Made in
China" is only on the packaging.
I found, and bought, some pliers and tin snips that were still made in
the USA (and marked on the product as well) so it appears if a product is
not marked "Made in USA" one should assume it is imported.
At the local salvage yard, I found a sharpening stone that had
cynically printed on the packaging "Distributed with Pride in the USA" on
it while being made in China.
It is difficult to find American manufactured products at the retail
level. Even the iconic American brand Vise-Grip tools moved from DeWitt,
Nebraska to China, and I don't imagine the wages were very high in
Nebraska.
And even then if all you have is a "made in the U.S.A." label there
is no certainty it isn't produced by prison labor (made in the
U.S.A.!), many companies use it, but not every industry.
I deal with tools for a living. what has happened is the apex group
has bought up rights to the classic USA brands and offshored the lot.
dozens of brands all held by private equity. as an industrial/plant
mechanic, myself an all coworkers can verify that everything
has crapified. I now go exclusively on eBay for functional antiques.
"Cheap" masks the decline in an American's wages, and also the decline
in their standard of living. I've found that "cheap" imported tools are
inferior in the main. So, "cheap" helps Americans to delude themselves
that the "American Dream" is still alive.
The article lacks the names of the offending agents. What are the names
of the iron and steel importers and their chief executives and/or principal
owners.
In order to fight you need to know who to fight.
"First, the infrastructure spending won't lead to an increase in fiscal
spending, so it will not act as an economic stimulus. "
To add to craazyboy's comment, this isn't the full picture. If Trump's
policies incentivize private money towards infrastructure spending that has
a higher GDP multiplier effect than other activities like corporate share
buybacks, then the net macroeconomic result will be equivalent to stimulus
even without an increase in direct fiscal spending.
That said, I'm not a fan of public/private partnerships for precisely the
reasons you mentioned. But in this new administration, we may have to be
content with the crumbs :-) (plus, when the public/private investments
inevitably go bankrupt they'll be socialized at only twice the cost of
building it with public funds in the first place )
> If Trump's policies incentivize private money towards infrastructure
spending that has a higher GDP multiplier effect than other activities
like corporate share buybacks, then the net macroeconomic result will be
equivalent to stimulus even without an increase in direct fiscal
spending.
I don't think this is likely, primarily because the "PPP" projects are
going to erect tolls on major infrastructure. Tolls function as
regressive taxes and are going to act as a decelerator pedal on the
economy, diverting money from people who would spend it productively into
the pockets of politically-connected rentiers. Does it net out better
than dumping the same amount of private resources into stock buybacks?
Not if you believe in rational market theory. I mean at least a new road
or bridge exists that didn't before, but the economics of private
ownership are going to quickly extract even more. If they couldn't, the
investors would have done the buyback instead.
Huh? What do corporate stock buybacks have to do with fiscal spending?
Nada. That is apples and oranges.
You seem to be putting your fingers in your ear re the fiscal impact
issue. There will be no fiscal multiplier because this is not fiscal
spending. It's going to be privately financed with tax gimmies of various
sorts. To the extent those tax gimmies reduce tax revenues (the intent is
not much, that's the whole point of doing it this way), they'll be paid
for with cuts in spending elsewhere.
You have a fiscal multiplier effect ONLY with actual fiscal spending.
This is not that. All those studies that folks like Summers cited to
support infrastructure spending are irrelevant to how Trump is planning
to do this.
Bank loans also injects money into private sector. Most spending
likely to be gov backed loans, immediate effect similar to fiscal
deficits, though negated when loan paid back over time.
"That American-job-creating, buy-American thing is supported by 71
percent of the American public"
Is that the same 71% of the public that's made WalMart the largest
employer in the country? Buy American is a great concept in general but a
terrible policy to pursue individually in the face of cheaper imports.
That's why Donald Trump hires illegal immigrants to clean his hotels, and
Pat Buchanan drove a Mercedes.
The only way to do it meaningfully is by law and trade restrictions. And
I doubt Trump cares to do the hard work of passing those types of laws
(while overcoming entrenched bipartisan opposition). Much easier to pay a
few companies to temporarily keep a few jobs around and then take a victory
lap.
In 1989, California suffered a major earthquake and the bridge between
Oakland and San Francisco was deemed unsafe. The Legislature requested that
the rebuild use only US Steel. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed that and so
China sourced the steel.
Guess what, it delayed rebuilding and the new span is considered to be
unsafe. . . . In a future quake.
You would think that the government "buying American" would not be so
controversial. Not only does that give the corporations more responsibility
to do it right, it is also the right thing to do for many reasons.
1.) It employs Americans.
2.) It employs Americans, who can use that paycheck to buy things in
America, providing even more employment for Americans who can then go and
3.) It employs Americans, who pay taxes on those wages. Taxes that go to
building things in America, like infrastructure, or educating our children,
or yes feeding our hungry.
4.) It employs Americans, who for the most part have no reason to want to
sabotage those things, build back doors into them, or yes copy the plans so
they can be made cheaper in another country.
5.) It is the right thing to do.
I'm sure others can come up with other additions to the list, but to me
it is a no brainer. But of course it is a no brainer for most voters, it is
only our corrupt elected officials currying favor with foreign and
multinational corporations that have a conflict of interest who refuse to
admit it.
First Bush II bankrupted the country by cutting taxes for rich and unleashing Iraq war. Then
Republicans want to cut Social Securty to pay for it
Notable quotes:
"... His nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, a Republican congressman from Georgia, has been a champion of cuts to all three of the nation's large social programs - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. When discussing reforms to Social Security, he has ignored ways to bring new revenue into the system while emphasizing possible benefit cuts through means-testing, private accounts and raising the retirement age. ..."
"... But Mr. Price, who currently heads the House Budget Committee, has found a way to cut Social Security deeply without Congress and the president ever having to enact specific benefit cuts, like raising the retirement age. ..."
"... Mr. Trump's hands-off approach to Social Security during the campaign was partly a strategic gesture to separate him from other Republican contenders who stuck to the party line on cutting Social Security. But he also noted the basic fairness of a system in which people who dutifully contribute while they are working receive promised benefits when they retire. Unfortunately, he has not surrounded himself with people who will help him follow those instincts. ..."
Donald Trump campaigned on a promise not to cut Social Security, which puts him at odds with the
Republican Party's historical antipathy to the program and the aims of today's Republican leadership.
So it should come as no surprise that congressional Republicans are already testing Mr. Trump's hands-off
pledge.
... ... ...
As Congress drew to a close this month, Sam Johnson, the chairman of the House Social Security
subcommittee, introduced a bill that would slash Social Security benefits for all but the very poorest
beneficiaries. To name just two of the bill's benefit cuts, it would raise the retirement age to
69 and reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment, while asking nothing in the way of higher taxes
to bolster the program; on the contrary, it would cut taxes that high earners now pay on a portion
of their benefits. Last week, Mark Meadows, the Republican chairman of the conservative House Freedom
Caucus, said the group would push for an overhaul of Social Security and Medicare in the early days
of the next Congress.
... ... ...
Another sensible reform would be to bring more tax revenue into the system by raising the level
of wages subject to Social Security taxes, currently $118,500. In recent decades, the wage cap has
not kept pace with the income gains of high earners; if it had, it would be about $250,000 today.
The next move on Social Security is Mr. Trump's. He can remind Republicans in Congress that his
pledge would lead him to veto benefit cuts to Social Security if such legislation ever reached his
desk. When he nominates the next commissioner of Social Security, he can choose a competent manager,
rather than someone who has taken sides in political and ideological debates over the program.
What Mr. Trump actually will do is unknown, but his actions so far don't inspire confidence. By law,
the secretaries of labor, the Treasury and health and human services are trustees of Social Security.
Mr. Trump's nominees to head two of these departments, Labor and Treasury - Andrew Puzder, a fast-food
executive, and Steve Mnuchin, a Wall Street trader and hedge fund manager turned Hollywood producer
- have no government experience and no known expertise on Social Security.
His nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, a Republican congressman
from Georgia, has been a champion of cuts to all three of the nation's large social programs - Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security. When discussing reforms to Social Security, he has ignored ways to
bring new revenue into the system while emphasizing possible benefit cuts through means-testing,
private accounts and raising the retirement age.
There is no way to mesh those ideas with Mr. Trump's pledge. But Mr. Price, who currently
heads the House Budget Committee, has found a way to cut Social Security deeply without Congress
and the president ever having to enact specific benefit cuts, like raising the retirement age.
Recently, he put forth a proposal to reform the budget process by imposing automatic spending
cuts on most federal programs if the national debt exceeds specified levels in a given year. If Congress
passed Mr. Trump's proposed tax cut, for example, the ensuing rise in debt would trigger automatic
spending cuts that would slash Social Security by $1.7 trillion over 10 years, according to an analysis
by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. This works out to a cut of $168 a month
on the average monthly benefit of $1,240. If other Trump priorities were enacted, including tax credits
for private real estate development and increases in military spending, the program cuts would be
even deeper.
Mr. Trump's hands-off approach to Social Security during the campaign was partly a strategic
gesture to separate him from other Republican contenders who stuck to the party line on cutting Social
Security. But he also noted the basic fairness of a system in which people who dutifully contribute
while they are working receive promised benefits when they retire. Unfortunately, he has not surrounded
himself with people who will help him follow those instincts.
Susan Anderson is a trusted commenter Boston 1 hour ago
There is a simple solution to Social Security.
Remove the cap, so it is not a regressive tax. After all, Republicans appear to be all for
a "flat" tax. Then lower the rate for everyone.
There is no reason why it should only be charged on the part of income that is needed to pay
for necessary expenses should as housing, food, medical care, transportation, school, communications,
and such. Anyone making more than the current "cap" is actually able to afford all this.
There is no reason the costs should be born only by those at the bottom of the income pyramid.
As for Republican looting, that's just despicable, and we'll hope they are wise enough to realize
that they shouldn't let government mess with people's Social Security!
Thomas Zaslavsky is a trusted commenter Binghamton, N.Y. 1 hour ago
The idea hinted in the editorial that Trump has any principle or instinct that would lead him
to protect benefits for people who are not himself or his ultra-wealthy class is not worthy of
consideration. No, Trump has none such and he will act accordingly. (Test my prediction at the
end of 2017 or even sooner; it seems the Republicans are champing at the bit to loot the government
and the country fro their backers.)
Christine McM is a trusted commenter Massachusetts 2 hours ago
I wouldn't hold Trump to any of his campaign promises, given how often he changes positions, backtracks,
changes subjects, or whatever. His biggest promise of all was to "drain the swamp" and we know
how that turned out.
He might have a cabinet of outsiders, but they are still creatures from outside swamps. That
said, if there is even the barest of hints that this is on the agenda, I can pretty much bet that
in two years, Congress will completely change parties.
Imagine: cutting benefits for people who worked all their lives and depend on that money in
older age, all in order to give the wealthiest Americans another huge tax cut. For a fake populist
like Trump, that might sound like a great idea (he has no fixed beliefs or principles) but to
his most ardent supporters, that might be the moment they finally get it: they fell for one of
the biggest cons in the universe.
Rita is a trusted commenter California 2 hours ago
Given the Republican desire to shut down Medicare and Social Security, it is not hard to predict
that they will do so a little at a time so that people will not notice until its too late.
But since the Republicans have been very upfront with hostility towards the social safety net,
one can conclude that their supporters want to eliminate social safety net.
Mary Ann Donahue is a trusted commenter NYS 2 hours ago
RE: "To name just two of the bill's benefit cuts, it would raise the retirement age to 69 and
reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment..."
The COLA for 2017 is .03% a paltry average increase of $5 per month. There was no increase in
2016.
The formula for how the COLA is calculated needs to be changed to allow for fair increases
not reductions.
Mary Scott is a trusted commenter NY 4 hours ago
Republicans have been promising to "fix" Social Security for years and now we are seeing exactly
what they mean. We can see how low they're willing to stoop by their plan to cut the taxes that
high earners now pay on a portion of their benefits and decimate the program for everybody else.
I wouldn't be surprised if they raised SS taxes on low and middle income earners.
There has been an easy fix for Social Security for years. Simply raise the tax on income to
$250,000 thousand and retirees both present and future would be on much firmer footing. Many future
retirees will be moving on to Social Security without the benefit of defined pension plans and
will need a more robust SS benefit in the future, not a weaker one.
Don't count on Donald Trump to come to the rescue. He seems to hate any tax more than even
the most fervent anti-tax freak like Paul Ryan. Mr. Trump admitted throughout the campaign that
he avoids paying any tax at all.
The Times seems to want to give Mr. Trump limitless chances to do the right thing. "Will Donald
Trump Cave on Social Security" it asks. Of course he will. One has only to look at his cabinet
choices and his embrace of the Ryan budget to know the answer to that question. Better to ask,
"How Long Will It Take Trump To Destroy Social Security?"
At least it would be an honest question and one that would put Mr. Trump in the center of a
question that will affect the economic security of millions of Americans.
serban is a trusted commenter Miller Place 4 hours ago
Cutting benefits for upper income solves nothing since by definition upper incomes are a small
percentage of the population. The obvious way to solve any problem with SS is to raise taxes on
upper incomes, the present cap is preposterous. People so wealthy that SS is a pittance can show
their concern by simply donating the money they get from SS to charities.
david is a trusted commenter ny 4 hours ago
We can get some perspective on what Social Security privatization schemes would mean to the
average SSS recipient from Roger Lowenstein' analysis of Bush's privatization scheme.
Roger Lowenstein's Times article discusses the CBO's analysis of how the Bush privatization
scheme for Social Security would reduce benefits.
"The C.B.O. assumes that the typical worker would invest half of his allocation in stocks
and the rest in bonds. The C.B.O. projects the average return, after inflation and expenses,
at 4.9 percent. This compares with the 6 percent rate (about 3.5 percent after inflation) that
the trust fund is earning now.
The second feature of the plan would link future benefit increases
to inflation rather than to wages. Because wages typically grow faster, this would mean a rather
substantial benefit cut. In other words, absent a sustained roaring bull market, the private
accounts would not fully make up for the benefit cuts. According to the C.B.O.'s analysis,
which, like all projections of this sort should be regarded as a best guess, a low-income retiree
in 2035 would receive annual benefits (including the annuity from his private account) of $9,100,
down from the $9,500 forecast under the present program. A median retiree would be cut severely,
from $17,700 to $13,600. "
Few detailed solutions, some crazy quotes, but actually better than his rivals'
books.
,
November 3, 2015
By
K. Scott Schaeffer
Verified Purchase
(
What's
this?
)
This review is from:
Crippled America: How to
Make America Great Again (Hardcover)
Unlike a lot of political books, this one does not appear to be ghost-written.
Trump's bombastic communications style is loud and clear from beginning to end. It's
definitely coming from him. So I congratulate him on the fact that he's capable of
writing a book on his own, unlike Ben Carson, who needed his wife to help him write
his last two books.
The book starts off poorly, however, with CHAPTER 2 being a draw-out rant about how
the media treats Trump unfairly. It made me wonder if he was ever going to get to the
issues. When he did refer to the issues, he seemed to think the presidency was the
same as The Apprentice when he said, "The weaker schools will be closed, and
ineffective teachers will be fired." So if you thought the teacher-student ratio in
schools was bad, it looks like Trump firing teachers left and right will make it far
worse.
Shortly after, he follows with the unrealistic quote, "we need a military that will
be so strong that we won't have to use it." We already spend 8 times more than the
Russians do on defense. We already have enough nukes to wipe out the planet. But
terrorists really don't care about that. Reagan and Bush already proved that no
matter how much we spend on defense, terrorists still attack everything from the
Beirut Embassy to the World Trade Center to our troops in Iraq.
CHAPTER 3 goes right to his #1 topic – THE WALL: "Mexico will pay for it. How? We
could increase the various border fees we charge. We could increase the fees on
temporary Visas .we could pay for the wall through a tariff or cut foreign aid to
Mexico." First, these are all small revenue generating ideas that wouldn't come close
to paying for a 1000 mile wall. Second, American consumers would be the ones paying
the tariffs, not Mexico.
CHAPTER 4, on DEFENSE, starts with "Look at the state of the world right now There
has never been a more dangerous time. The so-called insiders within the Washington
ruling class are the people who got us into this trouble." Yeah, just ask someone
when a Republican president did a better job. When Reagan was president, he gave scud
missiles to Iraq after Saddam invaded Iran and started an 8 year war, while the
Soviets invaded Afghanistan through Reagan's entire presidency. Foreign affairs are
always a mess, and the Republicans do just as bad, if not worse, than the Democrats.
There were a few good quotes in this chapter, however. Here are a few:
Good quote: "We defend Germany. We defend Japan. We defend South Korea. We get
nothing from them. It's time to change all of that." In other words, if we are going
to defend other countries or help them in a war, we should be fully compensated for
that. I've been thinking that for years. (Note "I wrote this before I was aware that
Trump was so eagerly supported by Putin and was willing to turn his back on our NATO
allies. We should not make the same mistake the Soviets did when they signed the
non-aggression pact with Hitler and let him have his way in Europe, only to turn and
kill 14 million Soviets when he was done. Putin may be the most dangerous man on
earth.)
Good quote: "if we are going to intervene in a conflict, there had better be a direct
threat to our national interests Iraq was no threat to us."
Good quote: "There is no reason the federal government should profit from student
loans" - a sentiment already expressed by progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren.
CHAPTER 6: This ENERGY chapter is where the book goes south again, with quotes like
this one regarding the Keystone Pipeline: "eventually, the world will need that oil
and we will need the good jobs that it will create." Trump unwittingly reveals the
problem with his stance with this quote – American oil will be shipped to the world
and not kept here where we need it. That will decrease our energy independence. Trump
proves to be just one more Republican who is interested in serving global oil more
than he is the American people.
CHAPTER 7 is the HEALTHCARE chapter in which his best solution (after repealing
Obamacare) is "I'd like to see a private insurance system without artificial lines
drawn between states." He says this will increase competition and give customers more
choices. But I fear that after a while, we'll have no more choices than we do with
airlines. Trump offered virtually no other healthcare solutions in the brief
healthcare chapter, which is worrisome.
CHAPTER 8 is about the ECONOMY, where every conservative book fails, and this one is
no exception. Here's where Trump resorts to lies: "Our national debt is more than $19
trillion Even the most liberal economists warn that as we head past the $20+
trillion debt levels, we'll be in big, big trouble." Economists aren't concerned
about total dollars, since they go up with time due to population, inflation, and
production growth. They are concerned with debt as a % of GDP. Right now our public
debt is about 75% of GDP, as long as GDP grows as much as the debt, which is pretty
much the way it is now, little will change. Once public debt reaches more than 100% -
120% of GDP (it reached 118% in 1946), then perhaps we'll be doomed.
Here's a bigger lie: "When you also take into account the large number of jobholders
who are underemployed, the real unemployment rate soars to the high teens or even
20%." This is a proven lie. The U6 unemployment rate (which includes discouraged and
part-time workers looking to be full-time) is 10.0% as of 9/15 – the same as it was
in 2005 and 1996, when the economy was considered good (you can look this up at the
Bureau of Labor Statistics website).
This economics chapter offers few solutions. He just says he'll negotiate better
trade deals, and in the defense chapter, he says he'll create more jobs with
increased defense spending, which we know will balloon the debt the way it did under
Reagan and Bush. He says in the following chapter that we'll spend more on
infrastructure to create a lot of jobs. I agree with that point, but it's still more
government spending that will add to the debt.
And that brings us to his TAX PLAN in CHAPTER 17. In it, families who earn less than
$50,000 (which is just below the household median income) will pay no income tax.
That's about 50% of Americans. And then the rates beyond that are 10%, 20%, and 25%.
That's big tax savings for everyone. And he says "any business of any size will pay
no more than 15%", compared to the current corporate tax of 35% (a big break for
foreign billionaires who use America's infrastructure, safety, and workers to operate
their American plants, but pay no personal taxes since they aren't Americans). How
will this drastic tax cut for everyone not add to the debt? Trump's answer: "With
disciplined budget management and elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse, this plan
will allow us to balance the budget." This is a pathetically-empty promise. The
problem with it is that it takes a lot more spending to more-extensively monitor
waste, fraud, and abuse, and even with that, doing so is a tedious task that's easier
said than done.
In the chapters I didn't single out, Trump repeatedly toots his own horn by reviewing
all of his wonderfully-successful business accomplishments, while failing to address
the failures. And I don't recall the 4 corporate bankruptcies being mentioned,
either.
Despite this book's weaknesses, it's still better than Ben Carson's and Mike
Huckabee's books. Huckabee focused on turning southerners and heartlanders against
the rest of the country, while Carson frequently employed the
blame-the-worker/blame-the-poor approach in his appeal to increase taxes on the poor
while cutting their assistance – which is just plain cruel. I'm still afraid of Trump
becoming president, but not as horrified as I would be with most of the other
Republicans becoming president.
"... The Paul Ryan plan to privatize Medicare will invite the corrupt health insurance oligopoly to basically rob all folks blind. Privatization effectively ends Medicare. But can the NYTimes just say that? Of course not but Dean Baker can ..."
"... With 50 million people suffering directly or indirectly from family member suffering, voters will wage war on those responsible, and demand those responsible be punished: politicians, insurers, hospitals, doctors, drug companies, many of which are suffering financial declines ..."
"... NHS start looking like the obvious bailout of the health care industry. Every worker still employed plus half those fired or retired would become government employees running the NHS, just like in post WWII Britain. ..."
"... Pillage and plunder requires leaving your victims plenty of time to rebuild and build capital to make a return pillage and plunder worth the effort. ..."
"... Tax cuts have pillaged and plundered, leaving little possible profit. With the bottom 50% and top 1% paying no taxes, who profits from tax cuts? The 1% who can't get their government contracts past Ted Cruz due to current tax cut deficits? ..."
The Paul Ryan plan to privatize Medicare will invite
the corrupt health insurance oligopoly to basically rob
all folks blind. Privatization effectively ends Medicare.
But can the NYTimes just say that? Of course not but Dean
Baker can
:
How can you rob people who on the whole have no money to
steal?
Let's imagine the right get everything they want,
and end to Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and employer
health benefits tax deductibles. Now it's either private
insurers or nothing. Half the people will either be denied
private insurance of fall short of being able to pay for
it, especially if healthy, so insurers only get the people
most likely to get sick enough to profit from insurance.
Doctors and hospitals either refuse care for half the
population beyond minor care, or they shift costs of the
uninsured onto the insured, or they go bankrupt, or
sharply downsize and do only. concierge care.
With 50 million people suffering directly or
indirectly from family member suffering, voters will wage
war on those responsible, and demand those responsible be
punished: politicians, insurers, hospitals, doctors, drug
companies, many of which are suffering financial declines
.
NHS start looking like the obvious bailout of the
health care industry. Every worker still employed plus
half those fired or retired would become government
employees running the NHS, just like in post WWII Britain.
Unfortunately, Republicans are not that stupid, and
Democrats not sufficiently Machiavellian to throw millions
of Americans under the bus for five years for the great
good in the following twenty years, by which time
conservatives will have a new free lip unchanged plan to
justify pillage and plunder.
Pillage and plunder requires leaving your victims
plenty of time to rebuild and build capital to make a
return pillage and plunder worth the effort.
Tax cuts have pillaged and plundered, leaving
little possible profit. With the bottom 50% and top 1%
paying no taxes, who profits from tax cuts? The 1% who
can't get their government contracts past Ted Cruz due to
current tax cut deficits?
Wage and benefit cuts have pillaged and plundered
workers into seeing poverty surrounding them, so who is
left to slash wages and benefits? High tech workers?
Immigrant labor hired by high tech?
Industry has been pillaged and plundered. Farmers have
been pillaged and plundered.
Who is better off today than in 1980? Who sees greater
opportunity today than their peers saw in 1980? Which of
the flyover States with solid conservative government for
years, even decades, see great opportunity ahead from new
conservative pillage and plunder Laws?
Economies are zero sum in the long run. Conservatives
have spend labor income aka labor cost from before 1980,
from 1980 to the present, and realistically from today to
at least 2040 to pay for their pillage and plunder of all
factors of the economy, including government, since 1980.
The US is diminished as a result, with only the larger
population, larger due to immigration, representing an
increase in capital value. But the human capital is
burdened with debt run up by conservatives since 1980.
Few detailed solutions, some crazy quotes, but actually better than his rivals'
books.
,
November 3, 2015
By
K. Scott Schaeffer
Verified Purchase
(
What's
this?
)
This review is from:
Crippled America: How to
Make America Great Again (Hardcover)
Unlike a lot of political books, this one does not appear to be ghost-written.
Trump's bombastic communications style is loud and clear from beginning to end. It's
definitely coming from him. So I congratulate him on the fact that he's capable of
writing a book on his own, unlike Ben Carson, who needed his wife to help him write
his last two books.
The book starts off poorly, however, with CHAPTER 2 being a draw-out rant about how
the media treats Trump unfairly. It made me wonder if he was ever going to get to the
issues. When he did refer to the issues, he seemed to think the presidency was the
same as The Apprentice when he said, "The weaker schools will be closed, and
ineffective teachers will be fired." So if you thought the teacher-student ratio in
schools was bad, it looks like Trump firing teachers left and right will make it far
worse.
Shortly after, he follows with the unrealistic quote, "we need a military that will
be so strong that we won't have to use it." We already spend 8 times more than the
Russians do on defense. We already have enough nukes to wipe out the planet. But
terrorists really don't care about that. Reagan and Bush already proved that no
matter how much we spend on defense, terrorists still attack everything from the
Beirut Embassy to the World Trade Center to our troops in Iraq.
CHAPTER 3 goes right to his #1 topic – THE WALL: "Mexico will pay for it. How? We
could increase the various border fees we charge. We could increase the fees on
temporary Visas .we could pay for the wall through a tariff or cut foreign aid to
Mexico." First, these are all small revenue generating ideas that wouldn't come close
to paying for a 1000 mile wall. Second, American consumers would be the ones paying
the tariffs, not Mexico.
CHAPTER 4, on DEFENSE, starts with "Look at the state of the world right now There
has never been a more dangerous time. The so-called insiders within the Washington
ruling class are the people who got us into this trouble." Yeah, just ask someone
when a Republican president did a better job. When Reagan was president, he gave scud
missiles to Iraq after Saddam invaded Iran and started an 8 year war, while the
Soviets invaded Afghanistan through Reagan's entire presidency. Foreign affairs are
always a mess, and the Republicans do just as bad, if not worse, than the Democrats.
There were a few good quotes in this chapter, however. Here are a few:
Good quote: "We defend Germany. We defend Japan. We defend South Korea. We get
nothing from them. It's time to change all of that." In other words, if we are going
to defend other countries or help them in a war, we should be fully compensated for
that. I've been thinking that for years. (Note "I wrote this before I was aware that
Trump was so eagerly supported by Putin and was willing to turn his back on our NATO
allies. We should not make the same mistake the Soviets did when they signed the
non-aggression pact with Hitler and let him have his way in Europe, only to turn and
kill 14 million Soviets when he was done. Putin may be the most dangerous man on
earth.)
Good quote: "if we are going to intervene in a conflict, there had better be a direct
threat to our national interests Iraq was no threat to us."
Good quote: "There is no reason the federal government should profit from student
loans" - a sentiment already expressed by progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren.
CHAPTER 6: This ENERGY chapter is where the book goes south again, with quotes like
this one regarding the Keystone Pipeline: "eventually, the world will need that oil
and we will need the good jobs that it will create." Trump unwittingly reveals the
problem with his stance with this quote – American oil will be shipped to the world
and not kept here where we need it. That will decrease our energy independence. Trump
proves to be just one more Republican who is interested in serving global oil more
than he is the American people.
CHAPTER 7 is the HEALTHCARE chapter in which his best solution (after repealing
Obamacare) is "I'd like to see a private insurance system without artificial lines
drawn between states." He says this will increase competition and give customers more
choices. But I fear that after a while, we'll have no more choices than we do with
airlines. Trump offered virtually no other healthcare solutions in the brief
healthcare chapter, which is worrisome.
CHAPTER 8 is about the ECONOMY, where every conservative book fails, and this one is
no exception. Here's where Trump resorts to lies: "Our national debt is more than $19
trillion Even the most liberal economists warn that as we head past the $20+
trillion debt levels, we'll be in big, big trouble." Economists aren't concerned
about total dollars, since they go up with time due to population, inflation, and
production growth. They are concerned with debt as a % of GDP. Right now our public
debt is about 75% of GDP, as long as GDP grows as much as the debt, which is pretty
much the way it is now, little will change. Once public debt reaches more than 100% -
120% of GDP (it reached 118% in 1946), then perhaps we'll be doomed.
Here's a bigger lie: "When you also take into account the large number of jobholders
who are underemployed, the real unemployment rate soars to the high teens or even
20%." This is a proven lie. The U6 unemployment rate (which includes discouraged and
part-time workers looking to be full-time) is 10.0% as of 9/15 – the same as it was
in 2005 and 1996, when the economy was considered good (you can look this up at the
Bureau of Labor Statistics website).
This economics chapter offers few solutions. He just says he'll negotiate better
trade deals, and in the defense chapter, he says he'll create more jobs with
increased defense spending, which we know will balloon the debt the way it did under
Reagan and Bush. He says in the following chapter that we'll spend more on
infrastructure to create a lot of jobs. I agree with that point, but it's still more
government spending that will add to the debt.
And that brings us to his TAX PLAN in CHAPTER 17. In it, families who earn less than
$50,000 (which is just below the household median income) will pay no income tax.
That's about 50% of Americans. And then the rates beyond that are 10%, 20%, and 25%.
That's big tax savings for everyone. And he says "any business of any size will pay
no more than 15%", compared to the current corporate tax of 35% (a big break for
foreign billionaires who use America's infrastructure, safety, and workers to operate
their American plants, but pay no personal taxes since they aren't Americans). How
will this drastic tax cut for everyone not add to the debt? Trump's answer: "With
disciplined budget management and elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse, this plan
will allow us to balance the budget." This is a pathetically-empty promise. The
problem with it is that it takes a lot more spending to more-extensively monitor
waste, fraud, and abuse, and even with that, doing so is a tedious task that's easier
said than done.
In the chapters I didn't single out, Trump repeatedly toots his own horn by reviewing
all of his wonderfully-successful business accomplishments, while failing to address
the failures. And I don't recall the 4 corporate bankruptcies being mentioned,
either.
Despite this book's weaknesses, it's still better than Ben Carson's and Mike
Huckabee's books. Huckabee focused on turning southerners and heartlanders against
the rest of the country, while Carson frequently employed the
blame-the-worker/blame-the-poor approach in his appeal to increase taxes on the poor
while cutting their assistance – which is just plain cruel. I'm still afraid of Trump
becoming president, but not as horrified as I would be with most of the other
Republicans becoming president.
"... Steve Bannon, who is Trump's chief strategist and advisor, knows that he won't be able to build a strong, divers coalition to support his political revolution without boosting growth and improving conditions for working people. That's why fixing the economy is Job 1. ..."
"... Trump also wants to reduce the top tax rate from 39.6% to 33%, while making modest reductions to the other brackets. Under the Trump plan, "a taxpayer who makes between $48,000 to $83,000 a year would save about $1,000 (while) people in the top 0.01%, making $3.7 million or more in a year, would receive $1 million in annual tax savings." (USA Today) ..."
"... The idea that a Congressman can devote all his energy to lifting the ban on "abusive mortgages" - just eight years after abusive, predatory, toxic mortgages blew up the global financial system costing roughly $50 trillion and years of agonizing retrenchment– seems almost treasonous, doesn't it? And yet, at the very least, Hensarling is likely to become one of Trump's chief advisors on financial regulations. Go figure? ..."
Steve Bannon, who is Trump's chief strategist and advisor, knows that he won't be able to build a
strong, divers coalition to support his political revolution without boosting growth and improving
conditions for working people. That's why fixing the economy is Job 1.
Here's a quote from Bannon:
"The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue
now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over. If we deliver "we'll get 60 percent of the
white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's
what the Democrats missed. They were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion
market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about."
"It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing
a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's
the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up.
We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting
as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic
nationalist movement." (
Ringside with Steve Bannon , Hollywood Reporter)
I don't pretend to know anything more about Steve Bannon than I've read in the newspapers and
on the Internet. What I do know, however, is that if he is sincere in his desire to defeat the corrupt
political establishment and build a coalition that "will govern for 50 years", he's going to have
to find a way to climb down on his hardline immigration policies in order to implement his economic
strategy. That said, I expect Trump will settle on some way to minimize the damage he has done to
himself and call on congress to get more involved in the hot-button immigration issue. In other words,
he's going to have to punt if he wants to govern.
ORDER IT NOW
Bannon is the main architect of Trump's economic plan, a plan that has already earned broad public
support, but a plan that won't succeed unless it is drastically changed. Here's why:
Trump's economic plan can be broken into three parts: Tax cuts, deregulation and fiscal stimulus.
As far as tax cuts, there are three main subsets:
1–The corporate tax rate, which Trump wants to drop from 35 percent to 15 percent.
2–A tax cut on the so-called "repatriation of funds"– which lowers the rate on roughly $2 trillion
of cash that's currently stashed overseas by uber-rich US businesses that have been evading US corporate
taxes for years. Trump wants to give these tax dodgers a one-time "holiday" with a 10% penalty for
companies that agree to bring their cash back to the US. Trump believes that the one-time tax break
will increase business investment and employment in the US. Critics say the scheme will not work
unless the economy strengthens and demand grows.
3–Trump also wants to reduce the top tax rate from 39.6% to 33%, while making modest reductions
to the other brackets. Under the Trump plan, "a taxpayer who makes between $48,000 to $83,000 a year
would save about $1,000 (while) people in the top 0.01%, making $3.7 million or more in a year, would
receive $1 million in annual tax savings." (USA Today)
Here's a brief summary from economist Dean Baker:
"According to the analysis of the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution and the Urban
Institute, (Trump's) tax plan will reduce revenue by more than $9 trillion (close to 4 percent
of GDP) over the course of the next decade. This tax cut plan would effectively add close to $800
billion to the annual deficit when it first takes effect, with the amount increasing over time
"According to the Tax Policy Center, more than half of Trump's tax cuts will go to the richest
one percent of the population. The richest 0.1 percent will get tax cuts that average almost $1.5
million annually. The Trump tax cut is consistent with the fundamental principle of the Republican
Party, and unfortunately many Democrats, of putting as much money as possible in the pockets of
the rich." (
Republican deficit hawks abandon their religion , Smirking Chimp)
As you can see, most of the benefits from the proposed tax cuts go to the extremely rich. How
does that fit with Trump's campaign promise:
"I am proposing an across-the-board income-tax reduction, especially for middle-income Americans The
tax relief will be concentrated on the working and middle-class taxpayer. They will receive the
biggest benefit – it won't even be close."
The tax cuts look like a serious betrayal of Trump's supporters. They also look like a misguided
, short-term strategy that will derail Bannon's plan for broad coalition based on a strong economic
growth and rising wages. This latest iteration of "trickle down" economics will not help him achieve
that goal.
Unfortunately, the other parts of Trump's economic plan are equally dismal. For example, Trump
is determined to repeal many of the key provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, the toothless bill
that Congress passed in order to prevent another financial meltdown. At present, Texas congressman,
Jeb Hensarling - an outspoken critic of Dodd-Frank appears to be the frontrunner in the competition
for US Treasury Secretary. Hensarling, who just last week said "Dodd-Frank was a grave mistake",
is pushing his own Wall Street-friendly Financial CHOICE act, which would replace the bill with
a "pro-growth, pro-consumer" alternative" that would protect the banks from 'growth-strangling
regulation." (
Housingwire )
Is that what we really need, more laws to protect the banks?? Check out this clip from Fortune
Magazine:
"Hensarling wants to put the market in charge. His view is that encouraging banks to hold lots
of capital (as Dodd-Frank does) goes far enough by itself to shore up the system, making banks
far safer than the law's dense web of stress tests, complex limits on trading, and banning of
mortgages and credit cards deemed "abusive" by regulators. Now that Republicans control Congress
and the White House, it's highly possible that the Hensarling manifesto, or a large part of it,
will become law
"I will not rest until Dodd-Frank is ripped out by its roots and tossed on the trash bin of
history," (Hensarling) declared in a recent speech. The centerpiece of the CHOICE act is a provision
that would exempt banks from the more restrictive Dodd-Frank regulations " (
This
Congressman Could Turn the Dodd-Frank Financial Reforms Upside Down , Fortune)
The idea that a Congressman can devote all his energy to lifting the ban on "abusive mortgages"
- just eight years after abusive, predatory, toxic mortgages blew up the global financial system
costing roughly $50 trillion and years of agonizing retrenchment– seems almost treasonous, doesn't
it? And yet, at the very least, Hensarling is likely to become one of Trump's chief advisors on financial
regulations. Go figure?
What, in God's name, is Trump trying to achieve? On the one hand, he blames the Fed for inflating
another gigantic asset bubble and, on the other, he tries to remove the regulatory obstacles to bubble-making.
What sense does that make?
Here's a little more background on Trump's crusade against regulation. This is from the Wall Street
Journal:
"Donald Trump has tapped a longtime critic of heavy regulation to flesh out his new administration's
plans for remaking the financial rule book, including the potential dismantling of much of the
Dodd-Frank financial overhaul.
Paul Atkins served as a Republican member of the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2002
to 2008, where he spoke out against big fines for companies, arguing they punish shareholders.
Now Mr. Atkins, 58 years old, is the member of the president-elect's transition team charged with
recommending policies on financial regulation, according to current and former regulators briefed
on the matter.
Trump also wants to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) which recently imposed
a $100 million fine on Wells Fargo for using bank employees to create more than 2 million unauthorized
accounts to meet sales quotas. The action was applauded by consumer groups across the board which
is why Trump will make every effort to defang the watchdog agency. The president-elect appears to
be gearing up to eliminate any rule that impairs Wall Street's ability to rake in bigger profits,
whether it puts the American people at risk or not.
So how does this square with Steve Bannon's comments about coalition building and desire for a
stronger economy?
I can't figure it out, after all, Bannon sounds like a true believer, a no-nonsense, red-blooded,
blue collar working guy who hates the Wall Street, the Republican establishment and the mainstream
media. What's not to like about that?
But how does Bannon's hardscrabble upbringing, his commitment to tea party uprising, and his take-no-prisoners
combativeness, jibe with these flagrant tax giveaways, this anti-worker deregulation, and a fiscal
policy that only benefits the uber wealthy? I don't get it??
In an extremely persuasive interview with Buzzfeed News, Bannon disparages the new strain of "Ayn
Rand" capitalism that objectifies people and turns them into commodities. He expands on this idea
by giving a brief synopsis of the financial crisis that many will find galvanizing. Here's a clip:
"The 2008 crisis, which, by the way, I don't think we've come through - is really driven
I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks.
And one of the reasons is that we've never really gone and dug down and sorted through the problems
of 2008. Particularly the fact - think about it - not one criminal charge has ever been brought
to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis. And in fact, it gets worse. No bonuses and
none of their equity was taken. So part of the prime drivers of the wealth that they took in the
15 years leading up to the crisis was not hit at all, and I think that's one of the fuels of this
populist revolt that we're seeing as the tea party
The bailouts were absolutely outrageous, and here's why: It bailed out a group of shareholders
and executives who were specifically accountable.
In fact, one of the committees in Congress said to the Justice Department 35 executives, I
believe, that they should have criminal indictments against - not one of those has ever been followed
up on. (and) Middle-class taxpayers, people that are working-class people, right, people making
incomes under $50,000 and $60,000, it was the burden of those taxpayers, right, that bailed out
the elites.
It's all the institutions of the accounting firms, the law firms, the investment banks, the
consulting firms, the elite of the elite, the educated elite, they understood what they were getting
into, forcibly took all the benefits from it and then look to the government, went hat in hand
to the government to be bailed out. And they've never been held accountable today. Trust me -
they are going to be held accountable." (
This Is How Steve Bannon Sees The Entire World , Buzzfeed News)
Repeat: "They are going to be held accountable."
Bravo! He wants to lock them up. He wants the bankers to be held accountable and locked up! Who
doesn't want that? Every working slob in America wants that. This is why Bannon has attracted such
a loyal following; it's because his analysis of the financial crisis and its aftermath are "dead
on". The American people know they were ripped off, know that Wall Street is infested with crooks
and parasites, and know that the country is governed by a corrupt and unaccountable oligarchy of
racketeers.
Bannon has tapped into powerful feelings of frustration and rage, and he's built a thriving movement
on top of them. But where's the beef? His economic policy just doesn't deliver the goods. Bannon
is talking the talk, but he's not walking the walk.
The tax cuts don't deliver for working people and neither does deregulation. So what about the
third part of Trump's economic plan, the fiscal stimulus component?
Bannon says he's the driving force behind the $1 trillion infrastructure development program.
Unfortunately, the program is little more than a scam. Let me explain:
Typically, when people think about fiscal stimulus, they imagine expensive Keynesian "shovel
ready" infrastructure projects with lots of well-paid government workers building bridges, roads,
rapid transit systems and even schools. That's not what this is. According to economist Jared
Bernstein:
"Instead of just allocating the needed resources as in the traditional approach, they propose
to "offer some $137 billion in tax breaks to private investors who want to finance toll roads,
toll bridges, or other projects that generate their own revenue streams."
Since the plan depends on private investors, it can only fund projects that spin off user fees
and are profitable. Rural roads, water systems, and public schools don't fall into that category.
Neither does public transit, which fails on the profitable criterion (it depends on public subsidies."
(
Trump's misguided flirtation with Keynesianism , Politico)
This isn't going to work. It's completely self defeating. This is just more of the same, more
handouts to big business. The whole point of fiscal stimulus is to get money in the hands of the
people who will spend it fast, rev up the economy, boost growth, generate more demand and get the
economy out of its eight-year-long funk. The rebuilding of infrastructure is secondary, in fact,
it doesn't even matter. What matters is getting money circulating in the perennially-moribund economy.
Caspice?
Here's more on the Trump infrastructure boondoggle from an article in the Washington Post:
"Trump's plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It's a tax-cut plan for utility-industry
and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The Trump
plan doesn't directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports, as did Hillary Clinton's
2016 infrastructure proposal. Instead, Trump's plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors
who back profitable construction projects. There's no requirement that the tax breaks be used
for expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors
in previously planned projects
Second, as a result of the above, Trump's plan isn't really a jobs plan, either. Because the
plan subsidizes investors, not projects; because it funds tax breaks, not bridges; because there's
no requirement that the projects be otherwise unfunded, there is simply no guarantee that the
plan will produce any net new hiring.
Buried inside the plan will be provisions to weaken prevailing wage protections on construction
projects, undermining unions and ultimately eroding workers' earnings. Environmental rules are
almost certain to be gutted in the name of accelerating projects." (
Trump's big infrastructure plan? It's a trap. Washington Post)
These so called "public-private partnerships" are just another way for big business to suck money
out of the government. They don't help the economy, not really, and they don't help workers either.
If Bannon is serious about building his coalition on the back of a robust economy, there's an easier
way to do it. First get rid of the corporate ideologues and supply side radicals whose theories never
work. Then hire a team of reputable economists who have first-hand experience implementing thorny
stimulus programs of this magnitude. (Joseph Stiglitz, James Galbraith, Dean Baker, Michael Hudson,
Jack Rasmus)
Then start with the low-hanging fruit, that is, put money into already-running programs that will
produce immediate results. For example, in James Galbraith's epic article "No Return to Normal" the
economist recommends increasing Social Security payments. Think about that. It's a complete no-brainer.
The people who live on Social Security spend every dime they get every month, which means that -
if their payments go up by, let's say, $200 or more per month– then all that dough goes straight
into the economy which is what fiscal stimulus is all about. Also, increase food stamp funding, lower
the Medicare age of eligibility, and rehire a portion of the 500,000 federal workers who lost their
jobs in the Crash of '08. These policies will put money into the economy immediately, boosting growth,
increasing wages, and strengthening the prospects for whatever political party happens to be in office.
The point is, fiscal stimulus doesn't have to be a boondoggle and it doesn't require "shovel ready"
jobs. All that's needed is a competent team of economic advisors who know what the hell they're doing
and the political will to get the job done. Trump's economic plan doesn't do that, all it does is
slightly improve GDP while trillions of dollars are transferred to the bank accounts of behemoth
corporations and Wall Street cronies.
If Bannon is serious about fixing the economy and rebuilding the Republican party, my advice to
him would be: Give Galbraith a call.
"... i expected trump to be a standard republican, but with two important possible benefits, scuttling the trade treaties and recognizing the huge blunder the republicans committed in iraq (yes i know the democrats helped them immensely), and thus somewhat less likely to get us into a war with russia. ..."
"... Going back to the employment levels of the 70's was NOT on the ballot two weeks ago. What was on the ballot was a candidate who promised a hard or even crash landing for US coal and another who implied a much softer and stretched out landing. ..."
"... Does the research measure and compare the cost of polluting, to put "very expensive" in context? Mostly seems that the neoliberal "logic" of "free" markets never consider the costs of externalities, whether they be social or environmental. ..."
"... Many here are assuming that the current fracked natural gas volumes will continue indefinitely. This is a wrong hypothesis. ..."
"... Coal might be needed because locally produced natural gas can became expensive pretty soon and burning it for generating electricity would be unwise. It is an more important as input for chemical industry then for power generation. In power generation it is essential only for rapid balancing wind and solar energy production. ..."
"... The current costs of natural gas, which makes it suitable for power generation, are "unnatural" and can't be sustained for another ten years. So anybody who plans beyond that should think about alternatives. Coal is one of them. ..."
It's not greenhouse gas and climate change that killed coal. It was sulfur and soot. For some
odd reason, people didn't like having acid rain and smog. So regulations were passed to manage
that. Natural gas stepped in as an inexpensive clean replacement.
Coal was already on the way out before carbon emissions came to the fore.
Recent coal ash spills into rivers are also adding new cost layers to coal. People downstream
of power plants want to have actual water in their streams and rivers. Power companies are spending
billions of dollars now managing coal ash. That item wasn't on their ledger 5 years ago.
coal is still king in the third world. it amazes me how provincial we still are not to know
such things, but then we don't have any vacation, so go figure.
A really good con builds trust, first. A genius con can have his "mark" eating out of his hand,
even if the mark is wary, at first. Then, the con reels in his "mark", little-by-little. A promise
here; a promise there; just delivering on the initial promise hooks the mark a little deeper.
The con's appeal is always to the mark's most vulnerable weaknesses and desires. A genius con
can spot vulnerabilities in a potential mark within minutes. It's uncanny.
Once the con has begun, the mark is presented with statements of reassurance by the con, with
the mark eventually engaging in more and more confirmation bias, as, over time, the mark begins
to realize that things are not "quite right". The con keeps the mark busy by throwing up all kinds
of smoke screens about how the mark "shouldn't worry". Eventually, before the mark comes to full
awareness of have been completely screwed over, the con is long gone, having profited from his
game, and moved on to his next thing.
well most grifters imo aren't like clinton; they don't have a nasty ideological streak which
gives their scamming a more sinister purpose than merely staid old self enrichment (they're fine
with that, too). i think some of them can be loyal, too, to people they know, and they have to
try to be realistic. so the question would be who trump is conning, and how much regard he has
for his kids interests, which is mixed in with his own self regard if only because they represent
his only shot at immortality.
i expected trump to be a standard republican, but with two important possible benefits,
scuttling the trade treaties and recognizing the huge blunder the republicans committed in iraq
(yes i know the democrats helped them immensely), and thus somewhat less likely to get us into
a war with russia.
i didn't expect him to move so quickly to help us emit more co2. given the increasing pace
of climate change, that represents almost the level of threat of risking a war with russia. interesting
times.
I've often wondered why the Pentagon doesn't more aggressively 'lobby' both the Executive and
Legislative branches on such issues as climate change and income inequality. Both issues factor
heavily into defense planning scenarios and war gaming efforts. If the Pentagon were to openly
acknowledge that climate change and income inequality directly impede their ability to fulfill
their role in the national security strategy and defend the country, I'd have to believe the public
would rally around them on these issues, the President and Congress as well.
Its always hard to tell with those individuals. Plenty of them are 'true believers', but its
become impossible to get anywhere in Republican politics without buying into the 'climate change
is a hoax' meme – even McCain was forced to recant. So I would guess that some of them know full
well its a threat and would be pragmatic when it comes to decision making. I think also international
pressure could be significant, even isolationists don't want to become pariahs.
My guess is that his instinct will be to pull a fast one on the coal industry if its in his
interest. The energy industry is not a monolith – as an obvious example, the gas frackers would
love to kill coal stone dead, by shutting down coal thermal capacity they guarantee themselves
a bigger future market as gas displaces coal as base load. And the blob will be whispering in
his ear that oil and gas is more important than coal in maintaining energy independence. So I
suspect he will deliver his promises on oil and gas, but not coal.
I think saying that since Trump will be unable to bring US coal back to its heydays in the
70's that he somehow broke a campaign promise is unjust. All he said he would do is "save" the
coal industry. Going back to the employment levels of the 70's was NOT on the ballot two weeks
ago. What was on the ballot was a candidate who promised a hard or even crash landing for US coal
and another who implied a much softer and stretched out landing.
And whatever environmental damage that may be created by extending the life of the US coal
industry will be more than offset for by the decrease in environmental damage due to the decrease
in immigration Trump will bring about.
Overpopulation used to be discussed in environmental circles but since the related concept
of overimmigration became an item this whole discussion has been shut down. The more Trump's enforces
immigration restrictionist policies, the lower the US population will be in 2100. Current immigration
trends end up with a US population of 520 million or so. Very strict immigration restrictions
could result in steady state or no-growth population policy which could mean only around 340 million
in 2100.
The non-polluting part is key We are still cleaning up manufactured gas plants from the 1800s.
The converted coal into coal gas and coal tar to provide lighting and heat.
Well, H fuel cell cars are already on the scene, so it's a question of whether people like
them or not. You can purchase a Toyota Mirai with three years' complimentary fuel for a mere $57,500.
(CA rebate–$5,000)
"very expensive process (if it is done in a non-polluting way)"
Does the research measure and compare the cost of polluting, to put "very expensive" in
context? Mostly seems that the neoliberal "logic" of "free" markets never consider the costs of
externalities, whether they be social or environmental.
I have worked in power industry O&M for 35 years. The prospect of a coal renaissance is as
welcome as a zombie invasion, and about as likely. Burning gas is leaps and bounds better in every
imaginable way, and there wont be any going back.
Burning coal is miserable brutal work. wearing full body PPE while shoveling all day in the
summer is certainly an honest respectable living, Bill Ramey and the rest of the coal lobbyists
are welcome to come on down and pitch in if they think its so wonderful.
Telling ex-coal miners "we are sending you back in to the mines (because there is no other
work for you), and you will like it" (and they cheer) is the most appalling con worked in modern
times.
....Nothing trumps (sorry) population growth. It is the engine. Per-capita energy consumption
in the US is well below the 1970 peak – total is only going up because of population growth. As
far as the rest of the world: India makes noises about green tech, but these are fantasies: the
real plan is to burn so much coal that even if the US eliminated all carbon emissions it would
not matter.
Unless we address population growth as a factor which cannot be ignored – which is largely
the result of pro-natalist government policies and official silence – anything else is irrelevant.
In a word, no. Coal and oil fired electric plants are converting to natural gas at a rapid
pace. As the conversions continue and old coal fired plants are retired the outlook for coal grows
more dire. Even if the GOP Congress manged to provide some tax incentives or significantly eases
regulations, coal mining is not the manpower intensive enterprise it once was so employment will
not reach pre "slump" levels. Even so, it cost 66$ to generate 1MWh using natural gas, $92 for
coal. The economies of scale, ease and lower cost of transport and less wear and tear on the physical
plant and of course lower harmful emmisions of all types means natural gas is the fuel of choice
for the foreseeable future.
Coal's economic issues also stem from technological innovations that favor natural gas over
coal for to generate electricity. New Combined Cycle Natural Gas power plants generate more electricity
per unit of fuel than Coal Steam power plants. According to the U.S. Department of Energy "Coal
steam power plants require more energy input per megawatthour of generation than natural gas-fired
combined-cycle plants the low cost of coal relative to natural gas until recent years favored
the use of coal-fired generating":
I think this means that current technology allows us to convert more energy to electricity
from Natural Gas than Coal. This favors Natural Gas as a power source unless Coal is significantly
cheaper.
No, costs are getting too high for extraction even without regs and there are limits to how
much even Trump can do. The amount of labor engaged in the industry is less and less each year,
the antagonism toward the industry is growing in tandem. Wrecked roads, property, watersheds,
it is too visible and too messy, fracking is a bit cleaner, at least on the surface, pun intended.
Maybe the coal industry can swing it for a few more decades in Wyoming but not in Eastern KY
and to a certain extent in W. Virginia (W. Virginia is fine for a while, they still have a less
compromised "coal culture" and a lot of coke quality coal with a much higher wholesale rate).
Also, you can't deregulate natural gas and "save" coal at the same time. Natural gas will drop
in cost displacing what little room is left for coal. Remember that many coal plants are being
retired for wear and tear reasons, not just regulations. Lower natural gas will accelerate a move
to combined cycle facilities in a climate of low natural gas prices.
Once the domestic market is saturated with natural gas, producers will (try to) export the
natural gas, then the price will go up, then utilities will be in a pickle. Even if that doesn't
happen, as is always the case with fracked wells, the depletion rate is logarithmic. What to do
then, build more coal plants and swing back into a dying realm of power production? I doubt it.
Irony is, Trump may very well be the push needed to force utilities in the middle US to consider
renewables as viable to their portfolio. My hope is a less shitty candidate in 2020 can take advantage
of the stressful utility market to push a federal level energy initiative. Dreams, dreams.
Even if federal regulations are removed, there are still state regulations and the fastest
growing demand for energy is coming from states that are ideologically blue and committed to expanding
renewable energy use and fighting pollution. Chances of getting any new coal fired plants in the
states with the greatest demand and greatest capability to build new plants is unlikely.
Plus, there are the economics of natural gas as mentioned numerous times above. Trump promising
to "bring coal back" is like promising to bring horse and carriages back. Technology, demand,
and costs have moved on.
Many here are assuming that the current fracked natural gas volumes will continue indefinitely.
This is a wrong hypothesis.
Coal might be needed because locally produced natural gas can became expensive pretty soon
and burning it for generating electricity would be unwise. It is an more important as input for
chemical industry then for power generation. In power generation it is essential only for rapid
balancing wind and solar energy production.
The current costs of natural gas, which makes it suitable for power generation, are "unnatural"
and can't be sustained for another ten years. So anybody who plans beyond that should think about
alternatives. Coal is one of them.
"... (To read about Jon's mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix , click here .) ..."
"... 'We're in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong.' He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars," the source said. ..."
"... Understand that these grifters-because that's what they are-believe they own the news and the truth, even as they're making it up by the ton. They and their masters-six companies that control 90% of big media-dispense fake reality to the populace 24/7. And now ..."
"... They've got money, they've got arrogance, and they've got the airwaves, and it's not enough. ..."
"... Their little trick-"how dare you insult us"-won't work. In fact, it'll make things worse for them. Not long ago, one survey placed the public's trust in media at 6%, which is about on the same level as the trust in public bathrooms in scuzzy bars by the railroad tracks next to mining camps in the 19th century. ..."
(To read about Jon's mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix ,
click here
.)
It was instant legend.
Trump met yesterday with the rancid cream of media in his golden tower. They were there thinking
it was all about creating a structure for access to the next president. Little did they know.
Charlie Rose was there. Wolf Blitzer. Jeff Zucker, head of CNN. Martha "I weep for Hillary" Raddatz.
Gayle King. Lester "the weasel-king of interrupters" Holt. Chuck Todd. George "property of the Clintons"
Stephanopoulos.
Fake, fake, fake, fake, fake. The whole gang.
The NY Post has the story : "It was like a f–ing firing squad," one source said of the encounter.
"Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said 'I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar
and you should be ashamed,' " the source said.
"The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would
be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style
dressing down," the source added. "Trump kept saying, 'We're in a room of liars, the deceitful
dishonest media who got it all wrong.' He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest,
deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was
[a] network of liars," the source said.
" he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who [also] hosted
a [presidential] debate – which was Martha Raddatz who was also in the room." So You can hate Trump,
but if you can't find joy in this story, you're in need of a blood transfusion.
Way back at the beginning of the presidential campaign, I said that if Trump does nothing but
run against the media he'll be doing the country a great service, because they're all snakes and
cover-up artists and liars and they've been hypnotizing the population for as long as they've been
around. Trump went on to exceed my expectations in that regard.
If you can't stand Trump, you can fantasize about some other theoretical president who might have
carried off his attacks on fake news as well, and with the same effect, but this is the man who did
it. And yesterday was a landmark event in history.
Understand that these grifters-because that's what they are-believe they own the news and
the truth, even as they're making it up by the ton. They and their masters-six companies that control
90% of big media-dispense fake reality to the populace 24/7. And now
They're lost inside their own bubble. They've never felt this kind of fury from a president. They
don't know what to do.
They've got money, they've got arrogance, and they've got the airwaves, and it's not enough.
Of course they're outraged, and of course they'll continue doing whatever they can to undermine
Trump, but they know he couldn't care less that they're deeply, deeply offended. Their little
trick-"how dare you insult us"-won't work. In fact, it'll make things worse for them. Not long ago,
one survey placed the public's trust in media at 6%, which is about on the same level as the trust
in public bathrooms in scuzzy bars by the railroad tracks next to mining camps in the 19th century.
These media honkers can stand in front of their mirrors and keep combing their hair and they can
bring in new make-up people, and adjust the studio lighting and build new desks, and they can laugh
and smile at cocktail parties and pretend they're still in the ascendance, but they're rapidly turning
into laughingstocks, and the derision keeps building. If you feel sorry for them, your sympathy is
grossly misplaced.
The final straw here is Steve Bannon, Trump's new chief strategist and special counselor. The
editor of Breitbart,
Bannon recently stated in an interview : "The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what's wrong
with this country. It's just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no f-ing idea what's
going on. If The New York Times didn't exist, CNN and MSNBC would be a test pattern. The Huffington
Post and everything else is predicated on The New York Times. It's a closed circle of information
from which Hillary Clinton got all her information - and her confidence. That was our opening."
Trump is carrying out a sustained war against big media. He hasn't stopped. There is no sign he
will stop. He knows, and Bannon knows, that the public is fed up with mainstream media.
The unchallenged authority of The News has been cracked like an egg.
Yesterday, Trump doubled and tripled down.
Wake up and smell the singed hair and the sagging plastic surgery. The media stars are fading
in their fake sky.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections,
THE MATRIX REVEALED
, EXIT FROM
THE MATRIX , and
POWER OUTSIDE
THE MATRIX , Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California.
He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of
personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter
for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly,
Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered
lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the
world. You can sign up for his free emails at
NoMoreFakeNews.com or
OutsideTheRealityMachine
.
"... Moore surprised some of the Republican lawmakers assembled at their closed-door whip meeting last Tuesday when he told them they should no longer think of themselves as belonging to the conservative party of Ronald Reagan. ..."
"... They now belong to Trump's populist working-class party, he said. A source briefed on the House GOP whip meeting - which Moore attended as a guest of Majority Whip Steve Scalise - said several lawmakers told him they were taken aback by the economist's comments. ..."
"... "Just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party, Trump has converted the GOP into a populist working-class party," ..."
"... Moore has spent much of his career advocating for huge tax and spending cuts and free trade. He's been as close to a purist ideological conservative as they come, but he says the experience of traveling around Rust Belt states to support Trump has altered his politics. ..."
"... "It turned me more into a populist," he said, expressing frustration with the way some in the Beltway media dismissed the economic concerns of voters in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. ..."
"... "Having spent the last three or four months on the campaign trail, it opens your eyes to the everyday anxieties and financial stress people are facing," Moore added. "I'm pro-immigration and pro-trade, but we better make sure as we pursue these policies we're not creating economic undertow in these areas." ..."
"... Moore now believes Republican House members should be less ideologically pure and instead help Trump give the voters what he promised them. ..."
"... "He wants to spend all this money on infrastructure," Moore said, referring to Trump's potentially trillion-dollar infrastructure package. ..."
"... It's a massive spending bill that naturally appeals far more to Democrats than Republicans. Moore, who has worked for the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, is not a fan of the stimulus package, but he is prepared to support it. ..."
"... "But the political reality," he added, "is there's a backlash against trade. Whether we like it or not we better adapt the rules in ways that benefit American workers more, or free trade is not going to flourish. ..."
"... But Moore knows the days of Reaganite conservatism are probably over. "Reagan ran as an ideological conservative. Trump ran as an economic populist," he said. "Trump's victory," Moore added, "turned it into the Trump party." ..."
's economic adviser Stephen Moore told a group of top Republicans last week that they now belong
to a fundamentally different political party.
Moore surprised some of the Republican lawmakers assembled at their closed-door whip meeting
last Tuesday when he told them they should no longer think of themselves as belonging to the conservative
party of Ronald Reagan.
They now belong to Trump's populist working-class party, he said. A source briefed on the
House GOP whip meeting - which Moore attended as a guest of Majority Whip Steve Scalise - said several
lawmakers told him they were taken aback by the economist's comments.
"For God's sake, it's Stephen Moore!" the source said, explaining some of the lawmakers' reactions
to Moore's statement. "He's the guy who started Club for Growth. He's Mr. Supply Side economics."
"I think it's going to take them a little time to process what does this all mean," the source
added of the lawmakers. "The vast majority of them were on the wrong side. They didn't think this
was going to happen."
Asked about his comments to the GOP lawmakers, Moore told The Hill he was giving them a dose of
reality. "Just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party, Trump has converted the
GOP into a populist working-class party," Moore said in an interview Wednesday. "In some ways
this will be good for conservatives and in other ways possibly frustrating."
Moore has spent much of his career advocating for huge tax and spending cuts and free trade.
He's been as close to a purist ideological conservative as they come, but he says the experience
of traveling around Rust Belt states to support Trump has altered his politics.
"It turned me more into a populist," he said, expressing frustration with the way some in
the Beltway media dismissed the economic concerns of voters in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and
Michigan.
"Having spent the last three or four months on the campaign trail, it opens your eyes to the
everyday anxieties and financial stress people are facing," Moore added. "I'm pro-immigration and
pro-trade, but we better make sure as we pursue these policies we're not creating economic undertow
in these areas."
After such a transformative experience - and after witnessing Trump's stunning victory - Moore
now believes Republican House members should be less ideologically pure and instead help Trump give
the voters what he promised them.
"He wants to spend all this money on infrastructure," Moore said, referring to Trump's potentially
trillion-dollar infrastructure package.
It's a massive spending bill that naturally appeals far more to Democrats than Republicans.
Moore, who has worked for the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, is not a fan of the stimulus
package, but he is prepared to support it.
"I don't want to spend all that money on infrastructure," Moore said. "I think it's mostly a waste
of money. But if the voters want it, they should get it."
"If Trump says build a wall then he should build a wall. If Trump says renegotiate TPP [the Trans-Pacific
Partnership trade deal], he should renegotiate TPP." "Elections have consequences," Moore added,
"and I do think Donald Trump has a mandate." Moore says his "view on trade has adjusted a bit" over
the course of the 2016 campaign. "I used to be unilateral free trader," he said. "If somebody wants
to sell something to us at less cost than we can produce here, then do it."
"But the political reality," he added, "is there's a backlash against trade. Whether we like
it or not we better adapt the rules in ways that benefit American workers more, or free trade is
not going to flourish. "We can scream and whine all we want but that's reality."
Moore is excited about large parts of Trump's agenda. He helped write Trump's tax plan and thinks
the cuts will accelerate economic growth and create new jobs. He's also had a hand in Trump's energy
plan and looks forward to slashing regulations hindering American energy production.
But Moore knows the days of Reaganite conservatism are probably over. "Reagan ran as an ideological
conservative. Trump ran as an economic populist," he said. "Trump's victory," Moore added, "turned
it into the Trump party."
"... " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement ," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks . It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." ..."
"... Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches, so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message. He shows up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400 kids." ..."
"... Bannon on Murdoch: "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump" ..."
"... " The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ." ..."
"... ... I'd say, IMO, Steve Bannon is more than an excellent choice for President Trump's team ... Bannon's education, business, work and military experience speaks highly of his abilities ... I wish the MSM would stop labelling him a white nationalist and concentrate on his successful accomplishments and what he could contribute to Trump's cabinet. ..."
Bannon next discusses the "battle line" inside America's great divide.
He absolutely - mockingly - rejects the idea that this is a racial line. "I'm not a white nationalist,
I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist, " he tells me. " The globalists gutted the American
working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to
not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent
of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years.
That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion
market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about
."
Bannon's vision: an "entirely new political movement", one which drives the conservatives crazy.
As to how monetary policy will coexist with fiscal stimulus, Bannon has a simple explanation: he
plans to "rebuild everything" courtesy of negative interest rates and cheap debt throughout the world.
Those rates may not be negative for too long.
" Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement
," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the
guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the
world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all
jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks . It will be
as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists,
in an economic nationalist movement."
How Bannon describes Trump: " an ideal vessel"
It is less than obvious how Bannon, now the official strategic brains of the Trump operation,
syncs with his boss, famously not too strategic. When Bannon took over the campaign from Paul
Manafort, there were many in the Trump circle who had resigned themselves to the inevitability
of the candidate listening to no one . But here too was a Bannon insight: When the campaign seemed
most in free fall or disarray, it was perhaps most on target. While Clinton was largely absent
from the campaign trail and concentrating on courting her donors, Trump - even after the leak
of the grab-them-by-the-pussy audio - was speaking to ever-growing crowds of thirty-five or forty
thousand. "He gets it, he gets it intuitively," says Bannon, perhaps still surprised he has found
such an ideal vessel. "You have probably the greatest orator since William Jennings Bryan, coupled
with an economic populist message and two political parties that are so owned by the donors that
they don't speak to their audience. But he speaks in a non-political vernacular, he communicates
with these people in a very visceral way. Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches,
so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message. He shows
up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When
they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400
kids."
Bannon on Murdoch: "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump"
At that moment, as we talk, there's a knock on the door of Bannon's office, a temporary, impersonal,
middle-level executive space with a hodgepodge of chairs for constant impromptu meetings. Sen.
Ted Cruz, once the Republican firebrand, now quite a small and unassuming figure, has been waiting
patiently for a chat and Bannon excuses himself for a short while. It is clear when we return
to our conversation that it is not just the liberal establishment that Bannon feels he has triumphed
over, but the conservative one too - not least of all Fox News and its owners, the Murdochs. "They
got it more wrong than anybody," he says. " Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump.
To him, Trump is a radical. Now they'll go centrist and build the network around Megyn Kelly."
Bannon recounts, with no small irony, that when Breitbart attacked Kelly after her challenges
to Trump in the initial Republican debate, Fox News chief Roger Ailes - whom Bannon describes
as an important mentor, and who Kelly's accusations of sexual harassment would help topple in
July - called to defend her. Bannon says he warned Ailes that Kelly would be out to get him too
.
Finally, Bannon on how he sees himself in the administration:
Bannon now becomes part of a two-headed White House political structure, with Reince Priebus
- in and out of Bannon's office as we talk - as chief of staff, in charge of making the trains
run on time, reporting to the president, and Bannon as chief strategist, in charge of vision,
goals, narrative and plan of attack, reporting to the president too. Add to this the ambitions
and whims of the president himself, and the novel circumstance of one who has never held elective
office, the agenda of his highly influential family and the end runs of a party significant parts
of which were opposed to him, and you have quite a complex court that Bannon will have to finesse
to realize his reign of the working man and a trillion dollars in new spending.
"I am," he says, with relish, "Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors."
" The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia.
The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he
means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the
black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they
were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people.
It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ."
... I'd say, IMO, Steve Bannon is more than an excellent choice for President Trump's team
... Bannon's education, business, work and military experience speaks highly of his abilities
... I wish the MSM would stop labelling him a white nationalist and concentrate on his successful
accomplishments and what he could contribute to Trump's cabinet.
........ from wiki ...
Stephen Kevin Bannon was born on November 27, 1953, in Norfolk, Virginia into a working-class,
Irish Catholic, pro-Kennedy, pro-union family of Democrats. He graduated from Virginia Tech in
1976 and holds a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. In 1983,
Bannon received an M.B.A. degree with honors from Harvard Business School.
Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster
as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the
Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.
After his military service, Bannon worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in the Mergers
& Acquisitions Department. In 1990, Bannon and several colleagues from Goldman Sachs launched
Bannon & Co., a boutique investment bank specializing in media. Through Bannon & Co., Bannon negotiated
the sale of Castle Rock Entertainment to Ted Turner. As payment, Bannon & Co. accepted a financial
stake in five television shows, including Seinfeld. Société Générale purchased Bannon & Co. in
1998.
In 1993, while still managing Bannon & Co., Bannon was made acting director of Earth-science
research project Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona. Under Bannon, the project shifted emphasis from
researching space exploration and colonization towards pollution and global warming. He left the
project in 1995.
After the sale of Bannon & Co., Bannon became an executive producer in the film and media industry
in Hollywood, California. He was executive producer for Julie Taymor's 1999 film Titus. Bannon
became a partner with entertainment industry executive Jeff Kwatinetz at The Firm, Inc., a film
and television management company. In 2004, Bannon made a documentary about Ronald Reagan titled
In the Face of Evil. Through the making and screening of this film, Bannon was introduced to Peter
Schweizer and publisher Andrew Breitbart. He was involved in the financing and production of a
number of films, including Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman, The
Undefeated (on Sarah Palin), and Occupy Unmasked. Bannon also hosts a radio show (Breitbart News
Daily) on a Sirius XM satellite radio channel.
Bannon is also executive chairman and co-founder of the Government Accountability Institute,
where he helped orchestrate the publication of the book Clinton Cash. In 2015, Bannon was ranked
No. 19 on Mediaite's list of the "25 Most Influential in Political News Media 2015".
Bannon convinced Goldman Sachs to invest in a company known as Internet Gaming Entertainment.
Following a lawsuit, the company rebranded as Affinity Media and Bannon took over as CEO. From
2007 through 2011, Bannon was chairman and CEO of Affinity Media.
Bannon became a member of the board of Breitbart News. In March 2012, after founder Andrew
Breitbart's death, Bannon became executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, the parent company
of Breitbart News. Under his leadership, Breitbart took a more alt-right and nationalistic approach
towards its agenda. Bannon declared the website "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016. Bannon
identifies as a conservative. Speaking about his role at Breitbart, Bannon said: "We think of
ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly 'anti-' the permanent political class."
The New York Times described Breitbart News under Bannon's leadership as a "curiosity of the
fringe right wing", with "ideologically driven journalists", that is a source of controversy "over
material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist." The newspaper also noted how
Breitbart was now a "potent voice" for Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
Bannon: " The globalists gutted the American working class ..the Democrats were talking
to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality.
They lost sight of what the world is about ."
Well said. Couldn't agree more.
Bannon: " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political
movement I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan.
Dear Mr. Bannon, it has to be way more than $1trillion in 10 years. Obama's $831 billion American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) didn't make up the difference for all the job lost
in 2007/08. Manufacturing alone lost about 9 million jobs since 1979, when it peaked.
Trump needs to go Ronald Reagan 180% deficit spending. If Trump runs 100% like Obama, Trump
will fail as well.
"... All this means that, as a practical matter, China's contribution to a smartphone's total added-value may amount to little more than a few percentage points. Thus tariffs on China alone will, with the best will in the world, create remarkably few American jobs. ..."
"... even if Trump succeeded in imposing massive tariffs on Chinese goods, Apple would presumably retain the right to move the work to other cheap-labor nations such as Vietnam, India, Mexico, and Brazil. ..."
Meanwhile as Trump has repeatedly pointed out, many American airports are so dysfunctional and badly
served by ground transport that they would not be out of place in the Third World. According to the
latest annual survey by the Skytrax company of the world's best airports, Denver placed highest among
American airports – but ranked a mediocre 28 in the world. By comparison five East Asian airports,
including two in Japan alone, made it into the top 10.
Infrastructure apart, far bigger problems lurk just below the surface. They are summed up in one
statistic, albeit a statistic that a perennially out-to-lunch American press rarely mentions: the
trade deficit. Measured on a current account basis (which is the widest and most meaningful measure),
the trade deficit last year was $463 billion. This represented a stunning 4.7 percent of gross domestic
product (GDP). By comparison the worst figure in the 1970s – a decade when the United States was
already seen, both at home and abroad, as losing out badly in global competition – was a mere 0.5
percent. The truth is that the United States has not run a trade surplus consistently since the 1960s,
and in the last two decades the deficits have rarely fallen below 3 percent of GDP.
Why does trade matter matter? For many reasons, not least because deficits have to be financed.
In practice most of the financing has come from major sovereign investors, particularly the governments
of China and Japan and to a lesser extent other East Asian nations. Typically it comes in the form
of massive purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds. So far, the money has kept flowing but there is evidently
an implicit understanding: in return for doing their bit to keep both the U.S. dollar and U.S. financial
markets on an even keel, the East Asians will brook no lectures from Washington on opening their
markets to foreign trade. Hence a conspicuous silence in Washington in recent years on East Asian
trade barriers. Washington has entered a Faustian bargain and it is hard to see how even Trump, with
all his undoubted energy and determination, can break out of it.
He has talked about reopening shuttered factories. That is easier said than done. Once a nation
loses its position in any advanced manufacturing specialty, it finds it almost impossible to get
back in.
Take electronics. Trump seems to believe that by the simple expedient of imposing stiff tariffs
on Chinese imports he can encourage Apple to make iPhones in America. In reality, this badly misdiagnoses
the problem. Where the manufacture of sophisticated electronic consumer products is concerned, China
is a much less significant player than meets the eye. The product may bear a "Made in China" label
but this refers merely to the place of final assembly. Admittedly China does possess the knowhow
to make some components but generally only the simpler ones such as the plastic housing for a smartphone.
The serious components are made typically in high-wage nations like Japan and to a lesser extent
Korea, Taiwan, and Germany. Meanwhile Japan reigns supreme as the source of many of the most important
materials and production machinery used in the industry. Little noticed outside East Asia, such materials
and machinery are the ultimate driver of the electronic revolution.
All this means that, as a practical matter, China's contribution to a smartphone's total added-value
may amount to little more than a few percentage points. Thus tariffs on China alone will, with the
best will in the world, create remarkably few American jobs.
Moreover such jobs would be labor-intensive and therefore fundamentally unsuitable for a high-wage
economy. In any case it is highly debatable whether such jobs would be created in the first instance:
the point is that even if Trump succeeded in imposing massive tariffs on Chinese goods, Apple
would presumably retain the right to move the work to other cheap-labor nations such as Vietnam,
India, Mexico, and Brazil.
"... Each job offered under a federal employment assurance would be at a wage rate above the poverty threshold, and would include benefits like health insurance. A public sector job guarantee would establish a quality of work and the level of compensation offered for all jobs. The program would be great for the country: It could meet a wide range of the nation's physical and human infrastructure needs, ranging from the building and maintenance of roads, bridges and highways, to school upkeep and the provision of quality child care services"" ..."
""A lot of this has to do with the fact that Americans continue to be subjected to bad jobs
or unstable employment - and those who are employed often face stagnant or even declining wages.
The fragility of Americans' economic well-being is epitomized by the National Coalition for the
Homeless' estimate that 44 percent of homeless persons actually have jobs, albeit poorly paid
jobs.
The expansion of "flex work" arrangements, which make work hours uncertain, contribute significantly
to income volatility for workers in low-pay sectors of the economy. Around 50 percent of Americans
could not meet a $400 emergency expense by drawing upon their personal savings if they had to.
An alternative to these conditions is the adoption of a federal job guarantee, a policy that
would insure the option for anyone to work in a public sector program, similar to what the Works
Progress Administration established in the 1930s.
Each job offered under a federal employment assurance would be at a wage rate above the poverty
threshold, and would include benefits like health insurance. A public sector job guarantee would
establish a quality of work and the level of compensation offered for all jobs. The program would
be great for the country: It could meet a wide range of the nation's physical and human infrastructure
needs, ranging from the building and maintenance of roads, bridges and highways, to school upkeep
and the provision of quality child care services""
"... Each job offered under a federal employment assurance would be at a wage rate above the poverty threshold, and would include benefits like health insurance. A public sector job guarantee would establish a quality of work and the level of compensation offered for all jobs. The program would be great for the country: It could meet a wide range of the nation's physical and human infrastructure needs, ranging from the building and maintenance of roads, bridges and highways, to school upkeep and the provision of quality child care services"" ..."
""A lot of this has to do with the fact that Americans continue to be subjected to bad jobs
or unstable employment - and those who are employed often face stagnant or even declining wages.
The fragility of Americans' economic well-being is epitomized by the National Coalition for the
Homeless' estimate that 44 percent of homeless persons actually have jobs, albeit poorly paid
jobs.
The expansion of "flex work" arrangements, which make work hours uncertain, contribute significantly
to income volatility for workers in low-pay sectors of the economy. Around 50 percent of Americans
could not meet a $400 emergency expense by drawing upon their personal savings if they had to.
An alternative to these conditions is the adoption of a federal job guarantee, a policy that
would insure the option for anyone to work in a public sector program, similar to what the Works
Progress Administration established in the 1930s.
Each job offered under a federal employment assurance would be at a wage rate above the poverty
threshold, and would include benefits like health insurance. A public sector job guarantee would
establish a quality of work and the level of compensation offered for all jobs. The program would
be great for the country: It could meet a wide range of the nation's physical and human infrastructure
needs, ranging from the building and maintenance of roads, bridges and highways, to school upkeep
and the provision of quality child care services""
"... Trump promised to nominate a conservative to replace the late Antonin Scalia, and the possibilities he floated were well-received on the right. Assuming he keeps his promise, the only thing standing in the way is a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. ..."
"... Obamacare has some highly popular provisions that cannot work without its other elements or some replacement for them. The ban on discrimination against those with preexisting conditions is a prime example-by itself, it would encourage people to wait until they got sick to sign up for insurance, setting off the dreaded "death spiral." ..."
"... Here's an area where conservatives-at least conservatives in the "budget hawk" sense, as opposed to the "cut taxes and stick our kids with the tab" sense-should be worried. Trump's tax plan involved trillions of dollars of tax cuts targeted at the rich, with nowhere near enough spending cuts to pay for them. ..."
"... But Republicans love irresponsible tax cuts. They can't help themselves. It will be a combination of sad and ironic if a signature achievement of a populist movement is to cut taxes for the rich. ..."
"... We could certainly see, however, a variety of real reforms that have been held up for years by a Washington consensus that the American people don't share: things like more border fencing (which was already supposed to be built under a 2006 law ), an end to "deferred action" (accomplished through mere executive action to begin with), stronger enforcement against employers who hire illegal workers, reduced levels of low-skill immigration, and enhanced (even extreme!) vetting of immigrants from regions especially likely to send us terrorists. ..."
"... A silver lining for immigration supporters: getting the illegal-immigration problem under control could eventually make it easier to amnesty those already here. ..."
"... Rust Belt states hammered by free trade voted for Trump, and they will reap the policy rewards starting on day one . Phil Levy put it well in Foreign Policy : by now, "President Barack Obama once hoped to have completed both Atlantic and Pacific trade deals, as well as a Bilateral Investment Treaty with China. It now appears he will conclude none of these." Trump also would like to renegotiate NAFTA and pursue China more aggressively for unfair trade practices. ..."
Pretty much everyone thought Hillary Clinton would be the president-elect right now. As a result,
few spent much time gaming out the scenario we find ourselves in: next year, Donald Trump will be
the president, accompanied by a Republican (though not filibuster-proof) Senate and a solidly GOP
House.
I'm as guilty as anyone.
My last pre-election column was about what President Clinton would do to the Supreme Court. A
month ago I
tried to find Obamacare tweaks that Republicans could demand in exchange for helping to fix the
law, because only a moron would think anything more dramatic might be possible.
So here's an attempt to atone for my sins and outline the possibilities for a Trump presidency
in a number of domestic-policy areas.
The Supreme Court
Trump promised to nominate a conservative to replace the late Antonin Scalia, and the possibilities
he floated were well-received on the right. Assuming he keeps his promise, the only thing standing
in the way is a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.
Problem is, Democrats eliminated the filibuster for non-Supreme Court nominations back in 2013
via the "nuclear option" -- setting a precedent that could easily be followed in a second bombing mission,
this time directed at nominations for the high court. And to up the temptation, just weeks ago Tim Kaine was
mouthing off about how Democrats were already prepping the nuke. "If these guys think they're
going to stonewall the filling of that [Scalia] vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate
majority will say, 'We're not going to let you thwart the law,'" he said.
(It is not thwarting the law to stonewall a nomination.)
Unless they wimp out-a possibility that
should not be discounted -- Republicans are going to grab that bomb and set it off right in the
Democrats' faces, to the immense enjoyment of conservatives everywhere. Any Trump nominee acceptable
to Senate Republicans will be confirmed, both to replace Scalia and in the event that another justice
retires or passes away during the time Republicans have the Senate and the presidency.
In that case, everything I wrote last week is the opposite of reality. With Anthony Kennedy as
the swing justice once again, there will be more victories for the conservative legal movement.
And if Kennedy or a liberal justice is replaced with a conservative as well, some might get their
hopes up about bigger wins, like overturning Roe v. Wade .
Obamacare
Here the politics are less straightforward. Obamacare has some highly popular provisions that
cannot work without its other elements or some replacement for them. The ban on discrimination against
those with preexisting conditions is a prime example-by itself, it would encourage people to wait
until they got sick to sign up for insurance, setting off the dreaded "death spiral."
And as with the Supreme Court, the Senate filibuster is an obstacle to any move Republicans might
want to make. To get around this, the GOP has a few options: (1) pass the bill through the budget
"reconciliation" process; (2) kill the filibuster for legislation too, not just nominations, which
would be a drastic step; or (3) find
some other creative workaround .
They already did a dry run of the first approach, sending a (predictably vetoed) repeal bill to
President Obama. There's an important limitation, though: only the parts of the law that affect the
budget can be changed through the reconciliation process. The law's insurance regulations, for instance,
would still stand .
Another major question is whether to replace the law immediately, or sunset it gradually while
a replacement is hammered out. Considering there's some intra-party disagreement about how to replace
Obamacare, and considering no one has actual legislative language handy, the second option seems
wise.
(Both Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan do have health-care plans outlined, though. Like most
conservative health-care plans, these are attempts to combine flexible subsides with consumer choice
and deregulation to provide coverage at an affordable cost.)
A note of caution will hang over the proceedings. Democrats passed Obamacare with zero Republican
support, twisting the rules to avoid a filibuster after the election of Scott Brown. By the time
problems with the law started cropping up, Republicans had gained some power back and refused to
help fix the mess. If Republicans do what Democrats did in 2009 and 2010, Democrats will respond
the way Republicans did when the tables turn once again.
Budget
Here's an area where conservatives-at least conservatives in the "budget hawk" sense, as opposed
to the "cut taxes and stick our kids with the tab" sense-should be worried.
Trump's tax plan involved trillions of dollars of tax cuts targeted at the rich, with nowhere
near enough spending cuts to pay for them.
With most of Trump's more harebrained ideas, we can hope that he'll back off a bit, that new advisors
will be more serious (or influential) than the ones he listened to (or didn't) during the campaign,
or that Republicans in Congress won't send him a bill to sign. But Republicans love irresponsible
tax cuts. They can't help themselves. It will be a combination of sad and ironic if a signature achievement
of a populist movement is to cut taxes for the rich.
Immigration
This is one of those areas where we can expect Trump to back off of his campaign rhetoric a bit.
Mass deportations and a ban on Muslim immigration won't likely become a reality.
We could certainly see, however, a variety of real reforms that have been held up for years by
a Washington consensus that the American people don't share: things like more border fencing (which
was already supposed to be built under a
2006 law ),
an end to "deferred action" (accomplished through mere executive action to begin with), stronger
enforcement against employers who hire illegal workers, reduced levels of low-skill immigration,
and
enhanced (even extreme!) vetting of immigrants from regions especially likely to send us terrorists.
A silver lining for immigration supporters: getting the illegal-immigration problem under control
could eventually make it easier to amnesty those already here.
Trade
Rust Belt states hammered by free trade voted for Trump, and they will reap the policy rewards
starting on
day one . Phil Levy
put it well
in Foreign Policy : by now, "President Barack Obama once hoped to have completed both Atlantic
and Pacific trade deals, as well as a Bilateral Investment Treaty with China. It now appears he will
conclude none of these." Trump also would like to renegotiate NAFTA and pursue China more aggressively
for unfair trade practices.
All of this just scratches the surface. Trump's election completely changes the picture, from
climate-change and energy efforts to criminal-justice reform. The electorate's decision may prove
right or wrong, but that it's exciting is undeniable.
Robert VerBruggen is managing editor of The American Conservative.
Follow @RAVerBruggen
My biggest question for Republicans is how is Trump going to implement trade changes. I know everybody
loves big steel mills that employ thousands but these are things of past. However, the steel employment
is less than 55,000 so an increase of steel production of 10 – 20% means we would be lucky to
see an employment increase of 5,000. With 150M workers, that is drops in the bucket and now steel
is 15% higher in price.
And now all infrastructure and construction will be 3% higher in price. Can you imagine how
many jobs that will impact?
Rust Belt states hammered by free trade have actually been more hammered by automation. When those
jobs don't return but we have 35% tariffs raising the cost of a vast number of goods, the Rust
Belt states, and every other state, will be much worse off.
Fortunately, there is evidence already that this statement was a mere campaign ploy (like building
a wall, deporting them all with a deportment force, banning Muslims, special prosecutor for Hillary,
getting rid of all Obamacare, etc.), with Wilbur Ross stating in an interview the goal isn't to
get rid of trade agreements but negotiate to lower the trade deficit (using examples tried by
every president, like getting Asian countries to buy cotton from us).
It is fortunate, as stomping free trade would decimate the economy and act as a form or welfare,
by instituting higher costs on everyone to bring a few (but nowhere near as many as before automation)
jobs with salaries that are dwarfed by the amount of the cost to consumers.
But you know all this…this is Milton Friedman, this is basic conservative economic thought
that has been accepted by the mainstream conservatives forever and only criticized by (wrongfully
and through emotion rather than a conservative thoughtful analysis) by radical winds of the conservative
movement, such as one of this forums founders. There is no benefit to the country as a whole economically
from any limit to free trade. Even without considering all the other side effects (permitting
other powers to become hegemonic by leading trade platforms, creating animosity toward the US,
removing soft power of having our goods being exported), protectionism is a losing choice for
the country as a whole. To assume that is our only choice to help small groups hurt by free trade
merely evidences an obstinant refusal to even attempt to consider any alternatives.
"…getting the illegal-immigration problem under control could eventually make it easier to amnesty
those already here."
Allowing immigration scofflaws to keep what they broke the law to obtain (i.e., permanent US
residency) would subvert any attempt to control illegal immigration, just as it did with IRCA
in 1986 . Amnesty was a bad idea then and it's a worse idea now.
Alas.
Governance. Such a different world from being an irresponsible grandstander to the "Base".
I wish them all well.
And, since I became thoroughly disgusted with both major political parties years ago and registered
as an independent (to hell with the vanity… err… "Third" Parties), I am sitting back sipping Jameson
and munching popcorn while all the smart people sort things out.
As the saying goes in the antique stores, "You broke it, you bought it."
This article is totally blind to the local economy that has been obliterated by the global economy.
We once had a Virtuous Economy where the elderly saved money in banks and earned 6% on a CD; and
in turn, that money was lent to young families to buy homes and start businesses. It was virtuous
because it recycled money between generations and needed cultural values like saving, hard work,
ingenuity and a profit motive.
Conversely, a Global Economy requires that capital be diverted into stocks and bonds and away
from local banks. The vehicle for doing this is zero interest rates. This creates asset bubbles
in stocks and commodities especially real estate. And it shifts cultural values from saving, hard
work and profit motivation to earning money from contrive economic bubbles, arbitraging and gaming
the system.
The working class can't afford homes under a Global Economy so they were thrown a bone of sub
prime loans, that decimated their families with foreclosures, bankruptcies, divorces and substance
abuse.
What "made America great" was a pluralistic economy that was both Globalist and Localist. What
needs to be restored is "free trade" at the local level. But a Global Economy forces everyone
into a one-size-fits-all system that only benefits those along the "Left Coasts" and abandons
the "fly over country".
"... The angry and disaffected are victims of the neoliberal policies of the past generation, the policies described in congressional testimony by Fed chair Alan Greenspan ..."
"... As Greenspan explained during his glory days, his successes in economic management were based substantially on "growing worker insecurity." Intimidated working people would not ask for higher wages, benefits, and security but would be satisfied with the stagnating wages and reduced benefits that signal a healthy economy by neoliberal standards. ..."
"... in 2007, at the peak of the neoliberal miracle, real wages for non-supervisory workers were lower than they had been years earlier, or that real wages for male workers are about at 1960s levels while spectacular gains have gone to the pockets of a very few at the top, disproportionately a fraction of 1%. Not the result of market forces, achievement, or merit, but rather of definite policy decisions, matters reviewed carefully by economist Dean Baker in recently published work. ..."
According to current information, Trump broke all records in the support he received from white voters,
working class and lower middle class, particularly in the $50,000 to $90,000 income range, rural
and suburban, primarily those without college education. These groups share the anger throughout
the West at the centrist establishment, revealed as well in the unanticipated Brexit vote and the
collapse of centrist parties in continental Europe. The angry and disaffected are victims of the
neoliberal policies of the past generation, the policies described in congressional testimony by
Fed chair Alan Greenspan – St. Alan as he was called reverentially by the economics profession and
other admirers until the miraculous economy he was supervising crashed in 2007-8, threatening to
bring the whole world economy down with it. As Greenspan explained during his glory days, his successes
in economic management were based substantially on "growing worker insecurity." Intimidated working
people would not ask for higher wages, benefits, and security but would be satisfied with the stagnating
wages and reduced benefits that signal a healthy economy by neoliberal standards.
Working people who have been the subjects of these experiments in economic theory are, oddly,
not particularly happy about the outcome. They are not, for example, overjoyed at the fact that
in
2007, at the peak of the neoliberal miracle, real wages for non-supervisory workers were lower than
they had been years earlier, or that real wages for male workers are about at 1960s levels while
spectacular gains have gone to the pockets of a very few at the top, disproportionately a fraction
of 1%. Not the result of market forces, achievement, or merit, but rather of definite policy decisions,
matters reviewed carefully by economist Dean Baker in recently published work.
The fate of the minimum wage illustrates what has been happening. Through the periods of high
and egalitarian growth in the '50s and '60s, the minimum wage – which sets a floor for other wages
– tracked productivity. That ended with the onset of neoliberal doctrine. Since then the minimum
wage has stagnated (in real value). Had it continued as before, it would probably be close to $20
per hour. Today it is considered a political revolution to raise it to $15.
With all the talk of near-full employment today, labor force participation remains below the earlier
norm. And for a working man, there is a great difference between a steady job in manufacturing with
union wages and benefits, as in earlier years, and a temporary job with little security in some service
profession. Apart from wages, benefits, and security, there is a loss of dignity, of hope for the
future, of a sense that this is a world in which I belong and play a worthwhile role.
The impact is captured well in Arlie Hochschild's sensitive and illuminating portrayal of a Trump
stronghold in Louisiana, where she lived and worked for many years. She uses the image of a line
in which these people are standing, expecting to move forward steadily as they work hard and keep
to all the conventional values. But their position in the line has stalled. Ahead of them, they see
people leaping forward, but that does not cause much distress, because it is "the American way" for
(alleged) merit to be rewarded. What does cause real distress is what is happening behind them.
... ... ...
These are just samples of the real lives of Trump supporters, who are deluded to believe that
Trump will do something to remedy their plight, though the merest look at his fiscal and other proposals
demonstrates the opposite – posing a task for activists who hope to fend off the worst and to advance
desperately needed changes.
Exit polls reveal that the passionate support for Trump was inspired primarily by the belief that
he represented change, while Clinton was perceived as the candidate who would perpetuate their distress.
The "change" that Trump is likely to bring will be harmful or worse, but it is understandable that
the consequences are not clear to isolated people in an atomized society lacking the kinds of associations
(like unions) that can educate and organize. That is a crucial difference between today's despair
and the generally hopeful attitudes of many working people under much greater duress during the great
depression of the 1930s.
Donald Trump's proposal for $1 trillion worth of new infrastructure construction relies entirely
on private financing, which industry experts say is likely to fall far short of adequately funding
improvements to roads, bridges and airports.
The president-elect's infrastructure plan largely boils down to a tax break in the hopes of
luring capital to projects. He wants investors to put money into projects in exchange for tax
credits totaling 82% of the equity amount. His plan anticipates that lost tax revenue would be
recouped through new income-tax revenue from construction workers and business-tax revenue from
contractors, making the proposal essentially cost-free to the government.
Mr. Trump has made a $1 trillion infrastructure investment over 10 years one of his first priorities
as president, promising in his victory speech early Wednesday morning to "rebuild our highways,
bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals."
The Trump team's $1 trillion infrastructure investment plan over 10 years is laid out in a
description of the proposal on the website (#) of Peter Navarro, an adviser to Mr. Trump and a
public-policy professor at the University of California, Irvine. A presidential transition website
that went up this week (*) said Mr. Trump planned to invest $550 billion in infrastructure, without
offering details on where that funding would come from. Top Trump aides couldn't be reached to
comment on the proposal.
Experts and industry officials, though, say there are limits to how much can be done with private
financing. Because privately funded projects need to turn a profit, they are better suited for
major projects such as toll roads, airports or water systems and less appropriate for routine
maintenance, such as repaving a public street, they say.
Officials also doubt that the nation's aging infrastructure can be updated without a significant
infusion of public dollars. ...
Sanjait and PGL tell us that Hillary plans about $1.65
trillion in additional spending over the next ten years.
Wow that sounds like a lot! No wonder conservative web sites
are all up in arms about the new spending. (No doubt they're
trying to fan the flames of their already enflamed readers.)
Alan Blinder is a smart economist. He says otherwise:
"Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical
that fiscal policy will be loosened a great deal if Clinton
wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter
surveys.
"She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by
her programs," said Blinder, who is now a professor at
Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is
ought to be small enough for the Fed practically to ignore
it.""
But PGL bashed Bernie Sanders supporters and supported
centrist Clinton during the primary. What gives?
Why is he lying about her fiscal plans now?
And what about Hillary's endorsement of the centrist view
that we are not allowed to discuss the Fed during a
Presidential election. The deplorable voters aren't to be
trusted (when the experts like PGL and Bobby Rubin did such a
fine job with the housing bubble and financial crisis).
As the Blinder quote shows, Fed policy is very important
especially if it can "brush off" fiscal policy's effects on
employment levels and aggregate demand.
Peter K. -> Peter K....
, -1
Larry Summers and Krugman argue that Hillary Clinton's
infrastructure investment plans are "substantially" too
small. And they supported her!
Krugman went so far as to lie about Sanders and his
supporters. Summers called them populist authoritarians.
And yet PGL just outright ignores what they have to say
when he brown-noses them on every other occasion.
We know Sanjait is a centrist at heart the way he
bad-mouths Dean Baker on a regular basis.
If you still can't decide which candidate the "best policies", you're the enemy.
Here is the list of the "Contract with the American Voter" policies detailed by Trump:
Propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress
Institute a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through
attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health)
Require for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
Institute a five year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists
after they leave government service
Create a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
Institute a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
Announce intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205.
Announce withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Direct Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.
Direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign
trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under
American and international law to end those abuses immediately.
Lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing
American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
Lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like
the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward.
Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's
water and environmental infrastructure.
Cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President
Obama.
Begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges
on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities.
Begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and
cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back.
Suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting
of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.
Work with Congress on a Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act.An economic plan
designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive
tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and
lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle
class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of
brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The
business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American
corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.
Work with Congress on a End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies
from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products
back to the U.S. tax-free.
Work with Congress on a American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private
partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure
investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.
Work with Congress on a School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education
dollars to gives parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet,
religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to
local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college
more affordable.
Work with Congress on a Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces
it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines,
and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the
FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval
of life-saving medications.
Work with Congress on a Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act.Allows Americans to deduct
childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare
services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents,
with matching contributions for low-income families.
Work with Congress on an End Illegal Immigration Act. Fully-funds the construction of a
wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing
the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal
prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year
mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor
convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties
for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
Work with Congress on a Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and
violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that
train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and
federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.
Work with Congress on a Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating
the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability
to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital
infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure
those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values
Work with Congress on a Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms
to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.
While trump idea of cutting taxes for business might work in a sort term, the whole neoliberal
system is so corrupt that any attempt to make distribution more fair will be sabotaged. and Trump
appeal to small business owners is somewhat fake. When political in the USA talks about small
business owners typically he is a Wall Street stooge.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, is in a unique position to be able to tell the Wall Street lobbyists and special interests to "go to hell" while he actually fixes the U.S. economy, his senior economic adviser Peter Navarro told Breitbart News Saturday. ..."
"... The basic problem is for a congressman or a president to get elected, they need obscene amounts of money. And the only place you can get obscene amounts of money is from Wall Street and the big corporations who benefit from shipping our jobs and our factories overseas-that's the fundamental political problem. That's the beauty of Donald Trump. He's the change agent. He can tell Wall Street and these big people and corporations that want to ship our jobs overseas to go to hell. He stands up for our workers. ..."
"... Navarro's interview came just an hour before Trump's address in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, where he laid out what he will do in his first 100 days as president if elected on Nov. 8, and made his closing argument to the American people in the campaign. ..."
"... What happens is there will be a major speech that goes on for 40 minutes laying out in precise detail exactly what's going to get done and then the media will take a clip from that that's unrelated to the policy agenda and make that the news. It's difficult to push through that when so much of the media has a NeverTrump agenda. ..."
"... For every one percent of GDP growth that we have lost over the last 15 years, we've lost 1.2 million jobs. If you add that up over the 15-year period, that would be over 20 million jobs, which is about what we need to put everybody back to work at a decent wage. So that's the grim reality. ..."
"... Clinton is part of the problem. In fact, it's extraordinary to me-you cannot name a presidential candidate in history who has singlehandedly through bad trade deals destroyed more American jobs and more American factories than Hillary Clinton. She did NAFTA, she did China's entry into the World Trade Organization, she did the South Korean 2012 deal, every single one of those. We're talking about millions and millions and millions of jobs and just misery in all of the swing states in this election. ..."
Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, is in a unique position to be able
to tell the Wall Street lobbyists and special interests to "go to hell" while he actually fixes
the U.S. economy, his senior economic adviser Peter Navarro told Breitbart News Saturday.
Navarro said on the program, which aired on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
on Saturday:
The basic problem is for a congressman or a president to get elected, they need obscene
amounts of money. And the only place you can get obscene amounts of money is from Wall Street and
the big corporations who benefit from shipping our jobs and our factories overseas-that's the
fundamental political problem. That's the beauty of Donald Trump. He's the change agent. He can
tell Wall Street and these big people and corporations that want to ship our jobs overseas to go
to hell. He stands up for our workers.
Navarro's interview came just an hour before Trump's address in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania,
where he laid out what he will do in his first 100 days as president if elected on Nov. 8, and
made his closing argument to the American people in the campaign.
Navarro told Breitbart News Saturday of the speech:
This is basically a broad overview of the whole Trump policy agenda for America. It's very
exciting news. If you think about what's going on this year in America, we've got the slowest
growth since World War II. We've got a national security mess in every theater in the world
from Asia to the Middle East, and we've got a healthcare plan that is imploding, and we've got
an immigration plan that is overwhelming this country, so in the remaining days until Nov. 8
Mr. Trump is going to lay all of this out and it's going to be exciting to hear positive
policies talked about to the American people instead of anything but policy.
Trump, Navarro noted, has been giving detailed policy-oriented speeches across the United
States over the past several months while his Democratic opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton has been
running a policy-free campaign focused on insults and the politics of personal destruction.
Nonetheless, the media completely ignores Trump's solutions-focused campaign. So what Trump plans
to do now is circumvent the media while taking his message directly to the American people.
Navarro said:
What happens is there will be a major speech that goes on for 40 minutes laying out in
precise detail exactly what's going to get done and then the media will take a clip from that
that's unrelated to the policy agenda and make that the news. It's difficult to push through
that when so much of the media has a NeverTrump agenda.
So what Mr. Trump's going to do is just take the case to the American people between now
and election day that his agenda is the right one on the economy, immigration, healthcare, and
everything on down-national security-this is a critical election.
Hillary Clinton's agenda, Navarro said, would devastate the United States on every front. He
said:
In fact, if we turn the country over to Hillary Clinton at this point we know the
following: We know that she can't possibly be better at economically than we've been doing and
she'll probably do worse. We know that she will continue with the Obamacare agenda which is
collapsing before our eyes. We know that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy agenda will continue
to be weakness and chaos in places like the Middle East. We know all of this and it's
important for the American people to learn more in more granular detail about the competing
policies of each of the candidates and that's the mission between now and Nov. 8.
One of the key points he brought up during the interview was Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
growth in the United States, which since the early 2000s has significantly slowed down compared
with the latter half of the 20th century. That crushes Americans' chances of getting a good job
with high-paying wages, as the slowdown in the 21st century has cost the United States around 20
million jobs, maybe more. Navarro went on:
Let me give you just the central statistic of American life right now: From 1947 to 2001,
our economy grew at an average rate of 3.5 percent a year. Since 2002, that rate's fallen to
1.9 percent a year. For every one percent of GDP growth that we have lost over the last 15
years, we've lost 1.2 million jobs. If you add that up over the 15-year period, that would be
over 20 million jobs, which is about what we need to put everybody back to work at a decent
wage. So that's the grim reality.
Navarro said the reason this has happened is because of a "structural problem" in the U.S.
economy that people like Hillary Clinton refuse to solve:
Now, the question is: Why has this happened? The answer is simply that we have a deep
structural problem in our economy and the basic answer is we don't invest on American soil
like we used to. That's a major problem. We invest in Mexico and China and Vietnam and
Cambodia instead. That drains our GDP directly, and then we also run a massive trade deficit:
$766 billion a year, which alone probably takes a point off our growth rate. Now, Donald Trump
recognizes this. He recognizes that two of the most important things are to get more
investment on domestic soil by corporations and businesses and to eliminate the trade deficit.
Trump will solve the problem on four separate fronts, Navarro said, something that will take
bold leadership and courage in Washington. Navarro continued:
So what do you do? You attack that on four different fronts: regulatory, trade directly,
energy, and basically what we need to do is realign the incentives of corporations so that it's
better to invest in Michigan than Mexico. One of the ways to do that is to reduce the corporate
tax rate from 35 percent down to 15 percent, which would make us competitive with all of those
countries which have lower corporate tax rates and are basically running huge surpluses with us:
Germany, Japan, South Korea, China, Mexico. These are the countries that are just killing us
strategically. So, if we want to get better growth-stronger growth-we have to attack this
structurally. Now, what Obama and Clinton have been doing is treating the problem not
structurally but as a cyclical phenomenon that you can simply use what we call Keynesian stimulus
- named after John Maynard Keynes, famous economist: the idea that if you simply spend a bunch of
government money and print a bunch of government money that somehow that will stimulate the
economy. Well, we've had eight years of that. Barack Obama has doubled our debt from $10 to $20
trillion using fiscal stimulus and our Federal Reserve balance sheet has been totally destroyed
and what do we have to show for it? We have one percent growth instead of 3.5 or 4.
Navarro said Clinton has two separate ideas to "stimulate the economy," both of which he said
won't work.
"One is to basically tax the rich and give the money to everybody else," he said, noting that
that is essentially classic leftist redistribution of wealth that will "depress savings and
investment from the people who save the most and allow the most investment." Navarro added:
And the other is this wacky thing to significantly raise business taxes to get a pot of
money and then build some infrastructure. It might sound good to some people-we definitely
need the infrastructure-but the last thing we want to do is reallocate funds in America from
the efficient private sector to the less efficient public sector. Trump has an infrastructure
plan which will produce twice as much spending without having to raise any taxes. He uses an
elegant system of a tax credit to incentivize the private sector to build this stuff.
Navarro said the problem is, in addition to cheap labor overseas, a number of government
policies that strangle business development in the United States while encouraging offshoring of
U.S. companies. He elaborated:
Cheap labor is a small part of the problem at work here. If it were only cheap labor,
America would be in trouble. Because it's other things too, we have a great chance to turn it
around. Here's the problem: Our high corporate tax rate pushes our companies offshore. Our
high regulatory burden pushes our companies offshore. To the extent we put our coal miners and
oil and gas industry out of business and raise electricity costs and energy costs, that pushes
our corporations offshore. To the extent that we allow China to illegally subsidize goods and
sell them into this country, that pushes our jobs and factories offshore. To the extent we
don't hold the World Trade Organization and Mexico accountable for manipulating the rules of
the VAT versus income tax is very injurious to this country.
Navarro added that if someone is elected president with the "will and the intelligence" to
take on the special interests and fix the problems, America can survive this threat. He
concluded:
All of this stuff is in our hands. It simply takes the will and the intelligence to do it,
and the ability to resist the special interests who are on the other side of that equation.
Trump will solve this problem, Clinton is part of the problem. In fact, it's extraordinary
to me-you cannot name a presidential candidate in history who has singlehandedly through bad
trade deals destroyed more American jobs and more American factories than Hillary Clinton. She
did NAFTA, she did China's entry into the World Trade Organization, she did the South Korean
2012 deal, every single one of those. We're talking about millions and millions and millions
of jobs and just misery in all of the swing states in this election. If anybody is
listening to this in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, North Carolina, please
recognize that Hillary Clinton bears a major responsibility for whatever misery your state is
going through.
LISTEN TO PETER NAVARRO'S FULL INTERVIEW ON BREITBART NEWS SATURDAY:
David Dayen reenforces the point that Paul Ryan is party ideologist (and has
been for years) in bringing up Ryan's Wednesday statement that "he intends to
jam through the Ryan budget next year under a procedure that bypasses
Democratic opposition in Congress-and make that vow without fear of reprisal,
right in the heat of election season":
. . . Even today, the media assists Ryan when he tries to distance
himself from Donald Trump-when in reality, Trump would likely be little more
than an
autopen as president
, signing whatever noxious
policy Ryan shuttled through the House and put on his desk. Despite this,
the media almost affords him sympathy for his plight about dealing with
Trump (he's campaigning with Trump on Saturday, so it can't be that
wrenching), rather than recognizing his role as the author of the agenda the
next Republican president will carry out.
The normalization of Ryan as a serious, honest figure allows him to put
out as radical a budget as would ever be initiated
in American
history
without anyone batting an eyelash. This may not come back
to sting the country next year, if Trump falls the way his poll numbers
currently suggest. But at some not-too-distant point, when conservatives
capture the entire government, they'll be able to implement this blueprint,
the Ryan budget, that should have been made into nuclear waste long ago.
Isn't it nice that Ryan's plan is to save the Democratic Party in 2018
when they face challenges in keeping their seats at the same level the GOP
is facing this year?
If Ryan thinks there won't be consequences in ramming through changes to
Social Security or Medicare, he's bleeping insane and clearly hasn't been
paying attention.
I almost wonder if he can get the rest of his coalition to sign his
little suicide pact. If Trump doesn't implode him then Ryan's budget just
might.
Republicans merely can cherry-pick Ryan's budget-but they're a
monolith on core doctrine, tax cuts on income from wealth and
deregulation, eh?
. . . or this bonus–Robert Kuttner in American Prospect:
Trump has promised to repeal the
Dodd-Frank Act
.
That would take an act of Congress, but would not be necessary. He'd
need only to appoint stooges to several key Treasury positions, or
repeal existing regulations and not write new ones. The same is true
of a broad swath of environmental, civil-rights, and labor regulation,
not to mention rights of immigrants. . . Trump could reach out to such
relatively conservative unions as police, fire, and building trades
with a blend of carrots and sticks. He could try to enlist industrial
unions such as the Steelworkers and the United Auto Workers that are
most threatened by trade, and ask for their explicit support. Then he
could concentrate his fire on left unions like the Service Employees
International Union, which has a heavily black and Latino membership.
His white working-class bona fides would be strengthened-and the labor
movement's alliance with the Democratic Party sundered.
As a white union guy in an AFL union who knows plenty of other
white guys in other AFL unions, I find your whole scenario entirely
plausible.
Trump is very popular among my cohorts, which I find rather ironic
since he spent years on TV playing the role of boss. It wouldn't take
much, maybe a federal pre-emption of state right-to-work laws, to get
the union factions you spoke of on board. Cardcheck seems to be more
of an SEIU/UFCW type of issue and those definitely aren't Trump
unions.
Even today, the media assists Ryan when he tries to distance himself
from Donald Trump
Curiously, he fails to mention - or mentioned but editors cut -
allegations that to do so was official Hillary policy. The impending
flame-out of this Party system can be hung right on her and her mooks'
shoulders.
I have no fear of Ryan enacting his budget. Any party that enacts that
budget will be removed from power for the following three generations.
Everyone that was alive when that happened would have to die before that
party ever got another chance.
No doubt that party would then repeat that same mistake.
he High Dollar: President Clinton's Unaffordable Tax Cut
by Dean Baker
Truthout, November 15, 2006
Everyone knows about George W. Bush's unaffordable tax
cuts, the big tax breaks that gave millions to millionaires
and billions to billionaires, but few people are aware of the
even more unaffordable tax cut from the Clinton
administration. That is because President Clinton's tax cut
took a somewhat different form: an over-valued dollar.
While few people recognize it, the effect of an
over-valued dollar on the US economy is very similar to the
effect of large tax cuts. Tax cuts reduce revenue, which
leads to deficits and a growing debt, which will impose a
larger interest burden on the country in the future. In the
same way, an over-valued dollar leads to a trade deficit,
which results in borrowing from abroad. In future years, the
country will have to pay interest on the money it borrows
from abroad today, leading to lower living standards in the
future. In fact, the most important difference between the
two is that the trade deficit is much larger, clocking in at
more than $800 billion in 2006 (6.1 percent of GDP), while
the budget deficit is a comparatively modest $260 billion
(2.0 percent of GDP).
Clinton did not start his administration with a high
dollar policy. Lloyd Bentsen, his first Treasury Secretary,
deliberately allowed the dollar to weaken in the first years
of the Clinton administration, with the hope of keeping the
trade deficit at a manageable level. When he left office in
1994, the trade deficit was less than 1.5 percent of GDP, a
level that could be sustained indefinitely.
The high dollar policy came into being under Bentsen's
replacement, Robert Rubin. Rubin argued that a high dollar
would help control inflation. He made it the official policy
of the Clinton administration to support a high dollar.
As a short-term measure, Rubin is exactly right; a high
dollar does help to control inflation by making imports
available at a lower cost. This has the effect of keeping
prices lower in the United States and putting US
manufacturing firms at an enormous competitive disadvantage.
The basic story is relatively simple - if the dollar is
over-valued by 20 percent, then this is equivalent to
providing a 20 percent subsidy to imports, while placing a 20
percent tariff on all goods exported from the United States.
With the high dollar policy in place, it should not be a
surprise that we have lost more than 3 million manufacturing
jobs in the last decade.
But, it is important to realize that the feel good part of
the high dollar policy is only a short-term story. Just as a
tax cut can put more money in people's pockets until the
interest burden starts to exceed the size of the tax cut,
eventually the foreign debt builds to the point where it is
no longer possible to sustain the over-valued dollar. At some
point in the future, the dollar will fall, and it will hit a
level that is much lower than would have been the case if we
had not built up a massive foreign debt (now more than $3
trillion) during the years of the high dollar. As a result
future generations will be paying much more for everything
that the country imports from abroad - oil, other raw
materials, manufactured goods and services. In other words,
future generations will experience lower standards of living
because of today's high dollar, and the impact is more than
three times as large as the impact of the budget deficit.
The blame for the high dollar policy is bi-partisan. It
started under Clinton-Rubin, but it has continued in the Bush
years, even as the trade deficit exploded to more than twice
its previous record (measured relative to the size of the
economy). The Bush administration could have taken steps to
bring down the value of the dollar and thereby reduce the
trade deficit, but this would have meant sharp increases in
import prices, which would lower living standards. This would
be no more popular than tax increases - it is not surprising
that Bush would not choose to go this route.
Instead, President Bush continued the high dollar policy
that he inherited from Clinton, obviously hoping that its
collapse occurs when someone else is sitting in the White
House. For the politicians, this is a convenient pass the
buck story; only the person sitting there at the time will
have to take the blame when the bill from the high dollar
policy comes due. But, those of us who will have to pay this
bill should be clear, it was Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin
who started the tab running and George W. Bush who lacked the
courage to close the account.
The desire to beat
up on Donald Trump is
understandable, but it
is important to
realize that not
everything he says is
wrong. For example,
according to press
accounts he adheres to
the belief that the
world is round.
Anyhow, Greg Ip
goes a bit over board
in a Wall Street
Journal piece where he
argues that Trump's
claim that a trade
deficit can be reduced
or eliminated with
tariffs is wrong.
Referring to Trump's
approach to the trade
deficit, Ip tells
readers:
"But that is out of
step with standard
economics, which
predicts that a
country's trade
balance is determined
by the gap between
what it invests and
saves, not by
tariffs."
As an accounting
identity a country's
trade balance is
always equal to the
gap between what it
invests and what it
saves. This means that
if the U.S. invests
$200 billion a year
more than it saves,
then it will by
definition be true
that it has a trade
deficit of $200
billion.
However this
accounting identity
tells us nothing about
causation. If we are
below the full
employment level of
output, and Donald
Trump's tariffs or
threats of tariffs,
reduce our annual
trade deficit by $200
billion (@ 1.1 percent
of GDP), then this
would lead to
additional employment,
output, and savings in
the United States. A
standard multiplier
would suggest that a
$200 billion reduction
in the size of the
trade deficit would
lead to a $300 billion
increase in GDP. This
higher GDP would lead
to more corporate and
individual savings, as
well as more tax
revenue, which also
count as savings. (The
growth in GDP would
also led to more
imports, partially
offsetting the initial
improvement in the
trade deficit.)
In other words, it
is totally possible to
reduce the size of the
trade deficit as long
as the economy is
below its full
employment level of
output. This is basic
economic theory. Folks
should be clear on
this point, even if it
suggests that Trump
might be partly right
on something.
"... Policy makers and politicians, Goodman writes, "failed to plan for the trauma that has accompanied the benefits of trade. When millions of workers lost paychecks to foreign competition, they lacked government supports to cushion the blow. As a result, seething anger is upending politics in Europe and North America.' ..."
"... Along these lines, Trump has successfully appropriated an issue - the distributional impact of free trade - that was, in recent years, the turf of Democrats. ..."
"... 'The story of Trump's amazingly successful movement is also the story of how Democrats turned their backs on their working-class roots and sided with the elites on the crucial economic question of our times: Who would win from globalization, and who would lose? ..."
"... 'I don't want you to do that. And if you do it, you're not going to have any cars coming across the border unless you pay a 35 percent tax.' ..."
"... 'I'm going to tell the head of Carrier: "I hope you enjoy your stay in Mexico folks. But every single unit that you make and send across our border, which now will be real, you're going to pay a 35 percent tax."' ..."
Let's take Donald Trump's trade policies at face value.
If he is elected, "The era of economic surrender will finally be over," Trump declared, repeating
a favorite theme in a July speech in Monessen, Pa., once the heart of the state's steel industry.
(#) "I want you to imagine how much better your life can be if we start believing in America again."
As the world knows, Trump's rhetoric has found a receptive audience among angry white working-class
voters who have lost well-paying jobs to automation and outsourcing.
Legions of Trump supporters have legitimate grounds for discontent. As my colleague Peter Goodman
wrote last week:
'Trade comes with no assurances that the spoils will be shared equitably. Across much of the industrialized
world, an outsize share of the winnings has been harvested by people with advanced degrees, stock
options and the need for accountants. Ordinary laborers have borne the costs and suffered from joblessness
and deepening economic anxiety.'
Policy makers and politicians, Goodman writes, "failed to plan for the trauma that has accompanied
the benefits of trade. When millions of workers lost paychecks to foreign competition, they lacked
government supports to cushion the blow. As a result, seething anger is upending politics in Europe
and North America.'
Along these lines, Trump has successfully appropriated an issue - the distributional impact
of free trade - that was, in recent years, the turf of Democrats.
On Sept. 30, Rex Nutting, a columnist at MarketWatch.com, wrote "How Donald Trump hijacked
the Democrats' best issue":
'The story of Trump's amazingly successful movement is also the story of how Democrats turned
their backs on their working-class roots and sided with the elites on the crucial economic question
of our times: Who would win from globalization, and who would lose?
The downside of Trump's trade policy proposals is, however, considerable. Trump's protectionist
policies would negatively affect overall American economic performance and further aggravate the
harsh distributional consequences of globalization for just those workers who support him.
Gordon Hanson, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, emailed me his
analysis of Trump's economic scheme:
'Trump's strategy is essentially one of withdrawal from the world economy. He wants less trade
and less outward foreign investment. He offers no plans for how to improve our export performance.
This is protectionism, pure and simple.'
Erik Brynjolfsson, an economist at M.I.T.'s Sloan School of Management, was more forceful:
'No nation can succeed by trying to protect the past from the future. We will succeed by having
the confidence to embrace competition, and leveraging our comparative strengths, which are numerous.
We have the largest, most productive and most technologically advanced economy that's ever existed
on this planet. The more open the world economy is, the more we have an opportunity to leverage
our many strengths.'
Looked at this way, Trump's stance is an implicit admission that he and his followers do not
"believe in America" - an argument that the United States cannot compete successfully in the world
arena unless protected by the imposition of high tariffs and punitive taxes on foreign production
and foreign competitors.
Robert Reich, an economist at Berkeley, former secretary of labor under Bill Clinton and a leading
supporter of Bernie Sanders during the primaries, agrees.
Trump's trade proposals, Reich argues, 'assume the U.S. can't compete and must erect trade
barriers lest other countries flood America with better and cheaper products. That's the opposite
of believing in America.'
On Jan. 7, Trump told The New York Times that he would impose a 45 percent tax on goods imported
from China. "I would tax China on products coming in," he told the paper's editorial board. "The
tax should be 45 percent."
When Ford proposed building new manufacturing facilities in Mexico, Trump declared in a September
2015 speech that he would call the president of Ford and tell him:
'I don't want you to do that. And if you do it, you're not going to have any cars coming
across the border unless you pay a 35 percent tax.'
Trump said the same thing in March after the Carrier Corporation announced plans to move air-conditioning
production facilities to Mexico:
'I'm going to tell the head of Carrier: "I hope you enjoy your stay in Mexico folks. But
every single unit that you make and send across our border, which now will be real, you're going
to pay a 35 percent tax."'
Andrew McAfee, a director of M.I.T.'s Initiative on the Digital Economy and co-author of "The
Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies," was sharply
critical of Trump. In an email, McAfee wrote:
'There's a reason that all good economists support free trade, and that none of them are supporting
Trump's proposals. The reason is that trade gives us more and better access to goods and services
than we could produce on our own. It also provides jobs for exporters, people working in airports
and ports, and so on.
Free trade is not surrender, and not something that only suckers do. In fact, just the opposite.
Closing our borders would be surrender to a nonexistent enemy. It would make us poorer without
bringing back the jobs.'
Sean Wilentz, a historian at Princeton, contends that Trump's proposal is only slightly less drastic
than the Smoot-Hawley Tariff - a law passed over the objection of more than 1,000 economists and
signed by Herbert Hoover in June 1930. Smoot-Hawley is largely acknowledged as one of the principle
causes of the subsequent worldwide economic catastrophe. In an email, Wilentz wrote:
'Smoot-Hawley raised tariffs across the board, with every trading partner. The results were disastrous
for the world economy, let alone for the U.S. at the opening stage of the Great Depression. A worldwide
trade war commenced, and international trade was shattered. Trump so far has proposed only sharp
tariff hikes with Mexico and China - but these are two of the three largest sources of U.S. imports.'
...
... A Newsweek investigation has found that in at least two of Trump's last three construction
projects, Trump opted to purchase his steel and aluminum from Chinese manufacturers rather than United
States corporations based in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. ...
"... Clinton was told over eight years ago that a huge number of Americans are in pain with good reason. See John Edwards' Two Americas… She was ignoring it then, she planned on ignoring it again. Unfortunately Trump came along and recognized the pain. Sanders felt it. Clinton doesn't feel diddly except her own personal greed, ambition, entitlement, and anger at anyone who thinks her being a public servant means actually working in the public interest not her own. ..."
"... Yeah but Donald is at least pointing out the problem and proposing tax and tariff measures to partially restore manufacturing jobs to the Rust Belt. Hillary offers platitudes and attacks on Donald as her solution to the Dispossessed Americans. ..."
"... The Republican party is almost a monolith on core doctrine. Let's see Congressional Republicans move to upend the current trade regime or, indeed, give any indication. ..."
"... These 2 utterly wretched candidates do not cancel out each others' flaws at all. They both stink like rotten meat. The Trump-cheerleading that now typifies this comments section is as pitiable as the slavish Hillary boosting crap that tars the pages of the New York Times. ..."
"... It's not cheerleading. It's the reasonable assessment that Trump MIGHT be a disaster, but Clinton WILL be a disaster. ..."
"... OK. You're comparing a heel to a known mass murderer who took petty bribes to destroy entire countries. I don't really understand how you arrived at your conclusion, but ok. ..."
Clinton was told over eight years ago that a huge number of Americans are in pain with good reason.
See John Edwards' Two Americas… She was ignoring it then, she planned on ignoring it again. Unfortunately
Trump came along and recognized the pain. Sanders felt it. Clinton doesn't feel diddly except her
own personal greed, ambition, entitlement, and anger at anyone who thinks her being a public servant
means actually working in the public interest not her own.
For that alone she needs to be dropped kicked into obscurity and a future where she and Bill really
do find out what being broke and looking forward to the Social Security Check is like.
Yeah but Donald is at least pointing out the problem and proposing tax and tariff measures to
partially restore manufacturing jobs to the Rust Belt. Hillary offers platitudes and attacks on Donald
as her solution to the Dispossessed Americans.
If we had journalism instead of Poodledom there would be first a laying out of
what are presidential powers-given the limited possibilities of who controls the other branches of
government. And secondly, a replay of recent history of the two parties' actions on the major issues
affecting the common good (which admittedly doesn't exist for libertarians and Thatcherites).
The Republican party is almost a monolith on core doctrine. Let's see Congressional Republicans
move to upend the current trade regime or, indeed, give any indication.
Donald Trump is not a "much better candidate" than Clinton. More's the pity.
The Donald is a heel; a frivolous egotist who has screwed up many times over the decades. His
money and showman's cunning allowed him to prosper despite all the screw overs and screw ups.
He's been a heel for decades and there is no likelihood he'll improve if he attains high office.
Hillary Clinton - by contrast, not - is a supercilious elitist with more baggage than the cargo
compartment of a fully loaded 747.
These 2 utterly wretched candidates do not cancel out each others' flaws at all. They both
stink like rotten meat. The Trump-cheerleading that now typifies this comments section is as pitiable
as the slavish Hillary boosting crap that tars the pages of the New York Times.
OK. You're comparing a heel to a known mass murderer who took petty bribes to destroy entire
countries. I don't really understand how you arrived at your conclusion, but ok.
The New York Times did what we should expect newspapers to
do when reporting on presidential campaigns, it told readers
that Donald Trump's energy plans don't make any sense. In the
first paragraph of a piece * on a speech Donald Trump gave in
Pittsburgh, the NYT told readers that his promise to increase
production of both coal and natural gas is "impossible." This
is of course true, since the fuels are substitutes. In fact,
the main reason coal production has fallen sharply in the
last five years has been the boom in low cost natural gas
from fracking. If we increase the latter further, then it is
almost inevitable that it will result in a further drop in
coal production.
Mr. Trump may not know he is promising the impossible, but
now NYT readers do.
Dean seems to be saying that coal production fell as a result
of a fall in its demand curve which would lower coal prices
along the supply curve. This chart of coal prices confirms
this story:
All excellent points but let me expand on one that I have
blogged about:
"his estimates of the additional growth we
would get from cutting taxes and deregulating are wildly
inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would
amount to cuts of approximately 25 percent over 10 years
which is not politically feasible."
Cutting nondefense Federal purchases by 25% would be very
bad policy. At the same time, it would not reduce spending by
nearly the made up numbers Trump is claiming even if this
really bad policy were passed.
Of course Trump is not as bad as Paul Ryan whose magic
astericks if actually turned into a real policy proposal
would mean eliminating all nondefense Federal purchases. And
for some reason people consider Ryan a serious policy person.
No? He is nothing more than a lying clown.
Anon. :
, -1
How do you reconcile these views with the lack of reaction
from the stock market as Trump's chances improve?
For being an outsider he seems devoid of new ideas and other
than some distinctions in defense, immigration, and trade,
mostly conventional. Hardly a change candidate, only more of
the same.
Trump: Many criticisms of current government.
No workable solutions.
Trump is a pure outsider. He knows almost nothing about what
it takes to govern.
Trump would speechify and present bread and circuses while
Pence or Bannon would do the real work in the shadows
The
question people should ask?: Will Trump policy help my
situation?
Trump: Many criticisms of current government.
No workable solutions.
Trump is a pure outsider. He knows almost nothing about what it takes to govern.
Trump would speechify and present bread and circuses while Pence or Bannon would do the real work
in the shadows
The question people should ask?: Will Trump policy help my situation?
"Trump is a pure outsider. He
knows almost nothing about what it takes to govern."
Does not the absence of Washington experience
make him preferable by definition? ;-)
Because we know the results of those who supposedly "knew something" (the son of previous
President with English language problems and "change we can believe in" -- junior senator with
questionable biography and very little experience in governing as well as Joe Lieberman as
his Senate mentor).
But in more serious mode it is unclear whether he can be worse then Hillary, who is "status
quo" candidate.
My hope is that with his paleoconservaive inclinatins, he might be able to suppress excessive
financization and slightly tame Wall Street sharks. Looks like he does not like Wall Street
and that might be huge positive.
While Hillary is definitely is in the pocket (like her husband Bill).
According to Mark Thoma for internal economic policy Trump is a more questionable choice.
And that might well be true. But neoliberalism is now in deep internal crisis anyway, so all
choices are bad.
As for foreign policy he is definitely preferable over more jingoistic and reckless neocon
Hillary.
Looks like we have a very difficult choice here folks.
I'm shocked at how quickly the
GOP has fallen in line behind his anti free trade policies. It appears that the official platform
of the GOP is now in favor of protectionism and subsidies. The silence from the small-l libertarian
wing of the GOP has been deafening.
Neoliberal globalization had already run its course and a reversal is in cards. Brexit was
the first swan.
That means "Free traders" now are under the gun as the results of their policies are pretty
evident and different from the promise that "a rising tide lifts all boats". Republicans attitude
reflect this reality -- that's why Trump managed to get into position he is now.
"Peak (or more correctly Plato) Oil" is another big factor here and if the price dynamics
is up this will be another nail in the coffin of neoliberal globalization.
As Obama put it in different context "I am the only one who is standing between you and
pitchforks". And he really served this role for eight long years.
But the mood of electorate changed dramatically. That's why both parties now try to distance
themselves from this idea at least for the period of elections.
With Trump election pitchforks might really move closer to their targets. That's why Wall
Street and "Clinton's Demorats" are so firmly behind Hillary candidacy.
Hillary is a "status quo" candidate and has two additional advantages over Trump:
-- her failing health which might prevent serving her the full term,
-- there is a possibility of her impeachment for "emailgate", which really would be a "skeleton
in the closet" for her administration.
"... In many ways, Donald Trump follows the Republican playbook on fiscal policy. He believes in low taxes for the wealthy, and he wants to scale back or eliminate social insurance programs such as Obamacare. But there are two programs he has indicated he will try to protect, Social Security and Medicare. The question is whether he is serious about insulating these programs from cuts or saying whatever is needed to get votes, and whether these programs can be protected if he implements his tax cut plans. ..."
"... However, his estimates of the additional growth we would get from cutting taxes and deregulating are wildly inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would amount to cuts of approximately 25 percent over 10 years which is not politically feasible. If his plan were implemented, the debt would likely go up by trillions leaving Republicans with just three choices, reverse the tax cuts, make cuts to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, or accept the higher debt numbers. ..."
"... Many people struggling to make ends meet each month believe that it doesn't matter much for their lives who is elected president; their lives will go on much the same. But that is not true. Despite Trump's attempt to convince you otherwise, the working class has a lot to lose if he makes it to the White House. ..."
Donald Trump's chances of becoming president are higher than I ever expected them to be, and there is
a chance that he will be able to put his economic plans into place. He claims his economic policies
will be good for the working class, but in reality his plans for high income tax cuts and deregulation
adhere closely to standard Republican ideology that has favored the wealthy and powerful. Even his plans
for international trade, an area where he claims populist support, would hurt far more people than it
would help. Here are the four areas where Trump's economic plans concern me the most:
Social Security and Medicare: In many ways, Donald Trump follows the Republican playbook on
fiscal policy. He believes in low taxes for the wealthy, and he wants to scale back or eliminate social
insurance programs such as Obamacare. But there are two programs he has indicated he will try to protect,
Social Security and Medicare. The question is whether he is serious about insulating these programs
from cuts or saying whatever is needed to get votes, and whether these programs can be protected if
he implements his tax cut plans.
Donald Trump's latest tax plan does not increase the national debt as much as his original plan,
revenues will "only" fall between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion over a decade instead of $9.5 trillion.
Trump has claimed that all of the lost revenue will be made up through the plan's impact on economic
growth, cuts to nondefense appropriations (essentially everything except defense, Social Security, and
Medicare), and deregulation.
However, his estimates of the additional growth we would get from cutting taxes and deregulating
are wildly inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would amount to cuts of approximately
25 percent over 10 years which is not politically feasible. If his plan were implemented, the debt would
likely go up by trillions leaving Republicans with just three choices, reverse the tax cuts, make cuts
to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, or accept the higher debt numbers.
Republican members of Congress, who would almost surely be in control if Trump wins the election,
will not reverse the tax cuts. But they have been eager to cut entitlement programs, only the threat
of a veto from Obama stood in their way. Would Trump allow the debt to skyrocket, or would he, as I
believe, end up signing legislation from Congress that includes large cuts to Social Security and Medicare?
Despite his promises, two key programs the working class relies upon would be vulnerable with Trump
as president.
Deregulation: I've already mentioned Trump's plan to reduce regulation, to the point of calling
for severe reductions in the budgets of agencies such as the EPA, the Education Department, food safety
enforcement, and a reversal of Dodd-Frank and other financial regulation. Deregulation of the magnitude
Trump is proposing would be a disaster waiting to happen.
There are obvious dangers to areas such as the environment and food safety, but sticking with economics
it would also make the financial system, which needs more regulation not less, more likely to crash
again. There would be more tolerance of monopoly power – a source of rising inequality, and less protection
generally of workers and consumers from powerful business interests. Trump claims that deregulation
will create economic growth, but that didn't happen when Reagan and Bush deregulated and there's no
reason to think it will be different this time.
Federal Reserve Composition and Independence: Trump's statements about the Fed have been inconsistent.
In November he said that Janet Yellen hasn't raised interest rates "because the Obama administration
and the president doesn't want her to." But in May he said, "I'm not a person that thinks Janet Yellen
is doing a bad job. I happen to be a low-interest rate person unless inflation rears its ugly head,"
which he added he doesn't see happening anytime soon. But more recently he has gone back to a critical
stance, saying that Fed Chair Yellen is "obviously political," that "She's doing what Obama wants her
to do," and that she "should be ashamed of herself."
Trump has said he would replace Yellen if he is elected, and given his obvious lack of knowledge
about monetary policy he would likely rely upon his advisors to select a new Fed Chair and make appointments
to the Federal Reserve Board. That means we are likely to get a Chair and Board members who are hawkish
on inflation, opposed to financial regulation, more likely to base policy on strict adherence to a Taylor
rule (according to this framework, interest rates should have already been increased), and less likely
to take aggressive action if the economy crashes (except perhaps to bail out cronies on Wall Street).
That would be bad enough, especially for the working class who would take a back seat to concerns
about inflation and the interests of the financial sector, but my biggest worry is that Trump would
compromise the independence of the Fed. Trump's personality is such that he will want to be in control
of policy, and he will likely appoint people who are willing to do his bidding. The Fed's reputation
with the public is has fallen in recent years, and Trump's false accusation that the Fed is working
to serve Obama's political interests hasn't helped. If he further politicizes the Fed by appointing
Board members who will implement policy at his direction, it could do damage to the Fed as an institution
that would be very difficult to reverse.
International Trade: Trump's plans to renegotiate trade deals and impose tariffs on countries
that will not bend to his will have been discussed at length, and most economists believe it would be
very harmful for the economy. So let me just note that the most recent
estimate of the consequences of his
trade policy from the Peterson Institute is that his plan would cost the economy 4 million jobs,
send us into a recession, and be "horribly destructive." That's just an estimate, the actual number
could be larger or smaller, but whatever the actual number it would be very costly for workers.
There is little doubt that international trade has had a negative impact on workers in recent decades,
but the loss of millions of jobs and a recession is not the solution to this problem. We need tax and
transfer policies that ensure the gains from trade are widely shared, enhanced social protections for
workers who lose their jobs, and a concerted effort to attract more businesses that offer decent employment
opportunities. Trump's plans do not address these important issues.
Many people struggling to make ends meet each month believe that it doesn't matter much for their
lives who is elected president; their lives will go on much the same. But that is not true. Despite
Trump's attempt to convince you otherwise, the working class has a lot to lose if he makes it to the
White House.
"... It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less. ..."
"... U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582 billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40 billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil, sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand ..."
"... As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. ..."
"... "I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary, "like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor." ..."
"... America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said during a campaign stop in South Carolina. ..."
"... Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent. ..."
"... Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute, estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next eight years. ..."
"... He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. ..."
"... The Super PAC that backed Bush funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending by $102 billion a year. ..."
"... Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner to audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects. ..."
"... Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut in defense spending. ..."
"... At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard. ..."
"... Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest employers in the area. ..."
"... During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're spending billions." ..."
"... Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got the right idea. ..."
"... In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more with so much less. ..."
Donald Trump could be the only presidential candidate talking sense about
for the American military's budget. That should scare everyone.
"I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right
now," the real- estate-mogul-turned-tautological-demagogue said on Meet the
Press. "It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you
know what? We can do it for a lot less."
He's right.
U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget
for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582
billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40
billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil,
sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand
As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain
an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also
right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons
systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The much-maligned F-35 will cost at least $1.5 trillion during the 55 years
that its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, expects it to be flying. That number
is up $500 billion from the original high estimate. But with a long list of
problems plaguing the stealth fighter, that price will most likely grow.
"I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary,
"like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because
of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor."
America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington
is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions
on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We
can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)
said during a campaign stop in South Carolina.
Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure
out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to
the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent.
Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would
likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not
hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute,
estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next
eight years.
Ballistic-missile-launching submarines aren't cheap, for example, and Cruz
wants 12 of them. "If you think it's too expensive to defend this nation," Cruz
said, "try not defending it."
He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the
Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault
vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military
spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10
years.
Ohio Governor John Kasich might be expected to have a more reasonable stance.
After all, he sat on the House Armed Services Committee for almost 18 years,
where he slashed budgets and challenged wasteful Pentagon projects.
But that past is a liability for him. The Super PAC that backed Bush
funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not
wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending
by $102 billion a year.
Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong
support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner
to
audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record
in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to
reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut
in defense spending.
A Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II joint strike
fighter flies toward its new home at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, January
11, 2011. REUTERS/U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago/Handout
At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion
albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose
a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer
to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National
Guard.
Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring
jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he
pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General
Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest
employers in the area.
Yet, Sanders ideological beliefs can sometimes
color his views. He was chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee
in 2014 as scandal swept the Department of Veterans Affairs. Even as many VA
supporters called for reforms, Sanders defended the hospital system because
he felt conservatives were attacking a major government social-welfare agency.
He still defends his stewardship of the committee. "When I was chairman,
what we did is pass a $15-billion piece of legislation,"
Sanders
said during a recent debate with Clinton. "We went further than any time
in recent history in improving the healthcare of the men and women in this country
who put their lives on the line to defend us."
In the age of terrorism and Islamic State bombers, the prevailing political
wisdom holds that appearing soft on defense can lose a candidate the general
election. For many of the 2016 presidential candidates, looking strong means
spending a ton of cash. Even if you're from the party that holds fiscal responsibility
as its cornerstone.
But Trump doesn't care about any of that. In speech after speech, he has
called out politicians and defense contractors for colluding to build costly
weapons systems at the price of national security.
During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the
trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as
our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when
I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're
spending billions."
Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue,
he's got the right idea.
In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about
the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh
truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more
with so much less.
"... It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions. ..."
"... If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth. ..."
"... Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution. ..."
"... It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. ..."
"... he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed. ..."
"... What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success. ..."
= = = I am actually honestly suggesting an intellectual exercise which, I think, might
be worth your (extremely valuable) time. I propose you rewrite this post without using the
word "neoliberalism" (or a synonym). = = =
It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold
on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all
the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the
performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures
thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version
of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions.
bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 7:47 pm
In the politics of antonyms, I suppose we are always going get ourselves confused.
Perhaps because of American usage of the root, liberal, to mean the mildly social democratic
New Deal liberal Democrat, with its traces of American Populism and American Progressivism, we
seem to want "liberal" to designate an ideology of the left, or at least, the centre-left. Maybe,
it is the tendency of historical liberals to embrace idealistic high principles in their contest
with reactionary claims for hereditary aristocracy and arbitrary authority.
If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary",
the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the
existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles,
and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise
their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place
their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth.
All of that is by way of preface to a thumbnail history of modern political ideology different
from the one presented by Will G-R.
Modern political ideology is a by-product of the Enlightenment and the resulting imperative
to find a basis and purpose for political Authority in Reason, and apply Reason to the design
of political and social institutions.
Liberalism doesn't so much defeat conservatism as invent conservatism as an alternative to
purely reactionary politics. The notion of an "inevitable progress" allows liberals to reconcile
both themselves and their reactionary opponents to practical reality with incremental reform.
Political paranoia and rhetoric are turned toward thinking about constitutional design.
Mobilizing mass support and channeling popular discontents is a source of deep ambivalence
and risk for liberals and liberalism. Popular democracy can quickly become noisy and vulgar, the
proliferation of ideas and conflicting interests paralyzing. Inventing a conservatism that competes
with the liberals, but also mobilizes mass support and channels popular discontent, puts bounds
on "normal" politics.
Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives
can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal
constitution.
I would put the challenges to liberalism from the left and right well behind in precedence
the critical failures and near-failures of liberalism in actual governance.
Liberalism failed abjectly to bring about a constitutional monarchy in France during the first
decade of the French Revolution, or a functioning deliberative assembly or religious toleration
or even to resolve the problems of state finance and legal administration that destroyed the ancient
regime. In the end, the solution was found in Napoleon Bonaparte, a precedent that would arguably
inspire the fascism of dictators and vulgar nationalism, beginning with Napoleon's nephew fifty
years later.
It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject
failures of Liberalism that created fascism. And, this was especially true in the wake of
World War I, which many have argued persuasively was Liberalism's greatest and most catastrophic
failure. T he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany,
Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order,
Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments
and politics in the crisis that followed.
If liberals invented conservatism, it seems to me that would-be socialists were at pains to
re-invent liberalism, and they did it several times going in radically different directions, but
always from a base in the basic liberal idea of rationalizing authority. A significant thread
in socialism adopted incremental progress and socialist ideas became liberal and conservative
means for taming popular discontent in an increasingly urban society.
Where and when liberalism actually was triumphant, both the range of liberal views and the
range of interests presenting a liberal front became too broad for a stable politics. Think about
the Liberal Party landslide of 1906, which eventually gave rise to the Labour Party in its role
of Left Party in the British two-party system. Or FDR's landslide in 1936, which played a pivotal
role in the march of the Southern Democrats to the Right. Or the emergence of the Liberal Consensus
in American politics in the late 1950s.
What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism
running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial
in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were
arguably results of the earlier program's success.
It is almost a rote reaction to talk about the Republican's Southern Strategy, but they didn't
invent the crime wave that enveloped the country in the late 1960s or the riots that followed
the enactment of Civil Rights legislation.
Will G-R's "As soon [as] liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have . . .overcome the
socialist and fascist challenges [liberals] are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response
to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare
state, hello neoliberalism" doesn't seem to me to concede enough to Clinton and Blair entrepreneurially
inventing a popular politics in response to Reagan and Thatcher, after the actual failures
of an older model of social democratic programs and populist politics on its behalf.
I write more about this
over at
my blog (in a somewhat different context).
John Quiggin 09.04.16 at 6:57 am
RW @113 I wrote a whole book using "market liberalism" instead of "neoliberalism", since I wanted
a term more neutral and less pejorative. So, going back to "neoliberalism" was something I did
advisedly. You say
The word is abstract and has completely different meanings west and east of the Atlantic. In
the USA it refers to weak tea center leftisms. In Europe to hard core liberalism.
Well, yes. That's precisely why I've used the term, introduced the hard/soft distinction and explained
the history. The core point is that, despite their differences soft (US meaning) and hard (European
meaning) neoliberalism share crucial aspects of their history, theoretical foundations and policy
implications.
=== quote ===
Neoliberalism is an ideology of market fundamentalism based on deception that promotes "markets"
as a universal solution for all human problems in order to hide establishment of neo-fascist regime
(pioneered by Pinochet in Chile), where militarized government functions are limited to external
aggression and suppression of population within the country (often via establishing National Security
State using "terrorists" threat) and corporations are the only "first class" political players.
Like in classic corporatism, corporations are above the law and can rule the country as they see
fit, using political parties for the legitimatization of the regime.
The key difference with classic fascism is that instead of political dominance of the corporations
of particular nation, those corporations are now transnational and states, including the USA are
just enforcers of the will of transnational corporations on the population. Economic or "soft"
methods of enforcement such as debt slavery and control of employment are preferred to brute force
enforcement. At the same time police is militarized and due to technological achievements the
level of surveillance surpasses the level achieved in Eastern Germany.
Like with bolshevism in the USSR before, high, almost always hysterical, level of neoliberal
propaganda and scapegoating of "enemies" as well as the concept of "permanent war for permanent
peace" are used to suppress the protest against the wealth redistribution up (which is the key
principle of neoliberalism) and to decimate organized labor.
Multiple definitions of neoliberalism were proposed. Three major attempts to define this social
system were made:
Definitions stemming from the concept of "casino capitalism"
Definitions stemming from the concept of Washington consensus
Definitions stemming from the idea that Neoliberalism is Trotskyism for the rich. This
idea has two major variations:
Definitions stemming from Professor Wendy Brown's concept of Neoliberal rationality
which developed the concept of Inverted Totalitarism of Sheldon Wolin
Definitions stemming Professor Sheldon Wolin's older concept of Inverted Totalitarism
- "the heavy statism forging the novel fusions of economic with political power that he
took to be poisoning democracy at its root." (Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism
Common Dreams )
The first two are the most popular.
likbez 09.04.16 at 5:03 pm
bruce,
@117
Thanks for your post. It contains several important ideas:
"It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures
of Liberalism that created fascism."
"What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism
running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial
in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were
arguably results of the earlier program's success."
Moreover as Will G-R noted:
"neoliberalism will be every bit the wellspring of fascism that old-school liberalism was."
Failure of neoliberalism revives neofascist, far right movements. That's what the rise of far
right movements in Europe now demonstrates pretty vividly.
To be sure, it's not clear what Trump would do if elected, because so many
of his "positions" are little more than sound bites. Still, here are six issues
in which he is mixing progressive or liberal Republican stances amid his authoritarian
outbursts. That strange brew means that for the first time in decades, Americans
could be facing two candidates with progressive planks on many issues.
1. The Anti-Free Trader. On no other issue does Trump so
closely parallel Sanders as he is when slamming trade deals and bragging that
he, the great negotiator, would push American CEOs into keeping jobs here or
bring them back. Last week, he singled out
Carrier Air Conditioning,
Ford and
Eaton Corp. for moving manufacturing abroad. A week before, he
boasted, "I'm going to get Apple to start making their computers and their
iPhones on our land, not in China. How does it help us when they make it in
China?"
Suffice it to say that Trump is to the left of Clinton on trade deals, at
least when it comes to sound bites.
2. Cutting America's Military Budget. That sounds out of
sync coming from Trump, who has repeatedly said he wants to rebuild the military
and never misses a chance to threaten ISIL. But according to reporters who have
trailed him since last year, he has repeatedly called for cutting military spending
by closing America's overseas military bases. "Donald Trump could be the only
presidential candidate talking sense about the American military's budget. That
should scare everyone," wrote Matthew Gault in a detailed
piece for Reuters. "As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can
build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying
now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive
prestige weapons systems."
It's hard to imagine that Trump will be the "peace candidate" in the campaign,
as a liberal strategist
told the Nation's Greider. But closing overseas bases would be
a hard break from both Republican and Democratic Party orthodoxy, including
under Obama, where the Pentagon budget keeps rising and temporary cuts, like
sequestration, are seen as creating unnecessary crises. Here, too, Trump's positioning
could track to the left of Clinton. And unlike Sanders, whose state has an F-35
fighter plane base, Trump has explicitly said that plane was a waste of money.
"Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got
the right idea,"
wrote Gault.
3. Rejecting Big Money Political Corruption. You can expect
Trump will go after Clinton as a corrupt insider cashing in on her connections,
no matter how many millions he, as the nominee, would end up raising for Republicans
for the fall or take from party coffers because presidential campaigns cost
upward of $1 billion. Trump has the higher moral ground, compared to Clinton,
who hasn't even released the texts of her speeches to Wall Street banks or discussed
returning speaking fees. As Trump touts, he's been on the check-writing side
of America's corrupt but legal system of financing candidates for decades.
Trump's stance here echoes Sanders. It barely matters that Clinton has said
she would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn decisions like
Citizens United, which created giant new legal loopholes for wealthy
interests and individuals. Being the rich outsider forced to play along, not
the political insider taking the checks, is in Trump's favor, pushing him to
the left of Clinton.
4. Preserving Social Security and Medicare. As most progressives
know, millions of baby boomers approaching their senior years are going to be
relying on Social Security for most of their income and for Medicare as their
health plan. Progressives also know that Social Security benefits could be cut
by a fifth after 2030 because of that demographic bump, and have proposed raising
payroll taxes to preserve benefits and increase them. Trump,
unlike the other GOP candidates, wants to leave Social Security alone, saying
a booming economy will fix the shortfall. While we have heard that before-Reagan's
rising tide lifts all boats-Trump's status quo stance is completely at odds
with the modern GOP, which wants to up the age when one can start taking Social
Security benefits, create new payment formulas, means-test recipients or flat-out
privatize it.
Clinton
said she wants to preserve Social Security and raise payments to people
who need it most, such as widowers, who see cuts after a spouse dies, women
and poor people who have historically been underpaid compared to white men.
Sanders, in contrast, said benefits must be raised for everyone. Trump's stance
on this issue is far from ideal, but it's outside the GOP's mainstream. It's
neither constructive nor destructive, but that tends to neutralize the issue
in a fall campaign with Clinton.
5. Lowering Seniors' Prescription Drug Costs. Here's another
issue where Trump is saying he wants to do what Democrats like Obama, Clinton
and Sanders have long called for, but which has been blocked by congressional
Republicans. Trump wants the feds to negotiate buying in bulk from pharmaceutical
companies, which has been explicitly prohibited by the GOP in past legislation.
"We don't do it. Why? Because of the drug companies," Trump
said in January before the New Hampshire primary. This is another issue
where he is blurring the lines with Clinton and the Democrats.
6. Breaking Health Insurance Monopolies. Trump has railed
against the health insurance industry for preserving its state-by-state monopolies
under Obamacare, saying neither Democrats nor Republicans made an effort to
repeal a 1945 law that prevents Americans from buying cheaper policies in another
state. "The insurance companies," Trump
said, "they'd rather have monopolies in each state than hundreds of companies
going all over the place bidding… It's so hard for me to make deals… I can't
get bids."
We know that Trump has pledged to get rid of Obamacare and he hasn't said
much about its replacement other than it would involve consumers crossing state
lines. But this is another area where Trump's sound bites can superficially
push him to the left of Clinton, who has made defending Obamacare part of her
campaign and agenda if elected president.
"... Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back. Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans - market leaders in many states - are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives. ..."
"... The donor class candidate in 2016 promises to fight against the interests of the donor class using every dollar the donor class gives her. ..."
"... Gullible liberals cheer – parrot 'white nationalist' talking points on command – hold up signs – 'Willing to sell out for chance to call fellow Americans 'racist white nationalists.' ..."
What electing the donor class candidate again means to real wages, and why
Trump's promise to scrap and replace the Affordable Care Act with something
better matters: Zero Hedge citing the NYT: "…Health insurance companies
around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent
or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned
out to be sicker than expected.
Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests
are scaled back. Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans - market leaders in many
states - are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois,
25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee
and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the
federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with
insurance executives.
The donor class candidate in 2016 promises to fight against the interests
of the donor class using every dollar the donor class gives her.
Gullible liberals cheer – parrot 'white nationalist' talking points
on command – hold up signs – 'Willing to sell out for chance to call fellow
Americans 'racist white nationalists.'
"... BTW Pat Buchanan says that if the R establishment tries to coalesce around Rubio or Cruz then
Trump will simply choose one of them as his running mate and end of story. That's assuming Trump does
in fact maintain his poll lead with actual votes. ..."
"... It's our foreign policy that is fubar and it's been fubar for awhile. This idea that Clinton
somehow was the worst Secretary of State is revisionism. Was she bad? Yes. Was she worse than Condeleeza
"I ignored a memo that said AQ was determined to attack" Rice? That is incredibly debatable. ..."
"... I'm less for her being the fall guy for ME policies that have been a disaster for at least
as long as I've been alive(and let's face it installing the Shah, trading hostages for arms, etc, etc
there's been ALOT of mistakes there) ..."
"... As soon as one subordinates themselves, they become the agent to a principal, whether that
principal be a natural person, a class, an identity group, or an old piece of paper with happy horse
dung written all over it. Given the choice between downward mobility and schizophrenia, most choose
compartmentalization as an imperfect but effective coping mechanism to help workers stay sane and maintain
their identity in the ever more grueling workplace. ..."
"... Hmm. You're saying that split consciousness screws up principal-agent relationships, not metaphoricallly,
but literally? That's a really interesting argument, a new way to think about elites ("know your enemy").
..."
"... Does anybody really believe that the Clinton who takes off the Secretary of State hat and puts
on the Clinton Foundation hat, or who takes off the Clinton Foundation hat and puts on the Campaign
hat, is not the same Hillary Clinton? She'd have to be a sociopath to keep her mind and heart that compartmentalized,
no? But if we accept the Clinton Dynasty's "attitude toward public service," as we put it, that's what
we'd have to believe. I don't believe it. ..."
"... So, either Clinton is a sociopath (the "compartmentalization") or deeply corrupt. Which is
it to be? ..."
"... If you're saying that split consciousness makes for split loyalties, I'd agree. It's part of
what makes that compartmentalized "workaday me" role slightly corrosive to community and citizenship.
..."
"... According to people who were there it was Clinton who pushed for regime change in Libya while
Obama was reluctant. The French were pushing for it as well but within the administration she was the
advocate. She also favored regime change in Syria although US actions there are murkier. ..."
"... So Trump and Cruz were quite justified in what they said. She also favored the surge in Afghanistan
while Biden opposed. She has compared Putin to Hitler and presumably fully supports the confrontation
with Russia. ..."
"... Condi on the other hand was just a functionary for policies being made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld
and the neocons. It was a very different situation. ..."
"... Whatever one thinks of Trump it's quite possible he'd be a less dangerous choice than Hillary
when it comes to foreign policy. The Dems don't see it this way because so many of them agree with her–particularly
the Democrats' wealthy backers. ..."
Cruz–Trump's mini-me–has apparently also been claiming lately that Hillary was a foreign policy
disaster who killed thousands. This is what Sanders hasn't been saying forever. Libertarian
Raimondo gives his take on the debate and says Rand Paul had a big night.
BTW Pat Buchanan says that if the R establishment tries to coalesce around Rubio or Cruz
then Trump will simply choose one of them as his running mate and end of story. That's assuming
Trump does in fact maintain his poll lead with actual votes.
cwaltz
Sanders doesn't mention Hillary by name (probably because she isn't the primary problem. It
wasn't like Condeleeza Rice was a stellar Secretary of State or there weren't indictments under
the Reagan Secretary of State.) However, he has been saying that our foreign policy is part of
the problem which is the REAL problem. Clinton is just a symptom.
Steven D.
I thought you were going pin the blame on Barry O since he was Hillary's boss. The system doesn't
cut it as a target. It excuses the actors. Nobody has agency? Clinton had and has a lot of power.
She has had options. She has chosen her path.
cwaltz
Clinton's behavior was similar to her predecessors which was similar to her predecessors and
so on and so on.
It's our foreign policy that is fubar and it's been fubar for awhile. This idea that Clinton
somehow was the worst Secretary of State is revisionism. Was she bad? Yes. Was she worse than
Condeleeza "I ignored a memo that said AQ was determined to attack" Rice? That is incredibly debatable.
I'm all for Hillary being held accountable.
I'm less for her being the fall guy for ME policies that have been a disaster for at least
as long as I've been alive(and let's face it installing the Shah, trading hostages for arms, etc,
etc there's been ALOT of mistakes there)
Steven D.
Who makes foreign policy? People do. There are institutional prerogatives but she didn't have
to be so damned good at being so bad.
hunkerdown
As soon as one subordinates themselves, they become the agent to a principal, whether that
principal be a natural person, a class, an identity group, or an old piece of paper with happy
horse dung written all over it. Given the choice between downward mobility and schizophrenia,
most choose compartmentalization as an imperfect but effective coping mechanism to help workers
stay sane and maintain their identity in the ever more grueling workplace.
Hmm. You're saying that split consciousness screws up principal-agent relationships, not
metaphoricallly, but literally? That's a really interesting argument, a new way to think about
elites ("know your enemy").
I said something similar - OK, "interesting" could mean confirming my priors -
here:
Does anybody really believe that the Clinton who takes off the Secretary of State hat
and puts on the Clinton Foundation hat, or who takes off the Clinton Foundation hat and puts
on the Campaign hat, is not the same Hillary Clinton? She'd have to be a sociopath to keep
her mind and heart that compartmentalized, no? But if we accept the Clinton Dynasty's "attitude
toward public service," as we put it, that's what we'd have to believe. I don't believe it.
So, either Clinton is a sociopath (the "compartmentalization") or deeply corrupt. Which
is it to be?
Nose- or rather brain-bleeds at the commanding heights….
different clue
Sociocorruptopath.
hunkerdown
Split attribution enables screwed-up principal-agent relationships. Think sex workers,
used-car salesmen, fresh-out-of-Harvard Democratic strategists, other agents who loyally if resignedly
carry out what the mainstream deems inhospitable and/or dirty work to the benefit of their principals,
yet share no interest apart from the engaged work.
Cultivating a straw self-identity or group-identity, or maybe role, for the purpose of attribution
is an effective though problematic way to keep the evil from sticking to one's self-definition.
If you're saying that split consciousness makes for split loyalties, I'd agree. It's part
of what makes that compartmentalized "workaday me" role slightly corrosive to community and citizenship.
Carolinian
According to people who were there it was Clinton who pushed for regime change in Libya
while Obama was reluctant. The French were pushing for it as well but within the administration
she was the advocate. She also favored regime change in Syria although US actions there are murkier.
So Trump and Cruz were quite justified in what they said. She also favored the surge in
Afghanistan while Biden opposed. She has compared Putin to Hitler and presumably fully supports
the confrontation with Russia.
In Honduras she covertly supported the coup government at the urging of her crony Lanny Davis
and the Honduran children who are fleeing to the United States can be chalked up as another of
HIllary's little missteps. Whether or not she was the worst Sec State ever she's up there.
Condi on the other hand was just a functionary for policies being made by Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld and the neocons. It was a very different situation.
Whatever one thinks of Trump it's quite possible he'd be a less dangerous choice than Hillary
when it comes to foreign policy. The Dems don't see it this way because so many of them agree
with her–particularly the Democrats' wealthy backers.
Clinton really believes that stuff. She's not pandering. Well, I mean, she's pandering too,
of course, but from a base of conviction, not political posturing.
Steven D.
You give her too much credit. Like Lyndon Johnson, she's afraid of the Republicans getting
too much to her right on foreign policy. It's purely reactive. If she believes anything, it's
probably that Democrats need to be hawkish to avoid being portrayed as pansies. A fruit of her
McGovern experience in 1972.
different clue
Then she may be misreading that experience. My brain keeps circling back to Hunter S. Thompson's
argument that McGovern didn't start falling badly until he was seen visibly seeking to appease
the Establishment Democrats that his campaign had just beaten. If Thompson't analysis is correct,
McGovern betrayed his own campaign and everyone who worked in it.
But of course the Clintons just saw "evil workers supporting Nixon against our beloved McGovern".
I still wonder how much of Clinton's support for NAFTA was driven by a desire for revenge against
the working class which voted against his beloved McGovern? Revenge being a dish best served cold,
and so forth.
Carolinian
You are probably right, which just makes it worse. No dissuading a fanatic.Hillary doesn't
seem like the type who is inclined to admit to mistakes.
Ted Rall says that for once Trump's "s-bombs" are justified.
(CNN)Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gave his first major
economic address on Monday. Most of the speech was devoted to putting forward
a more or less standard set of Republican policies -- Trump promised large tax
cuts that would primarily benefit higher-income taxpayers, ending the Affordable
Care Act and curtailing government regulation. But he also broke with Republican
orthodoxy, rejecting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, proposing renegotiating
NAFTA, and vowing to take a firmer stance on currency management and other issues
with our trading partners.
What would some of this mean in practice?
The proposal for tax cuts would put in place a system with three tax brackets
of 12%, 25%, and 33%. Trump didn't indicate the cutoffs for the brackets, so
it's not possible to determine how much the different groups would save. However,
it is certain that the highest-income taxpayers would save under the Trump plan.
Currently, high-income taxpayers pay a 39.6% tax rate on income over $415,000
for a single individual. If a high-level executive or Wall Street trader makes
$2.4 million a year (roughly
the average for the richest 1%), they would save $120,000 from their tax
bill just on the reduction in the top tax bracket. For the richest 0.1%, the
savings would average almost $700,000 a year.
Trump also called for large cuts in the corporate tax rate. Currently, corporations
pay on average
a bit more than 25% of their profits in taxes. Trump committed to a tax
code in which no corporation would pay more than 15% of its profits in taxes.
This implies a reduction in revenue from the corporate income tax of more than
25%, or a loss in revenue of close to $100 billion a year.
These tax cuts
are virtually certain to lead to large deficits, as occurred with previous tax
cuts under President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush. Trump has also
proposed a substantial boost to infrastructure spending (although, while more
spending on infrastructure is badly needed, this will further boost the deficit).
Trump has suggested he will address the deficit by reducing waste, but presidents
from both parties have promised to reduce waste for decades. Unless he is prepared
to make large cuts to programs like Social Security, Medicare, or the military,
it is inevitable that his tax cuts will hugely increase the budget deficit.
Some increase in the deficit would actually be a good thing, because the economy
has not yet replaced the demand lost when the housing bubble burst. However,
Trump's plan almost certainly goes too far and will lead to high interest rates
and/or serious problems with inflation.
Trump's attack on government regulations,
meanwhile, are an illusion. While some regulations surely are wasteful, the
vast majority serve important purposes, like keeping lead out of the water our
children drink. The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill has been a
particular target of Trump and other Republicans, yet small businesses
report
that credit has never been easier to get.
Meanwhile, the Affordable Care Act, which Trump promises to repeal, has given
insurance to millions of people. And contrary to Trump's claims, there is
no evidence it has cost jobs. In fact, job growth accelerated after the
ACA took effect.
Arguably, though, Trump's position on trade is the most interesting of the
policies he has outlined. We would benefit from having more balanced trade,
which could create millions of jobs, mostly in manufacturing. However it is
not clear that Trump knows how to get there.
He complained about countries not honoring our copyrights and patents. However,
more royalties for copyrights and patents are a tradeoff for a larger trade
deficit in manufactured goods. In other words, if we make China and Brazil pay
more money to Microsoft for Windows and to Pfizer for its drugs, then they will
have less money to buy our manufactured goods. Trump does not seem to appreciate
this trade-off and is promising that everyone will get more.
On the whole, the Trump agenda looks like the Republican agenda that we have
seen many times before: It centers on large tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations,
something that has not worked in the past to create either strong growth or
rising living standards for working people. And while Trump does offer a qualitatively
different perspective on trade, it is too contradictory to be able to determine
if it will actually benefit ordinary workers.
Dave Green
"Unless he is prepared to make large cuts to programs like Social Security,
Medicare, or the military, it is inevitable that his tax cuts will hugely
increase the budget deficit." <-----------This whole article could be summed
up to that one statement.
So much for an alternative to the "establishment." Same ole GOP spend
spend spend but lower taxes and pray that increased revenue leads to investments
that make up for the shortage. It's never worked and it wont work now.
Tax and spend liberal or no tax and spend conservative. Gee...Somehow
that looks familiar.
Twick33
I wonder why the silence about Omar Mateen's father at a Clinton rally.
If the parents of Dylan Roof showed up to a Trump rally and offered their
endorsement, it would be all over the news.
But, I am sure there is some justification that democrats will push.
REZIN8
@Twick33 They love minorities! And as they said. Terrorists are the minority
of muslims. Makes total sense.
LALefty
@Twick33
To be sure, that was an embarrassment to the Clinton campaign, but it hasn't
been at all silenced in the media. That story has been covered all day.
"... Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal. ..."
"... Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders. ..."
"... Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors. ..."
"... Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry. ..."
"... Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development. ..."
"... Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour. ..."
"... Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official. ..."
"... Free public education including college (4 year degree). ..."
"... Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left. ..."
"... This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade. ..."
There are all good ideas. However, population growth undermines almost
all of them. Population growth in America is immigrant based. Reverse immigration
influxes and you are at least doing something to reduce population growth.
How to "reverse immigration influxes"?
Stop accepting refugees. It's outrageous that refugees from
for example, Somalia, get small business loans, housing assistance,
food stamps and lifetime SSI benefits while some of our veterans are
living on the street.
No more immigration amnesties of any kind.
Deport all illegal alien criminals.
Practice "immigrant family unification" in the country of origin.
Even if you have to pay them to leave. It's less expensive in the end.
Eliminate tax subsidies to American corn growers who then undercut
Mexican farmers' incomes through NAFTA, driving them into poverty
and immigration north. Throw Hillary Clinton out on her ass and practice
political and economic justice to Central America.
I too am a lifetime registered Democrat and I will vote for Trump if
Clinton gets the crown. If the Democrats want my vote, my continuing party
registration and my until recently sizeable donations in local, state and
national races, they will nominate Bernie. If not, then I'm an Independent
forevermore. They will just become the Demowhig Party.
Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth
you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government
funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal.
Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number
of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately
owned by banks.
Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person
hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and
shareholders.
Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health
plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business.
Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts
the number of doctors.
Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income,
wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation.
Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and
revise industry.
Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive
infrastructure development.
Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour.
Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private
industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt
with in any way as a government official.
Free public education including college (4 year degree).
Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them
demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their
newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image.
Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for
our things will never end until nothings left.
This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because
she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail
so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some
trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels
like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at
the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's
not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals
the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade.
"... Along with all that came another plan, eliminating the estate tax, that could undercut his populist appeal. Its benefit would be limited to high-net-worth families like Trump's, with estates greater than $5.45 million, which are the only ones taxed under current law. ..."
"... "These reforms will offer the biggest tax revolution since the Reagan tax reform," Trump said, reading from a teleprompter. "I want to jump-start America." Then he ad-libbed, "It can be done. And it won't even be that hard." Trump also modified the size of personal income tax breaks he wants to give the wealthiest Americans. Instead of reducing the top tax bracket from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, as he previously proposed, he would now cut it to 33 percent, as proposed by House Republicans. That would limit, but not eliminate, some of the damage it would wreak on federal budgets. ..."
"... And analysts across the ideological spectrum noted that Trump's new child-care deduction, designed to appeal to educated female voters, would help middle- and upper-middle class families far more than lower-income workers struggling paycheck to paycheck. That's because low-income Americans pay very little to no federal income tax. ..."
Donald Trump tried rebooting his presidential campaign Monday with an economic
speech in Detroit focused on American pocketbook anxieties, pushing tax cuts
and deregulation to the forefront after weeks of self-inflicted controversies
and plummeting poll numbers.
But the relatively modest speech made news mostly because it hewed closely
to conventional Republican policy doctrine, a fresh tack for an unconventional
candidate.
He repackaged some of his
older proposals, including big tax reductions for corporations and business
partnerships, and added some new tax-reduction benefits for the middle-class
and the wealthy.
He also promised a fat income tax deduction for child-care expenses, a policy
his daughter
Ivanka first touted in her Republican National Convention address last month.
Along with all that came another plan, eliminating the estate tax, that
could undercut his populist appeal. Its benefit would be limited to high-net-worth
families like Trump's, with estates greater than $5.45 million, which are the
only ones taxed under current law.
What is Donald Trump's economic vision?
The speech was an anti-trade version of trickle down economics, as Trump
proposed to tweak the global economy to benefit US businesses.
"These reforms will offer the biggest tax revolution since the Reagan
tax reform," Trump said, reading from a teleprompter. "I want to jump-start
America." Then he ad-libbed, "It can be done. And it won't even be that hard."
Trump also modified the size of personal income tax breaks he wants to give
the wealthiest Americans. Instead of reducing the top tax bracket from 39.6
percent to 25 percent, as he previously proposed, he would now cut it to 33
percent, as proposed by House Republicans. That would limit, but not eliminate,
some of the damage it would wreak on federal budgets.
Trump kept his cool, sticking mostly to his script on how to make America
win again, as hecklers interrupted his speech more than a dozen times. He slammed
Hillary Clinton's economic policies and characterized her as a "candidate of
the past" while promising to "massively" cut regulations and renegotiate trade
deals in his quest for economic renewal.
Clinton is scheduled to deliver her economic rebuttal to Trump on Thursday,
also from Detroit.
Clinton is making jobs and the economy a centerpiece of her campaign, seeing
it as an area in which to draw a stark contrast with Trump. Her campaign tried
to preempt Trump's speech by posting a video Sunday arguing that "Trumponomics"
would trigger recession, job losses, and possibly another financial catastrophe.
Republican strategists praised Trump's speech for refocusing on a policy
area they see as his strength, and said Trump could have a "fighting chance"
against Clinton if, and only if, he spends the next three months delivering
his message in a disciplined and consistent manner.
He cannot afford to veer off course with any more unscripted personal attacks,
they said. Clinton's lead over Trump opened up by 10 points in the wake of both
conventions and a series of missteps including his
recent criticism of a Muslim couple whose son was killed in combat.
"It was a good, big-boy-pants speech," said Dave Carney, a Republican consultant
from New Hampshire.
"Compared to what he normally does, it was 180 degrees different. Ten days
ago, he was doing great, and then it was all over. The economy and national
security - those are the two baskets he should be peddling for the next 90 days,''
Carney said.
Some analysts expressed doubt whether the speech will make much of a difference
in a campaign they view as especially unorganized, with little to no ground
game in swing states.
"Is there anything different today than yesterday? I don't see that there
is," said Doug Heye, a Republican strategist and former spokesman for the Republican
National Committee who has said he would not vote for Trump.
"He'll give more speeches from teleprompters but it's hard to see how they
will make any more substantive difference for his campaign, because what you
see on the ground is a campaign that is nonexistent,'' Heye said. "It is a campaign
that exists on television and on Twitter but nowhere else."
The latest Real Clear Politics average of national polls showed Clinton with
a lead of more than 7 points.
Trump doubled down on his criticisms of Clinton throughout his speech, repeating
a false statement about Clinton wanting to raise taxes on the middle class,
even though the fact-checking organization Politifact rated his claim as
"pants on fire" three days ago.
Clinton herself took direct aim at Trump's speech during a rally in St. Petersburg,
Fla., Monday afternoon.
She said his recently-named economic advisers "tried to make his old tired
ideas sound new, but here's what we all know because we heard it again: his
tax plans will give super big tax breaks to large corporations and the really
wealthy, just like him and the guys who wrote the speech."
As with foreign policy, the Clinton campaign is painting Trump as too dangerous
and erratic to command the helm of the US economy.
They point to his business record, emphasizing his companies' multiple bankruptcies
and the slew of lawsuits from vendors and contractors he didn't pay, as evidence
he is not a good steward for the economy writ large.
The Clinton campaign ran interference against Trump's economic speech Monday
by hosting about a dozen press events in battleground states.
Gene Sperling, a former top Obama economic aide, said in one conference call
that even with the tweaks announced Monday, Trump's tax plan would exacerbate
income inequality by delivering the vast majority of its benefits to the top
1 percent of Americans.
And analysts across the ideological spectrum noted that Trump's new child-care
deduction, designed to appeal to educated female voters, would help middle-
and upper-middle class families far more than lower-income workers struggling
paycheck to paycheck. That's because low-income Americans pay very little to
no federal income tax.
The National Federation of Independent Business, a small business association,
praised Trump's proposal to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to
15 percent. The plan was seen as a bone to the GOP establishment.
The Clinton campaign criticized it Monday as simply another way to allow
millionaires and billionaires to pay lower taxes by reclassifying their salary
income as business income.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Senator John McCain's chief economic adviser during
the 2008 presidential campaign and president of the conservative American Action
Forum think tank, called Trump's economic plan "more relaunch than revised."
The new changes and Trump saying he plans to build upon GOP principles were
"a pretty clear olive branch to the rest of the Republican Party."
"That doesn't leave us with a lot of clarity about what his actual plan is,"
Holtz-Eakin said. "It's now a work in progress again."
"... One key change from Trump's earlier proposals is that he would set a new top individual income-tax rate of 33 percent. While that rate is higher than the 25 percent rate Trump had initially proposed, it still represents a cut from the current top rate of 39.6 percent. ..."
"... A news release from Trump's campaign said he wanted to ensure that the wealthy pay their ''fair share,'' using language that is more commonly heard from Democrats. But his proposals to cut individual tax rates and the tax rate on income from partnerships-along with eliminating the estate tax-mean the wealthy would pay less under his plan, said Kyle Pomerleau, director of federal projects at the conservative Tax Foundation. ..."
"... Some analysts have noted that Trump's proposal to end the special tax treatment of carried interest-the portion of investment gains paid to fund managers-might mean lower taxes for members of partnerships, which is how many private-equity funds are organized. Carried interest is currently taxed as capital gains, meaning the income qualifies for a tax rate as low as 23.8 percent. Under Trump's plan to cut business taxes, though, members of partnerships who get carried interest might be taxed at a 15 percent rate. ..."
"... Trump reiterated his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and his desire to renegotiate NAFTA, ''or walk away if we have to,'' according to his campaign's news release. He also seeks to reverse much of the Obama administration's climate-change and energy agenda by defending the coal industry, rescinding environmental rules, and asking TransCanada to renew its Keystone pipeline permit application if he's elected. ..."
"... Trump's speech follows his announcement last week of an unorthodox economic advisory council that includes financiers John Paulson, Andy Beal, and Stephen Feinberg, as well as energy executive Harold Hamm. Trump also announced raising $80 million for his campaign and party entities in July. ..."
Aug 08, 2016 | Bloomberg
Donald Trump on Monday sought to cast Hillary Clinton's economic program
as an ineffective relic, and to reset his own presidential campaign after a
string of missteps.
''We now begin a great national conversation about economic renewal for America,''
Trump said in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, urging a return to his
''America-first'' governing vision.
''The city of Detroit is the living, breathing example of my opponent's failed
economic agenda,'' Trump said.
In prepared remarks released by Trump's campaign as he spoke, the nominee
proposed a temporary moratorium on new agency regulations. He also proposed
making U.S. families' child-care costs tax-deductible, which his daughter Ivanka
promised last month in a prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention.
Protesters repeatedly interrupted Trump, who acknowledged them more calmly
than he sometimes has at campaign rallies. ''This is all very well planned out,''
he said.
One key change from Trump's earlier proposals is that he would set a
new top individual income-tax rate of 33 percent. While that rate is higher
than the 25 percent rate Trump had initially proposed, it still represents a
cut from the current top rate of 39.6 percent.
That tweak will reduce the estimated cost of Trump's tax plan-which some
analysts had set at roughly $10 trillion over 10 years. But the child-care proposal-which
Trump in prepared remarks said would allow ''parents to fully deduct the average
cost of childcare spending"-also represented a new cost. That measure's price
tag would be roughly $20 billion a year, said economist Stephen Moore, a Trump
adviser.
''It's not a big cost,'' Moore said.
Trump's tax plan would slash the tax rate on corporate and business income
to 15 percent, down from a current top corporate tax rate of 35 percent. It
would also consolidate the current seven individual income tax rates to three,
with the lower two brackets set at 25 percent and 12 percent.
A news release from Trump's campaign said he wanted to ensure that the
wealthy pay their ''fair share,'' using language that is more commonly heard
from Democrats. But his proposals to cut individual tax rates and the tax rate
on income from partnerships-along with eliminating the estate tax-mean the wealthy
would pay less under his plan, said Kyle Pomerleau, director of federal projects
at the conservative Tax Foundation.
''His rhetoric is not lining up with his proposals,'' Pomerleau said.
Some analysts have noted that Trump's proposal to end the special tax
treatment of carried interest-the portion of investment gains paid to fund managers-might
mean lower taxes for members of partnerships, which is how many private-equity
funds are organized. Carried interest is currently taxed as capital gains, meaning
the income qualifies for a tax rate as low as 23.8 percent. Under Trump's plan
to cut business taxes, though, members of partnerships who get carried interest
might be taxed at a 15 percent rate.
Trump reiterated his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade
deal and his desire to renegotiate NAFTA, ''or walk away if we have to,'' according
to his campaign's news release. He also seeks to reverse much of the Obama administration's
climate-change and energy agenda by defending the coal industry, rescinding
environmental rules, and asking TransCanada to renew its Keystone pipeline permit
application if he's elected.
After Trump said Aug. 2 he would double Clinton's infrastructure spending
plan in a major government expansion, aides said he will speak later this summer
about his plan for the nation's roadways.
Trump's daughter's acknowledgement of soaring child-care costs, an issue
of growing importance in U.S. politics, won plaudits as Trump lags Clinton badly
in polls of female voters.
Child-care bills have proven to outpace rent and tuition costs in most states,
often threatening to derail parents' housing and job plans. The nation is the
third-most expensive for childcare among 34 countries, according to 2012 data
from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The issue offers a good example of the candidates' different approaches.
Where Trump is providing a simple supply-side prescription, Clinton is flooding
the debate with detail.
Her proposal includes tax relief but is more focused on government support
and broader investments in early childhood education, while pledging to ensure
that no family has to spend more than 10 percent of income on high-quality care.
Trump's speech follows his announcement last week of an unorthodox economic
advisory council that includes financiers John Paulson, Andy Beal, and Stephen
Feinberg, as well as energy executive Harold Hamm. Trump also announced raising
$80 million for his campaign and party entities in July.
Unveiling the council and the better-than-expected fundraising results, and
giving the Detroit speech major billing, were moves by the Trump campaign to
steady its course after the Democratic National Convention, where the Muslim
parents of a slain U.S. soldier spoke out against Trump and drew the Republican
nominee into a multi-day feud on Twitter and TV airwaves.
Between that and other controversies-including Trump's initial refusal to
endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan for re-election-Trump has seen his poll numbers
slumped and has worried Republicans who are eager to save their majorities in
Congress in November's elections.
Trump's plans align in many ways with the election-year policy proposals
rolled out by Ryan and House Republicans, including his call for undoing the
2010 Dodd-Frank Act and limiting any regulations that burden businesses. The
House plan wouldn't allow any new financial regulations to take effect unless
the House votes.
Trump, however, has proposed deeper tax-rate reductions. The House plan would
drop the top individual tax rates from 39.6 to 33 percent. Corporate tax rates,
meanwhile, would be lowered from 35 to 20 percent.
Billy House, Lynnley Browning, and Michelle Jamrisko contributed.
Donald Trump will propose a temporary moratorium on new financial regulations
in an economic speech Monday in Detroit in an effort to draw a stark contrast
with the domestic policies of Hillary Clinton, who he says "punishes" the American
economy.
The Republican presidential nominee's speech will focus on providing regulatory
relief for small businesses, according to senior campaign aides familiar with
its contents. More broadly, Trump will say he will not propose any new financial
regulations until the economy shows "significant growth," the aides said. Trump
has previously said he would repeal and replace the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.
Trump will also propose a repeal of the estate tax, sometimes called the
"death tax." Under current law, the 40 percent tax applies only to estates larger
than $5.45 million for individuals and $10.9 million for couples.
For U.S. businesses, Trump will propose a tax rate of 15 percent and suggest
strengthening intellectual-property protections. He's expected to call for three
income-tax brackets, down from the current seven. He'll call for the elimination
of special tax treatment for carried-interest income at private-equity firms
and other investment firms-the latter of which is a proposal his Democratic
rival
also supports .
Carried interest, which is a portion of investment gains paid to certain
investment managers, is currently taxed like capital gains-at rates that can
be as low as 23.8 percent. Trump proposes to tax them as ordinary income, but
for members of partnerships, that could actually mean a rate cut to 15 percent.
Trump will continue to stress his opposition to the proposed Trans-Pacific
Partnership trade agreement backed by the Obama administration and many prominent
Republicans in Congress, and he will reinforce his commitment to the coal industry,
saying a federal moratorium on some coal-mining permits would be the focus of
a targeted review in his administration.
Other items on his energy agenda, he is expected to reiterate in the speech,
include asking TransCanada to renew its Keystone pipeline permit application;
rescinding the Climate Action Plan and "waters of the U.S." rule; opening offshore
drilling; and killing the Paris climate agreement.
He will portray President Barack Obama's regulatory policies as having crushed
middle- and lower-class Americans and will propose making all child care tax
deductible. Clinton, in contrast, has
proposed a cap on child-care costs at 10 percent of a family's income.
Targeting the federal bureaucracy, Trump is expected to say that civil servants
whose focus is job-killing regulation should be replaced with experts who would
help create jobs.
Trump will take direct aim at the Clintons and Obama, pointing to Detroit
as an example of their failed economic policies. He will argue that their "record-breaking
pace of new regulations, tax increases, restrictions on private-energy production
and one-sided trade deals" have hurt Detroit and other cities, according to
excerpts of his remarks shared with Bloomberg Politics.
He will call Obama's Clinton-backed regulations a "lead-weight on the economy,
an anchor dragging us down." And he will say that Americans "need to hit the
pause buttons on these regulations so our businesses can reinvest in the economy."
"She's the candidate of the past and ours is the campaign of the future,"
Trump plans to say. "Every policy that has failed Detroit has been fully supported
by Hillary Clinton. The one common feature of every Hillary Clinton idea is
that it punishes you from working and doing business in the United States."
His campaign aides said this is one of several economic speeches Trump will
deliver this summer. One will include the unveiling of an
infrastructure spending plan , while another will focus on financial regulations
such as Dodd-Frank, the aides said.
Crunch Time
For Trump, the challenge at this stage in the race is two-fold. His campaign
is coming off one of its worst weeks following a series of self-inflicted gaffes
that led to a sharp dip in national and swing-state polls, and economic indicators
suggest that the economy is improving.
The nation's unemployment rate in July was 4.9 percent-a sharp decline from
a post-recession peak of 10 percent in October 2009, according to federal statistics.
Clinton, who was set to campaign in Florida on Monday, has spent the days
following the Democratic National Convention attacking Trump on the economy.
The Republican is pushing an agenda "that experts across the political spectrum
say would lead to a recession and cost millions of American jobs," the Clinton
campaign said in a statement Monday.
Independent voters-particularly small-business owners and their respective trade
groups-have argued for years that Obama's regulatory proposals have stifled
the economy. Trump's proposal to issue a moratorium on regulations could help
him win support from workers at mid-sized banks as well as small-business owners
who say it's unfair for them to comply with Dodd-Frank regulations written for
big banks.
Trump enlisted conservative economists Peter Navarro, Larry Kudlow, and Stephen
Moore; former Nucor CEO Dan DiMicco; and others to help with his speech.
Donors Watching
Republican donors and Trump supporters said they have high expectations for
the speech.
Texas investor Doug Deason, who backed Ted Cruz for president in the primary,
said he'd like to see Trump "lay out a plan to lower corporate taxes, eliminate
federal bureaucracy costs by 10 percent or more, end all corporate welfare programs,
convert welfare programs to work programs and dramatically reduce all of the
silly federal rules the current administration has put in place."
Deason, who helped Donald Trump Jr. raise money for his father in Dallas
and Houston last month, added that he'd also like to see Trump name three or
four agencies or departments he could eliminate.
Several donors said they're craving specifics on how to repatriate profits
trapped overseas, what exactly Trump would do with infrastructure, and how he'd
pay for it, and how he'd encourage capital investments in plants and equipment.
"I would hope that he would cover the full range of economic targets from
corporate and personal income tax to trade policy to regulatory reform and energy
strategy," said Wilbur Ross, chief strategy officer at WL Ross & Co., which
has invested more than $11 billion in distressed companies, including Bethlehem
Steel, since its founding in 2000.
Monessen, Pennsylvania (CNN)Donald Trump on Tuesday trashed U.S. trade policies that he
said have encouraged globalization and wiped out American manufacturing jobs in a speech in which
he promised to herald a U.S. economic resurgence.
Speaking before a colorful backdrop of crushed aluminum cans, Trump pitched himself at a factory
in Rust Belt Pennsylvania as a change agent who would bring back manufacturing jobs and end the "rigged
system," which he argued presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton represents.
Trump promised sweeping changes if elected -- including killing the Trans-Pacific Partnership
trade deal and renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement -- and urged voters to be wary
of a "campaign of fear and intimidation" aimed at swaying them away from his populist message.
"Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization -- moving our jobs, our wealth
and our factories to Mexico and overseas," he said, reading from prepared remarks and using teleprompters.
"Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy. I used
to be one of them. Hate to say it, but I used to be one of them."
Trump repeatedly slammed Clinton for supporting free trade agreements and argued that under a
Clinton presidency "nothing is going to change."
"The inner cities will remain poor. the factories will remain closed," Trump said at Alumisource,
a raw material producer for the aluminum and steel industries in Monessen, Pennsylvania, an hour
south of Pittsburgh. "The special interests will remain firmly in control."
Echoing Clinton's chief
rival for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Trump also argued that Clinton
has "voted for virtually every trade agreement" and accused her of supporting trade deals that have
hurt U.S. workers.
Trump's speech drew a swift rebuke Tuesday from opposing ends of the political spectrum.
The Chamber of Commerce, the big business lobby that traditionally backs Republicans, issued a
swift statement warning that Trump's proposed policies would herald another U.S. recession.
"Under Trump's trade plans, we would see higher prices, fewer jobs, and a weaker economy," the
group tweeted, linking to a lengthier article
warning that a recession would hit the U.S. "within the first year" of a Trump presidency.
"I'd love for him to explain how all of that fits with his talk about 'America First,'" Clinton
said in a speech last week.
Trump moved quickly on Tuesday to insulate himself from the criticism from his rival's campaign
and others opposed to his vision of radically changing U.S. economic policies.
Trump repeatedly warned Americans to gird themselves against a "campaign of fear" he argued Clinton
and others are running against him -- a notable criticism given the accusations that several of his
policies, including a ban on Muslims and a plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, have
played to voters' fears.
The de facto GOP nominee promised to instruct his treasury secretary to "label China a currency
manipulator" and to order the U.S. trade representative to bring lawsuits against China at the World
Trade Organization and in U.S. courts to combat what he characterized as unfair trade policies.
And he also warned of potentially levying tariffs on imports from China and other countries, reviving
a common theme of his campaign.
Trump has frequently argued on the stump that the U.S. is getting "killed" by other countries on
trade and threatened to raise certain tariffs on China and Mexico up to 35%.
Early on in his yearlong campaign, Trump singled out specific American companies -- notably Ford
and Nabisco -- for plans to move some of their manufacturing plants abroad.
Slamming Nabisco for building a factory in Mexico, Trump has vowed he's "not eating Oreos anymore."
A senior Trump aide told CNN earlier on Tuesday the speech would be "the most detailed economic address
he has given so far."
Trump has frequently lamented the economic slowdown working-class communities in America have faced
as a result of a drop in American manufacturing, particularly in the last decade.
As Scott Adams noted: "Clinton's campaign has such strong persuasion going right now that she is
successfully equating her actual misdeeds of the past with Trump's imaginary mental issues and
imaginary future misdeeds".
They use a Rovian strategy: Assault the enemy's strength. You've got to admire the
Chutzpah: Killing your parents, then complaining you're an orphan. The candidate who didn't raise a
voice against the Iraq War and pushed the administration in favor of war with Libya (which we're now
bombing again) paints their opponent as a lunatic warmonger.
Notable quotes:
"... it's hard not to applaud when he pisses off the stuff shirts at the Washington Post. ..."
"... the frustration with Obama's foreign policy - the continuation of wars, the expansion of drone attacks, the failure to reduce nuclear weapons - has prompted some to piece through Donald Trump's sayings in a desperate search for something, anything, that could possibly represent an alternative. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I'm talking about are extremely rich. Then if we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able to, but if we cannot make a deal…. I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, "Congratulations, you will be defending yourself. ..."
"... We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem. And we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel. The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has traditionally adopted foreign policy positions to the right of Barack Obama. As president, she will likely tack in a more hawkish direction. ..."
"... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
Trump's foreign policy isn't an alternative to U.S. empire. It's just a cruder rendition of
it. ;
Donald Trump may be a bigot and a bully, but it's hard not to applaud when he pisses off the
stuff shirts at the Washington Post.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has staked out a foreign policy position quite
distinct from his opponent, Hillary Clinton. It is not, however, "isolationist" (contra
Jeb Bush and many others) or "less aggressively militaristic" (economist Mark Weisbrot
in The Hill ) or "a jolt of realpolitik " (journalist Simon Jenkins
in The Guardian ).
With all due respect to these sources, they're all wrong. Ditto John Pilger's
claim that Clinton represents the greater threat to the world, John Walsh's
argument that Trump is "the relative peace candidate," and Justin Raimondo's
assertion
that if Trump wins then "the military-industrial complex is finished, along with the globalists
who dominate foreign policy circles in Washington."
...His comments on foreign policy have frequently been incoherent, inconsistent, and just plain
ignorant. He hasn't exactly rolled out a detailed blueprint of what he would do to the world if elected
(though that old David Levine
cartoon of Henry Kissinger beneath the sheets comes to mind)...
However, over the last year Trump has said enough to pull together a pretty good picture of what
he'd do if suddenly in a position of
nearly unchecked power (thanks to the expansion of executive authority under both Bush and Obama).
President Trump would offer an updated version of Teddy Roosevelt's old dictum: speak loudly and
carry the biggest stick possible.
It's not an alternative to U.S. empire - just a cruder rendition of it.
The Enemy of My Enemy
Both liberals and conservatives in the United States,
as I've written , have embraced
economic policies that have left tens of millions of working people in desperate straits. The desperation
of the "left behind" faction is so acute, in fact, that many of its members are willing to ignore
Donald Trump's obvious disqualifications - his personal wealth, his disdain for "losers," his support
of tax cuts for the rich - in order to back the Republican candidate and stick it to the elite.
A similar story prevails in the foreign policy realm. On the left, the frustration with Obama's
foreign policy - the continuation of wars, the expansion of drone attacks, the failure to reduce
nuclear weapons - has prompted some to piece through Donald Trump's sayings in a desperate search
for something, anything, that could possibly represent an alternative. ... ... ...
Examined more carefully, his positions on war and peace, alliance systems, and human rights break
no new ground. He is old white whine in a new, cracked bottle.
Trump on War
... ... ...
True, Trump has criticized the neoconservative espousal of the use of military force to promote
democracy and build states. But that doesn't mean he has backed off from the use of military force
in general. Trump has
pledged to use the military "if there's a problem going on in the world and you can solve the
problem," a rather open-ended approach to the deployment of U.S. forces. He agreed, for instance,
that the Clinton administration was right to intervene in the Balkans to prevent ethnic cleansing
in Kosovo.
In terms of current conflicts, Trump
has promised to "knock the hell out of ISIS" with airpower and
20,000-30,000 U.S. troops on the ground. He even
reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against the would-be caliphate. By suggesting to allies
and adversaries alike that he is possibly unhinged, Trump has resurrected one of the most terrifying
presidential strategies of all time, Richard Nixon's
"madman" approach to bombing North Vietnam.
This is not isolationism. It's not even discriminate deterrence. As in the business world, Trump
believes in full-spectrum dominance in global affairs. As Zack Beauchamp
points out in Vox , Trump is an ardent believer in colonial wars of conquest to seize oil fields
and pipelines.
About the only place in the world that Trump has apparently ruled out war is with Russia. Yes,
it's a good thing that he's against the new cold war that has descended on U.S.-Russian relations...
... ... ...
Trump on Alliances
Trump has made few friends in Washington with his criticisms of veterans and their families and
his "joke" encouraging Russia to release any emails from Hillary Clinton's account that it might
have acquired in its hacking. Yet it's Trump's statements about NATO that have most unsettled the
U.S. foreign policy elite.
In an interview with The New York Times , Trump said:
If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting
other countries, and in many cases the countries I'm talking about are extremely rich. Then if
we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able
to, but if we cannot make a deal…. I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, "Congratulations,
you will be defending yourself.
... ... ...
Again, I doubt Trump actually believes in abandoning NATO. Rather, he believes that threats enhance
one's bargaining position. In the Trump worldview, there are no allies. There are only competitors
from whom one extracts concessions.
We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.
And we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable
ally, the state of Israel. The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between
the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable.
Ultimately President Trump would extend the same reassurances to other allies once he is briefed
on exactly how much they contribute to maintaining U.S. hegemony in the world.
Trump on Pentagon Spending
Critics like Jean Bricmont
rave about Trump's willingness to take on the U.S. military-industrial complex: "He not only
denounces the trillions of dollars spent in wars, deplores the dead and wounded American soldiers,
but also speaks of the Iraqi victims of a war launched by a Republican president."
But Donald Trump, as president, would be the military-industrial complex's best friend. He has
stated on numerous occasions
his intention to "rebuild" the U.S. military: "We're going to make our military so big, so strong
and so great, so powerful that we're never going to have to use it."
More recently, in an interview with conservative
columnist Cal Thomas , he said, "Our military has been so badly depleted. Who would think the
United States is raiding plane graveyards to pick up parts and equipment? That means they're being
held together by a shoestring. Other countries have brand-new stuff they have bought from us." That
the United States already has the most powerful military in the world by every conceivable measure
seems to have escaped Trump. And our allies never get any military hardware that U.S. forces don't
already have.
Well, perhaps Trump will somehow strengthen the U.S. military by cutting waste and investing that
money more effectively. But Trump has promised to
increase
general military spending as well as the resources devoted to fighting the Islamic State. It's
part of an overall incoherent plan that includes large tax cuts and a promise to balance the budget.
An Exceptional Ruler
Let me be clear: Hillary Clinton has traditionally adopted foreign policy positions to the
right of Barack Obama. As president, she will likely tack in a more hawkish direction.
... ... ...
John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.
It's heresy in the GOP to question the neoconservative paradigm – just ask Rand Paul. It's
assumed, as an article of faith, that America is the moral leader of the world; that we must not
only defend our values across the world, we must also use force to remake it in our image. This
is the thinking that gave us the Iraq War. It's the prism through which most of the GOP still
views international politics. Trump – and Bernie Sanders – represents a departure from this
paradigm.
Although it's unlikely to happen, a Trump-Sanders general election would have been refreshing for
at least one reason: it would have constituted a total rejection of neoconservatism.
Most Americans understand, intuitively, that the differences between the major parties are often
rhetorical, not substantive. That's not to say substantive differences don't exist – surely they
do, especially on social issues. But the policies from administration to administration overlap
more often than not, regardless of the party in charge. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Much of the stability is due to money and the structure of our system, which tends toward dynamic
equilibrium. And there are limits to what the president can do on issues like the economy and
health care.
But one area in which the president does have enormous flexibility is foreign policy. Which is
why, as Politico reported this week, the GOP's national security establishment is "bitterly
digging in against" Trump. Indeed, more than any other wing of the Republican Party, the
neoconservatives are terrified at the prospect of a Trump nomination.
"Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former Bush official with
neoconservative ties. Trump would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy."
Another neocon, Max Boot, says he'd vote for Clinton over Trump: "She would be vastly preferable
to Trump." Even Bill Kristol, the great champion of the Iraq War, a man who refuses to consider
the hypothesis that he was wrong about anything, is threatening to recruit a third party
candidate to derail Trump for similar reasons.
Just this week, moreover, a group of conservative foreign policy intellectuals, several of whom
are neocons, published an open letter stating that they're "united in our opposition to a Donald
Trump presidency." They offer a host of reasons for their objections, but the bottom line is they
don't trust Trump to continue America's current policy of policing the world on ethical grounds.
Trump isn't constrained by the same ideological conventions as other candidates, and so he
occasionally stumbles upon unpopular truths. His comments about the Iraq War are an obvious
example. But even on an issue like the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Trump says what any
reasonable observer should: we ought to maintain neutrality and work to solve the dispute with an
eyes towards our national interest. Now, Trump couldn't explain the concept of "realism" to save
his life, but this position is perfectly consistent with that tradition. And if Republicans
weren't blinkered by religious fanaticism, they'd acknowledge it as well. The same is true of
Trump's nebulous critiques of America's soft imperialism, which again are sacrilege in Republican
politics.
Diplomacy & respect crucial to our relationship with Russia
Q: This week we're going to see a lot of world leaders come to Manhattan. Might you have a
meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin?
TRUMP: Well, I had heard that he wanted to meet
with me. And certainly I am open to it. I don't know that it's going to take place, but I know
that people have been talking. We'll see what happens. But certainly, if he wanted to meet, I
would love to do that. You know, I've been saying relationship is so important in business, that
it's so important in deals, and so important in the country. And if President Obama got along
with Putin, that would be a fabulous thing. But they do not get along. Putin does not respect our
president. And I'm sure that our president does not like him very much.
Putin has no respect for America; I will get along with him
Q: What would you do right now if you were president, to get the Russians out of Syria?
TRUMP:
Number one, they have to respect you. He has absolutely no respect for President Obama. Zero. I
would talk to him. I would get along with him. I believe I would get along with a lot of the
world leaders that this country is not getting along with. I think I will get along with Putin,
and I will get along with others, and we will have a much more stable world.
We must deal with the maniac in North Korea with nukes
[With regards to the Iranian nuclear deal]: Nobody ever mentions North Korea where you have this
maniac sitting there and he actually has nuclear weapons and somebody better start thinking about
North Korea and perhaps a couple of other places. You have somebody right now in North Korea who
has got nuclear weapons and who is saying almost every other week, "I'm ready to use them." And
we don't even mention it.
China is our enemy; they're bilking us for billions
China is bilking us for hundreds of billions of dollars by manipulating and devaluing its
currency. Despite all the happy talk in Washington, the Chinese leaders are not our friends. I've
been criticized for calling them our enemy. But what else do you call the people who are
destroying your children's and grandchildren's future? What name would you prefer me to use for
the people who are hell bent on bankrupting our nation, stealing our jobs, who spy on us to steal
our technology, who are undermining our currency, and who are ruining our way of life? To my
mind, that's an enemy. If we're going to make America number one again, we've got to have a
president who knows how to get tough with China, how to out-negotiate the Chinese, and how to
keep them from screwing us at every turn.
When you love America, you protect it with no apologies
I love America. And when you love something, you protect it passionately--fiercely, even. We are
the greatest country the world has ever known. I make no apologies for this country, my pride in
it, or my desire to see us become strong and rich again. After all, wealth funds our freedom. But
for too long we've been pushed around, used by other countries, and ill-served by politicians in
Washington who measure their success by how rapidly they can expand the federal debt, and your
tax burden, with their favorite government programs.
American can do better. I think we deserve
the best. That's why I decided to write this book. The decisions we face are too monumental, too
consequential, to just let slide. I have answers for the problems that confront us. I know how to
make American rich again.
By 2027, tsunami as China overtakes US as largest economy
There is a lot that Obama and his globalist pals don't want you to know about China's strength.
But no one who knows the truth can sit back and ignore how dangerous this economic powerhouse
will be if our so-called leaders in Washington don't get their acts together and start standing
up for American jobs and stop outsourcing them to China. It's been predicted that by 2027, China
will overtake the United States as the world's biggest economy--much sooner if the Obama
economy's disastrous trends continue. That means in a handful of years, America will be engulfed
by the economic tsunami that is the People's Republic of China--my guess is by 2016 if we don't
act fast.
For the past thirty years, China's economy has grown an average 9 to 10 percent each
year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, China's economy grew a robust 9.7 percent. America's
first quarter growth rate? An embarrassing and humiliating 1.9 percent. It's a national disgrace.
A lot of life is about survival of the fittest and adaption, as Darwin pointed out. It's not all
there is, but it's an indication of how the world has evolved in historical terms. We've seen
many empires come and go -- the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire -- there have always been surges
of power. Sometimes they last for centuries. Even so, some of us have never learned of them as of
today. In other words, things change. We have to keep up with the changes and move forward.
Source: Think Like a Champion, by Donald Trump, p. 23-4 , Apr 27,
2010
Criticized Buchanan's view on Hitler as appeasement
In Buchanan's book, he actually said the Western allies were wrong to stop Hitler. He
argued that we should have let Hitler take all of the territories to his east. What of the
systematic annihilation of Jews, Catholics, and Gypsies in those countries? You don't have to be
a genius to know that we were next, that once Hitler seized control of the countries to his east
he would focus on world domination.
Pat Buchanan was actually preaching the same policy of appeasement that had failed for Neville
Chamberlain at Munich. If we used Buchanan's theory on Hitler as a foreign policy strategy, we
would have appeased every world dictator with a screw loose and we'd have a brainwashed
population ready to go postal on command.
After I [wrote an article on this for] Face the Nation, Buchanan accused me of
⌠ignorance." Buchanan, who believes himself an expert, has also called Hitler ⌠a political
organizer of the first rank." Buchanan is a fan.
Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker
In the modern world you can't very easily draw up a simple, general foreign policy. I was busy
making deals during the last decade of the cold war. Now the game has changed. The day of the
chess player is over. Foreign policy has to be put in the hands of a dealmaker.
Two dealmakers have served as president-one was Franklin Roosevelt, who got us through WWII,
and the other was Richard Nixon, who forced the Russians to the bargaining table to achieve the
first meaningful reductions in nuclear arms.
A dealmaker can keep many balls in the air, weigh the competing interests of other nations,
and above all, constantly put America's best interests first. The dealmaker knows when to be
tough and when to back off. He knows when to bluff and he knows when to threaten, understanding
that you threaten only when prepared to carry out the threat. The dealmaker is cunning,
secretive, focused, and never settles for less than he wants. It's been a long time since America
had a president like that.
I don't understand why American policymakers are always so timid in dealing with Russia on issues
that directly involve our survival. Kosovo was a perfect case in point: Russia was holding out
its hand for billions of dollars in IMF loans (to go along with billions in aid the U.S. has
given) the same week it was issuing threats and warnings regarding our conduct in the Balkans. We
need to tell Russia and other recipients that if they want our dime they had better do our dance,
at least in matters regarding our national security. These people need us much more than we need
them. We have leverage, and we are crazy not to use it to better advantage.
Few respect
weakness. Ultimately we have to deal with hostile nations in the only language they know:
unshrinking conviction and the military power to back it up if need be. There and in that order
are America's two greatest assets in foreign affairs.
China: lack of human rights prevents consumer development
Why am I concerned with political rights? I'm a good businessman and I can be amazingly
unsentimental when I need to be. I also recognize that when it comes down to it, we can't do much
to change a nation's internal policies. But I'm unwilling to shrug off the mistreatment of
China's citizens by their own government. My reason is simple: These oppressive policies make it
clear that China's current government has contempt for our way of life.
We want to trade with China because of the size of its consumer market. But if the regime
continues to repress individual freedoms, how many consumers will there really be? Isn't it
inconsistent to compromise our principles by negotiating trade with a country that may not want
and cannot afford our goods?
We have to make it absolutely clear that we're willing to trade with China, but not to trade
away our principles, and that under no circumstances will we keep our markets open to countries
that steal from us.
Our biggest long-term challenge will be China. The Chinese people still have few political rights
to speak of. Chinese government leaders, though they concede little, desperately want us to
invest in their country. Though we have the upper hand, we're way to eager to please. We see them
as a potential market and we curry favor with them at the expense of our national interests. Our
China policy under Presidents Clinton and Bush has been aimed at changing the Chinese regime by
incentives both economic and political. The intention has been good, but it's clear that the
Chinese have been getting far too easy a ride.
Despite the opportunity, I think we need to take
a much harder look at China. There are major problems that too many at the highest reaches of
business want to overlook, [primarily] the human-rights situation.
Q: Would you block Syrian refugees from entering the US?
RUBIO: The problem is we can't background check them. You can't pick up the phone and call
Syria. And that's one of the reasons why I said we won't be able to take more refugees. It's not
that we don't want to. The bottom line is that this is not just a threat coming from abroad. What
we need to open up to and realize is that we have a threat here at home, homegrown violent
extremists, individuals who perhaps have not even traveled abroad, who have been radicalized
online. This has become a multi-faceted threat. In the case of what's happening in Europe, this
is a swarm of refugees. And as I've said repeatedly over the last few months, you can have 1,000
people come in and 999 of them are just poor people fleeing oppression and violence but one of
them is an ISIS fighter.
Q: Russia has invaded Ukraine, and has put troops in Syria. You have said you will have a good
relationship with Mr. Putin. So, what does President Trump do in response to Russia's aggression?
TRUMP: As far as Syria, if Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it,
100%, and I can't understand how anybody would be against it.
Q: They're not doing that.
TRUMP: They blew up a Russian airplane. He cannot be in love with these people. He's going in,
and we can go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a group
of people, and a group of countries, including Germany--why are we always doing the work? I'm all
for protecting Ukraine--but, we have countries that are surrounding the Ukraine that aren't doing
anything. They say, "Keep going, keep going, you dummies, keep going. Protect us." And we have to
get smart. We can't continue to be the policeman of the world.
Provide economic assistance to create a safe zone in Syria
Q: Where you are on the question of a safe zone or a no-fly zone in Syria?
TRUMP: I love a safe
zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming. What they should
do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states, who have nothing but
money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land in Syria and they do
a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country,
go back to where they came from.
Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?
TRUMP: I would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.
US should not train rebels it does not know or control
Q: The Russians are hitting Assad as well as people we've trained.
TRUMP: Where they're hitting
people, we're talking about people that we don't even know. I was talking to a general two days
ago. He said, "We have no idea who these people are. We're training people. We don't know who
they are. We're giving them billions of dollars to fight Assad." And you know what? I'm not
saying Assad's a good guy, because he's probably a bad guy. But I've watched him interviewed many
times. And you can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there-- it's a mess--
if you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look what we did there-- it's a mess-- it's going be
same thing.
Q: You came across to me as if you welcomed Putin's involvement in Syria. You said you saw very
little downside. Why?
TRUMP: I want our military to be beyond anything, no contest, and
technologically, most importantly. But we are going to get bogged down in Syria. If you look at
what happened with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, that's when they went bankrupt.
Q: So, you think Putin's going to get suckered into--
TRUMP: They're going to get bogged down. Everybody that's touched the Middle East, they've
gotten bogged down. Now, Putin wants to go in and I like that Putin is bombing the hell out of
ISIS. Putin has to get rid of ISIS because Putin doesn't want ISIS coming into Russia.
Q: Why do you trust him and nobody else does?
TRUMP: I don't trust him. But the truth is, it's not a question of trust. I don't want to see
the United States get bogged down. We've spent now $2 trillion in Iraq, probably a trillion in
Afghanistan. We're destroying our country.
What does Donald Trump believe? Iran and Israel: Walk away from nuclear talks. Increase
sanctions.
Trump has said that the U.S. is mishandling current Iran negotiations and should
have walked away from the table once Tehran reportedly rejected the idea of sending enriched
uranium to Russia. He would increase sanctions on Iran. Trump has been sharply critical of the
Obama administration's handling of relations with Israel and has called for a closer alliance
with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series , Jun 16, 2015
Iran deal was signed when Hillary was not the Secretary of state (her last month was Feb 2013).
Is Trump delusional or stupid ?
Notable quotes:
"... whatever the 'ransom', both Clinton and Trump are hellbent on undermining the Iranian deal. idiots. ..."
"... The more I think about it, US deserve to have Trump as president. He will screw up the US so royally that may shock American people to start thinking straight. ..."
"... Trump would certainly screw up the US, but if 8 years of Bush couldn't get them to start thinking straight, I am not sure what would. ..."
"... Hillary hates Iran more than Trump does... she's just extremely good in deceiving.. Remember when Sanders said to reach out to Iran about the Syrian conflict? Her reply was exactly this; "asking Iran for cooperation in Syria is like asking a pyromaniac to extinguish a fire" .. when president, I fear she will not only avoid cooperation but will be playing real hardball with Iran, where Trump, as someone who seems to be sympathetic to the Russian regime, might get more friendly with Iran (the friends of your friends...) ..."
"... It's a mess anyways... trump changes like how the wind blows, and Hillary is a snake (understatement of the year) ..."
"... The US has not held up to the term of the nuclear agreement! The banks are still afraid of US to deal with Iran. Congress has stopped the beoing deal, etc. The US congress is acting as bully! Actually not holding itself with the very deal the US signed is very bad! I can see Iran reluctant to negotiate any deal with a bunch of liars ..."
"... There were no bank relations between the US and Iran, so cash was the only option. It was conducted in secret because who's going to announce that a plane full of cash is in route to, well, anywhere? ..."
"... The US owed that money to Iran. The transfer was kept secret for the reason mentioned by bob. ..."
"... Ultimately, Mr. Trump's outrage over the $ (true or not) is yet another dodge avoiding the real question that he needs to be asked: "Do you want a war with Iran?" ..."
"... Course, I think everybody probably already knows the answer. It'd just be nice to have it print (or a tweet as the case may be). ..."
"... If the reports about Trump asking his foreign policy advisers about the utility of using nuclear weapons are accurate, there are probably several nations, including Iran, who'd be wise to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible to let him know why they shouldn't be used. ..."
It was Iran's money that Washington froze . Besides, if I recall, the great Republican hero
Ronnie Reagan traded weapons to Iran for hostages.
Joel Marcuson
It probably hasn't dawned on him that Hillary has not been a member of the current Gov't
for about 4 yrs now. How could she possibly be responsible for that decision, the type our
Gov't has made all along for as long as I can remember? What a screwball.
onu labu
whatever the 'ransom', both Clinton and Trump are hellbent on undermining the Iranian
deal. idiots.
trucmat
The gist of reality here is that the US confiscated a bunch of Iranian money and are
decades later starting to give it back. Scandalous!
ViktorZK
They should be attacking Clinton over the DNC resignations and a whole bunch more. But the
entire week has been taken up damping down fires Trump and his surrogates keep lighting. Even
this story (which is a non-event really) will struggle for oxygen. The biggest headline today
is GOP ELDERS PLAN INTERVENTION TO REHABILITATE FAILING CAMPAIGN. Hard to top that.
macmarco 1h
One must remember that Obama early and often said Reagan was his political hero. The same
Reagan who bought hostages freedom with a cake, a bible and a bunch of weapons.
ClearItUp
The more I think about it, US deserve to have Trump as president. He will screw up the
US so royally that may shock American people to start thinking straight.
rberger -> ClearItUp
Trump would certainly screw up the US, but if 8 years of Bush couldn't get them to
start thinking straight, I am not sure what would.
ChangeIranNow
At this point, with tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets already on their way to
Iran and a virtual Tehran gold rush in which Western firms are seeking to profit from the
collapse of sanctions going on, revisiting the way the Iran deal was sold to the nation seems
beside the point. But with Iran already signaling that it will demand even more Western
appeasement to keep complying with the terms of the nuclear pact, an examination into the
cash-for-hostages' aspect of the story is important. Let us hope our next president is willing
to harden its stance on the Iran regime and support an era of domestically-fostered peace and
stability.
doublreed legalimmigrant
DryBack, Voilà: Wikileaks recently released documents proving that Hillary Clinton took
$100,000 of cash from a company she ran (and worked for in the 80's and 90's) that also funded
ISIS in Syria. French industrial giant, Lafarge, gave money to the Islamic state to operate
their (Lafarge's) cement plant in Syria, and purchased oil from ISIS. Lafarge are also large
donators to Clinton's election and the Clinton Foundation. More is here: http://yournewswire.com/clinton-was-director-of-company-that-donated-money-to-isis/
Lafarge is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm's up to $100,000 donation was
listed in its annual donor list for 2015.
Zepp
Who on Earth would consider Tom Cotton and the Wall Street Journal to be credible sources?
They took the (true, verified) story of the Bush administration flying pallets of $100
bills into Baghdad where they promptly vanished, filed the numbers of, and resurrected it for
this story. The WSJ is a Murdoch organ, and Cotton is a crackpot.
itsmeLucas
Hillary hates Iran more than Trump does... she's just extremely good in deceiving..
Remember when Sanders said to reach out to Iran about the Syrian conflict? Her reply was
exactly this; "asking Iran for cooperation in Syria is like asking a pyromaniac to extinguish
a fire" .. when president, I fear she will not only avoid cooperation but will be playing real
hardball with Iran, where Trump, as someone who seems to be sympathetic to the Russian regime,
might get more friendly with Iran (the friends of your friends...)
It's a mess anyways... trump changes like how the wind blows, and Hillary is a snake
(understatement of the year)
coffeeclutch
Donald Trump and Tom Cotton are the verifying sources for this information? Tom Cotton, who
claimed that Iran needed to be stopped because "[they] already control Tehran?"
The circus act of American politics is really beyond belief. I'm still in awe the Republicans
faced no consequences for issuing a warning letter to a foreign government in the midst of
diplomatic negotiations with the President and the State Department. All while running around
Obama's back and inviting Israel's Prime Minister to address them directly in suggesting how
Americans should approach their foreign policy.
WorkingEU
To shift focus to an Iranian deal seems a good line of attack. But from a historical
perspective it may be a little guileless. The Iranian Revolution was a populist revolt against
globalization, elitism, corruption, foreign treachery and all the other abundant evils.
The clergy promised the earth, and delivered heaven. I confess this is a somewhat superficial
analysis when compared to the profound depth of the Trump campaign.
coffeeclutch -> WorkingEU
If I recall correctly the religious sphere was also one of the areas of social life not
micromanaged and controlled by the Shah (secular authority at that time was rather hands-off
on its approach to the clergy), so the clergy were in a unique position to manipulate a lot of
desperate people by presenting themselves as an "open and freer" alternative to the grossly
exploitative, corrupt, and often violent rule of the secular regime.
Of course once the were able to wrest enough power to shunt aside the various leftist and
student protest groups rising up at the same time, all that concern about anti-corruption and
public welfare was immediately tossed into the bin. Pretty much a Scylla and Charybdis
situation.
jokaz
The US has not held up to the term of the nuclear agreement! The banks are still afraid
of US to deal with Iran. Congress has stopped the beoing deal, etc. The US congress is acting
as bully! Actually not holding itself with the very deal the US signed is very bad! I can see
Iran reluctant to negotiate any deal with a bunch of liars
DBakes
I would like to understand more details about the cash payment and the reason. Was it
really a secret payment? That being said I will never vote for Trump who to me is an imminent
threat to national security.
bobj1156 -> DBakes
There were no bank relations between the US and Iran, so cash was the only option. It
was conducted in secret because who's going to announce that a plane full of cash is in route
to, well, anywhere?
MtnClimber -> DBakes
The US owed that money to Iran. The transfer was kept secret for the reason mentioned
by bob.
MiltonWiltmellow
The US state department has denied this.
The WSJ quoted Tom Cotton, a Republican senator from Arkansas, as accusing the Obama
administration of ...
Does the accusation even matter?
A Murdoch rag prints an unsubstantiated political accusation made a Murdoch political
sympathizer and somehow it becomes credible enough for the Guardian to repeat the smear?
Here's what those of us who live in the Real World™ say.
Where's your fucking proof??
williamdonovan
However, although the cash payment to Iran coincided with the release of a group of Iranian
American prisoners, there is no evidence to suggest any link between the two events.
Evidence maybe not but the read could draw easily make a "inference"
Blacks Law 4th Edition
INFERENCE. In the law of evidence. A truth or proposition drawn from another which is
sup- posed or admitted to be true. A process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition
sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state
of facts, already proved or admitted. Whitehouse v. Bolster, 95 Me. 458, 50 A. 240; Joske
v. Irvine, 91 Tex. 574, 44 S.W. 1059.
A deduction which the reason of the jury makes from the facts proved, without an express
direction of law to that effect. Puget Sound Electric Ry. v. Benson, C.C.A. Wash., 253 F.
710, 714.
A "presumption" and an "inference" are not the same thing, a presumption being a deduction
which the law requires a trier of facts to make, an inference being a deduction which the
trier may or may not make, according to his own conclusions; a presumption is mandatory, an
INFERENCE
eyeinlurk -> williamdonovan
Kind of like the Reagan arms for hostages deal with...uh...Iran. Back in the 80's.
I'm starting to miss the 80's, and I never thought I'd say that.
Ranger4 -> eyeinlurk
And they used the cash to .............fund an insurrection
williamdonovan -> eyeinlurk
I was working at the Pentagon then and found myself having inside knowledge of Iran-Contra
before it unfolded to the rest of the world. Given that the information was highly classified
Top Secret/SRA access. I had been given access to what I thought at the time was two
completely unrelated events moving of the missiles and the training and arming of the contras.
The information was compartmented meaning few people knew about either program and even far
fewer people new both programs where related (it wasn't called Iran-Contra until after much
later) Just weeks before the public new. I was given access to the complete picture. Even then
I couldn't figure how could something like this be legal. Because as we know now it was not.
You could easily draw inference between the these two events.
As I already have!
jrcdmc6670
Ultimately, Mr. Trump's outrage over the $ (true or not) is yet another dodge avoiding
the real question that he needs to be asked: "Do you want a war with Iran?"
Course, I think everybody probably already knows the answer. It'd just be nice to have it
print (or a tweet as the case may be).
jrcdmc6670
If the reports about Trump asking his foreign policy advisers about the utility of
using nuclear weapons are accurate, there are probably several nations, including Iran, who'd
be wise to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible to let him know why they shouldn't be
used.
Donald J. Trump unabashedly trumpeted his support for warmer relations with Russia
at a campaign rally here on Monday night, acidly mocking opponents who say he is too
friendly to Vladimir V. Putin, the country's
strongman president. Mr. Trump,
who has been under fire from Democrats and some conservative national security
leaders for his accommodating stance toward Mr. Putin, cast his supportive remarks as
a matter of practical necessity. By aligning itself with Russia, he said, the United
States could more easily take on the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. "If we
could get Russia to help us get rid of ISIS -- if we could actually be friendly with
Russia -- wouldn't that be a good thing?" Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential
nominee, said. Repeating the question moments later, he won loud applause
from the crowd: "If we could get along with Russia, wouldn't that be a good
thing, instead of a bad thing?"
"... The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals have created madness and mayhem in the world today. Real change will happen only if resources are available for all in a co-operative capitalistic way that raises the standard of living for all rather than the few. We now have socialism of the rich and low productivity with the standard of living becoming more about quantity rather than quality. ..."
Liberals ,conservatives and progressives need to put ideologies behind and form a coalition to
demand change. Just exercising our right to vote will change nothing.
We will continue to get
blow back in the form of terrorism as long as we do not change the foreign policy in the Middle
East which goes back to Sykes -Picot and the aftermath of World War One.
The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals have created madness and mayhem in the world today.
Real change will happen only if resources are available for all in a co-operative capitalistic
way that raises the standard of living for all rather than the few. We now have socialism of the
rich and low productivity with the standard of living becoming more about quantity rather than
quality.
The people will stop this, dirt-bag:
Obama predicts TPP 'trade' deal will be ratified after election | 02 Aug 2016 | President
Barack Obama
dismissed Hillary Clinton's [phony] opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement
corporate takeover Tuesday and suggested that her disapproval of the deal may be politically
motivated. [*Duh.*] "Right now, I'm president, and I'm for it," he said
at a news conference with Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong...While Obama and Lee were speaking,
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was addressing supporters at a rally in Ashburn, Virginia,
just miles from the capital. In a statement, Trump said a victory by him in November is the only
way to stop a "TPP catastrophe."
The Us intervention were dictate by needs of global corporation that control the US foreigh
policy. And they need to open market, press geopolitical rivals (Ukraine, Georgia) and grab
resources (Iraq, Libya). The American people are now hostages in their own country and can do
nothing against the establishement militaristic stance. They will fight and die in unnecessary wars
of neoliberal globalization.
Notable quotes:
"... With Democrats howling that Vladimir Putin hacked into and leaked those 19,000 DNC emails to help Trump, the Donald had a brainstorm: Maybe the Russians can retrieve Hillary Clinton's lost emails. Not funny, and close to "treasonous," came the shocked cry. Trump then told the New York Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response ..."
"... Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled. We got a hint of this in 2013. Barack Obama, claiming his "red line" against any use of poison gas in Syria had been crossed, found he had no public backing for air and missile strikes on the Assad regime. The country rose up as one and told him to forget it. He did. We have been at war since 2001. And as one looks on the ruins of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and adds up the thousands dead and wounded and trillions sunk and lost, can anyone say our War Party has served us well? ..."
"... The first NATO supreme commander, General Eisenhower, said that if U.S. troops were still in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure. In 1961, he urged JFK to start pulling U.S. troops out, lest Europeans become military dependencies of the United States. Was Ike not right? Even Barack Obama today riffs about the "free riders" on America's defense. Is it really so outrageous for Trump to ask how long the U.S. is to be responsible for defending rich Europeans who refuse to conscript the soldiers or pay the cost of their own defense, when Eisenhower was asking that same question 55 years ago? ..."
"... In 1997, geostrategist George Kennan warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe "would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era." He predicted a fierce nationalistic Russian response. Was Kennan not right? ..."
With Democrats howling that Vladimir Putin hacked into and leaked those 19,000 DNC emails
to help Trump, the Donald had a brainstorm: Maybe the Russians can retrieve Hillary Clinton's lost
emails. Not funny, and close to "treasonous," came the shocked cry. Trump then told the New York
Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response.
Even more shocking. By suggesting the U.S. might not honor its NATO commitment, under Article
5, to fight Russia for Estonia, our foreign policy elites declaimed, Trump has undermined the security
architecture that has kept the peace for 65 years. More interesting, however, was the reaction of
Middle America. Or, to be more exact, the nonreaction. Americans seem neither shocked nor horrified.
What does this suggest?
Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and
Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled. We
got a hint of this in 2013. Barack Obama, claiming his "red line" against any use of poison gas in
Syria had been crossed, found he had no public backing for air and missile strikes on the Assad regime.
The country rose up as one and told him to forget it. He did. We have been at war since 2001. And
as one looks on the ruins of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and adds up the thousands
dead and wounded and trillions sunk and lost, can anyone say our War Party has served us well?
On bringing Estonia into NATO, no Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing so insane a
war guarantee. Eisenhower refused to intervene to save the Hungarian rebels. JFK refused to halt
the building of the Berlin Wall. LBJ did nothing to impede the Warsaw Pact's crushing of the Prague
Spring. Reagan never considered moving militarily to halt the smashing of Solidarity.
Were all these presidents cringing isolationists? Rather, they were realists who recognized that,
though we prayed the captive nations would one day be free, we were not going to risk a world war,
or a nuclear war, to achieve it. Period. In 1991, President Bush told Ukrainians that any declaration
of independence from Moscow would be an act of "suicidal nationalism."
Today, Beltway hawks want to bring Ukraine into NATO. This would mean that America would go to
war with Russia, if necessary, to preserve an independence Bush I regarded as "suicidal."
Have we lost our minds?
The first NATO supreme commander, General Eisenhower, said that if U.S. troops were still
in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure. In 1961, he urged JFK to start pulling U.S. troops
out, lest Europeans become military dependencies of the United States. Was Ike not right? Even Barack
Obama today riffs about the "free riders" on America's defense. Is it really so outrageous for Trump
to ask how long the U.S. is to be responsible for defending rich Europeans who refuse to conscript
the soldiers or pay the cost of their own defense, when Eisenhower was asking that same question
55 years ago?
In 1997, geostrategist George Kennan warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe "would be
the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era." He predicted a fierce nationalistic
Russian response. Was Kennan not right? NATO and Russia are today building up forces in the
eastern Baltic where no vital U.S. interests exist, and where we have never fought before - for that
very reason. There is no evidence Russia intends to march into Estonia, and no reason for her to
do so. But if she did, how would NATO expel Russian troops without air and missile strikes that would
devastate that tiny country? And if we killed Russians inside Russia, are we confident Moscow would
not resort to tactical atomic weapons to prevail? After all, Russia cannot back up any further. We
are right in her face.
On this issue Trump seems to be speaking for the silent majority and certainly raising issues
that need to be debated.
How long are we to be committed to go to war to defend the tiny Baltic republics against a
Russia that could overrun them in 72 hours?
When, if ever, does our obligation end? If it is eternal, is not a clash with a revanchist
and anti-American Russia inevitable?
Are U.S. war guarantees in the Baltic republics even credible?
If the Cold War generations of Americans were unwilling to go to war with a nuclear-armed
Soviet Union over Hungary and Czechoslovakia, are the millennials ready to fight a war with Russia
over Estonia?
Needed now is diplomacy. The trade-off: Russia ensures the independence of the Baltic republics
that she let go. And NATO gets out of Russia's face. Should Russia dishonor its commitment, economic
sanctions are the answer, not another European war.
"... What cannot be ignored is that Hilary Clinton has supported a war machine that has resulted in the death of millions, while also supporting a neoliberal economy that has produced massive amounts of suffering and created a mass incarceration state. ..."
"... It is crucial to note that Clinton hides her crimes in the discourse of freedom and appeals to democracy ..."
What cannot be ignored is that Hilary Clinton has supported a war machine that has resulted in
the death of millions, while also supporting a neoliberal economy that has produced massive amounts
of suffering and created a mass incarceration state. Yet, all of that is forgotten as the mainstream
press focuses on stories about Clinton's emails and the details of her electoral run for the presidency.
It is crucial to note that Clinton hides her crimes in the discourse of freedom and appeals to democracy
while Trump overtly disdains such a discourse. In the end, state and domestic violence saturate American
society and the only time this fact gets noticed is when the beatings and murders of Black men are
caught on camera and spread through social media.
Who cares what foreigners think about our election?
Only people with financial ties to the outcome of the election can be expected to really care.
Goldman Sach's tentacles are worldwide.
I love those old cartoons from the 1890s that show the reformers smashing the monopolists.
Envision Trump with an axe, chopping off the tentacles of the vampire squid which screams in agony
and bleeds to death.
I'm reminded of the buttinsky old woman from Austria who is always lecturing me on how we treat
our "Africa-Americans."
I respond with , "So, how do you treat the gypsies in Austria?"
" Oh, that's different!" she shrieks.
"... Really? Do I trust Trump to give the keys to 6970 nukes, 10 carrier strike groups, and a $1Trillion/yr military-industrial complex to a bigoted, sociopathic liar. NOT. I still do remember what it was like the first time I gave my car keys to my 16-year old son. Give the nuclear keys to Trump – ABSOLUTELY. NEVER. ..."
"... Why can't the choice be that noone should have the keys to the nukes? That's assuming anyone does single handedly which is almost certainly false anyway. You think senile old Reagan did? Really you really truly believe that do you? ..."
"... "Should the president decide to order the launch of nuclear weapons, they would be taken aside by the "carrier" of the nuclear football and the briefcase opened. Once opened, the president would decide which "Attack Options", specific orders for attacks on specific targets, to use. The Attack Options are preset war plans developed under OPLAN 8010, and include Major Attack Options (MAOs), Selected Attack Options (SAOs), and Limited Attack Options (LAOs). The chosen attack option and the Gold Codes would then be transmitted to the NMCC via a special, secure channel. As commander-in-chief, the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons;however, the two-man rule still applies. ..."
Really? Do I trust Trump to give the keys to 6970 nukes, 10 carrier strike groups, and a $1Trillion/yr
military-industrial complex to a bigoted, sociopathic liar. NOT. I still do remember what it was
like the first time I gave my car keys to my 16-year old son. Give the nuclear keys to Trump –
ABSOLUTELY. NEVER.
Which is not to say that I am totally thrilled with neocon hawk Hillary. Number 1 on my list
of the 9 reasons why I voted for Bernie rather than her in our Primary is that she voted for Bush's
Iraq War and my son did six tours.
"The solution is not to save the Democratic Party, but to replace it."
True enough, but that will not happen between now and 08 November.
We have a binary choice on 08 Nov – I do not think a replay Nader in FL in 2000 is a particularly
smart option.
Why can't the choice be that noone should have the keys to the nukes? That's assuming anyone
does single handedly which is almost certainly false anyway. You think senile old Reagan did?
Really you really truly believe that do you?
"Should the president decide to order the launch of nuclear weapons, they would be taken aside
by the "carrier" of the nuclear football and the briefcase opened. Once opened, the president
would decide which "Attack Options", specific orders for attacks on specific targets, to use.
The Attack Options are preset war plans developed under OPLAN 8010, and include Major Attack Options
(MAOs), Selected Attack Options (SAOs), and Limited Attack Options (LAOs). The chosen attack option
and the Gold Codes would then be transmitted to the NMCC via a special, secure channel. As commander-in-chief,
the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons;however,
the two-man rule still applies.
The National Command Authority comprising the president and Secretary
of Defense must jointly authenticate the order to use nuclear weapons to the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. The order would then be transmitted over a tan-yellow phone, the Joint Chiefs
of Staff Alerting Network, otherwise known as the "Gold Phone", that directly links the NMCC with
United States Strategic Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska."
So there are some checks to prevent Donald Trump or HRC launching a nuclear strike in a fit
of temper..
Donald Trump Calls Comments About Russia and Clinton Emails 'Sarcastic' | 28 July 2016
| Facing a torrent of criticism over his comments seeming to condone the hacking of Hillary Clinton's
emails by Russian intelligence services, Donald J. Trump and his allies on Thursday sought to tamp
down his remarks, with Mr. Trump saying he was simply being "sarcastic." In public interviews and
private conversations on Thursday, Mr. Trump; his running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana; and campaign
staff members contended that Mr. Trump was being facetious when, during a news conference on Wednesday,
he said he hoped Russia would be able to find Mrs. Clinton's missing emails. "Of course I'm being
sarcastic," Mr. Trump told "Fox and Friends" Thursday morning as his aides accused the news media
of misconstruing his remarks.
"... If he just avoids a major world war, that will be enough for me. Because I believe the American elite would be quite happy for that to happen – it badly wants Russia taken off the board, and China too if they will not cooperate and learn their place, and such a war would be fought in Europe – again – while America is insulated by distance. Of course Russia would ensure America paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not reach their targets owing to the USA's brilliant missile defense. ..."
"... If this is not America's plan, then the last 5 years' amped-up hatred and deliberate alienation of Russia from the United States, for a generation at least, looks awfully stupid. ..."
"... For the moment, at least, Trump has pulled into the lead . It remains to be seen if Sanders democrats will forgive Clinton for her unconscionable maneuvering, self-promotion and subordination of the DNC to her cause alone, not to mention what must now be complete disillusionment with the latter organization. The democrats, amazingly, are making the republicans look clean by comparison. ..."
"... Don't underestimate how stupid they can be. They trashed Afghanistan and Iraq, and were then surprised that Iran became the dominating power in the region (after destroying Iran's two most formidable foes). ..."
"... The US government can do stupidity, I don't think they plan so well. ..."
If you should happen to like to see our Fern's excellent comment on here turned into a 'Letter
to the Editor', look no further than here: http://www.ukipdaily.com/letters-editor-26th-july-2016/
Hers is the second of three – the last one by an American friend about the Hillary convention
is a hoot!
It looks even more visionary in a newspaper format. And the third comment is indeed a cracker.
I don't understand why there is not a general revolt in the United States – are Americans seriously
going to put up with this complete and brazen hijacking of what was not even a democratic process
to begin with? And what next? Will Hillary simply rewrite the Presidential term in office to 'forever'?
I don't think Hilary is going to get in.
In the first place, the now nearly daily muslim terrorist acts in Europe add another 5% each to
Trump's vote.
In the second place, more and more dirt will come out on Hilary and Bill, and more and more people
are aware of the underhand dealings in vote counting. It was one thing to keep quiet four years
ago when most people couldn't give a toss about Romney, so squeals of voting fraud were not widely
reported.
Now they know, now they are aware, and now, unlike Romney, there's one candidate who's not afraid
of saying what most people think.
I belive Trump will do it.
What happens after he's in – well, it's gotta be better than Hilary.
If he just avoids a major world war, that will be enough for me. Because I believe the American
elite would be quite happy for that to happen – it badly wants Russia taken off the board, and
China too if they will not cooperate and learn their place, and such a war would be fought in
Europe – again – while America is insulated by distance. Of course Russia would ensure America
paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not reach their targets owing to the USA's
brilliant missile defense.
If this is not America's plan, then the last 5 years' amped-up hatred and deliberate alienation
of Russia from the United States, for a generation at least, looks awfully stupid.
For the moment, at least,
Trump has pulled into the lead . It remains to be seen if Sanders democrats will forgive Clinton
for her unconscionable maneuvering, self-promotion and subordination of the DNC to her cause alone,
not to mention what must now be complete disillusionment with the latter organization. The democrats,
amazingly, are making the republicans look clean by comparison.
"Of course Russia would ensure America paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not
reach their targets owing to the USA's brilliant missile defense."
Don't underestimate how stupid they can be. They trashed Afghanistan and Iraq, and were then surprised
that Iran became the dominating power in the region (after destroying Iran's two most formidable
foes).
The US government can do stupidity, I don't think they plan so well.
"... Trump, unlike most politicians, isn't a pitiful, cowardly liar who'd sell his soul, his mother and his best friend for a fistful of cash. You're probably confusing him with Tony Bliar, Bush II and 'Mr Magoo without the good intentions' - John W Howard, a creepy sell-out with no presence, personality or moral compass. ..."
But don't expect anything much in the way of 'keeping promises' post-election. "What, those
were promises? I was just putting on a show, and you _loved_ it." Posted by: fairleft | Jul 25, 2016 12:28:47 PM | 42
You wish...
Trump, unlike most politicians, isn't a pitiful, cowardly liar who'd sell his soul, his mother and
his best friend for a fistful of cash. You're probably confusing him with Tony Bliar, Bush II and
'Mr Magoo without the good intentions' - John W Howard, a creepy sell-out with no presence, personality
or moral compass.
After one of his early promise-laden election victories, he had the gall to dismiss a press query
about several of his broken promises thus:
"Uhh, they were non-core promises."
Trump's too smart and proud to box himself in with false promises. If he's flogging a vague idea
it'll be vague BEFORE the election, not afterwards.
Remember Obama railed against "stupid wars". I assumed that he was referring to the destruction
of Iraq. Since then, Obama has engaged the USA in more stupid wars than any president in history.
Now we have Trump - America First. Also opposed to stupid wars. But his favorite Foreign Policy guy is Zionist for Yinon Plan for Greater Israel John Bolton.
That can't be good.
BUT Trump is not saber rattling straight out of the box like the Hell Bitch is doing.
"... According to recent figures, the BASF PAC has distributed $399,000 in donations. The lion's share of this money, a good 72 percent, flowed to the Republicans. This is not surprising, writes Die Welt. In previous election years, BASF, Allianz and Bayer had supported the Republicans. ..."
In a guest editorial reprinted from the Los Angeles Times, the FAZ writes of a possible
military coup in the oldest democracy in the world. Under the headline, "If Trump wins, a coup
isn't impossible here in the US," journalist James Kirchick develops a scenario in which
President Trump gives the military an illegal command, which it refuses to carry it out.
The article ends with the following: "Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a
danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to."
German corporations with operations in the US reacted somewhat differently. As Die Welt
reports, notable large concerns from Germany gave more than two-thirds of their election
donations to the Republicans, and thus to Trump; above all BASF, Allianz, Siemens and Deutsche
Bank.
Since US law prevents American or foreign companies from making direct donations to
candidates, campaign funding takes place via so-called Political Action Committees (PACs). This
is a legal construct allowing the circumvention of both the strict limit on donations as well as
the ban on corporate donations. Via so-called super PACs, hundreds of millions of dollars flow
into campaign advertising.
According to recent figures, the BASF PAC has distributed $399,000 in donations. The
lion's share of this money, a good 72 percent, flowed to the Republicans. This is not surprising,
writes Die Welt. In previous election years, BASF, Allianz and Bayer had supported the
Republicans.
According to Die Welt, in this election campaign the chemical and pharmaceutical
group Bayer sent 80 percent of its donations to benefit the Republicans. At financial services
company Allianz it was 72 percent.
Deutsche Bank, on the other hand, changed political camps. The paper writes: "While Deutsche
Bank donated comparatively little, only $37,000, it is remarkable that 86 percent of this money
was distributed to the Republican camp." Such a clear tendency could not be seen in any other
German company.
That Deutsche Bank sympathies with the Republicans is new. In 2006 and 2008, the bank had
clearly tended toward the Democrats. The change of side was not surprising, "since Deutsche Bank
is the largest lender to Donald Trump." For the renovation of a hotel in Washington, Trump
borrowed $170 million from Deutsche Bank.
@37 jfl If you think Trump is a liar, then everything he says is bullshit. But I see his remarks over a long time are consistent.
And in sequel on #32 William Engdahl has to explain a lot. In his "A Century of War" he describes how the US industry was crippled in the 50's and 60's. And how the protestors were demonised.
p. 119 Riots were deliberately incited in industrial cities like Newark, Boston, Oakland and Philadelphia
by government-backed 'insurgents', such as Tom Hayden. The goal of this operation was to break the
power of established industrial trade unions in the northern cities by labeling them racist.
p. 120 The newly created U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity weakened the political voice of traditional
American labor and the influential urban constituency machines. The targeted white blue-collar industrial
operatives, only a decade earlier hailed as the lifeblood of American industry, were suddenly labeled
'reactionary' and 'racist' by the powerful liberal media. These workers were mostly fearful and confused
as they saw their entire social fabric collapsing in the wake of the disinvestment policy of the
powerful banks.
Hey William, did you read about Trump's ideas to bring back jobs to the USA? (and do you recognize something?)
And William, did you understand his remarks about that Mexican Wall (on American Soil). (preventing illegal immigration, ALSO because he wants higher minimum wages (impossible with illegal
immigrants))
In a YouTube video about the lawsuit, Jason Beck said there were six claims to the case. The
first is fraud against the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, stating that they broke legally
binding agreements by strategizing for Clinton.
The second is negligent misrepresentation.
The third is deceptive conduct by claiming they were remaining neutral when they were not. The
fourth is is retribution for monetary donations to Sanders' campaign.
The fifth is that the DNC broke its fiduciary duties during the primaries by not holding a
fair process. And the sixth is for negligence, claiming that the DNC did not protect donor
information from hackers.
"... But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign spending to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world, the only kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country. We're not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even talking about that. So let's be realistic. ..."
PERIES: So let's take a look at this article by Paul Krugman. Where is he going with this analysis
about the Siberian candidate?
HUDSON: Well, Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and they're
terrified that they're losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century the Republican
Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that. Reversing the
whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons.
Until his speech, the whole Republican Convention, every speaker had avoided dealing with economic
policy issues. No one referred to the party platform, which isn't very good. And it was mostly an
attack on Hillary. Chants of "lock her up." And Trump children, aimed to try to humanize him and
make him look like a loving man.
But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's
making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major
policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing
stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying
the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that
otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders.
So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear,
roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American
labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign spending
to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world, the only
kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country. We're not
going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even talking about
that. So let's be realistic.
Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy.
"... The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect. This will all change in 2017. ..."
"... The American People will come first once again. My plan will begin with safety at home – which means safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism. There can be no prosperity without law and order. On the economy, I will outline reforms to add millions of new jobs and trillions in new wealth that can be used to rebuild America. ..."
"... Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings. ..."
"... That is why Hillary Clinton's message is that things will never change. My message is that things have to change – and they have to change right now. Every day I wake up determined to deliver for the people I have met all across this nation that have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned. ..."
"... I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice. ..."
"... I have embraced crying mothers who have lost their children because our politicians put their personal agendas before the national good. I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens. ..."
"... And when a Secretary of State illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence – I know that corruption has reached a level like never before. ..."
"... When the FBI Director says that the Secretary of State was "extremely careless" and "negligent," in handling our classified secrets, I also know that these terms are minor compared to what she actually did. They were just used to save her from facing justice for her terrible crimes. ..."
"... In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting away with it – especially when others have paid so dearly. When that same Secretary of State rakes in millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the time for action has come. ..."
"... We must have the best intelligence gathering operation in the world. We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terror. ..."
"... We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities. I have been honored to receive the endorsement of America's Border Patrol Agents, and will work directly with them to protect the integrity of our lawful immigration system. ..."
"... On January 21st of 2017, the day after I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced. We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone. ..."
"... But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens. My plan is the exact opposite of the radical and dangerous immigration policy of Hillary Clinton. Americans want relief from uncontrolled immigration. Communities want relief. ..."
"... Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our country. ..."
"... My opponent, on the other hand, has supported virtually every trade agreement that has been destroying our middle class. She supported NAFTA, and she supported China's entrance into the World Trade Organization – another one of her husband's colossal mistakes. ..."
"... She supported the job killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP will not only destroy our manufacturing, but it will make America subject to the rulings of foreign governments. I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers, or that diminishes our freedom and independence. Instead, I will make individual deals with individual countries. ..."
"... My opponent would rather protect education bureaucrats than serve American children. We will repeal and replace disastrous Obamacare. You will be able to choose your own doctor again. And we will fix TSA at the airports! We will completely rebuild our depleted military, and the countries that we protect, at a massive loss, will be asked to pay their fair share. We will take care of our great Veterans like they have never been taken care of before. My opponent dismissed the VA scandal as being not widespread – one more sign of how out of touch she really is. We are going to ask every Department Head in government to provide a list of wasteful spending projects that we can eliminate in my first 100 days. The politicians have talked about it, I'm going to do it. We are also going to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who will uphold our laws and our Constitution. ..."
Not only have our citizens endured domestic disaster, but they have lived through one international
humiliation after another. We all remember the images of our sailors being forced to their knees
by their Iranian captors at gunpoint.
This was just prior to the signing of the Iran deal, which gave back to Iran $150 billion and
gave us nothing – it will go down in history as one of the worst deals ever made. Another humiliation
came when president Obama drew a red line in Syria – and the whole world knew it meant nothing.
In Libya, our consulate – the symbol of American prestige around the globe – was brought down
in flames. America is far less safe – and the world is far less stable – than when Obama made the
decision to put Hillary Clinton in charge of America's foreign policy.
I am certain it is a decision he truly regrets. Her bad instincts and her bad judgment – something
pointed out by Bernie Sanders – are what caused the disasters unfolding today. Let's review the record.
In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map.
Libya was cooperating. Egypt was peaceful. Iraq was seeing a reduction in violence. Iran was being
choked by sanctions. Syria was under control. After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have?
ISIS has spread across the region, and the world. Libya is in ruins, and our Ambassador and his staff
were left helpless to die at the hands of savage killers. Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim
brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control. Iraq is in chaos.
Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis
that now threatens the West. After fifteen years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars
spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.
This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness.
But Hillary Clinton's legacy does not have to be America's legacy. The problems we face now –
poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad – will last only as long as we continue
relying on the same politicians who created them. A change in leadership is required to change these
outcomes. Tonight, I will share with you my plan of action for America.
The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will
put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians
who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America
with respect. This will all change in 2017.
The American People will come first once again. My plan will begin with safety at home – which
means safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism. There can be no prosperity
without law and order. On the economy, I will outline reforms to add millions of new jobs and trillions
in new wealth that can be used to rebuild America.
A number of these reforms that I will outline tonight will be opposed by some of our nation's
most powerful special interests. That is because these interests have rigged our political and economic
system for their exclusive benefit.
Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because
they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have
total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings.
That is why Hillary Clinton's message is that things will never change. My message is that things
have to change – and they have to change right now. Every day I wake up determined to deliver for
the people I have met all across this nation that have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned.
I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair
trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer
have a voice.
I AM YOUR VOICE.
I have embraced crying mothers who have lost their children because our politicians put their
personal agendas before the national good. I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government
incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens.
When innocent people suffer, because our political system lacks the will, or the courage, or the
basic decency to enforce our laws – or worse still, has sold out to some corporate lobbyist for cash
– I am not able to look the other way.
And when a Secretary of State illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000
of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every
different form and faces no consequence – I know that corruption has reached a level like never before.
When the FBI Director says that the Secretary of State was "extremely careless" and "negligent,"
in handling our classified secrets, I also know that these terms are minor compared to what she actually
did. They were just used to save her from facing justice for her terrible crimes.
In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting
away with it – especially when others have paid so dearly. When that same Secretary of State rakes
in millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the
time for action has come.
I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot
defend themselves. Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. I have
seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens, just like it was rigged against Bernie
Sanders – he never had a chance.
But his supporters will join our movement, because we will fix his biggest issue: trade. Millions
of Democrats will join our movement because we are going to fix the system so it works for all Americans.
In this cause, I am proud to have at my side the next Vice President of the United States: Governor
Mike Pence of Indiana.
We will bring the same economic success to America that Mike brought to Indiana. He is a man of
character and accomplishment. He is the right man for the job. The first task for our new Administration
will be to liberate our citizens from the crime and terrorism and lawlessness that threatens their
communities.
... ... ...
We must have the best intelligence gathering operation in the world. We must abandon the failed
policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and
Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping
out Islamic terror.
This includes working with our greatest ally in the region, the State of Israel. Lastly, we must
immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such
time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.
My opponent has called for a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive
refugee flows coming into our country under President Obama. She proposes this despite the fact that
there's no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from.
I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people.
Anyone who endorses violence, hatred or oppression is not welcome in our country and never will
be.
Decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment for our citizens,
especially for African-American and Latino workers. We are going to have an immigration system that
works, but one that works for the American people.
On Monday, we heard from three parents whose children were killed by illegal immigrants Mary Ann
Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw. They are just three brave representatives of many thousands.
Of all my travels in this country, nothing has affected me more deeply than the time I have spent
with the mothers and fathers who have lost their children to violence spilling across our border.
These families have no special interests to represent them. There are no demonstrators to protest
on their behalf. My opponent will never meet with them, or share in their pain. Instead, my opponent
wants Sanctuary Cities. But where was sanctuary for Kate Steinle? Where was Sanctuary for the children
of Mary Ann, Sabine and Jamiel? Where was sanctuary for all the other Americans who have been so
brutally murdered, and who have suffered so horribly?
These wounded American families have been alone. But they are alone no longer. Tonight, this candidate
and this whole nation stand in their corner to support them, to send them our love, and to pledge
in their honor that we will save countless more families from suffering the same awful fate.
We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the
violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities. I have been honored to receive
the endorsement of America's Border Patrol Agents, and will work directly with them to protect the
integrity of our lawful immigration system.
By ending catch-and-release on the border, we will stop the cycle of human smuggling and violence.
Illegal border crossings will go down. Peace will be restored. By enforcing the rules for the millions
who overstay their visas, our laws will finally receive the respect they deserve.
Tonight, I want every American whose demands for immigration security have been denied – and every
politician who has denied them – to listen very closely to the words I am about to say.
On January 21st of 2017, the day after I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake
up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced. We are going to be considerate
and compassionate to everyone.
But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens. My plan is the exact opposite
of the radical and dangerous immigration policy of Hillary Clinton. Americans want relief from uncontrolled
immigration. Communities want relief.
Yet Hillary Clinton is proposing mass amnesty, mass immigration, and mass lawlessness. Her plan
will overwhelm your schools and hospitals, further reduce your jobs and wages, and make it harder
for recent immigrants to escape from poverty.
I have a different vision for our workers. It begins with a new, fair trade policy that protects
our jobs and stands up to countries that cheat. It's been a signature message of my campaign from
day one, and it will be a signature feature of my presidency from the moment I take the oath of office.
I have made billions of dollars in business making deals – now I'm going to make our country rich
again. I am going to turn our bad trade agreements into great ones. America has lost nearly-one third
of its manufacturing jobs since 1997, following the enactment of disastrous trade deals supported
by Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our
country.
Never again.
I am going to bring our jobs back to Ohio and to America – and I am not going to let companies
move to other countries, firing their employees along the way, without consequences.
My opponent, on the other hand, has supported virtually every trade agreement that has been destroying
our middle class. She supported NAFTA, and she supported China's entrance into the World Trade Organization
– another one of her husband's colossal mistakes.
She supported the job killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. The TPP will not only destroy our manufacturing, but it will make America subject to
the rulings of foreign governments. I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers,
or that diminishes our freedom and independence. Instead, I will make individual deals with individual
countries.
No longer will we enter into these massive deals, with many countries, that are thousands of pages
long – and which no one from our country even reads or understands. We are going to enforce all trade
violations, including through the use of taxes and tariffs, against any country that cheats.
This includes stopping China's outrageous theft of intellectual property, along with their illegal
product dumping, and their devastating currency manipulation. Our horrible trade agreements with
China and many others, will be totally renegotiated. That includes renegotiating NAFTA to get a much
better deal for America – and we'll walk away if we don't get the deal that we want. We are going
to start building and making things again.
Next comes the reform of our tax laws, regulations and energy rules. While Hillary Clinton plans
a massive tax increase, I have proposed the largest tax reduction of any candidate who has declared
for the presidential race this year – Democrat or Republican. Middle-income Americans will experience
profound relief, and taxes will be simplified for everyone.
America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world. Reducing taxes will cause new companies
and new jobs to come roaring back into our country. Then we are going to deal with the issue of regulation,
one of the greatest job-killers of them all. Excessive regulation is costing our country as much
as $2 trillion a year, and we will end it. We are going to lift the restrictions on the production
of American energy. This will produce more than $20 trillion in job creating economic activity over
the next four decades.
My opponent, on the other hand, wants to put the great miners and steel workers of our country
out of work – that will never happen when I am President. With these new economic policies, trillions
of dollars will start flowing into our country.
This new wealth will improve the quality of life for all Americans – We will build the roads,
highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, and the railways of tomorrow. This, in turn, will create millions
more jobs. We will rescue kids from failing schools by helping their parents send them to a safe
school of their choice.
My opponent would rather protect education bureaucrats than serve American children. We will repeal
and replace disastrous Obamacare. You will be able to choose your own doctor again. And we will fix
TSA at the airports! We will completely rebuild our depleted military, and the countries that we
protect, at a massive loss, will be asked to pay their fair share.
We will take care of our great Veterans like they have never been taken care of before. My opponent
dismissed the VA scandal as being not widespread – one more sign of how out of touch she really is.
We are going to ask every Department Head in government to provide a list of wasteful spending projects
that we can eliminate in my first 100 days. The politicians have talked about it, I'm going to do
it. We are also going to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who will uphold our
laws and our Constitution.
The replacement for Justice Scalia will be a person of similar views and principles. This will
be one of the most important issues decided by this election. My opponent wants to essentially abolish
the 2nd amendment. I, on the other hand, received the early and strong endorsement of the National
Rifle Association and will protect the right of all Americans to keep their families safe.
"... Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and they're terrified that they're losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century the Republican Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that. Reversing the whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons. ..."
"... But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. ..."
"... Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy. Not only did Krugman say that Trump would, quote, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy at the expense of America's allies, and he's referring to the Ukraine, basically, and it's at–he's become a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex. But also, at the Washington Post you had Anne Applebaum call him explicitly the Manchurian candidate, referring to the 1962 movie, and rejecting the neocon craziness. This has just driven them nutty because they're worried of losing the Republican Party under Trump. ..."
"... In economic policy, Trump also opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the TTIP trade and corporate power grab [inaud.] with Europe to block public regulation. And this was also a major plank of Bernie Sanders' campaign against Hillary, which Trump knows. ..."
"... And this may be for show, simply to brand Hillary as Wall Street's candidate. But it also seems to actually be an attack on Wall Street. And Trump's genius was to turn around all the attacks on him as being a shady businessman. He said, look, nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. Now, what that means, basically, as a businessman, he knows the fine print by which they've been screwing the people. So only someone like him knows how to fight against Wall Street. After all, he's been screwing the Wall Street banks for years [inaud.]. And he can now fight for the population fighting against Wall Street, just as he's been able to stiff the banks. ..."
"... When it comes–he also in that sense appealed to, as you said, the Bernie Sanders people when he talked about the trade deals. You know, he's been talking about NAFTA, TTIP, TTP, and these are areas that really is traditionally been the left of the left issues. And now there's this, that he's anti-these trade deals, and he's going to bring jobs home. What does that mean? ..."
"... I think that the most, the biggest contradiction, was you can look at how the convention began with Governor Christie. Accusing Hillary of being pro-Russian when she's actually threatening war, and criticizing her for not helping the Ukrainians when it was she who brought Victorian Nuland in to push the coup d'etat with the neo-nazis, and gave them $5 billion. And Trump reversed the whole thing and said no, no, no. I'm not anti-Russian, I'm pro-Russian. I'm not going to defend Ukrainians. Just the opposite. ..."
"... All of that–you've had the Koch brothers say we're not going to give money to Trump, the Republicans, now. We're backing Hillary. You've got the Chamber of Commerce saying because Trump isn't for the corporate takeover of foreign trade, we're now supporting the Democrats, not the Reepublicans. ..."
"... So this is really the class war. And it's the class war of Wall Street and the corporate sector of the Democratic side against Trump on the populist side. And who knows whether he really means what he says when he says he's for the workers and he wants to rebuild the cities, put labor back to work. And when he says he's for the blacks and Hispanics have to get jobs just like white people, maybe he's telling the truth, because that certainly is the way that the country can be rebuilt in a positive way. ..."
Trump's divergence from the conventional Republican platform is generating indignant punditry
from neocons and neoliberals alike
SHARMINI PERIES, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, TRNN: It's the Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming
to you from Baltimore.
On Friday, just after the Republican National Congress wrapped up with its presidential candidate,
Donald Trump, Paul Krugman of the New York Times penned an article titled "Donald Trump: The Siberian
Candidate." He said in it, if elected, would Donald Trump be Vladimir Putin's man in the White House?
Krugman himself is worried as ludicrous and outrageous as the question sounds, the Trump campaign's
recent behavior has quite a few foreign policy experts wondering, he says, just what kind of hold
Mr. Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that influence will continue if he wins.
Well, let's unravel that statement with Michael Hudson. He's joining us from New York. Michael
is a distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri Kansas City. His
latest book is Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroyed the Global Economy.
Thank you so much for joining us, Michael.
MICHAEL HUDSON:
It's good to be here, Sharmini. It's been an exciting week.
PERIES:
So let's take a look at this article by Paul Krugman. Where is he going with this analysis
about the Siberian candidate?
HUDSON:
Well,
Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and
they're terrified that they're losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century
the Republican Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that.
Reversing the whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons.
Until his speech, the whole Republican Convention, every speaker had avoided dealing with economic
policy issues. No one referred to the party platform, which isn't very good. And it was mostly an
attack on Hillary. Chants of "lock her up." And Trump children, aimed to try to humanize him and
make him look like a loving man.
But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's
making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major
policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing
stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying
the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that
otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders.
So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear,
roll back military spending.
We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing
American labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign
spending to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world,
the only kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country.
We're not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even
talking about that. So let's be realistic.
Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy. Not only did Krugman say that Trump would,
quote, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy at the expense of America's allies, and he's referring
to the Ukraine, basically, and it's at–he's become a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex.
But also, at the Washington Post you had Anne Applebaum call him explicitly the Manchurian candidate,
referring to the 1962 movie, and rejecting the neocon craziness. This has just driven them nutty
because they're worried of losing the Republican Party under Trump.
In economic policy, Trump also opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the TTIP trade and
corporate power grab [inaud.] with Europe to block public regulation. And this was also a major plank
of Bernie Sanders' campaign against Hillary, which Trump knows.
The corporatist wings of both
the Republican and the Democratic Parties fear that Trump's opposition to NAFTA and TPP will lead
the Republicans not to push through in the lame duck session after November. The whole plan has been
that once the election's over, Obama will then get all the Republicans together and will pass the
Republican platform that he's been pushing for the last eight years. The Trans-Pacific Partnership
trade agreement with Europe, and the other neoliberal policies.
And now that Trump is trying to rebuild the Republican Party, all of that is threatened. And so
on the Republican side of the New York Times page you had David Brooks writing "The death of the
Republican Party." So what Trump calls the rebirth of the Republican Party, it means the death of
the reactionary, conservative, corporatist, anti-labor Republican Party.
And when he wrote this, quote, Trump is decimating the things Republicans stood for: NATO, entitlement
reform, in other words winding back Social Security, and support of the corporatist Trans-Pacific
Partnership. So it's almost hilarious to see what happens. And Trump also has reversed the traditional
Republican fiscal responsibility austerity policy, that not a word about balanced budgets anymore.
And he said he was going to run at policy to employ American labor and put it back to work on infrastructure.
Again, he's made a left runaround Hillary. He says he wants to reinstate Glass-Steagall, whereas
the Clintons were the people that got rid of it.
And this may be for show, simply to brand Hillary as Wall Street's candidate. But it also seems
to actually be an attack on Wall Street. And Trump's genius was to turn around all the attacks on
him as being a shady businessman. He said, look, nobody knows the system better than me, which is
why I alone can fix it. Now, what that means, basically, as a businessman, he knows the fine print
by which they've been screwing the people. So only someone like him knows how to fight against Wall
Street. After all, he's been screwing the Wall Street banks for years [inaud.]. And he can now fight
for the population fighting against Wall Street, just as he's been able to stiff the banks.
So it's sort of hilarious. On the one hand, leading up to him you had Republicans saying throw
Hillary in jail. And Hillary saying throw Trump in the [inaud.]. And so you have the whole election
coming up with-.
PERIES:
Maybe we should take the lead and lock them all up. Michael, what is becoming very clear
is that there's a great deal of inconsistencies on the part of the Republican Party. Various people
are talking different things, like if you hear Mike Pence, the vice presidential candidate, speak,
and then you heard Donald Trump, and then you heard Ivanka Trump speak yesterday, they're all saying
different things. It's like different strokes for different folks. And I guess in marketing and marketeering,
which Trump is the master of, that makes perfect sense. Just tap on everybody's shoulder so they
feel like they're the ones being represented as spoken about, and they're going to have their issues
addressed in some way.
When it comes–he also in that sense appealed to, as you said, the Bernie Sanders people when he
talked about the trade deals. You know, he's been talking about NAFTA, TTIP, TTP, and these are areas
that really is traditionally been the left of the left issues. And now there's this, that he's anti-these
trade deals, and he's going to bring jobs home. What does that mean?
HUDSON:
Well, you're right when you say there's a policy confusion within the Republican Party.
And I guess if this were marketing, it's the idea that everybody hears what they want to hear. And
if they can hear right-wing gay bashing from the Indiana governor, and they can hear Trump talking
about hte LGBTQ, everybody will sort of be on the side.
But I listened to what Governor Pence said about defending Trump's views on NATO. And he's so
smooth. So slick, that he translated what Trump said in a way that no Republican conservative could
really disagree with it. I think he was a very good pick for vice president, because he can, obviously
he's agreed to follow what Trump's saying, and he's so smooth, being a lawyer, that he can make it
all appear much more reasonable than it would.
I think that the most, the biggest contradiction, was you can look at how the convention began
with Governor Christie. Accusing Hillary of being pro-Russian when she's actually threatening war,
and criticizing her for not helping the Ukrainians when it was she who brought Victorian Nuland in
to push the coup d'etat with the neo-nazis, and gave them $5 billion. And Trump reversed the whole
thing and said no, no, no. I'm not anti-Russian, I'm pro-Russian. I'm not going to defend Ukrainians.
Just the opposite.
And it's obvious that the Republicans have fallen into line behind them. And no wonder the Democrats
want them to lose.
All of that–you've had the Koch brothers say we're not going to give money to
Trump, the Republicans, now. We're backing Hillary. You've got the Chamber of Commerce saying because
Trump isn't for the corporate takeover of foreign trade, we're now supporting the Democrats, not
the Reepublicans.
So this is really the class war. And it's the class war of Wall Street and the corporate sector
of the Democratic side against Trump on the populist side. And who knows whether he really means
what he says when he says he's for the workers and he wants to rebuild the cities, put labor back
to work. And when he says he's for the blacks and Hispanics have to get jobs just like white people,
maybe he's telling the truth, because that certainly is the way that the country can be rebuilt in
a positive way.
And the interesting thing is that all he gets from the Democrats is denunciations. So I can't
wait to see how Bernie Sanders is going to handle all this at the Democratic Convention next week.
"... "On the one hand he says something that sounds good to non-interventionists…On the other hand he says something like 'Obama went in there and bombed Libya and just walked away.'" ..."
Following Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump's exploratory foreign policy
speech on Wednesday, political analyst Daniel McAdams speaks with Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear to
discuss what, exactly, the candidate's worldview encompasses.
"It is clear that in Washington he has aligned himself with foreign policy advisors that are not
the usual neocons. So that's good news, to a degree. That's why you have so much gnashing of the
teeth in Washington," McAdams, of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, tells
Loud & Clear,
referring to billionaire Donald Trump.
"On the other hand, the people that he does have around him are realists, to a degree, but that
is not super satisfying to a non-interventionist and an anti-war person because realists…lack the
philosophy…of avoiding war and avoiding entangling alliance."
"…The specific plans that he outlined a) were not very well hashed out, and b) they don't make
a lot of sense," says McAdams.
While Trump does recognize the failure of Washington's insistence on pursuing a Cold War-era strategy,
the candidate does not see American imperialism as part of the problem.
One example is his opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement.
"This groveling to Israel, this blind condemnation of the Iran nuclear deal…I don't get his beef
and I don't think he gets his beef. It just makes him sound good, it makes him sound tough."
On the issue of the Iraq and Syria, the Republican frontrunner seemed to offer contradictory positions.
"This is where I think he's either very clever or fairly goofy," McAdams says.
"On the one hand he says something that sounds good to non-interventionists…On the other hand
he says something like 'Obama went in there and bombed Libya and just walked away.'"
"That's the whole point," states McAdams. "Not walking away means staying in and doing nation
building. So he doesn't understand what caused the problem. He also promises to use military force
to contain radical Islam, and he talks about 'Why are we not bombing Libya right now?'"
Trump also spoke of restoring the military superiority of America, the country with the largest
military budget in the world, shortly after stating that he would pursue peace.
"Rebuild our military from what? We spend more than most of the rest of the world combined. We
have an enormous military, we're involved in over 120 countries," McAdams says.
"What he means by 'rebuild' the military is keep Washington and its environs extraordinarily rich,"
he adds, describing the military-industrial complex, which Trump appears to support.
He did, however, offer a surprisingly insightful take on US-Russia relations.
"Here's what he said exactly. 'We should seek common ground based on shared interest with Russia.'
He said he'd, 'Make a deal that's good for us and good for Russia.' That sounds terrific. If he follows
through with that I think we should be very optimistic."
"... Trump has done much to trigger the scorn of neocon pundits. He denounced the Iraq War as a mistake based on Bush administration lies, just prior to scoring a sizable victory in the South Carolina GOP primary. In last week's contentious GOP presidential debate, he defended the concept of neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is utterly taboo on the neocon right. ..."
"... "It serves no purpose to say you have a good guy and a bad guy," he said , pledging to take a neutral position in negotiating peace. ..."
"... This set off his rival Marco Rubio, who replied, "The position you've taken is an anti-Israel position. … Because you cannot be an honest broker in a dispute between two sides in which one of the sides is constantly acting in bad faith." The Jerusalem Post suggested that Rubio's assault on Trump's views on the Middle East was designed to win Florida . If that's the case, it's apparently not working - in the Real Clear Politics ..."
"... In his quest to take up George W. Bush's mantle, Rubio has arrayed a fleet of neoconservative funders, ranging from pro-Israel billionaire Paul Singer to Norman Braman , a billionaire auto dealer who funds Israeli settlements in the West Bank. His list of advisers is like a rolodex of Iraq War backers, ranging from Bush administration alumni Elliot Abrams and Stephen Hadley, to Kagan and serial war propagandist Bill Kristol. ..."
"... Kristol also sits on the board of the Emergency Committee for Israel - a dark money group that assails candidates it perceives as insufficiently pro-Israel. The group started airing an ad this weekend against Trump portraying him as an ally to despots like Bashar Assad, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Qaddafi - mostly because he argued that military invasions of Libya and Iraq left those countries worse off. ..."
"... The guy who accelerated the process of reducing the middle east to chaos ran on a platform of a 'humbler' foreign policy, condemning nation-building. How'd that work out for us? ..."
"... The pain and anguish of the neo cons is highly entertaining, and so damn warranted, but let's not get taken in. ..."
"... isn't robert kagan the husband of state diplomat and cheney/h.clinton appointee victoria nuland? hillary is already as neocon as it gets. ..."
"... If Trump can survive the nomination process, in spite of what the MSN can muster-up against him, it will represent first time in the past 60 years that the Establishment did not choose and own the candidates of both parties. ..."
"... TRUMP's opponents offer nothing but their arrogant condescending attitudes towards the voting population. Their use of scare tactics on voters will no longer work. These cookie-cutter politicians and their obsolete powerful old-boy establishment handlers are wrong for today's challenges and tomorrows solutions. Stop wasting voter's time and energy trying to make this election about personalities, gender, race, minorities, religion, fear and hatred. TRUMP has faith and trust in the voters; TRUMP is the only candidate who doesn't insult, scare or lie to voters; TRUMP offers voters hope and a future ALL Americans can believe in and deserve. ..."
"... All of Trump's establishment opponents are begging for just one more chance. These opponent candidates squandered thousands of opportunities, for the past fifty years, at the expense of All Americans in America and abroad. Powerful corrupt insiders', of every party affiliation, who discredit TRUMP, or any candidate, are also discrediting American voters', the American voting process and the freedoms of democracies and republics everywhere. These discrediting efforts, to take down any candidate, will fail because this is America and in America the peoples' choice for their next president must and will always prevail. American voters' rights and choices must always be protected, respected and never ignored. Because America is not a dictatorship voters' choices' still count. We are lucky to live in a country where we can agree to disagree. This is the essence of freedom. Every American and every candidate should be upset when this kind of corruption goes on. Thank you, Donald Trump, and every candidate, for running for President and offering informed voters an opportunity out of this nightmare and a path to a better America for ALL Americans! ..."
"... The debates heading into Super Tuesday continues to show voters TRUMP's presidential qualities. Eminent Domain didn't stick to TRUMP, neither will groundless tax allegations nor outrageous innuendos. TRUMPS opponents are doing themselves a disservice attacking TRUMP. TRUMP offers voters hope and a future ALL Americans can believe in. TRUMP will own Super Tuesday. ..."
"... This explains the virulent dislike of Trump by the lamestream media. Hillary, an unindicted war criminal based on her central role in instituting the Khaddafi overthrow and her role in starting the Syrian war, is without a doubt the greater evil in comparison with Trump. Since Trump in the fall campaign won't hesitate to highlight the fact that the jihadis in Libya put in as largely as a result of Hillary's initiative liquidated tens or hundreds of thousands of black Africans who had settled in Khaddafi's Libya as hostile to Jihadi elements, this will likely dampen Afro-American ardour for Hillary's campaign. Hopefully this will be a torpedo which sinks her campaign. ..."
"... Truth is the enemy of the Zionist serial liars. ..."
"... I've been saying for awhile that Trump is probably the least bad of the Republican candidates. He's definitely not as bad as Rubio or Cruz would be. For one thing, he's opposed to the TPP and similar crap. Now this. ..."
"... Make no mistake, the only candidate left who wouldn't continue the same awfulness would be Sanders, who doesn't stand a chance (for those who don't understand how the 15% super delegates rigs the election for Clinton and other establishment candidates, do the math, not to even mention the money and power behind Clinton). ..."
"... Bernie and Donald are simply two-fisted middle fingers enthusiastically directed at the paid enforcers of the oligarchy's desired status quo, the Republican and Democrat political machines. ..."
"... And who did HRC appoint as SecState? Marc Grossman, Bush inner circle guy and Bush family relative; Victoria Nuland, former defense policy advisor to Dick Cheney, and her husband, Robert Kagan. This has to be a WTF moment for anyone with a brain? ..."
"... I believe the neoconservatives may have had some self-esteem issues and perhaps tended to overcompensate by splurging on vanity wars. Trump will return the Republican party to its conservative roots of fiscal responsibility and insist on getting good value for his wars. A Trump campaign will completely dispense with 'shock and awe'. Instead, he'll cut straight to the chase: "Where are the oilfields and how long will it take to pump them dry?" The neoconservatives could benefit from that sort of discipline. ..."
"... It be fitting for the neocons who were originally leftist followers of Trotsky to go back home to the Democratic party. Maybe then the old non-interventionist anti-war right can rise again in amongst the Republicans. ..."
"... Perhaps worth noting that the Neocons originally found influence with interventionist Democrats like Dan Moynihan, they went on to develop alliances with fiercely nationalistic Reaganites (like Cheney and Rumsfeld), but only truly came to the fore as policy-makers within the GW Bush presidency. ..."
"... The Neocons are like parasites that jump from host to host. When they've killed one host they move on to the next. I'm reminded of the old Sci-Fi movie, "The Hidden". ..."
"... … just in case y'all are not aware, the view from outside the walls of Empire U$A, when we see the audience holding up placards declaring "MAKE AMERICA'S MILITARY GREAT AGAIN" we're all thinking – 'you guys are truly the most manipulated, compromised and fucked up people on the planet'. ..."
"... "And what about Russia? Washington's talking like the west bank of the Dnieper is our east coast.", Surrounding and dismantling Russia has been the goal since the collapse of the USSR. And Killary and the neocons (including the large contingent she and Obama installed at State) are definitely crazy enough to push it. ..."
"... In the short tem it means replacing Putin by another Eltsin-like stooge. In the middle term, it meant dismantling the USSR. In the long term it means defending Capital against the threat of Socialism. ..."
"... The chaos Trump will bring to the neocon's imperialist project is probably the only good thing that might come out of a Trump presidency. ..."
"... You mean US "corporate" interest and Israel's interest don't you? For the past 30 years, both parties have pursued policies that are in direct conflict with the interest of the American people. ..."
"... Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan - one of the prime intellectual backers of the Iraq war and an advocate for Syrian intervention - announced in the Washington Post last week that if Trump secures the nomination "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.", Truly, this tells you all you need to know about Hillary Clinton… ..."
"... Fascinating that Trump has the warmongers nervous. Heading Hillary's way where they know their rearrangement of the middle east (PNAC, JINSA) no matter how many thousands are killed or refugees are displace is safe with Hillary. She has demonstrated her commitment to the death and destruction in the middle east. ..."
"... Good to see that all those neoconservative prayer breakfasts Sen. Hillary Clinton attended at the Geo. W. Bush White House aren't going to waste. Of course, the neocons embrace "Wall Street Hillary" as they always have, regardless of all the silly political theater to the contrary. ..."
"... It's good to see that Hillary is finally being openly welcomed into the fold of neo-conservatives. Also, pardon my lack of modesty for a certain pride in having been proven right about her. She is not a progressive, not liberal, but rather a fascist in the true sense of representing the corporatists. ..."
"... Good call on the timing of the NYT series, Jeff. And kudos on having recognized her early on for the fascist she has always been. ..."
"... Kagan was hand picked to be on Hillary Clinton's defense policy board while at the State Dept and for those who don't know who Kagan is, he's the husband of the assistant secretary of state for eurasian affairs, Victoria Nuland. ..."
Donald Trump's runaway success in the GOP primaries so far is setting off alarm bells among neoconservatives
who are worried he will not pursue the same bellicose foreign policy that has dominated Republican
thinking for decades.
Max Boot, an
unrepentant supporter of the Iraq War, wrote
in
the Weekly Standard that a "Trump presidency would represent the death knell of America
as a great power," citing, among other things, Trump's objection to a large American troop presence
in South Korea.
Trump has done much to trigger the scorn of neocon pundits. He
denounced the
Iraq War as a mistake based on Bush administration lies, just prior to scoring a
sizable victory in the South Carolina GOP primary. In last week's contentious GOP presidential
debate, he defended the concept of neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is utterly
taboo on the neocon right.
"It serves no purpose to say you have a good guy and a bad guy,"
he said, pledging to take a neutral position in negotiating peace.
This set off his rival Marco Rubio, who replied, "The position you've taken is an anti-Israel
position. … Because you cannot be an honest broker in a dispute between two sides in which one of
the sides is constantly acting in bad faith." The Jerusalem Post suggested that Rubio's assault
on Trump's views on the Middle East was
designed to win Florida. If that's the case, it's apparently not working - in the Real Clear
Politics averaging of GOP primary polls in the state, Trump is
polling higher than he ever has.
In his quest to take up George W. Bush's mantle, Rubio has arrayed a fleet of neoconservative
funders, ranging from
pro-Israel billionaire
Paul Singer to
Norman Braman, a billionaire auto dealer who funds Israeli settlements in the West Bank. His
list of advisers
is like a rolodex of Iraq War backers, ranging from Bush administration alumni Elliot Abrams and
Stephen Hadley, to Kagan and serial war propagandist Bill Kristol.
Kristol also sits on the board of the Emergency Committee for Israel - a dark money group
that assails candidates it perceives as insufficiently pro-Israel. The group started airing an ad
this weekend against Trump portraying him as an ally to despots like Bashar Assad, Saddam Hussein,
and Muammar Qaddafi - mostly because he argued that military invasions of Libya and Iraq left those
countries worse off.
John D, Mar. 3 2016, 6:31 a.m.
I love what Trump's saying from time to time and don't believe it for a second. How short are
our memories? The guy who accelerated the process of reducing the middle east to chaos ran
on a platform of a 'humbler' foreign policy, condemning nation-building. How'd that work out for
us? Trump is a demagogue, and this is what they do: say whatever gets them support, just
like other politicians, but on steroids. Huey Long is an example of this, and he also took some
positions that we would all have supported over that of the two major parties of the time.
The pain and anguish of the neo cons is highly entertaining, and so damn warranted, but
let's not get taken in. The man's a monster, and the only good that might come of his election
would be his impeachment. I know, that leaves us with horrible choices, and what else is new.
But don't be suckered by Trump. The degree really is worthless.
vidimi, Mar. 2 2016, 8:55 a.m.
isn't robert kagan the husband of state diplomat and cheney/h.clinton appointee victoria
nuland? hillary is already as neocon as it gets.
M Hobbs -> vidimi, Mar. 3 2016, 2:25 p.m.
Robert Kagan told the NYT last June that he "feels comfortable" with Hillary on foreign policy–and
that she's a neocon. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added, "it's
something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call
it that; they are going to call it something else."
The people behind this ad don't get it- this video could easily have been issued and approved
by the Trump campaign. To a lot of people, what this video accuses Trump of saying is the absolute,
utter truth. The world would be a far, far better place, Iraq would be better off, Libya would
be better off, and the United States would have a lot more money, and a lot less dead soldiers,
if Saddam and Khadaffi were still alive.
They should have focus grouped this. Because it likely increases Trump's numbers.
Joe F -> Duglarri, Mar. 1 2016, 1:53 p.m.
If Khadaffi were still alive Ambassdor Stevens and several more Americans would still be alive
also. But then the press would have one less thing to whinge about and the MIC would have one
less hotzone to expliot.
Carroll Price, Mar. 1 2016, 11:10 a.m.
If Trump can survive the nomination process, in spite of what the MSN can muster-up against
him, it will represent first time in the past 60 years that the Establishment did not choose and
own the candidates of both parties.
Which leads me to believe that if history serves as a guide, and I think it does, the Establishment
will have him assassinated, while the resources are still available and in place to cover it up
and have it white-washed by an official inquiry similar to the fake 9/11 Commission & Warren Commission
Report.
Clark, Mar. 1 2016, 10:28 a.m.
Trump worries/offends the neo-cons in his perversity, but the neo-cons know they can rely on
Hillary Clinton.
M Hobbs -> Clark, Mar. 3 2016, 2:30 p.m.
So if HRC gets the nomination, all the neocon Rs will vote for her and lots of the lefty Ds
and independents will vote for Trump. This is getting confusing.
Gene Poole -> M Hobbs, Mar. 4 2016, 4:32 a.m.
Yep. And ain't it sweet!?
SeniorsForTrump, Mar. 1 2016, 9:57 a.m.
TRUMP's opponents offer nothing but their arrogant condescending attitudes towards the
voting population. Their use of scare tactics on voters will no longer work. These cookie-cutter
politicians and their obsolete powerful old-boy establishment handlers are wrong for today's challenges
and tomorrows solutions. Stop wasting voter's time and energy trying to make this election about
personalities, gender, race, minorities, religion, fear and hatred. TRUMP has faith and trust
in the voters; TRUMP is the only candidate who doesn't insult, scare or lie to voters; TRUMP offers
voters hope and a future ALL Americans can believe in and deserve.
All of Trump's establishment opponents are begging for just one more chance. These opponent
candidates squandered thousands of opportunities, for the past fifty years, at the expense of
All Americans in America and abroad. Powerful corrupt insiders', of every party affiliation, who
discredit TRUMP, or any candidate, are also discrediting American voters', the American voting
process and the freedoms of democracies and republics everywhere. These discrediting efforts,
to take down any candidate, will fail because this is America and in America the peoples' choice
for their next president must and will always prevail. American voters' rights and choices must
always be protected, respected and never ignored. Because America is not a dictatorship voters'
choices' still count. We are lucky to live in a country where we can agree to disagree. This is
the essence of freedom. Every American and every candidate should be upset when this kind of corruption
goes on. Thank you, Donald Trump, and every candidate, for running for President and offering
informed voters an opportunity out of this nightmare and a path to a better America for ALL Americans!
The debates heading into Super Tuesday continues to show voters TRUMP's presidential qualities.
Eminent Domain didn't stick to TRUMP, neither will groundless tax allegations nor outrageous innuendos.
TRUMPS opponents are doing themselves a disservice attacking TRUMP. TRUMP offers voters hope and
a future ALL Americans can believe in. TRUMP will own Super Tuesday.
Carroll Price -> SeniorsForTrump, Mar. 1 2016, 11:15 a.m.
Very well stated. I agree whole-heartedly.
john p. Teschke, Mar. 1 2016, 2:28 a.m.
This explains the virulent dislike of Trump by the lamestream media. Hillary, an unindicted
war criminal based on her central role in instituting the Khaddafi overthrow and her role in starting
the Syrian war, is without a doubt the greater evil in comparison with Trump. Since Trump in the
fall campaign won't hesitate to highlight the fact that the jihadis in Libya put in as largely
as a result of Hillary's initiative liquidated tens or hundreds of thousands of black Africans
who had settled in Khaddafi's Libya as hostile to Jihadi elements, this will likely dampen Afro-American
ardour for Hillary's campaign. Hopefully this will be a torpedo which sinks her campaign.
dahoit -> john p. Teschke, Mar. 1 2016, 8:22 a.m.
Truth is the enemy of the Zionist serial liars.
Jeff, Mar. 1 2016, 2:05 a.m.
I've been saying for awhile that Trump is probably the least bad of the Republican candidates.
He's definitely not as bad as Rubio or Cruz would be. For one thing, he's opposed to the TPP and
similar crap. Now this.
Make no mistake, the only candidate left who wouldn't continue the same awfulness would
be Sanders, who doesn't stand a chance (for those who don't understand how the 15% super delegates
rigs the election for Clinton and other establishment candidates, do the math, not to even mention
the money and power behind Clinton). I don't support Trump in any way, but I also find it
laughable how some so-called progressives are wetting their pants over him. Yes he's racist, but
so are the Republicans in general. At least Trump has a few good positions, making him about the
same as Clinton.
Winston, Feb 29, 2016, 7:48 p.m.
Bernie and Donald are simply two-fisted middle fingers enthusiastically directed at the paid
enforcers of the oligarchy's desired status quo, the Republican and Democrat political machines.
Donald, unlike poor Bernie, has the advantage of being able to avoid the oligarchy's mega-cash-fueled
vetting process intended to weed out true boat rockers by funding his own campaign.
When Reps threaten to vote for Dems and I see headlines like "Democratic National Committee
Vice Chair Tulsi Gabbard resigned from her post on Sunday to endorse Democratic presidential candidate
Bernie Sanders, following months of rising tensions within the group," I have hope that both party
machines will, deservedly, become increasingly irrelevant. The facade has come off and we finally
see the truth, which is there is no loyalty within the establishment of either political party
to anything but the continued power of the oligarchy they BOTH defend.
Election 2016 is turning out to be a rare popcorn worthy event because voters are now TOTALLY
fed up with THIS:, From the 2014 Princeton University study:, Testing Theories of American Politics:
Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Excerpts:, A great deal of empirical research speaks
to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible
to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical
model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the
key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business
interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens
and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial
support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not
for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule-at least not in the
causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with
economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong
status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans
favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
…the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of "affluent"
citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average
citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly
often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred
by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence.
-–, From "Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-America Century" by Dmitry Orlov, someone who experienced
the collapse of the Soviet Union and the various effects of that collapse on life there:, People
in the United States have a broadly similar attitude toward politics with people of the Soviet
Union. In the U.S. this is often referred to as "voter apathy", but it might be more accurately
described as non-voter indifference. The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt
political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt
political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly
on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States
it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike.
Although people often bemoan political apathy as if it were a grave social ill, it seems to
me that this is just as it should be. Why should essentially powerless people want to engage in
a humiliating farce designed to demonstrate the legitimacy of those who wield the power? In Soviet-era
Russia, intelligent people did their best to ignore the Communists: paying attention to them,
whether through criticism or praise, would only serve to give them comfort and encouragement,
making them feel as if they mattered. Why should Americans want to act any differently with regard
to the Republicans and the Democrats? For love of donkeys and elephants?, -–, "Now [the United
States is] just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the
nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and
U.S. senators and congress members. So now we've just seen a complete subversion of our political
system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves
after the election's over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited
money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody's who's already in Congress has a lot more to
sell to an avid contributor than somebody who's just a challenger. – - Jimmy Carter, former president,
in 2015.
sgt_doom, Feb 29, 2016, 6:58 p.m.
So one of the principal founding members of PNAC, or the Project for a New American Century (and
Victoria Nuland's husband), R. Kagan, says vote for Hillary?
And this just weeks after Hillary is bragging about receiving complements from Henry Kissinger,
mass murderer?
Are there still fools in America who believe HRC is some kind of liberal?
And who did HRC appoint as SecState? Marc Grossman, Bush inner circle guy and Bush family
relative; Victoria Nuland, former defense policy advisor to Dick Cheney, and her husband, Robert
Kagan. This has to be a WTF moment for anyone with a brain?
Benito Mussolini, Feb 29, 2016, 6:46 p.m.
I don't think the neoconservatives should purchase a one way ticket into the Hillary camp. Trump
could be quite amenable to the 'Ledeen Doctrine' that: "Every ten years or so, the United States
needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show
the world we mean business". My understanding is that Trump has no objections in principle, but
as a prudent businessman, questions whether it's worth shelling out 1 trillion dollars just to
show you mean business.
I believe the neoconservatives may have had some self-esteem issues and perhaps tended
to overcompensate by splurging on vanity wars. Trump will return the Republican party to its conservative
roots of fiscal responsibility and insist on getting good value for his wars. A Trump campaign
will completely dispense with 'shock and awe'. Instead, he'll cut straight to the chase: "Where
are the oilfields and how long will it take to pump them dry?" The neoconservatives could benefit
from that sort of discipline.
However, if the neoconservatives decide to return to the party they abandoned in the 1960s,
then I wish them well. They had a good run with the Republicans and certainly left their mark
on foreign policy. Sometimes a change of scenery is good; it may be all they need to rekindle
their enthusiasm for the third (or is the fourth?) Iraq war.
Lawrence, Feb 29, 2016, 6:05 p.m.
It be fitting for the neocons who were originally leftist followers of Trotsky to go back
home to the Democratic party. Maybe then the old non-interventionist anti-war right can rise again
in amongst the Republicans.
eddie-g, Feb 29, 2016, 5:21 p.m.
Perhaps worth noting that the Neocons originally found influence with interventionist Democrats
like Dan Moynihan, they went on to develop alliances with fiercely nationalistic Reaganites (like
Cheney and Rumsfeld), but only truly came to the fore as policy-makers within the GW Bush presidency.
So they've never exactly had a set ideological compass, they're happy to back anyone who'll
do their bidding on Israel and the Middle East. With Trump, I can't imagine they (or anyone else)
knows what they're getting; Hillary meanwhile is a known quantity, and hawkish enough for their
tastes.
craigsummers -> eddie-g, Feb 29, 2016, 6:47 p.m.
"……..Perhaps worth noting that the Neocons originally found influence with interventionist Democrats
like Dan Moynihan, they went on to develop alliances with fiercely nationalistic Reaganites (like
Cheney and Rumsfeld), but only truly came to the fore as policy-makers within the GW Bush presidency….."
True, but they lost favor in the Bush White House after the invasion of Iraq turned south.
dahoit -> craigsummers, Mar. 1 2016, 8:38 a.m.
Somewhat true, but how does that explain the demoncrats embracing them in Obombas administration?
Craigsummers -> dahoit, Mar. 1 2016, 7:21 p.m.
I don't believe that Obama has embraced the neocons.. Obama has alienated our allies in the ME
including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. His large disagreements with Netanyahu flag Obama as
anything but a neocon.
Duglarri -> eddie-g, Mar. 1 2016, 11:37 a.m.
The Neocons are like parasites that jump from host to host. When they've killed one host they
move on to the next. I'm reminded of the old Sci-Fi movie, "The Hidden".
owen, Feb 29, 2016, 4:53 p.m.
… just in case y'all are not aware, the view from outside the walls of Empire U$A, when we
see the audience holding up placards declaring "MAKE AMERICA'S MILITARY GREAT AGAIN" we're all
thinking – 'you guys are truly the most manipulated, compromised and fucked up people on the planet'.
Dave Fisher, Feb 29, 2016, 4:38 p.m.
"Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan announced that if Trump secures the nomination "the only
choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.", i hope Sanders runs with that, uses it in his ads,
cites that quote during the debates, makes the electorate aware of the fox (weasel?) in the chicken
coop…
Balthazar, Feb 29, 2016, 3:58 p.m.
The US has become the laughing stock of the world. Oh wait, we've been that for decades.
star, Feb 29, 2016, 3:52 p.m.
"worried he will not pursue the same bellicose foreign policy"
No, he will pursue a different
bellicose foreign policy relying on banning Muslims from the US, torture, filling up Guantanamo,
threatening Mexico and 'hitting' the families of 'terrorists'. The Intercept is actually starting
to scare me.
Robert -> star, Feb 29, 2016, 6:01 p.m.
So drone warfare killing thousand+ innocent people isn't "starting to scare" you? Overthrowing
governments in Iraq, Libya, and Syria isn't "starting to scare" you? ISIS forming out of those
overthrows isn't "starting to scare" you?
dahoit -> star, Mar. 1 2016, 8:42 a.m.
Wow, the only guy to critique the Iraq war, Libya, trade steals, getting along with Russia and
stop being the policeman of the world gets critiqued by alleged liberals as the bad choice in
a world of crazy Ziomonsters.
Hang it up children, you've lost your minds.
nfjtakfa -> Roy David, Feb 29, 2016, 5:49 p.m.
Um, I think Vivek Jain's assertion is the destruction of Iraq and destabalization of the region
was 100% intentional, i.e. "wasn't a mistake."
Roy David -> nfjtakfa, Mar. 1 2016, 5:25 p.m.
Thanks nfjtakfa. Sometimes the written word can be misinterpreted.
Christopher -> Vivek Jain, Feb 29, 2016, 5:47 p.m.
Remind me just where and when we found the nukes Iraq was supposed to have, then. Or the mobile
bioweapons labs. Or Hussein's al-Qaeda collaborators.
coram nobis -> Christopher, Feb 29, 2016, 6:13 p.m.
As you see, the Iraq war wasn't a mistake, but a deliberate fake.
reflections, Feb 29, 2016, 3:40 p.m.
They created Donald Trump and thanks to the Supreme Court any rich ass-- can run for office they
don't need to fund a particular political republican bigot.
Bob, Feb 29, 2016, 3:25 p.m.
Trump is a professional actor as are all the cons but he is better at it. Read his book, TAoTD
and you may change your mind a lot on him as POTUS. He certainly is no conbot and IMHO would make
a much better POTUS than any of the dwarf wall st. sucking varlets competing against him. I'm
still hoping Senator Bernie Sanders will take the gloves off and start attacking the war mongering,
wall st. courtier Clinton before it's too late but, if my choice was Clinton vs. Trump I would
hold my nose and vote Trump. Rubio is so hollow he is unqualified for his present job. Good luck
USA.
coram nobis, Feb 29, 2016, 2:31 p.m.
It's an interesting shift of perspective in this crazy year, although the question with the Donald
is (1) whether he has a coherent ideology from one speech to the next and (2) whether the GOP
would become more dovish (or less neocon) under a Trump administration, or whether the GOP would
simply abandon him.
As for Hillary, sir, your coda begs another article: " … and Clinton moving the Democrats towards
greater support for war.", With whom?, Okay, Iran is a definite possibility, given her pro-Israel
stance. But what about China? That situation in the South China Sea is ratcheting up. And what
about Russia? Washington's talking like the west bank of the Dnieper is our east coast.
Doug Salzmann -> coram nobis, Feb 29, 2016, 3:19 p.m.
"And what about Russia? Washington's talking like the west bank of the Dnieper is our east
coast.", Surrounding and dismantling Russia has been the goal since the collapse of the USSR.
And Killary and the neocons (including the large contingent she and Obama installed at State)
are definitely crazy enough to push it.
On the list of Big Dumb Mistakes, this would be very close to the top.
Dave Fisher -> Doug Salzmann, Feb 29, 2016, 4:26 p.m.
"dismantling Russia", what exactly does that mean?
Si1ver1ock -> Dave Fisher, Feb 29, 2016, 5:26 p.m.
Ask the Syrians or the the Libyans, or the Iraqis or the Sundanese, or the Yemenis or … or ….
Doug Salzmann -> Dave Fisher, Feb 29, 2016, 8:18 p.m.
"dismantling Russia", what exactly does that mean?, It means exactly what I said, Dave. Surrounding,
weakening and (ultimately, hopefully) dismantling and absorbing the pieces of the Russian Federation
has been at the core of American foreign policy aims since the collapse of the USSR.
See, for instance, the pre-revised version of the 2/18/1992 Wolfowitz (and Scooter Libby) Memo:
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory
of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly
by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy
and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources
would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.
And then, refer to Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard:
Given the enormous size and diversity of the country, a decentralized political system, based
on the free market, would be more likely to unleash the creative potential of both the Russian
people and the country's vast natural resources. In turn, such a more decentralized Russia
would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization.
. . . and . . .
A loosely confederated Russia-composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far
Eastern Republic-would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with Europe,
with the new states of Central Asia, and with the Orient, which would thereby accelerate Russia's
own development. Each of the three confederated entities would also be more able to tap local
creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow's heavy bureaucratic hand.
Hope this helps. ;^)
Gene Poole -> Dave Fisher, Mar. 4 2016, 5:13 a.m.
In the short tem it means replacing Putin by another Eltsin-like stooge. In the middle term,
it meant dismantling the USSR. In the long term it means defending Capital against the threat
of Socialism.
Patricia Baeten, Feb 29, 2016, 2:30 p.m.
Great article. I wrote something similar in my blog post last week titled, NATO, Turkey and Saudi
Arabia's Worst Nightmare President Donald Trump.
Excerpt:, The beneficiaries of Bush and Obama's Evil American Empire invading and destroying
nations throughout the world have been Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Along with their NATO allies,
America has spent trillions of dollars on the military industrial complex while our roads and
bridges fail and jobs have been shipped to third world countries.
The unparalleled destruction of Syria as well as all of the Middle East, Eurasia and Africa
will come to an end under President Donald Trump and the world is taking note.
My greatest fear is that a full hot war against Russia and China will commence before the election.
Love your writing, thanks.
Patricia
Bob -> Patricia Baeten, Feb 29, 2016, 3:29 p.m.
I hope you meant NOT commence. I really don't want to die and these things have a habit of escalating.
dahoit -> Bob, Mar. 1 2016, 9:00 a.m.
She is intimating the Zionists will start war with Russia before Trump takes office, a quite possible
scenario when dealing with the insane Zionists.
Jose -> Patricia Baeten, Feb 29, 2016, 3:32 p.m.
The chaos Trump will bring to the neocon's imperialist project is probably the only good thing
that might come out of a Trump presidency.
The Shame Chamber -> Patricia Baeten, Feb 29, 2016, 7:19 p.m.
Trump said he would declassify the 28 pages on foreign government ties to 9/11. Why hasn't that
happened yet?, http://28pages.org/
dahoit -> The Shame Chamber, Mar. 1 2016, 9:02 a.m.
Uh, he's not in government? sheesh.
dahoit -> Patricia Baeten, Mar. 1 2016, 8:58 a.m.
Good comment, don't mind the idiots stuck in their false narrative.
craigsummers, Feb 29, 2016, 2:22 p.m.
Mr. Jilani, "……Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan - one of the prime intellectual backers
of the Iraq war and an advocate for Syrian intervention - announced in the Washington Post last
week that if Trump secures the nomination "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton."…..",
The Intercept is clearly confused on quite a few issues. First, the Republican Party generally
supports a strong leadership role for the US in foreign policy (as do the Democrats). Both parties
will ensure that the US pursues our geopolitical interests. Of course, this is not limited just
to the Neocons. Second, the entire Republican establishment opposes Trump for obvious reasons.
Again, this is not limited to the Neocons, and it is not too surprising that Republicans may cross
party lines to vote for Hillary who more closely mirrors some of their foreign policies. She is
a hawk. Third, the Republican and Democratic Parties are strong supporters of Israel – not just
the Neocons. In general, Republicans support Israel even to a greater degree than the Democrats
– and again, this is not limited to the Neoconservatives.
Finally, how important is the Israel-Palestinian conflict to the Intercept? Obviously very
important since the Intercept seems willing to forget that Trump has been called a xenophobe and
an anti-Muslim bigot by many on the left. Have you ever heard the saying: the enemy of my enemy
is my friend?
sgt_doom -> craigsummers, Feb 29, 2016, 4:20 p.m.
I fully agree with Jilani and this Summers is an obvious neocon sycophant of Wall Street.
craigsummers -> sgt_doom, Feb 29, 2016, 5:03 p.m.
sgt_doom, What is extraordinary to me is that Jilani seems to value the Israel-neutral stance
of Trump over Hillary (and her obvious support for Israel) despite Trump (initially) not even
being able to disavow support from the KKK. Maybe that is not so remarkable considering that Jilani
tweeted the term "Israel firsters".
Christopher -> craigsummers, Feb 29, 2016, 5:50 p.m.
"Both parties will ensure that the US pursues our geopolitical interests.", Jesus. Have you been
in a coma since 2003? Or I guess maybe since the 1980's, cough Iran-Contra cough cough.
craigsummers -> Christopher, Feb 29, 2016, 6:44 p.m.
I'm not saying there aren't differences, but generally speaking both the Democrats and the Republicans
have maintained strong policies which favor US interests. Obama had some confusing policies which
alienated long term allies like Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt.
Carroll Price -> craigsummers, Mar. 1 2016, 8:30 p.m.
You mean US "corporate" interest and Israel's interest don't you? For the past 30 years, both
parties have pursued policies that are in direct conflict with the interest of the American people.
Gene Poole -> Carroll Price, Mar. 4 2016, 5:31 a.m.
Bravo. I was going to reply to his first post, in which he said " Both parties will ensure that
the US pursues our geopolitical interests", and ask just who "we" are.
Boaz Bismuth: Mr. Trump, yesterday, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio tried to question your support
for Israel. How is his commitment to Israel stronger than yours?, Donald Trump: "My friendship
with Israel is stronger than any other candidate's. I want to make one thing clear: I want
to strike a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It is what I aspire to
do. Peace is possible, even if it is the most difficult agreement to achieve. As far as
I understand, Israel is also interested in a peace deal. I'm not saying I'll succeed, or
even that an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is within reach, but I want to
try. But in order for an agreement to happen, the Palestinians need to show interest. It's
a little difficult to reach an agreement when the other side doesn't really want to talk
to you.
"Don't get confused there in Israel: I am currently your biggest friend. My daughter
is married to a Jew who is an enthusiastic Israel supporter, and I have taken part in many
Israel Day Parades. My friendship with Israel is very strong."
Yes, an especially bitter sop to those who harbor the manufactured illusion that trump is concerned
with the sovereign rights of the individual.
avelna2001, Feb 29, 2016, 1:45 p.m.
Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan - one of the prime intellectual backers of the Iraq
war and an advocate for Syrian intervention - announced in the Washington Post last week that
if Trump secures the nomination "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.", Truly,
this tells you all you need to know about Hillary Clinton…
Doug Salzmann -> avelna2001, Feb 29, 2016, 3:24 p.m.
"Truly, this tells you all you need to know about Hillary Clinton…", Well, that and the fact that
Killary and Obama named Kagan's wife, Victoria Jane "Cookie" Nuland to the post of Assistant Secretary
of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, where she led the sponsorship and underwriting of
a coup against the elected leadership of Ukraine.
avelna2001 -> Doug Salzmann, Feb 29, 2016, 3:51 p.m.
Well yeah, true enough.
Kathleen, Feb 29, 2016, 1:43 p.m.
Fascinating that Trump has the warmongers nervous. Heading Hillary's way where they know their
rearrangement of the middle east (PNAC, JINSA) no matter how many thousands are killed or refugees
are displace is safe with Hillary. She has demonstrated her commitment to the death and destruction
in the middle east.
This is no bs…know some multi millionaire Republicans here in Colorado who are going with
Hillary if Trump gets nomination. They know their capital gains are safe with her. Yes indeed...
sgt_doom, Feb 29, 2016, 1:33 p.m.
Good to see that all those neoconservative prayer breakfasts Sen. Hillary Clinton attended
at the Geo. W. Bush White House aren't going to waste. Of course, the neocons embrace "Wall Street
Hillary" as they always have, regardless of all the silly political theater to the contrary.
BTW, isn't Robert Kagan the hubby of Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs appointed by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton?, I believe so
. . .
Of course, we haven't had a legitimate government in the USA since the Coup of 1963 (the JFK
assassination, reinforced by the murders of Rev. King and Bobby Kennedy), so evidently Trump represents
the first break in a long line of illegitimate administrations.
Trump really appears to be giving the nervous willies to the oligarchs – – – glad to see those
swine who gave us - and profited from - the global economic meltdown being shaken up for a change!,
With Hillary they have nothing to fear, she's the perfect Wall Street running dog lackey, but
with Trump they could end up in jail - or worse . . . .
24b4Jeff, Feb 29, 2016, 1:20 p.m.
It's good to see that Hillary is finally being openly welcomed into the fold of neo-conservatives.
Also, pardon my lack of modesty for a certain pride in having been proven right about her. She
is not a progressive, not liberal, but rather a fascist in the true sense of representing the
corporatists.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the New York Times has chosen now to start a series on
her role in the overthrow of Qaddafi and the subsequent conversion of Libya into a failed state?
Had the articles started appearing a couple of weeks ago, it might have helped Sanders in Iowa
and Nevada. No, it would not have helped Sanders in South Carolina, and he is foredoomed in the
rest of the deep south as well, not only because of his being a social democrat (on domestic issues)
but also because he is a Jew.
Doug Salzmann -> 24b4Jeff, Feb 29, 2016, 4:15 p.m.
Good call on the timing of the NYT series, Jeff. And kudos on having recognized her early
on for the fascist she has always been. I've not caught up with the Times series; does each
installment open with this video clip?
ghostyghost, Feb 29, 2016, 1:16 p.m.
"With Trump's ascendancy, it's possible that the parties will re-orient their views on war and
peace, with Trump moving the GOP to a more dovish direction and Clinton moving the Democrats towards
greater support for war."
Right because "bomb the shit out of them" is a well known rallying
cry of pacifists.
coram nobis -> ghostyghost, Feb 29, 2016, 2:37 p.m.
You've got a point; the Donald isn't exactly another Gandhi. The diff between him and Hillary
is that she would act according to longstanding neocon policy, concerted war. The Donald would
attack impulsively. Picture him as the Groucho Marx character in "Duck Soup" and there's a possible
simile, but not funny.
ghostyghost -> coram nobis, Feb 29, 2016, 2:49 p.m.
What scares me the most about President Trump is him taking a look at the nuclear arsenal and
thinking "we have these awesome weapons and they are just sitting here collecting dust. Well lets
show everyone that a real leader isn't afraid to use his best tools!" and then wiping Mosul and
and Raqqa off the map.
coram nobis -> ghostyghost, Feb 29, 2016, 4:36 p.m.
Glad Robert Kagan's neoconservative re-branding attempts have started to garner headlines.
Kagan was hand picked to be on Hillary Clinton's defense policy board while at the State
Dept and for those who don't know who Kagan is, he's the husband of the assistant secretary of
state for eurasian affairs, Victoria Nuland.
Or, Victoria "let's spend $5 billion to overthrow the democratically elected administration in
the Urkaine" Nuland.
Lin Ming, Feb 29, 2016, 1:13 p.m.
These people will do anything to further their cause – just as they always have – up to and including
eliminating an opponent in the most forceful permanent manner…
"... Leaping from this incident to the Iranian nuclear agreement that has essentially decreased the likelihood of Iran ever building nuclear weapons, Trump continued his litany of lies by portraying the agreement as virtual surrender to unnamed dark forces. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's campaign promises more of the same corporatist politics in the service of the Goldman-Sachs of the nation. The primary difference may be found in her social stances, which are more liberal and tolerant than those expressed by Trump's ticket. ..."
"... In short, we are witnessing a serious split in the US ruling class. Both elements recognize capitalism is in crisis and has been for decades. The two main solutions to this crisis as represented by the campaigns will not solve this crisis, because it is essentially unsolvable. ..."
"... Militarily, there is also a split between the rulers. Neither Trump's combination of fear-ridden America First bluster nor the corporate world order represented by Clinton's campaign will prevent war or terrorism. Both will guarantee the continued waste of monies that the permanent war economy is. Both will also guarantee the continued domination of the US economy by the war industry. Donald Trump knows this and so does Hilary Clinton. ..."
More importantly, however, was his take on history, which went no further back
then 2008, at best. By pretending that history began when Barack Obama was
elected president, all the decades of jobs being sent overseas because
corporations want cheap labor became the fault of more recent free trade
agreements. While these agreements certainly expedited the desire/need of the
capitalist overlords to go for the cheap labor, this process was taking place
before such agreements were passed. Furthermore, Trump and his businesses
benefited from them and he did nothing to oppose them then. In short, it is how
monopoly capitalism works: capital goes to where it can accumulate greater
profits, utilizing the military and "free" trade to cajole and force its will
on nations and peoples around the world.
Continuing his litany of America
wronged, Trump referred to the Iran nuclear agreement. He related the FoxNews
version of some US sailors being held by Iranian military after their ship
sailed into Iranian waters. According to this version, the sailors were
humiliated hostages who were wrongly held. In actuality, the sailors were
treated well and were in the wrong. Their captain surely knew this when he
sailed where he sailed. Leaping from this incident to the Iranian nuclear
agreement that has essentially decreased the likelihood of Iran ever building
nuclear weapons, Trump continued his litany of lies by portraying the agreement
as virtual surrender to unnamed dark forces.
Of course, the presence of "dark" forces and the threat they represent to
Trump and his followers are essential to understanding his appeal. Indeed, the
local Gannett broadsheet here in Vermont, introduced Trump's acceptance speech
in the next day's paper with this quote from the speech "safety will be
restored." I first noted this emphasis on safety while listening to an argument
between a young anti-Trump protester and an even younger Trump supporter at the
end of a Vermont anti-Trump action. Besides the obvious fact that his proposed
policies based on fear, hate, and US triumphalism are no more likely to restore
safety than Clinton's policies of brinksmanship and subterfuge, this statement
begs the question about whose safety Mr. Trump is referring to.
... ... ...
While Trump pretends that his millennialist rhetoric will bring the US back to a time my
father grew up in-when father knew best and was whiter than Ivory Snow soap, Hillary
Clinton's campaign promises more of the same corporatist politics in the service of the
Goldman-Sachs of the nation. The primary difference may be found in her social stances, which are
more liberal and tolerant than those expressed by Trump's ticket.
In short, we are witnessing a serious split in the US ruling class. Both elements recognize
capitalism is in crisis and has been for decades. The two main solutions to this crisis as
represented by the campaigns will not solve this crisis, because it is essentially unsolvable.
Trump's approach hopes to move the capitalist economy back to a time before World War One,
when production of goods was almost as important as the financial manipulation of monies for
profit and national economies were the primary and dominant macro economy. Clinton's approach
would continue the trend of the last few decades that has seen capital move beyond national
boundaries to create what Lenin called "the formation of international monopolist capitalist
associations which share the world among themselves." This latter phenomenon is what the
so-called free trade agreements are about. Trump's belief that he can buck this trend runs
counter to history, although he seems to think that he is beyond history, except for that which
he makes.
Militarily, there is also a split between the rulers. Neither Trump's combination of
fear-ridden America First bluster nor the corporate world order represented by Clinton's campaign
will prevent war or terrorism. Both will guarantee the continued waste of monies that the
permanent war economy is. Both will also guarantee the continued domination of the US economy by
the war industry. Donald Trump knows this and so does Hilary Clinton.
"... While many neocons and fellow travelers may be anxious to demonstrate their power and influence, it would seem, based on Trump's
electoral performance, that the Republican Party electorate is not very interested in what they have to offer. ..."
"... The neocons best bet to have a seat at the table in 2017 is Hillary Clinton. ..."
2016It is now official: the neoconservatives are united against Donald Trump. A new open letter organized by Project for the New
American Century (PNAC) co-founder Eliot Cohen states the signatories
oppose
a Trump presidency and have committed to "working energetically" to see that he is not elected.
PNAC was, notoriously, the neoconservative
group that called for increased US imperialism in the Middle East, especially Iraq. Many of those who signed PNAC's statement of
principles and various letters went on to serve in the Bush Administration.
The letter comes after Trump's ferocious attacks on neocon policies and narratives, such as the Iraq War and the idea
that President George W. Bush kept the country safe despite being in office on 9/11. Those attacks were most pronounced just prior
to the South Carolina primary when former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the Bush Administration was the focus of Trump's fire.
Trumps' foreign policy has long been in the neocon cross-hairs. It already appeared as though
many of the neocons were
against Trump; now it's impossible to deny.
Journalist Josh Rogin, after talking to Trump advisors,
lamented that "The practical
application of that doctrine plays out in several ways. Trump's narrow definition of 'national interest' does not include things
like democracy promotion, humanitarian intervention, the responsibility to protect people from atrocities or the advocacy of human
rights abroad. Trump believes that economic engagement will lead to political opening in the long run. He doesn't think the U.S.
government should spend blood or treasure on trying to change other countries' systems."
The other co-founder of PNAC, Robert Kagan,
went even further, comparing Trump to a monster and
claiming that, "For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The
party cannot be saved, but the country still can be."
Military historian Max Boot, also a signatory to the letter, has denounced Trump,
saying, "A Trump presidency threatens
the post-World War II liberal international order that American presidents of both parties have so laboriously built up." He claimed
that "A Trump presidency would represent the death knell of America as a great power."
Many of those who signed the latest letter were also among those that signed PNAC communications including; Kagan, Boot, Cohen,
Robert Zoellick, Daniel Blumenthal, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Thomas Donnelly, Aaron Friedberg, Randy Scheunemann, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary
Schmitt, and Dov Zakheim.
While many neocons and fellow travelers may be anxious to demonstrate their power and influence, it would seem, based on Trump's
electoral performance, that the Republican Party electorate is not very interested in what they have to offer.
The neocons best bet to have a seat at the table in 2017
is Hillary Clinton.
"... Other neoconservatives say Trump's foreign policy stances, such as his opposition to the Iraq war and the U.S. intervention in Libya, are inconsistent and represent "completely mindless" boasting. "It's not, 'Oh I really feel that the neoconservatism has come to a bad end and we need to hearken back to the realism of the Nixon administration,' " said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute. ..."
"... Despite the opposition he faces in some corners of the GOP, polls indicate that Trump's message is in line with the public mood. ..."
"... Experts say the isolationist sentiment is prevalent in the Democratic Party as well. ..."
"... "The [Bernie] Sanders supporters charge Hillary Clinton Hillary with never seeing a quagmire she did not wish to enter, and basically with not just complicity, but a leading role in contriving some of the worst disasters of American foreign policy in this century," said Amb. Chas Freeman, a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, and a former Nixon and George H.W. Bush official. ..."
"... Some experts say neoconservatives are fighting hard because they have the most to lose. "They're losing influence inside the foreign policy establishment in general, and they have definitely lost influence inside the Republican party, which was their home base," Mearsheimer said. ..."
"... Some neoconservatives are even throwing in their lot with likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, most prominently Kagan and Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ..."
"... Julian Hattem contributed to this story. ..."
The rise of
Donald Trump
is threatening the power of neoconservatives, who find themselves at risk of being marginalized
in the Republican Party. Neoconservatism was at its height during the presidency of George W. Bush, helping to shape
the rationale for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But now the ideology is under attack, with Trump systematically rejecting each of its core
principles. Whereas neoconservatism advocates spreading American ideals through the use of military force,
Trump has made the case for nationalism and a smaller U.S. military footprint. In what Trump calls an "America First" approach, he proposes rejecting alliances that don't
work, trade deals that don't deliver, and military interventionism that costs too much. He has said he would get along with Russian President Vladimir Putin and sit down with North
Korean dictator Kim Jong Un - a throwback to the "realist" foreign policy of President Nixon.
As if to underscore that point, the presumptive GOP nominee met with Nixon's Secretary of
State and National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger, earlier this week, and delivered his first
major foreign policy speech at an event last month hosted by the Center for National Interest,
which Nixon founded.
Leading neoconservative figures like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan have assailed Trump's
foreign policy views. Kagan even called Trump a "fascist" in a recent Washington Post
op-ed. "This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have
been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a
textbook egomaniac 'tapping into' popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire
national political party - out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear -
falling into line behind him," wrote Kagan, who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Other neoconservatives say Trump's foreign policy stances, such as his opposition to the Iraq
war and the U.S. intervention in Libya, are inconsistent and represent "completely mindless"
boasting. "It's not, 'Oh I really feel that the neoconservatism has come to a bad end and we need to
hearken back to the realism of the Nixon administration,' " said Danielle Pletka, senior vice
president for foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute.
... ... ...
"[Neoconservatives] are concerned for good reason," said O'Hanlon, a Democratic defense hawk
"These people don't think that Trump is prepared intellectually to be president." "It's not just that their stance of foreign policy would be losing .. .all foreign policy
schools would be losing influence under Trump with very unpredictable consequences," he added.
Despite the opposition he faces in some corners of the GOP, polls indicate that Trump's
message is in line with the public mood. A
recent Pew poll found that nearly six in 10 Americans said the U.S. should "deal with its own
problems and let other countries deal with their own problems as best they can," a more
isolationist approach at odds with neoconservative thought.
John Mearsheimer, a preeminent scholar in realist theory, says there's a parallel in history
to the way America turned inward after the Vietnam War. "There's no question that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger went a considerable ways to pursue
a less ambitious foreign policy, and they talked about allies doing more to help themselves, and
they began to pursue detente with the Soviet Union." "And this was all a reaction to Vietnam. Vietnam of course was a colossal failure. The body
politic here in the United States was deeply disenchanted with American foreign policy,
especially in its most ambitious forms and the end result is we ended up backing off for awhile,"
he said. "We have a similar situation here."
Experts say the isolationist sentiment is prevalent in the Democratic Party as well.
"The [Bernie] Sanders supporters charge
Hillary ClintonHillary with
never seeing a quagmire she did not wish to enter, and basically with not just complicity, but a
leading role in contriving some of the worst disasters of American foreign policy in this
century," said Amb. Chas Freeman, a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for
International and Public Affairs, and a former Nixon and George H.W. Bush official.
"This is the principle reason that Hillary Clinton is having so much trouble putting
Bernie Sanders away," said Mearsheimer, who supports the Vermont senator. "Sanders is
capitalizing on all that disenchantment in the public, and Hillary Clinton represents the old
order."
But the ideological battle over foreign policy is playing out more forcefully in the GOP. While some members of the Republican foreign policy establishment are coming to terms with
Trump becoming their party's nominee, including lawmakers like Sens.
John McCain (R-Ariz.) and
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), neoconservatives remain staunch holdouts.
Some experts say neoconservatives are fighting hard because they have the most to
lose. "They're losing influence inside the foreign policy establishment in general, and they have
definitely lost influence inside the Republican party, which was their home base," Mearsheimer
said.
Some neoconservatives are even throwing in their lot with likely Democratic nominee
Hillary Clinton, most
prominently Kagan and Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
With Republican foreign policy figures split, influential Republican donors such as
Charles and David Koch are trying to shape the GOP's new direction.
The Charles Koch Institute recently launched a daylong conference that featured Mearsheimer
and another prominent realist Stephen Walt that questioned U.S. foreign policy since the end of
the Cold War.
"This has meant the frequent use of force, a military budget the size of the next seven to
eight countries combined, and an active policy of spreading American power and values," said
William Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute.
"After a quarter century of this approach, it's time to ask: Has our foreign policy been
working? Is it making America safe? Should we continue on this path? And if not, what do
alternative approaches look like?"
"... Theodore Roosevelt, whom Max and his neocon buddies love, issued a whopping 1,006 executive orders (when his immediate predecessors had issued a handful) and treated Congress contemptuously. He said that he, after all, was the unique representative of the American people, so it was his job to implement their will, regardless of what any other body had to say about it. ..."
"... We can only imagine their response if Trump had said such a thing. In fact, Trump says that executive orders are terrible and that the president should govern by consensus. ..."
"... Trump is boorish. Oh, sure. Too bad we can't have more refined candidates like John McCain, who sing, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." ..."
"... Trump betrays conservative values. This supposedly disqualifies him. To the contrary, hasn't it been the role of the GOP nominee to betray conservative values? In 1996, Bill Kristol - who's just so overcome with concern about the betrayal of conservative values, remember - enthusiastically endorsed Colin Powell for president. ..."
"... And by the way, just what are these "conservative values"? The leftist project of bringing democracy to faraway lands - the exact opposite of what Edmund Burke (who knew a little something about conservatism) would have recommended? Creating Medicare Part D? No Child Left Behind? Auto bailouts? Bank bailouts? Keynesian stimulus? ..."
"... Had George W. Bush been eligible for a third term, would the same people who demand Trump debase himself in sackcloth and ashes for his betrayals of conservatism have done anything remotely similar to Bush? ..."
"... The alleged reasons for disliking Trump do not match the neocons' actions. Therefore, they are not the real reasons. ..."
"... They don't trust him on foreign policy. He makes fun of their interventions and says the world would be much better off, and we'd be a lot richer if none of it had been done. ..."
"... They can't control him. He isn't owned by anyone. He can't be bought. The neocons, along with the GOP establishment they pretend to oppose, are control freaks. They can't deal with someone who may be independent of them. ..."
"... If you want to oppose Trump, knock yourself out. But at least, be honest about it. The neocons have repeatedly endorsed candidates whose deviations from orthodoxy are much more severe than Trump's. So they're lying. ..."
Now before I tell you how I figured that out - apart from the fact that their
lips are moving - I need to begin by parrying any manifestations of Trump
Derangement Syndrome.
I do not support or endorse Donald Trump, who is not a libertarian and who
appears to have no clear philosophy of any kind. He would no doubt do countless
things that I would deplore.
Just like all the other candidates, in other words.
My point is not to cheer for him. My point is that the neocons' stated reasons
for opposing him so hysterically don't add up.
(1) Max Boot worries that Trump will rule like a "strongman." Right - quite
unlike the restrained, humble executors of the law whom Max has endorsed over the
years. In fact, Max has spent his career calling for a strong executive. Now he's
worried about a "strongman." I'd say that horse has already left the stable, Max.
You might want to look in the mirror to figure out how that happened.
Theodore Roosevelt, whom Max and his neocon buddies love, issued a whopping
1,006 executive orders (when his immediate predecessors had issued a handful) and
treated Congress contemptuously. He said that he, after all, was the unique
representative of the American people, so it was his job to implement their will,
regardless of what any other body had to say about it.
We can only imagine their response if Trump had said such a thing. In fact,
Trump says that executive orders are terrible and that the president should govern
by consensus.
Now maybe he doesn't mean that, and maybe he'd use executive orders
anyway. But what if he'd said what their hero Teddy said?
Remember the last time Max, or any neocon, or anyone in the GOP establishment,
warned us that Teddy wasn't a good role model?
Me neither.
(2) Trump is boorish. Oh, sure. Too bad we can't have more refined
candidates like John McCain, who sing, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
(3) Trump betrays conservative values. This supposedly disqualifies him. To
the contrary, hasn't it been the role of the GOP nominee to betray conservative
values? In 1996, Bill Kristol - who's just so overcome with concern about the
betrayal of conservative values, remember - enthusiastically endorsed Colin Powell
for president.
(4) And by the way, just what are these "conservative values"? The leftist
project of bringing democracy to faraway lands - the exact opposite of what Edmund
Burke (who knew a little something about conservatism) would have recommended?
Creating Medicare Part D? No Child Left Behind? Auto bailouts? Bank bailouts?
Keynesian stimulus?
Had George W. Bush been eligible for a third term, would the same people
who demand Trump debase himself in sackcloth and ashes for his betrayals of
conservatism have done anything remotely similar to Bush?
Sure, we'd get the wringing of hands and the occasional anguished newspaper
column, but then we'd get the stern lecture that if we don't vote for Bush,
civilization comes to an end.
See what I mean? Something is fishy here. The alleged reasons for disliking
Trump do not match the neocons' actions. Therefore, they are not the real reasons.
Know what I think the real reasons are?
(a) They don't trust him on foreign policy. He makes fun of their
interventions and says the world would be much better off, and we'd be a lot
richer if none of it had been done.
Now it's true, here as elsewhere, that Trump is not consistent. He's now
calling for ground troops against ISIS, for instance. But his primary message is:
we have too many problems at home to be traipsing around the world destroying
countries. This is not music to a neocon ear.
(b) They can't control him. He isn't owned by anyone. He can't be bought.
The neocons, along with the GOP establishment they pretend to oppose, are control
freaks. They can't deal with someone who may be independent of them.
If you want to oppose Trump, knock yourself out. But at least, be honest
about it. The neocons have repeatedly endorsed candidates whose deviations from
orthodoxy are much more severe than Trump's. So they're lying.
As usual.
Tom Woods, Jr. [send him mail; visit his website], hosts the Tom Woods Show, a libertarian
podcast, Monday through Friday, and co-hosts Contra Krugman every week. He is the New York Times
bestselling author of 12 books, a course creator for the Ron Paul homeschool curriculum, and
founder of Liberty Classroom, a libertarian education site for adult enrichment.
"... The fact however remains that Trump has challenged the ideological foundations upon which US foreign policy is built whilst offering an alternative that has elicited a powerful response from the US public. ..."
"... The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik. ..."
Donald Trump's recent speech on foreign policy
has been roundly condemned by the US foreign establishment.
It has also been ridiculed as confusing and contradictory.
This is a
misrepresentation. Whilst Trump did not provide a detailed programme - to have done so in the
middle of
an election would have been unwise - his underlying message is clear enough.
Instead of a foreign policy based on an ideology centered on US world hegemony, "exceptionalism"
and "democracy promotion" Trump promises a foreign policy straightforwardly based on the pursuit
of US national interests.
To understand what that would mean in practice consider the contrast between what the US public
wants and what the US has actually done under successive US administrations.
Whereas the US public since 9/11 has been overwhelmingly focused on jihadi terrorism as the greatest
threat to the US, the US foreign policy establishment is only minimally interested in that question.
Its priority is to secure US world hegemony by reshaping the world geopolitical map.
First and foremost that has meant confronting the two great powers -
Russia and China - the US sees as the primary obstacle to its hegemony. It has also meant
a series of geopolitical adventures in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, a protracted
confrontation with Iran, and head on collisions with Russia and China in Ukraine and the South China
Sea. The US public for its part has shown little or no enthusiasm for any of these projects. By contrast
the US foreign policy establishment has show little enthusiasm for confronting the Islamic State/Daesh.
The military campaign it is purporting to wage against the Islamic State is essentially a "going
through the motions" public relations exercise. The real fight against the Islamic State is being
fought by Iran and Russia. Elsewhere - in Chechnya, Libya and Syria - the US has willingly collaborated
with jihadi terrorists to achieve its geopolitical goals.
Trump threatens to turn all this on its head. In place of confrontation with Russia and China
he says he wants to cut deals with them calculating - rightly - that they are no threat to the US.
In place of collaboration with jihadi terrorism he promises a single-minded focus on its destruction.
Other pillars of current US foreign policy are also challenged.
Whereas the ideologues
currently in charge of US foreign policy treat US allies as ideological soulmates in a quest to spread
"Western values" (ie. US hegemony), Trump sees the US's relationship with its allies as transactional:
the US will help them if they help themselves, with no sense of this being part of some ideological
common cause.
Having dumped the ideology and the foreign policy that goes with it Trump,
promises to focus on sorting out the US's internal problems, which is where the US public's priorities
also lie. Trump expresses himself in often crude language eg. threatening to "carpet
bomb" the Islamic State. He is not coherent. He continues to talk of Iran as an enemy - ignoring the fact that it is as
much a potential partner of the US as Russia and China are. Some of the things Trump says - for example his talk of embracing torture
- are frankly disturbing. It remains to be seen whether a President
Trump if elected would be either willing or able - as he promises - to change the entire foreign
policy direction of the US.
The fact however remains that Trump has challenged the ideological foundations upon which US foreign
policy is built whilst offering an alternative that has elicited a powerful response from the US
public.
That is why the US political establishment is so alarmed by him.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect
the official position of Sputnik.
Trump seems less willing than his opponent to engage in adventurous missions abroad under
neoconservative "world domination" banner
Notable quotes:
"... As Donald Trump is splitting off blue-collar Democrats on issues like America's broken borders and Bill Clinton's trade debacles like NAFTA, Hillary Clinton is trying to peel off independents and Republicans by painting Trump as "temperamentally unfit" to be commander in chief. ..."
"... In portraying Trump as an intolerable alternative, Clinton will find echoes in the GOP establishment and among the Kristol-Kagan neocons, many of whom have already signed an open letter rejecting Trump. ..."
"Clinton to Paint Trump as a Risk to World Order." Thus did page one of Thursday's New
York Times tee up Hillary Clinton's big San Diego speech on foreign policy.
Inside the Times, the headline was edited to underline the point: "Clinton to Portray Trump as
Risk to the World." The Times promoted the speech as "scorching," a "sweeping and fearsome
portrayal of Mr. Trump, one that the Clinton campaign will deliver like a drumbeat to voters in
the coming months."
What is happening here?
As Donald Trump is splitting off blue-collar Democrats on issues like America's broken
borders and Bill Clinton's trade debacles like NAFTA, Hillary Clinton is trying to peel off
independents and Republicans by painting Trump as "temperamentally unfit" to be commander in
chief.
Clinton contends that a Trump presidency would be a national embarrassment, that his ideas are
outside the bipartisan mainstream of U.S. foreign policy, and that he is as contemptuous of our
democratic allies as he is solicitous of our antidemocratic adversaries.
In portraying Trump as an intolerable alternative, Clinton will find echoes in the GOP
establishment and among the Kristol-Kagan neocons, many of whom have already signed an open
letter rejecting Trump.
William Kristol has recruited one David French to run on a National Review-Weekly Standard line
to siphon off just enough votes from the GOP nominee to tip a couple of swing states to Clinton.
Robert Kagan contributed an op-ed to a welcoming Washington Post saying the Trump campaign is
"how fascism comes to America."
Yet, if Clinton means to engage on foreign policy, this is not a battle Trump should avoid.
For the lady has an abysmal record on foreign policy and a report card replete with failures. As
senator, Clinton voted to authorize President Bush to attack and invade a nation, Iraq, that had
not attacked us and did not want war with us. Clinton calls it her biggest mistake, another
way of saying that the most important vote she ever cast proved disastrous for her country,
costing 4,500 U.S. dead and a trillion dollars.
That invasion was the worst blunder in U.S. history and a contributing factor to the deepening
disaster of the Middle East, from which, it appears, we will not soon be able to extricate
ourselves.
As secretary of state, Clinton supported the unprovoked U.S.-NATO attack on Libya and joked of
the lynching of Moammar Gadhafi, "We came. We saw. He died." Yet, even Barack Obama now agrees
the Libyan war was started without advance planning for what would happen when Gadhafi fell. And
that lack of planning, that failure in which Clinton was directly involved, Obama now calls the
worst mistake of his presidency.
Is Clinton's role in pushing for two wars, both of which resulted in disasters for her country
and the entire Middle East, something to commend her for the presidency of the United States? Is
the slogan to be, "Let Hillary clean up the mess she helped to make?"
Whether or not Clinton was complicit in the debacle in Benghazi, can anyone defend her
deceiving the families of the fallen by talking about finding the evildoer who supposedly made
the videotape that caused it all? Even then, she knew better. How many other secretaries of state
have been condemned by their own inspector general for violating the rules for handling state
secrets, for deceiving investigators, and for engaging, along with that cabal she brought into
her secretary's office, in a systematic stonewall to keep the department from learning the truth?
Where in all of this is there the slightest qualification, other than a honed instinct for
political survival, for Clinton to lead America out of the morass into which she, and the failed
foreign policy elite nesting around her, plunged the United States?
If Trump will stay true to his message, he can win the foreign policy debate, and the election,
because what he is arguing for is what Americans want.
They do not want any more Middle East wars. They do not want to fight Russians in the Baltic or
Ukraine, or the Chinese over some rocks in the South China Sea.
They understand that, as Truman had to deal with Stalin, and Ike with Khrushchev, and Nixon with
Brezhnev, and Reagan with Gorbachev, a U.S. president should sit down with a Vladimir Putin to
avoid a clash neither country wants, and from which neither country would benefit.
The coming Clinton-neocon nuptials have long been predicted in this space. They have so much in
common. They belong with each other.
But this country will not survive as the last superpower if we do not shed this self-anointed
role as the "indispensable nation" that makes and enforces the rules for the "rules-based world
order," and that acts as first responder in every major firefight on earth. What Trump has
hit upon, what the country wants, is a foreign policy designed to protect the vital interests of
the United States, and a president who will - ever and always - put America first.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon
Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority." To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read
features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
This is one of the few articles when you can see anger at neocons from rank-and-file
republicans. Especially in comments.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's steadfast support from paleoconservative icon and Kristol arch-nemesis Pat Buchanan clearly terrified the neoconservative wing of the party, which still remembers how Buchanan drummed up three million votes against George Bush in the 1992 Republican primary by blasting globalist trade policy. ..."
"... The people are speaking and Hillary will not win. Every single tactic employed to derail Trump has backfired and only made him more popular. ..."
"... The Neo-Cons like Kristol are addicted to power and donor skims. He is why we are now on the verge of rebellion. Vote Trump. ..."
"... CIA Operation Mockingbird....to infiltrate and control all news reporting, see.... "New Think Progress and the Ozzard of Wiz".... Multilevel Information Racketeering.... ..."
"... The establishment media is showing their RINO-ness. They are being exposed in the light. ..."
"... The National Review and Weekly Standard have become bird-cage liner as a result of Messrs. Kristol, Wills, etc. ..."
"... Bill Kristol ... GO AWAY ... Republicans have REJECTED you ... ..."
"... "Let me hasten to admit: I underestimated your skills as a demagogue and the credulity of some of the American public." Let me translate: "Hey, America, you're too stupid to vote. I'm an elite and know better than you!" ..."
"... Donald --- deny his access and take his room card. I imagine he'll be more pissed about that then selling out. Fat slob. He reminds me of the corrupt Monks under the Medici, stuffing gold under their tunics while the poor died in the streets. ..."
"... Latter Day Republicans.. LOL ..."
"... fine use of words... as in latter day saints, Glenn Beck, Romney etc. ..."
"... Neocons have always been Trotskyites and are conservative in name only. It is because of this that I believe that we the people should hold state conventions to enact several amendments to curtail the donor class, removing of political parties, enacting Vigilance Committees, and enforcing Article I Section XI Clause VIII of the Constitution of the United States. ..."
"... Campaign donations and raising money for PACs is unconstitutional and is treason as defined by the Constitution. An emolument is a fee or payment for services rendered. By removing the donor class and the lobbyists we can return the government back to the people. ..."
"... One can only conclude that the neocons want to splinter the vote, and they want the Democrats to win. No other conclusion seems possible. This is a betrayal that should be taken quite seriously. ..."
Kristol recently met with #NeverTrump champion
Mitt Romney to discuss a third-party campaign, but Kristol has hinted that Romney will not be
the independent "White Knight." Kristol
tweeted Saturday,
"If Mitt decides he can't, someone will step forward to run" then quoted William Gladstone to declare,
"The resources of civilization are not yet exhausted."
This is not the first time Trump and Kristol
have sparred on Twitter. When Trump asked last week why networks continue to employ Kristol's punditry
services, Kristol admitted that he had been wrong to have underestimated Trump's political appeal:
Kristol's neoconservative inner circle has reason to fear the threat posed by a populist outsider,
especially one who could gain anti-Establishment traction by attacking the legacy of the Kristol-supported
Iraq War. Kristol's "Weekly Standard" magazine and his son-in-law Matt Continetti's blog "Free Beacon"
hammered Trump throughout the Republican primaries to little avail. The "Beacon" blog's writers and
editors flogged the "small hands" insult that infamously made it into Marco Rubio's campaign stump
speech in Rubio's desperate final days.
Trump's
steadfast support from paleoconservative icon and Kristol arch-nemesis Pat Buchanan clearly terrified
the neoconservative wing of the party, which still remembers how Buchanan drummed up three million
votes against George Bush in the 1992 Republican primary by blasting globalist trade policy.
Tryle N Error
It's time for an intervention. Get him into rehab and off the Kristol Meth, or whatever
that deluded lunatic is injecting.
dtom2 > Tryle N Error
Kristol has become unhinged faced with the reality that he has lost what little influence
he had on the republic electorate. His all out promotion of Jeb Bush failed and this is
nothing more than sour grapes. So, instead of conceding defeat, he launches all out war on our
nominee. My question is this... if he wants Hillary instead of Trump, which will be the
eventual outcome if he follows through with his plan, why not just come out of the closet and
support her. La Raza and the Chamber of Commerce both get their wish, more hordes of criminal
illegals to undermine American workers, and an increased democrat parasitic voter
base...see...so much simpler than a third candidate launch...same outcome. America slides
closer to the third world cesspool of their dreams. Trump 2016!
Ann > dtom2
The people are speaking and Hillary will not win. Every single tactic employed to
derail Trump has backfired and only made him more popular.
bucketnutz > Tryle N Error
The Neo-Cons like Kristol are addicted to power and donor skims. He is why we are now
on the verge of rebellion. Vote Trump.
FauxScienceSlayer
CIA Operation Mockingbird....to infiltrate and control all news reporting, see.... "New
Think Progress and the Ozzard of Wiz".... Multilevel Information Racketeering....
Be Still
The establishment media is showing their RINO-ness. They are being exposed in the
light.
Bill the Cat > Robert Tulloch
The National Review and Weekly Standard have become bird-cage liner as a result of
Messrs. Kristol, Wills, etc. Their next stop is the HuffPo and motherjones.
Patriot
Kristol needs to be brought down from his perch. He thinks he is smarter than the voters.
If he pushes this nonsense and the GOP does not censor him, it will be the time for the
millions of sane Americans to join the GOP and then destroy it from within. It is time for
average Americans to control their destiny as opposed to the elites.
darwin
Kristol is an anti-American traitor. He's actively engaged in fighting the will of the
people to keep himself and the people he works for in power and wealth.
Archimedes
Bill Kristol is destroying the Republican party ... he is a globalist who believes in
spending trillions while deploying AMERICANs in the Middle East ... he believes in open
borders ... he believes in unfettered "free trade" ...
Bill Kristol ... GO AWAY ... Republicans have REJECTED you ...
#NeverHillary
ljm4
Billy, work on your Cruise ship offerings. As you are failing in journalism are you also
trying to take down the GOP party yourself?
Doctor Evil
"Let me hasten to admit: I underestimated your skills as a demagogue and the credulity
of some of the American public." Let me translate: "Hey, America, you're too stupid to vote.
I'm an elite and know better than you!"
Lee Ashton > Doctor Evil
On the other hand...
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -
George Carlin US comedian and actor (1937 - 2008)
Douglas Rowland > Lee Ashton
Those would be the ones voting for Hillary.
WaylonII
Splitting the Republican vote would be a sure way to get Hillary elected. What is wrong with these people?
Avatar
timdb > WaylonII
Maybe Kristol expects President Hillary Clinton will appoint him as ambassador to Israel.
Lee Ashton > TheLastPlainsman
Neocon - deficit spending via the warfare state
Leftist - deficit spending via the welfare state.
The right and left wings of the same vulture.
MrnPol725
... Donald --- deny his access and take his room card. I imagine he'll be more pissed about that then selling out. Fat slob. He reminds me of the corrupt Monks under the Medici, stuffing gold under their tunics while the poor died in the streets.
SPQR_US
Another turd exposed...Kristol Meth...time to arrest and jail the neocons...
Pitbulls LiL Brother
Kristol has been wrong so many times for so many years how does he get a voice in the
process?
Amberteka > Pitbulls LiL Brother
MONEY. His relatives Own USA Media.
Roadchaser
Latter Day Republicans.. LOL
James > Roadchaser
fine use of words... as in latter day saints, Glenn Beck, Romney etc.
gladzkravtz
The founding publisher of the Weekly Standard is News Corp!! Just found it on wiki! I
didn't know that and now it makes sense that Kristol gets to mug on FNC so much. I have stock
in News Corp, bought it back long before there was a Megyn Kelly, but now it's time to go
ahead, sell and take the loss.
Those creeps.
PreacherPatriot1776
Neocons have always been Trotskyites and are conservative in name only. It is because
of this that I believe that we the people should hold state conventions to enact several
amendments to curtail the donor class, removing of political parties, enacting Vigilance
Committees, and enforcing Article I Section XI Clause VIII of the Constitution of the United
States.
That clause states, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person
holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress,
accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King,
Prince, or foreign State."
Campaign donations and raising money for PACs is unconstitutional and is treason as
defined by the Constitution. An emolument is a fee or payment for services rendered. By
removing the donor class and the lobbyists we can return the government back to the people.
Since the government is not self-policing itself like it should then it's time for the Fourth
Branch of the government to step up and exercise their power to hold these individuals
accountable. A Vigilance Committee would be comprised of citizens of a single state and
oversee everything their elected/appointed representatives adhere to their oaths of office.
Failure to adhere to the oath would be an automatic charge of treason and a trial of said
individual for violating their oath. Once enough of these traitors are executed the rest of
them will behave and follow their oaths plus the Constitution of the United States.
Another amendment could be the requirement that every child must learn the Declaration of
Independence, Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, and their state
constitutions. This way we as a people can stop dangerous ideologies that are antithetical to
liberty, like Marxism and communism, can never be used in the United States.
jackschil
Its about time the real conservative Republicans took a stand. They could start by ignoring
the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party and start paying attention to the
Goldwater/Reagan wing. The Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal, Bill Kristol, Carl
Rove, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer do not represent conservative values, but pretend
establishment values. They would be better served joining with the Democrats. Trump has these
establishment jackals, along with the K Street lobbyists, scared to death. For the first time
since 1984, the people aren't stuck voting for a Republicrat candidate.
SpeedMaster
The Globalists have been exposed for what they really are. Thank You Mr. Trump.
Ohiolad
One can only conclude that the neocons want to splinter the vote, and they want the
Democrats to win. No other conclusion seems possible. This is a betrayal that should be taken
quite seriously.
Gene Schwimmer
If Kristol does, indeed, produce an independent candidate and if "President Hillary" is a
real problem for Trumpists, we of #NeverTrump invite them to abandon Trump and join us in
supporting the independent candidate. If you choose not to, blame yourselves if Trump loses. #NeverTrump
warned you well before you voted for Trump that we would never vote for him and it's still not
too late to nominate someone else at the convention. Not our problem if you thought you could
win without us and nominated Trump, anyway.
PrinceLH > Gene Schwimmer
Are you for real? Why would we turn our backs on the candidate that has garnered the most
votes, in Republican Primary history? You people don't get it! It's not the Republicans vs the
Democrats. It's the people vs the Establishment. We don't want any more of your ruling class
garbage. We don't want any more of stagnant wages and job loses to other countries, so you can
expand your Globalist agenda. You people need to be stopped. Bill Kristol, George Will, Glenn
Beck, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, George Soros, the Bush family, the Koch Brothers and
the list goes on, are our enemies.
You will be soundly defeated, this fall, and you can hand in your membership to the Human
Race, on the way out the door to your European Liberal Utopia.
Zolt
No more THIRD-WORLD IMMIGRATION
No more GLOBAL TRADE
No more ENDLESS WARS FOR ISRAEL AND THE NWO
God bless ASSAD, protector of Syrian Christians!
Get on board with the #PALEOCONS!
billsv
You just don't get it. Middle class jobs have been given to foreigners through H2B
programs, globalist policies, etc. why is this conservatism? Why do illegal aliens get more
benefits than US citizens? Is this conservatism? We just don't like Bill Kristol's view of
conservatism that de stories the Middle Class, let' s those in the bottom percentiles languish
and caves to the wishes of the Chamber of Commerce.
Please back off and give what many if
Americans want. We have suffered enough.
"... A year ago, Trump was a joke. A media circus. A novelty. We assumed – I assumed – he was in it for the giggles. I thought he'd drop out like he'd down twice before. I thought his total lack of experience, his profanity and his recklessness would count against him in a primary among conservatives. But the very nature of conservatism has changed. ..."
"... Trump didn't just defy the establishment. He defied what we thought for years were the outsiders: the ideological conservatives who hitherto cast themselves as the rebels. By beating Ted Cruz, Trump actually ran an insurgency against the insurgent. He demonstrated that what people wanted wasn't something more ideologically pure – as Cruz assumed – but something that was totally different. ..."
"... That is one big positive we can take from this campaign. If Trump can win when challenging the Republican position on trade and war, maybe someone in the future can win while challenging their positions on other things. ..."
"... Donald Trump did, in fact, beat the hell out of the GOP Establishment. But let's also note here that the GOP Establishment beat itself. If you haven't yet, check out conservative writer Matthew Sheffield's evisceration of the Republican Industrial Complex. It was e-mailed to me by a Republican friend who until fairly recently was part of that world, and knows about it intimately. ..."
"... Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider it wasted. ..."
"... Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism." ..."
"... It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too. ..."
"... On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don't go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It's all good. ..."
"... Trump hasn't said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals - these are the ravings of a Nazi? ..."
"... This year, and this week, in Republican Party politics and in American conservatism has been about nothing but moral, intellectual, and institutional decadence. It did not happen because of Donald Trump. Donald Trump emerged because the institutions were rotten. It is an almost Shakespearean twist that Roger Ailes is being defenestrated from atop the Fox News empire even as Trump receives his crown in Cleveland. ..."
It's mostly how I feel, though the one consolation I take from this debacle is that genuine creativity
may emerge out of Trump's destruction of the old GOP. It's a small bit of comfort, but I'll take
what I can. If Marco Rubio or any other of the GOP bunch were being nominated now, I would not be
excited at all, or even interested. I prefer that to being freaked out by the prospect of a Trump
presidency, but I would prefer to have someone to vote for , instead of against.
But then, I've wanted that for years.
Because I'm feeling contrarian, I want to give Donald Trump his due in this, his hour of triumph.
He pulled off something that nobody imagined he would do. I remember watching him give a political
speech for the first time - my first time watching him, I mean. He was addressing a big crowd in
Mobile. I watched the thing nearly gape-mouthed. I could not believe the crudeness, the chaos, and
the idiocy of the speech. This won't go anywhere, I thought, but it's going to be fun
watching him implode.
I laughed a lot at Donald Trump back then. Who's laughing now?
A year ago, Trump was a joke. A media circus. A novelty. We assumed – I assumed – he was in
it for the giggles. I thought he'd drop out like he'd down twice before. I thought his total lack
of experience, his profanity and his recklessness would count against him in a primary among conservatives.
But the very nature of conservatism has changed.
It was likely the rise of Sarah Palin in 2008 that made this possible – a candidate who suggested
there was a choice to be made between intellectualism and common sense, and who inspired deep
devotion among those who identified with her. Folks don't identify with Trump in the same, personal
way as they did with the hockey mom from Alaska. How can they? He flies everywhere in a private
jet and has a model as a wife. But his issues did strike a chord. The Wall cut through.
Trump didn't just defy the establishment. He defied what we thought for years were the outsiders:
the ideological conservatives who hitherto cast themselves as the rebels. By beating Ted Cruz,
Trump actually ran an insurgency against the insurgent. He demonstrated that what people wanted
wasn't something more ideologically pure – as Cruz assumed – but something that was totally different.
That is one big positive we can take from this campaign. If Trump can win when challenging
the Republican position on trade and war, maybe someone in the future can win while challenging
their positions on other things.
American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat
Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump,
though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their
ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption
of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn't.
Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center
adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks
and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy
should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that
same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement
funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico,
more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider
it wasted.
Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming
tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics
have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism."
Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider
conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding?
They're the ones who've been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose
populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while
implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic
change. Now they're telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don't, they're liberal.
It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who
its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that
most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign
policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism
(he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded
for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing
otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.
On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators
like Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If
you live in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your
kids don't go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care.
No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy
lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to
feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job
on Nantucket. It's all good.
Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn't said anything
especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit
violent criminals - these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the "ghost of George Wallace" that
a Politico piece described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder their
voters are rebelling.
Read the whole thing. Let it sink in that Carlson wrote this before a single vote had been cast
in the GOP primaries.
This year, and this week, in Republican Party politics and in American conservatism has been about
nothing but moral, intellectual, and institutional decadence. It did not happen because of Donald
Trump. Donald Trump emerged because the institutions were rotten. It is an almost Shakespearean twist
that Roger Ailes is being defenestrated from atop the Fox News empire even as Trump receives his
crown in Cleveland.
Trump didn't steal the Republican Party. It was his for the taking, because the people who run
it and the institutions surrounding it failed.
When Trump loses in November, maybe, just maybe, some new blood and new ideas will rebuild the
party.
And if he wins? We will have far bigger things to worry about than the fate of the Republican
Party. We will be forced to contemplate the fate of the Republic itself.
"... Shell-shocked, his foes, unwilling to admit their politically correct system has tanked, failed to understand that political incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye. ..."
"... "So many 'politically correct' fools in our country," Trump tweeted. "We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense!" ..."
"... Trump's candidacy is about so much more than personality. Once the media are forced to report Trump's positions, instead of his persona, even more Americans will see that Trump is the sole Republican who rejects a "free trade" that gives away the keys to the store and opposed the ill-fated Iraq war. He is the type of candidate Americans always wanted but the party establishments are too afraid to provide. ..."
"... The last time America saw a strong paleo-conservative was Pat Buchanan in 1996. An early win in Louisiana caused Buchanan to place second in Iowa and first in New Hampshire. Lacking money, Buchanan was steamrolled by the establishment in Arizona and, in terms of paleo-conservatism, many thought he was the Last of the Mohicans. Trump's campaign is Buchananesque with one difference: Trump has money, and loads of it. He can fend off any attack and self-finance his campaign. He is establishment kryptonite. ..."
"... This reality is what makes him the new face of paleo-conservativism. It might also make him president. ..."
Political incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye: Columnist. When the term paleo-conservative
is floated in conversation, most folks imagine a creature out of Jurassic World. But paleo-conservatism
- a near extinct brand of conservatism that heralds limited government, nonintervention, economic
nationalism and Western traditions - is finding a comeback in an unlikely spokesperson.
The history-making campaign of
Donald Trump is turning the clock of U.S. politics back to a time when hubris was heroic and
the truth, no matter how blunt, was king. It is resurrecting a political thought that does not play
by the rules of modern politics.
And as the nation saw the top-tier
GOP candidates take the stage for the first time, they saw Trump, unapologetic and confident,
alongside eight candidates clueless on how to contain him and a tongue-lashed Rand Paul.
The debate itself highlighted the fear a Trump candidacy is creating throughout the political
establishment. The very first question asked the candidates to pledge unconditional support to the
eventual GOP nominee and refrain from a third-party run. Trump refused.
Those in the Beltway resumed drafting Trump's political obituary. But while they were busy scribbling,
post-debate polls showed Trump jumped in the polls. Republicans are ignoring their orders from headquarters
and deflecting to the Donald.
Shell-shocked, his foes, unwilling to admit their politically correct system has tanked, failed
to understand that political incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye.
"So many 'politically correct' fools in our country," Trump tweeted. "We have to all get back
to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense!"
Is he not correct? Days before the nation started debating Kelly's metaphorical blood, an unauthorized
immigrant in New Jersey pleaded guilty to actually spilling the blood of 30-year-old Sviatlana Dranko
and setting her body on fire. In the media, Dranko's blood is second fiddle. This contrast is not
lost on the silent majority flocking to Trump.
Trump's candidacy is about so much more than personality. Once the media are forced to report
Trump's positions, instead of his persona, even more Americans will see that Trump is the sole Republican
who rejects a "free trade" that gives away the keys to the store and opposed the ill-fated Iraq war.
He is the type of candidate Americans always wanted but the party establishments are too afraid to
provide.
The last time America saw a strong paleo-conservative was
Pat Buchanan in 1996. An early win in Louisiana caused Buchanan to place second in Iowa and first
in New Hampshire. Lacking money, Buchanan was steamrolled by the establishment in Arizona and, in
terms of paleo-conservatism, many thought he was the Last of the Mohicans. Trump's campaign is Buchananesque
with one difference: Trump has money, and loads of it. He can fend off any attack and self-finance
his campaign. He is establishment kryptonite.
This reality is what makes him the new face of paleo-conservativism. It might also make him
president.
Joseph R. Murray II is a civil-rights attorney, a conservative commentator and a former official
with Pat Buchanan's 2000 campaign.
"... Donald Trump has raised three issues of real concern to paleoconservatives and traditional conservatives like myself." ..."
"... These three stances that Trump hits on to Buchanan's contentment are border security, economic nationalism, and being "skeptical of these endless wars and interventions." ..."
"... "I think many folks who agree with me have welcomed Trump into the race," Buchanan said. He added while laughing, "the very fact that the neocons seem so disconsolate is the icing on the cake." ..."
"... "Neocons offer nothing more than more wars," he said, before adding that their support for free trade is "almost a religious belief." ..."
"... The person who will lead America to its end is Hillary Clinton. I don't know how to say it any clearer - Bill and Hillary are pure evil. All the stories about them while in Arkansas are true - murders, cocaine smuggling, money laundering and they continued their evil activities when Bill got into the White House. ..."
"... They continue today with their Foundation which is nothing but a front for money laundering. It is not right wing conspiracies which Hillary continues to imply and the people whose deaths are connected to the Clinton's will never have justice. ..."
Buchanan ran in 1992 for the Republican party nomination on a platform opposing globalization,
unfettered immigration, and the move away from social conservatism. He has been harping on these
views ever since.
"What we've gotten is proof that we were right," Buchanan told The Daily Caller Tuesday. While
he said, "I would not say that Donald Trump is a paleoconservative," and, "I don't think [Trump's]
a social conservative."
Buchanan told TheDC, "I was just astonished to see him raise the precise issues on which we ran
in the 1990s… Donald Trump has raised three issues of real concern to paleoconservatives and
traditional conservatives like myself."
These three stances that Trump hits on to Buchanan's contentment are border security, economic
nationalism, and being "skeptical of these endless wars and interventions."
"I think many folks who agree with me have welcomed Trump into the race," Buchanan said. He
added while laughing, "the very fact that the neocons seem so disconsolate is the icing on the cake."
Buchanan is not only opposed to immigration and trade, he is also a staunch social conservative.
Trump has had two divorces and has previously held pro-choice views, making it tough for some to
support him. Buchanan though said, "I think Trump respects the position of the social conservatives."
"I do think he would appoint the type of justices that would unite the Republican Party," he said.
The conservative commentator continued on to say, "I think the great emperor Constantine converted
to Christianity but he may have killed one of his sons as well."
Buchanan told TheDC, "we don't have any perfect candidates," but the other options besides Trump
are more frightening.
"Neocons offer nothing more than more wars," he said, before adding that their support for
free trade is "almost a religious belief."
Richard
The person who will lead America to its end is Hillary Clinton. I don't know how to say
it any clearer - Bill and Hillary are pure evil. All the stories about them while in Arkansas
are true - murders, cocaine smuggling, money laundering and they continued their evil activities
when Bill got into the White House.
They continue today with their Foundation which is nothing but a front for money laundering.
It is not right wing conspiracies which Hillary continues to imply and the people whose deaths
are connected to the Clinton's will never have justice.
Why is it that every time a Grand Jury was to be convened and people were subpoenaed to testify
against the Clinton's, it never happened and some of those people ended up in prison, dead or
disappeared. Anyone who has ever had files implicating the Clinton's of illegal activities either
commits suicide or was murdered, and the files have disappeared. People if your voting for or
have voted for Hillary - do your homework and learn about who you vote for?
"... Though he has been a hugely successful builder-businessman, far more successful than, say, Carly Fiorina, who has been received respectfully, our resident elites resolutely refuse to take Trump seriously. ..."
"... Trump's success comes from the issues he has seized upon - illegal immigration and trade deals that deindustrialized America - and brazen defiance of Republican elites and a media establishment. ..."
"... The reaction of Trump's Republican rivals has been even more instructive. Initially, it was muted. But when major media began to demand that GOP candidates either denounce Trump or come under suspicion or racism themselves, the panic and pile-on began. ..."
"... What Trump has done, and [Ted] Cruz sees it, is to have elevated the illegal immigration issue, taken a tough line, and is now attacking GOP rivals who have dithered or done nothing to deal with it. ..."
"... Trump intends to exploit the illegal immigration issue, and the trade issue, where majorities of middle-class Americans oppose the elites. And he is going to ride them as far as he can in the Republican primaries. ..."
Since Trump's presidential
announcement last month including controversial comments about illegal immigrants from Mexico,
Buchanan has written two editorials on his website lauding Trump's efforts.
Though he has been a hugely successful builder-businessman, far more successful than, say,
Carly Fiorina, who has been received respectfully, our resident elites resolutely refuse to take
Trump seriously.
They should. Not because he will be nominated, but because the Trump constituency will represent
a vote of no confidence in the Beltway ruling class of politicians and press.
Votes for Trump will be votes to repudiate that class, whole and entire, and dump it onto the
ash heap of history.
Votes for Trump will be votes to reject a regime run by Bushes and Clintons that plunged us
into unnecessary wars, cannot secure our borders, and negotiates trade deals that produced the
largest trade deficits known to man and gutted a manufacturing base that was once "the great arsenal
of democracy" and envy of mankind.
A vote for Trump is a vote to say that both parties have failed America and none of the current
crop of candidates offers real hope of a better future.
Trump's success comes from the issues he has seized upon - illegal immigration and trade
deals that deindustrialized America - and brazen defiance of Republican elites and a media establishment.
By now the whole world has heard Trump's declaration:
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. … They're sending people that
have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're
bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Politically incorrect? You betcha.
Yet, is Trump not raising a valid issue? Is there not truth in what he said? Is not illegal
immigration, and criminals crossing our Southern border, an issue of national import, indeed,
of national security?
. . .
The reaction to Trump's comments has been instructive. NBC and Univision dropped his Miss USA
and Miss Universe contests.
Macy's has dropped the Trump clothing line. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is talking of terminating
city contracts with Trump.
The reaction of Trump's Republican rivals has been even more instructive. Initially, it
was muted. But when major media began to demand that GOP candidates either denounce Trump or come
under suspicion or racism themselves, the panic and pile-on began.
. . .
What Trump has done, and [Ted] Cruz sees it, is to have elevated the illegal immigration
issue, taken a tough line, and is now attacking GOP rivals who have dithered or done nothing to
deal with it.
Trump intends to exploit the illegal immigration issue, and the trade issue, where majorities
of middle-class Americans oppose the elites. And he is going to ride them as far as he can in
the Republican primaries.
In the coming debates, look for Trump to take the populist and popular side of them both. And
for Cruz to stand by him on illegal immigration.
Americans are fed up with words; they want action. Trump is moving in the polls because, whatever
else he may be, he is a man of action.
Trump later
retweeted
and thanked a follower who cited to Buchanan's labeling of Trump as "a man of action."
"... From a Paleo-Conservative perspective what is there to lose with Trump as POTUS? In the absence of a Trumpian paradigm shift in American politics, the status quo will indeed change, quite dramatically, but not in the direction favorable to the principles of 1776 and 1861. At least with a President Trump there is a chance, possible but not necessarily probable, for change in the right direction. As the presidential campaigning heats up, Middle America is bound to rise up. The collective wisdom of Middle America seems to understand that Trump is not the perfect candidate, but they also seem to realize (to paraphrase M. E. Bradford) "that all of us who will not take half a loaf will get a stone." ..."
There are several attributes of Donald Trump's bid for the U.S. Presidency that this Paleo-Conservative
finds to be interesting. To follow is an adumbration of the more salient.
His campaign style is refreshing. The absence of teleprompters, which results in spontaneity,
which in turn reveals the unvarnished candidate in contradistinction to the coached, stale, and
unconvincing political hacks, is refreshing. Trump's campaign speeches and debate performance
have actually juiced up political discourse, making politics interesting not simply for the political
class but also for Middle American.
The engagement of Middle American into this presidential election cycle have the political
class spooked. It is this same political class responsible for the removal of all things Confederate
from the public square, not Middle American. It is Middle America that has catapulted Trump into
the lead. In other words, Middle America may actually have some meaningful input into the election
of the next POTUS.
The spooking of the political class has exposed what it thinks of Middle America. Its
charge against Trump is that the bulk of his support rests upon the inherent racism, national
jingoism and stupidity of average Americans. Some have even claimed that Trump is a closet fascist
and that his supporters are inherently supportive of fascism. This is nonsense. Middle America's
detestation of ruling elites is not fascist, but it is an acknowledgment that it will take a strongman,
statesman if you prefer, to knock out the ruling elites.
Trump's detractors may be his best campaign weapon. Without knowing much about Trump's
policy positions, immigration notwithstanding, there is logic in supporting Trump based upon knowing
who his political enemies are. This may be the best voting cue Middle America has. The enemy (Trump)
of my enemy (the ruling class) is my friend. In other words, the more Trump agitates the ruling
class the more he endears himself to Middle America.
Trump appears to be more the pragmatist than ideologue, and that's a good thing. The
American federative republic's original blueprint is nomocratic (a Southern characteristic), but
has been replaced with a teleocratic (New England Puritanism) one. It is the latter that has resulted
in the unitary US of A, nation-building abroad and the welfare state domestically.
For any Southern patriot the status quo in American politics is totally unacceptable.
One thing is fairly certain; if Trump were to be the next POTUS, the status quo would be in for
quite a shock. At this point it matters little how the status quo might be changed. Middle America
wants change and it wants it now. Moreover, if Trump were to succeed in his bid to be the next
POTUS, he would be much more likely to expose the fraud and corruption inside the beltway than
any of his presidential campaign competitors. Unlike the latter, he would not be held captive
to the interests that funnel money and votes to sustain the status quo, but to the average American
voter, i.e., Middle America.
The disruptions, if not chaos, Trump might affect in Washington may result in preoccupying
the ruling class to the extent that the focus on things Southern, e.g., the Battle Flag, may dissipate.
This might just provide Southern patriots with the space to regroup and be better prepared for
the next assault on their culture.
Trump's campaign slogan is Make America Great Again. As an intelligent man he must know that to
achieve that goal he must remove the government shackles, e.g., taxation, regulations, and centralization,
holding Americans and America down, both domestically and internationally.
From a Paleo-Conservative perspective what is there to lose with Trump as POTUS? In the absence
of a Trumpian paradigm shift in American politics, the status quo will indeed change, quite dramatically,
but not in the direction favorable to the principles of 1776 and 1861. At least with a President
Trump there is a chance, possible but not necessarily probable, for change in the right direction.
As the presidential campaigning heats up, Middle America is bound to rise up. The collective wisdom
of Middle America seems to understand that Trump is not the perfect candidate, but they also seem
to realize (to paraphrase M. E. Bradford) "that all of us who will not take half a loaf will get
a stone."
Marshall DeRosa received his Ph.D. and M.A. from the University of Houston and his B. A. from
West Virginia University, Magna Cum Laude. He has taught at Davis and Elkins College (1985-1988),
Louisiana State University (1988-1990), and Florida Atlantic University (1990-Present). He is a Salvatori
Fellow with the Heritage Foundation and full professor in the Department of Political Science. He
has published articles and reviews in professional journals, book chapters, and three books. He resides
in Wellington, FL, with his wife and four children. More from Marshall DeRosa
"... "In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered." ..."
"... "They're now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil." ..."
"... President Reagan once called the old Soviet Empire "the focus of evil in the modern world." President Putin is implying that Barack Obama's America may deserve the title in the 21st century. ..."
"... Nor is he without an argument when we reflect on America's embrace of abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, pornography, promiscuity, and the whole panoply of Hollywood values. ..."
"... Unelected justices declared abortion and homosexual acts to be constitutionally protected rights. Judges have been the driving force behind the imposition of same-sex marriage. Attorney General Eric Holder refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. ..."
"... America was de-Christianized in the second half of the 20th century by court orders, over the vehement objections of a huge majority of a country that was overwhelmingly Christian. ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of " Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? " Copyright 2013 Creators.com . ..."
Is Vladimir Putin a paleoconservative? In the culture war for mankind's future, is he one of us?
While such a question may be blasphemous in Western circles, consider the content of the Russian
president's state of the nation address.
With America clearly in mind, Putin declared, "In
many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered."
"They're now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political
views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil."
Translation: While privacy and freedom of thought, religion and speech are cherished rights, to
equate traditional marriage and same-sex marriage is to equate good with evil.
No moral confusion here, this is moral clarity, agree or disagree.
President Reagan once called the old Soviet Empire "the focus of evil in the modern world."
President Putin is implying that Barack Obama's America may deserve the title in the 21st century.
Nor is he without an argument when we reflect on America's embrace of abortion on demand,
homosexual marriage, pornography, promiscuity, and the whole panoply of Hollywood values.
Our grandparents would not recognize the America in which we live.
Moreover, Putin asserts, the new immorality has been imposed undemocratically.
The "destruction of traditional values" in these countries, he said, comes "from the top" and
is "inherently undemocratic because it is based on abstract ideas and runs counter to the will of
the majority of people."
Does he not have a point?
Unelected justices declared abortion and homosexual acts to be constitutionally protected
rights. Judges have been the driving force behind the imposition of same-sex marriage. Attorney General
Eric Holder refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.
America was de-Christianized in the second half of the 20th century by court orders, over
the vehement objections of a huge majority of a country that was overwhelmingly Christian.
And same-sex marriage is indeed an "abstract" idea unrooted in the history or tradition of the
West. Where did it come from?
Peoples all over the world, claims Putin, are supporting Russia's "defense of traditional values"
against a "so-called tolerance" that is "genderless and infertile."
While his stance as a defender of traditional values has drawn the mockery of Western media and
cultural elites, Putin is not wrong in saying that he can speak for much of mankind.
Same-sex marriage is supported by America's young, but most states still resist it, with black
pastors visible in the vanguard of the counterrevolution. In France, a million people took to the
streets of Paris to denounce the Socialists' imposition of homosexual marriage.
Only 15 nations out of more than 190 have recognized it.
In India, the world's largest democracy, the Supreme Court has struck down a lower court ruling
that made same-sex marriage a right. And the parliament in this socially conservative nation of more
than a billion people is unlikely soon to reverse the high court.
In the four dozen nations that are predominantly Muslim, which make up a fourth of the U.N. General
Assembly and a fifth of mankind, same-sex marriage is not even on the table. And Pope Francis has
reaffirmed Catholic doctrine on the issue for over a billion Catholics.
While much of American and Western media dismiss him as an authoritarian and reactionary, a throwback,
Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans still caught up in a Cold War paradigm.
As the decisive struggle in the second half of the 20th century was vertical, East vs. West, the
21st century struggle may be horizontal, with conservatives and traditionalists in every country
arrayed against the militant secularism of a multicultural and transnational elite.
And though America's elite may be found at the epicenter of anti-conservatism and anti-traditionalism,
the American people have never been more alienated or more divided culturally, socially and morally.
We are two countries now.
Putin says his mother had him secretly baptized as a baby and professes to be a Christian. And
what he is talking about here is ambitious, even audacious.
He is seeking to redefine the "Us vs. Them" world conflict of the future as one in which conservatives,
traditionalists, and nationalists of all continents and countries stand up against the cultural and
ideological imperialism of what he sees as a decadent west.
"We do not infringe on anyone's interests," said Putin, "or try to teach anyone how to live."
The adversary he has identified is not the America we grew up in, but the America we live in, which
Putin sees as pagan and wildly progressive.
Without naming any country, Putin attacked "attempts to enforce more progressive development models"
on other nations, which have led to "decline, barbarity, and big blood," a straight shot at the U.S.
interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Egypt.
In his speech, Putin cited Russian philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev whom Solzhenitsyn had hailed
for his courage in defying his Bolshevik inquisitors. Though no household word, Berdyaev is favorably
known at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal.
Which raises this question: Who is writing Putin's stuff?
"... "The U.S., as paleos have claimed for decades, was only meant to be a constitutional republic, not an empire-as Buchanan's 1999 foreign policy tome A Republic, Not an Empire nostalgically states," Scotchie explains. "Republics mind their own business. Their governments have very limited powers, and their people are too busy practicing self-government to worry about problems in other countries. Empires not only bully smaller, defenseless nations, they also can't leave their own, hapless subjects alone…. Empires and the tenth amendment aren't friends…. Empires and small government aren't compatible, either." ..."
"... If anti-interventionism and a commitment to the Old Republic defined by strict-construction constitutionalism and highly localized and independent social and political institutions defined one major dimension of paleoconservatism, its antipathy to the mass immigration that began to flood the country in the 1980s defined another. Indeed, it was ostensibly and mainly Chronicles' declaration of opposition to immigration that incited the neoconservative attack on Rockford and its subsequent defunding. Scotchie devotes a special but short chapter to paleoconservative thought on immigration and makes clear that to paleos, America was an extension of Western civilization. It was intended by the Founding Fathers to be an Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nation also influenced by Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem. Large-scale immigration from non-Western nations would, as Fleming (and most other paleos) maintained, forever spoil a distinct American civilization. ..."
"... The implication of this passage is that paleoconservatives, unlike libertarians, most neoconservatives, and many contemporary mainstream conservatives, do not consider America to be an "idea," a "proposition," or a "creed." It is instead a concrete and particular culture, rooted in a particular historical experience, a set of particular institutions as well as particular beliefs and values, and a particular ethnic-racial identity, and, cut off from those roots, it cannot survive. Indeed, it is not surviving now, for all the glint and glitter of empire. ..."
Joseph Scotchie's Revolt from the Heartland is not, as some readers might guess from the title,
about the terrorism of right-wing militias in the Midwestern United States, although some readers
might also say that guess was close enough. In fact, Revolt from the Heartland deals with the emergence
of "paleoconservatism," a species of conservative thought that despite its name ("paleo" is a Greek
prefix meaning "old") is a fairly recent twist in the cunningly knotted mind of the American Right.
While paleos sometimes like to characterize their beliefs as merely the continuation of the conservative
thought of the 1950s and '60s, and while in fact many of them do have their personal and intellectual
roots in the conservatism of that era, the truth is that what is now called paleoconservatism is
at least as new as the neoconservatism at which many paleos like to sniff as a newcomer.
Paleoconservatism is largely the invention of a single magazine, the Rockford Institute's Chronicles,
as it has been edited since the mid-1980s by Thomas Fleming, and Scotchie's book is essentially an
account of what Fleming and his major colleagues at Chronicles mainly, historian Paul Gottfried,
book review editor Chilton Williamson Jr., professor Clyde Wilson, and I believe, and what the differences
are between our brand of conservatism and others.
Scotchie's first three chapters are a survey of the history of American conservatism up until
the advent of Chronicles, including an account of the "Old Right" of the pre-World-War-II, pre-Depression
eras (for once, an account not confined to the libertarian "isolationists" but encompassing also
the Southern Agrarians), as well as the emergence of the "Cold War conservatism" of National Review
and the neoconservatism of the Reagan era and after. Scotchie's overview of these different shades
of the Right is useful in itself and necessary to clarify the differences between these colorations
and the paleos who constitute his main subject, though he may underestimate the differentiation between
the current, paleo "Old Right" and earlier "Old Rights."
Although Scotchie does not put it quite this way, contemporary paleoconservatism developed as
a reaction against three trends in the American Right during the Reagan administration. First, it
reacted against the bid for dominance by the neoconservatives, former liberals who insisted not only
that their version of conservative ideology and rhetoric prevail over those of older conservatives,
but also that their team should get the rewards of office and patronage and that the other team of
the older Right receive virtually nothing.
... ... ...
Paleos and those who soon identified with them almost spontaneously rejected U.S. military intervention
against Iraq. It was a moment, falling only a year after the neoconservative onslaught on the Rockford
Institute, that solidified the paleoconservative identity.
"The U.S., as paleos have claimed for decades, was only meant to be a constitutional republic,
not an empire-as Buchanan's 1999 foreign policy tome A Republic, Not an Empire nostalgically states,"
Scotchie explains. "Republics mind their own business. Their governments have very limited powers,
and their people are too busy practicing self-government to worry about problems in other countries.
Empires not only bully smaller, defenseless nations, they also can't leave their own, hapless subjects
alone…. Empires and the tenth amendment aren't friends…. Empires and small government aren't compatible,
either."
If anti-interventionism and a commitment to the Old Republic defined by strict-construction
constitutionalism and highly localized and independent social and political institutions defined
one major dimension of paleoconservatism, its antipathy to the mass immigration that began to flood
the country in the 1980s defined another. Indeed, it was ostensibly and mainly Chronicles' declaration
of opposition to immigration that incited the neoconservative attack on Rockford and its subsequent
defunding. Scotchie devotes a special but short chapter to paleoconservative thought on immigration
and makes clear that to paleos, America was an extension of Western civilization. It was intended
by the Founding Fathers to be an Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nation also influenced by Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem.
Large-scale immigration from non-Western nations would, as Fleming (and most other paleos) maintained,
forever spoil a distinct American civilization.
The implication of this passage is that paleoconservatives, unlike libertarians, most neoconservatives,
and many contemporary mainstream conservatives, do not consider America to be an "idea," a "proposition,"
or a "creed." It is instead a concrete and particular culture, rooted in a particular historical
experience, a set of particular institutions as well as particular beliefs and values, and a particular
ethnic-racial identity, and, cut off from those roots, it cannot survive. Indeed, it is not surviving
now, for all the glint and glitter of empire.
Trump is essentially a paleoconservative and as such is hostile to neocons that dominate
Washington establishment. That's' why they hate him so much and blackmail him so much.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is millions of Republican voters' judgment against a party that failed them, and the fact that Trump is thoroughly unqualified for the office he seeks makes that judgment all the more damning. ..."
Trump officially
secured the Republican nomination last night:
Mr. Trump tallied 1,725 delegates, easily surpassing the 1,237 delegate threshold needed to
clinch the nomination. The delegate tally from his home state of New York, announced by Mr. Trump's
son Donald Jr., put him over the top.
Like
Rod Dreher, I see Trump's success as proof that "the people who run [the GOP] and the institutions
surrounding it failed." They not only failed in their immediate task of preventing the nomination
of a candidate that party leaders loathed, but failed repeatedly over at least the last fifteen years
to govern well or even to represent the interests and concerns of most Republican voters.
Had the Bush administration not presided over multiple disasters, most of them of their own making,
there would have been no opening or occasion for the repudiation of the party's leaders that we have
seen this year. Had the party served the interests of most of its voters instead of catering to the
preferences of their donors and corporations, there would have been much less support for someone
like Trump. Party leaders spent decades conning Republican voters with promises they knew they wouldn't
or couldn't fulfill, and then were shocked when most of those voters turned against them.
Trump is millions of Republican voters' judgment against a party that failed them, and the
fact that Trump is thoroughly unqualified for the office he seeks makes that judgment all the more
damning.
"... the best explanation of Trump's surprising success is that the constituency he has mobilized has existed for decades but the right champion never came along. ..."
"... Trump's platform combines positions that are shared by many populists but are anathema to movement conservatives-a defense of Social Security, a guarantee of universal health care, economic nationalist trade policies. "We have expanded the Republican Party," Trump claimed the night of his Super Tuesday victories. ..."
"... Buchanan, in a recent interview , characterized Trump as his populist heir. "What Trump has today is conclusive evidence to prove that what some of us warned about in the 1990s has come to pass," he said. But the evidence is that Trump doesn't see it that way. Trump even competed briefly with Buchanan for the presidential nomination. T he year was 2000 , and Trump, encouraged by his friend Jesse Ventura, then governor of Minnesota, was considering a run for the presidential nomination of Perot's Reform Party, on the grounds that the Republican Party of George W. Bush and Karl Rove had "moved too far toward the extreme far right." Trump and Ventura hoped to rescue the Reform Party from the conservative allies of Buchanan, of whom Trump said: "He's a Hitler lover; I guess he's an anti-Semite. He doesn't like the blacks, he doesn't like the gays." Trump floated the idea of Oprah Winfrey as his running mate . In his 2000 manifesto The America We Deserve , Trump proposed a platform that included universal employer- based health insurance, gays in the military and a one-time 14.5 percent tax on the rich that would reduce the federal deficit and help eliminate the shortfall in Social Security. ..."
"... Compared to Trump, Buchanan was a flawed vehicle for the Jacksonian populism of the ex-Democratic white working class. So was another Pat, the Reverend Pat Robertson, television evangelist, founder of the Christian Coalition, and, like Buchanan, a failed candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. But while the mainstream conservative movement marginalized Buchanan, it embraced Robertson and other evangelical Protestant leaders like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson of Focus on the Family. ..."
"... On social issues like abortion and gay rights, Buchanan shared the agenda of the religious right. But his advocacy of tariffs to protect American industry and immigration restriction threatened the mainstream right's consensus in favor of free trade and increased legal immigration. And his neo-isolationism threatened the post-Cold War American right's support of high military spending and an assertive global foreign policy. ..."
"... Many of the rank-and-file members of the religious right shared the traditional populist suspicion of bankers and big business ..."
"... But even before the unexpected success of Trump in the Republican primary race beginning in 2015, there were signs that this generation-old bargain was coming undone. Hostility to both illegal immigration and high levels of legal immigration, a position which free-market conservatives had fought to marginalize, has moved very quickly from heresy to orthodoxy in the GOP. ..."
"... There were other signs of populist discontent with establishment conservative orthodoxy, for those who paid attention. No project is dearer to the hearts of mainstream movement conservatives than the goal of privatizing Social Security, a hated symbol of the dependency-inducing "statism" of the allegedly tyrannical Franklin D. Roosevelt. But George W. Bush's plan to partly privatize Social Security was so unpopular, even among Republican voters, that a Republican-controlled Congress did not even bother to vote on it in 2005. ..."
Trump, in fact, has more appeal to the center than the conservative populists of the last half century.
Before Trump's rise in this year's Republican primary elections, the best-known populist presidential
candidates were Alabama Governor Wallace and tycoon Ross Perot, along with Buchanan. Yet none of
these past figures had broad enough appeal to hope to win the White House. Despite his folksy demeanor,
Perot was more of a technocrat than a populist and did poorly in traditionally populist areas of
the South and Midwest, where Trump is doing well. Wallace was an outspoken white supremacist, while
Trump tends to speak in a kind of code, starting with his "birther" campaign against President Obama,
and his criticism of illegal immigrants and proposed ban on Muslims may appeal to fringe white nationalists
even if it has offended many if not most Latinos. Nor has Trump alienated large sections of the electorate
by casting his lot with Old Right isolationism, as Buchanan did, or by adopting the religious right
social agenda of Robertson.
Indeed, the best explanation of Trump's surprising success is that the constituency he has
mobilized has existed for decades but the right champion never came along. What conservative
apparatchiks hate about Trump-his insufficient conservatism-may be his greatest strength in the general
election. His populism cuts across party lines like few others before him. Like his fans, Trump is
indifferent to the issues of sexual orientation that animate the declining religious right, even
to the point of defending Planned Parenthood. Trump's platform combines positions that are shared
by many populists but are anathema to movement conservatives-a defense of Social Security, a guarantee
of universal health care, economic nationalist trade policies. "We have expanded the Republican Party,"
Trump claimed the night of his Super Tuesday victories.
He may well be right, though it's not clear what that Republican Party will look like in the end.
... ... ...
Buchanan, a former Nixon aide and conservative journalist, ran unsuccessfully for
the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and was awarded with a prime-time speech at the Republican
National Convention that nominated George Herbert Walker Bush for a second term in the White House.
Buchanan's speech focused almost entirely on the "religious war" and "culture war" to save America
from feminism, legal abortion, gay rights, and "the raw sewage of pornography."
In his 1996 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, and in his 2000 campaign as the
Reform Party nominee, Buchanan emphasized populist themes of economic nationalism and immigration
restriction. But he was too much of a member of the Old Right that despised FDR and sought a return
to the isolationism of Robert Taft and Charles Lindbergh to have much appeal to former New Deal Democrats.
Buchanan's history of borderline anti-Semitic remarks led William F. Buckley Jr. to criticize him
in "In Search of Anti-Semitism," (1992) and some of his associates like Samuel Francis were overt
white racial nationalists.
For Reagan Democrats and their children and grandchildren, World War II showed America at its
best. But Buchanan concluded a long career of eccentric World War II revisionism in 2009 with "Churchill,
Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost its Empire and the West Lost the World," arguing
that Hitler should have been appeased by Britain and the U.S.
Buchanan,
in a recent interview, characterized Trump as his populist heir. "What Trump has today is conclusive
evidence to prove that what some of us warned about in the 1990s has come to pass," he said. But
the evidence is that Trump doesn't see it that way. Trump even competed briefly with Buchanan for
the presidential nomination. The
year was 2000, and Trump, encouraged by his friend Jesse Ventura, then governor of Minnesota,
was considering a run for the presidential nomination of Perot's Reform Party, on the grounds that
the Republican Party of George W. Bush and Karl Rove had "moved too far toward the extreme far right."
Trump and Ventura hoped to rescue the Reform Party from the conservative allies of Buchanan, of whom
Trump said: "He's a Hitler lover; I guess he's an anti-Semite. He doesn't like the blacks, he doesn't
like the gays." Trump floated the idea of Oprah Winfrey as his running mate . In his 2000 manifesto
The America We Deserve, Trump proposed a platform that included universal employer- based
health insurance, gays in the military and a one-time 14.5 percent
tax on the rich
that would reduce the federal deficit and help eliminate the shortfall in Social Security.
In his press release announcing
his withdrawal from the race for the presidential nomination of the Reform Party, Trump wrote: "Now
I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat
Buchanan. So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman-Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi-Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist-Ms.
[Lenora] Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."
Compared to Trump, Buchanan was a flawed vehicle for the Jacksonian populism of the ex-Democratic
white working class. So was another Pat, the Reverend Pat Robertson, television evangelist, founder
of the Christian Coalition, and, like Buchanan, a failed candidate for the Republican presidential
nomination. But while the mainstream conservative movement marginalized Buchanan, it embraced Robertson
and other evangelical Protestant leaders like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson of Focus on the Family.
On social issues like abortion and gay rights, Buchanan shared the agenda of the religious
right. But his advocacy of tariffs to protect American industry and immigration restriction threatened
the mainstream right's consensus in favor of free trade and increased legal immigration. And his
neo-isolationism threatened the post-Cold War American right's support of high military spending
and an assertive global foreign policy.
Unlike Buchanan, Robertson and other religious right leaders did not deviate from the Republican
Party line on trade, immigration, or tax cuts for the rich. Many of the rank-and-file members
of the religious right shared the traditional populist suspicion of bankers and big business.
But in the 1990s there was a tacit understanding that religious right activists would focus on issues
of sex and reproduction and school prayer, leaving economics to free-marketers. In foreign policy,
the Christian Zionism of many Protestant evangelicals made them reliable allies of neoconservatives
with close ties to Israel and supportive of the Iraq War and other U.S. interventions in the Middle
East.
From the 1980s until this decade, the religious right was the toothless, domesticated "designated
populist" wing of the Republican coalition, and mainstream conservative politicians took it for granted
that as long as they said they opposed abortion and gay marriage, evangelical voters would support
free-market conservative economics and interventionist neoconservative foreign policy.
But even before the unexpected success of Trump in the Republican primary race beginning in
2015, there were signs that this generation-old bargain was coming undone. Hostility to both illegal
immigration and high levels of legal immigration, a position which free-market conservatives had
fought to marginalize, has moved very quickly from heresy to orthodoxy in the GOP. The opposition
of populist conservatives killed comprehensive immigration reform under George W. Bush in 2007 and
also killed the Gang of Eight immigration reform effort led in part by Senator Marco Rubio in 2013.
The defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the 2014 Republican primary for the 7th District
of Virginia by an unknown conservative academic, David Brat, was attributed largely to Cantor's support
for the immigration reform effort.
There were other signs of populist discontent with establishment conservative orthodoxy, for
those who paid attention. No project is dearer to the hearts of mainstream movement conservatives
than the goal of privatizing Social Security, a hated symbol of the dependency-inducing "statism"
of the allegedly tyrannical Franklin D. Roosevelt. But George W. Bush's plan to partly privatize
Social Security was so unpopular, even among Republican voters, that a Republican-controlled Congress
did not even bother to vote on it in 2005. And a Republican-controlled Congress passed Medicare
Part D in 2003-the biggest expansion of a universal middle-class entitlement between the creation
of Medicare in 1965 and the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Blue collar Republican voters
applauded, as libertarian think-tankers raged.
Conservative populists cannot be accused of inconsistency. Like New Deal Democrats before them,
they tend to favor universal benefits for which the middle class is eligible like Social Security,
Medicare and Medicare Part D, and to oppose welfare programs like Medicaid and the ACA which feature
means tests that make the working class and middle class ineligible. The true inconsistency is on
the part of the mainstream conservative movement, which has yoked together left-inspired crusades
for global democratic revolution abroad with minimal-state libertarianism at home.
It remains to be seen whether Trump can win the Republican nomination, much less the White House.
But whatever becomes of his candidacy, it seems likely that his campaign will prove to be just one
of many episodes in the gradual replacement of Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan conservatism by something
more like European national populist movements, such as the National Front in France and the United
Kingdom Independence Party in Britain. Unlike Goldwater, who spearheaded an already-existing alliance
consisting of National Review, Modern Age, and Young Americans for Freedom, Trump has followers but
no supportive structure of policy experts and journalists. But it seems likely that some Republican
experts and editors, seeking to appeal to his voters in the future, will promote a Trump-like national
populist synthesis of middle-class social insurance plus immigration restriction and foreign policy
realpolitik,through conventional policy papers and op-eds rather than blustering speeches and tweets.
That's looking ahead. Glancing backward, it is unclear that there has ever been any significant
number of voters who share the worldview of the policy elites in conservative think tanks and journals.
In hindsight, the various right-wing movements-the fusionist conservatism of Buckley, Goldwater and
Reagan, neoconservatism, libertarianism, the religious right-appear to have been so many barnacles
hitching free rides on the whale of the Jacksonian populist electorate. The whale is awakening beneath
them, and now the barnacles don't know what to do.
"... Trump advances core paleoconservative positions laid out in "The Next Conservatism" - rebuilding infrastructure, protective tariffs, securing borders and stopping immigration, neutralizing designated internal enemies and isolationism. ..."
"... I don't like what I see happening to America. The infrastructure of our country is a laughingstock all over the world. Our airports, our bridges, our roadways - it's falling apart. It's terrible thing to see. Our politicians are all talk, no action. Millions of people are flowing across our Southern border. We've got to build a real wall… Let's make America great again. ..."
"... He says Republicans (along with Democrats) have aided the deindustrialization of America and the dispossession of the middle class, wasted the national treasure on idiotic wars (such as in Iraq) and enabled the dramatic expansion of repressive federal power. ..."
"... As far as Trump's campaign platform goes, he appears to be capitalizing on the ideas of some of America's most astute right-wing thinkers, Weyrich and Lind, who have crafted a new breed of conservatism with far broader populist appeal than the increasingly discredited trickle-down economics, big government, interventionist, corporate capitalism-beholden style of conservatism that's become dominant in the years since Reagan. Think of the power of the platform. Prior to the election, it was taken for granted that funding from plutocratic billionaires - the Kochs, Adelson, and so on - would shape the GOP primary outcome. Now, Trump has unique talents that set him apart, sure - but without the paleocon program, Trump would be just another Republican in the pack. ..."
The corporate media haven't been able to make much sense of Donald Trump. One thing they've said
is that he's non-ideological, or at least at odds with "true conservatives." But you've pointed he
has strong affinities for paleoconservative ideas, particularly as laid out in the 2009 book, "The
Next Conservatism" by Paul Weyrich and William Lind - a copy of which Lind recently gave to
Trump. You wrote, "Trump could have derived most of his 2016 primary positions from a two-hour session
with Lind's and Weyrich's book." Could you elaborate?
Trump advances core paleoconservative
positions laid out in "The Next Conservatism" - rebuilding infrastructure, protective tariffs, securing
borders and stopping immigration, neutralizing designated internal enemies and isolationism.
For example, an eleven-minute pro-Trump infomercial from August 2015, "'On
Point' With Sarah Palin and Donald Trump" - which now has over 3,800,000 views - begins with
a mini-Trump speech that could have been ghostwritten by William Lind:
I don't like what I see happening to America. The infrastructure of our country is a laughingstock
all over the world. Our airports, our bridges, our roadways - it's falling apart. It's terrible
thing to see. Our politicians are all talk, no action. Millions of people are flowing across our
Southern border. We've got to build a real wall… Let's make America great again.
... ... ...
Lind says they're intellectually vacuous, and that the current conservatism is "rubbish" and filled
with "'I've got mine' smugness." He says Republicans (along with Democrats) have aided the deindustrialization
of America and the dispossession of the middle class, wasted the national treasure on idiotic wars
(such as in Iraq) and enabled the dramatic expansion of repressive federal power.
... ... ...
As far as Trump's campaign platform goes, he appears to be capitalizing on the ideas of some
of America's most astute right-wing thinkers, Weyrich and Lind, who have crafted a new breed of conservatism
with far broader populist appeal than the increasingly discredited trickle-down economics, big government,
interventionist, corporate capitalism-beholden style of conservatism that's become dominant in the
years since Reagan. Think of the power of the platform. Prior to the election, it was taken for granted
that funding from plutocratic billionaires - the Kochs, Adelson, and so on - would shape the GOP
primary outcome. Now, Trump has unique talents that set him apart, sure - but without the paleocon
program, Trump would be just another Republican in the pack.
Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News,
and a columnist for Al Jazeera English. Follow him on Twitter at @PaulHRosenberg.
"... The term "paleoconservatism" is a retronym coined in the 1980s to characterize a brand of conservatism that was by then going extinct, a brand exemplified by Robert Taft, the Ohio senator and legendary isolationist who lost the 1952 Republican nomination to Dwight Eisenhower. In its day it was often referred to as the "Old Right." ..."
"... Republican isolationists prevented the US from participating in the League of Nations, led a largely non-interventionist foreign policy in the '20s, and were skeptical of the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine in the early years of the Cold War. ..."
"... The increasing interest of American business in trade abroad made the anti-internationalism of the Old Right increasingly unviable in the party of capital. ..."
"... The losses kept coming. In the 1980s, the rise of neoconservatism both threatened the anti-internationalist, America-first mentality of the paleocons and enraged them due to the prominence of Jewish writers in the neoconservative movement. ..."
"... They nearly universally opposed the war in Iraq and war on terror more broadly, and were deeply skeptical of Bill Clinton's humanitarian interventions in the Balkans. ..."
"... "We are getting out of the nation-building business, and instead focusing on creating stability in the world," he declares. "Our moments of greatest strength came when politics ended at the water's edge." That's pure paleocon. ..."
"... Whether the establishment likes it or not, and it evidently does not, there is a revolution going on in America. The old order in this capital city is on the way out, America is crossing a great divide, and there is no going back. Donald Trump's triumphant march to the nomination in Cleveland, virtually assured by his five-state sweep Tuesday, confirms it, as does his foreign policy address of Wednesday. ..."
"... Donald Trump has raised three issues of real concern to paleoconservatives and traditional conservatives like myself." ..."
"... Trump is an imperfect paleocon. He's unrefined, a recent convert, and not as socially conservative as they may like. But on the important stuff, the term fits him better than any other. ..."
One of the strangest allegations leveled against Donald Trump by his Republican critics is that
he's not a conservative - or even, in the most extreme version of this critique, that he's actually
a liberal.
"People can support Donald Trump, but they cannot support him on conservative grounds," former
George W. Bush aide
Peter Wehner writes at Commentary. "The case for constitutional limited government is the case
against Donald Trump," declares Federalist founder
Ben Domenech. "Instead of converting voters to conservatism, Trump is succeeding at converting
conservatives to statism on everything from health care and entitlements to trade," complained
National Review's Jonah Goldberg.
Insofar as these commentators are criticizing the recency of Trump's conservative convictions,
well, fair enough. In an earlier life he was indeed a big fan of
universal
health care,
wealth taxation,
and legal
abortion - and if his general election
pivoting on taxes and the minimum wage is any indication, conservative fears that he would return
to his more liberal roots in the general election may yet be vindicated.
But the ideological vision Trump put forward during the Republican primary campaign was deeply
conservative, and, more specifically, deeply paleoconservative.
The paleoconservatives were a major voice in the Republican Party for many years, with Pat Buchanan
as their most recent leader, and pushed a line that is very reminiscent of Trump_vs_deep_state.
They adhere to the normal conservative triad of nationalism, free markets, and moral traditionalism,
but they put greater weight on the nationalist leg of the stool - leading to a more strident form
of anti-immigrant politics that often veers into racism, an isolationist foreign policy rather than
a hawkish or dovish one, and a deep skepticism of economic globalization that puts them at odds with
an important element of the business agenda.
Trump is an odd standard-bearer for paleocons, many of whom are conservative Catholics and whose
passionate social conservatism doesn't jibe well with Trump's philandering. His foreign policy ideas
are also more interventionist than those of most paleocons. But the ideas that have made him such
a controversial candidate aren't ones he got from liberals. They have a serious conservative pedigree.
A brief history of paleoconservatism
The term "paleoconservatism" is a retronym coined in the 1980s to characterize a brand of
conservatism that was by then going extinct, a brand exemplified by Robert Taft, the Ohio senator
and legendary isolationist who lost the 1952 Republican nomination to Dwight Eisenhower. In its day
it was often referred to as the "Old Right."
There was a time when these positions were normal for the Republican party. Leaders like William
McKinley supported tariffs as a way of supporting domestic industries and raising revenue outside
of an income tax. Smoot and Hawley, of the infamous Great Depression tariff, were both Republicans.
Republican isolationists prevented the US from participating in the League of Nations, led a largely
non-interventionist foreign policy in the '20s, and were skeptical of the Marshall Plan and the Truman
Doctrine in the early years of the Cold War.
But starting in the first decade of the 1900s and continuing gradually through the '50s, this
balance began to be upset, especially on trade but also on issues of war and peace. Progressives
within the Republican Party began to challenge support for trade protection and argue for a more
hawkish approach to foreign affairs. The increasing interest of American business in trade abroad
made the anti-internationalism of the Old Right increasingly unviable in the party of capital.
The two defining moments that led to paleocon decline were Taft's defeat and the suppressing of
the John Birch Society by William F. Buckley and National Review in the early 1960s. The Birch Society
differed strongly from the most isolationist of paleocons on foreign affairs; it was named after
an American missionary killed by Chinese communists in 1945, whom the group claimed as the first
casualty of the Cold War.
The organization advocated an aggressive, paranoid approach to the Soviet Union. But on other
issues they were right in sync: extremely anti-immigration, hostile to foreign trade, supportive
of limited government (except where trade, immigration, and anti-communism are concerned).
Buckley, along with Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) and others, issued a series of attacks on the
society, which were successful in marginalizing it, and establishing Buckley and National Review's
brand of conservatism as the ideology's public face in America. "The attack established them as the
'responsible Right,'" according to
Buckley biographer John Judis, "and moved them out of the crackpot far Right and toward the great
center of American politics." It was a key victory for the New Right, and a key loss for the Old
Right.
The losses kept coming. In the 1980s, the rise of neoconservatism both threatened the anti-internationalist,
America-first mentality of the paleocons and enraged them due to the prominence of Jewish writers
in the neoconservative movement. While not everyone in the paleoconservative movement was an
anti-Semite, it certainly had an anti-Semitism problem, which its attacks on the neocons revealed
frequently.
From the Sobran purge to Pat Buchanan
The saga of Joseph Sobran is a case in point. A longtime columnist at National Review, he was
fired by William F. Buckley in 1993 following years of open clashes about his attitude toward Israel
and Jewish people in general. In 1991, Buckley had dedicated an entire issue of the magazine to a
40,000-word essay he wrote,
"In Search of Anti-Semitism," in which he condemned Buchanan (then challenging President George
H.W. Bush in the GOP primaries) and his employee Sobran for anti-Jewish prejudice.
Buckley had a point. Sobran really was a world-class anti-Semite, writing in one National Review
column, "If Christians were sometimes hostile to Jews, that worked two ways. Some rabbinical authorities
held that it was permissible to cheat and even kill Gentiles."
After leaving NR, Sobran's writing, in the words of fellow paleocon and
American Conservative editor Scott McConnell, "deteriorated into the indefensible." He started
speaking at conferences organized by famed Holocaust denier David Irving and the denial group
Institute for Historical Review,
asking at the latter, "Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard
numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was
not, in fact, intent on racial extermination?"
While Sobran was purged, Buchanan continued his rise. His ability to distinguish himself from
the non-paleoconservatives was enhanced by the end of the Cold War. Many paleocons made an exception
to their isolationism for the unique evil of the Soviet Union. With that boogeyman gone, they retreated
to a stricter non-interventionism. They nearly universally opposed the war in Iraq and war on
terror more broadly, and were deeply skeptical of Bill Clinton's humanitarian interventions in the
Balkans.
The '90s anti-immigrant panic, and the era's high-profile trade deals, made Buchanan and the paleocons'
views on those issues appealing to base Republicans tired of pro-trade, pro-migration GOPers.
... ... ...
Paleocons love Trump
Trump fits into this tradition quite well. He's less stridently anti–welfare state, and less socially
conservative than most paleoconservatives. But he is a great exemplar of the movement's core belief:
America should come first, and trade and migration from abroad are direct threats to its way of life.
"We are getting out of the nation-building business, and instead focusing on creating stability
in the world," he declares. "Our moments of greatest strength came when politics ended at the water's
edge." That's pure paleocon.
Whether the establishment likes it or not, and it evidently does not, there is a revolution
going on in America. The old order in this capital city is on the way out, America is crossing
a great divide, and there is no going back. Donald Trump's triumphant march to the nomination
in Cleveland, virtually assured by his five-state sweep Tuesday, confirms it, as does his foreign
policy address of Wednesday.
…Whether the issue is trade, immigration or foreign policy, says Trump, "we are putting the
American people first again." U.S. policy will be dictated by U.S. national interests.
"I would not say that Donald Trump is a paleoconservative. … I don't think [Trump's] a social
conservative,"
he elaborated in an interview with the Daily Caller. But he added, "I was just astonished to
see him raise the precise issues on which we ran in the 1990s. … Donald Trump has raised three
issues of real concern to paleoconservatives and traditional conservatives like myself."
It's not just Buchanan, either.
Derbyshire
has said that Trump is "doing the Lord's work shaking up the GOP side of the 2016 campaign," and
in another column
volunteered
his services as a speechwriter.
Virgil Goode, a former Congress member who was the paleocon Constitution Party's 2012 nominee,
has endorsed Trump as the only candidate serious about immigration. Taki has featured reams of pro-Trump
coverage, like
this piece praising his economic nationalism.
Trump is an imperfect paleocon. He's unrefined, a recent convert, and not as socially conservative
as they may like. But on the important stuff, the term fits him better than any other.
"... Trump is a paleoconservative who preaches the reduction of the U.S. presence and engagement throughout the world. His precursors were active in the America First movement, which wanted American neutrality during World War II. He can identify with Robert Taft, a Republican senator who was against NATO and the expedition to North Korea at the beginning of the Cold War. He also shares Pat Buchanan's nationalism, who was a candidate before him. ..."
"... Although Trump's political philosophy is not entirely insubstantial, his campaign stances do not have the same ideological coherence. He accuses President Bush of having lied to invade Iraq, but wants to confiscate Iranian oil to compensate the war's American victims. He has expressed his admiration for Vladimir Putin, but wants to build a wall at the Mexican border and close military bases in ally countries. He intends to ally with Russia to bomb the Islamic State group, but is contemplating a tariff war against China to protect jobs. He adheres to the Iran deal and dismisses a change of regime in Syria, but is suggesting killing North Korea's leader and the families of terrorist leaders. ..."
Published in Le Devoir (Canada) on 14 March 2016 by Charles Benjamin
[link to original]
After having shaken up the American establishment, Donald Trump's unexpected success is sowing
panic in the neoconservative camp. Known for the failed crusade they led against Iraq, the neoconservatives
are looking for a new icon to bring their ideals back to life. The announced defeat of their favorite,
Marco Rubio, has not convinced them to join forces with the lead candidate, whose populism goes against
their political convictions.
The controversial candidate's nomination could thus lead to a neoconservative exodus to the Hillary
Clinton clan, who is embodying their ideological stance more and more. This break-off would reveal
the cleavage that separates the presidential candidates. Besides the personalities, the primary elections
are the setting for a showdown between the deeply engrained political traditions of American history.
Marco Rubio: The Neoconservative Hope
Neoconservatives stem from former Democrats who were opposed to the nomination of George McGovern,
who advocated détente with the Soviet Union during the 1972 primary election. They were seduced by
the ideological zeal with which Ronald Reagan was fighting "the evil empire." The Sept. 11 attacks
sealed their grip on George W. Bush's presidency. Taken over by the missionary spirit bequeathed
by Woodrow Wilson, they wanted to free the Middle East at gunpoint and export democracy there as
a remedy to terrorism. They had a nearly blind faith in the moral superiority and military capabilities
of their country. Iraq was like a laboratory for them, where they played wizards-in-training without
accepting defeat.
In a hurry to undo Barack Obama's legacy, neoconservatives are advising Marco Rubio in regaining
the White House. They are thrilled with the belligerent speech by the candidate, who is reminiscent
of Reagan. Settled on re-affirming the dominance of the U.S., Rubio has committed to increasing the
defense budget, toughening the sanctions against Moscow, providing weapons to Ukraine, and expanding
NATO to the Russian border. He intends to increase troops to fight the Islamic State group, revive
the alliance with Israel, and end the nuclear disarmament deal with Iran. The son of Cuban immigrants,
he also promises to end all dialogue with the Castro regime and to tighten the embargo against the
island.
Donald Trump: The Paleoconservative
Donald Trump's detractors describe him as an impostor who has a serious lack of understanding
of international affairs. Yet, he has set himself apart by cultivating a noninterventionist tradition
that goes back to the interwar period. Trump is a paleoconservative who preaches the reduction
of the U.S. presence and engagement throughout the world. His precursors were active in the America
First movement, which wanted American neutrality during World War II. He can identify with Robert
Taft, a Republican senator who was against NATO and the expedition to North Korea at the beginning
of the Cold War. He also shares Pat Buchanan's nationalism, who was a candidate before him.
Although Trump's political philosophy is not entirely insubstantial, his campaign stances
do not have the same ideological coherence. He accuses President Bush of having lied to invade Iraq,
but wants to confiscate Iranian oil to compensate the war's American victims. He has expressed his
admiration for Vladimir Putin, but wants to build a wall at the Mexican border and close military
bases in ally countries. He intends to ally with Russia to bomb the Islamic State group, but is contemplating
a tariff war against China to protect jobs. He adheres to the Iran deal and dismisses a change of
regime in Syria, but is suggesting killing North Korea's leader and the families of terrorist leaders.
Hillary Clinton: The Democratic Hawk
Will Donald Trump's noninterventionist temptation and unpredictable character lead the neoconservatives
to make up with their former political group? Two figures of the movement have already repudiated
the Republican lead and announced their future support of Hillary Clinton.
The Democratic candidate boasts a much more robust and interventionist position than Obama. Annoyed
with her boss's caution while she was secretary of state, Clinton was pleading early on to send massive
reinforcements in Afghanistan. She believes in U.S. humanitarian imperialism and persuaded the president
to use force against Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Her call to help Syrian rebels at the dawn of the
Arab Spring was ignored. Now, she is giving faint support to the agreement negotiated with Iran and
supports the creation of a military exclusion zone over Syria. Her platform offers a new base for
neoconservatives, who will have to decide if they will stay loyal to their ideals or to their party.
"... Trump has been a vocal opponent of bad trade deals, while Cruz is a supporter of "free trade," even vocally backing Trade Promotion Authority for months before opportunistically voting against it when it no longer mattered ..."
"... Trump is opposed to raising the retirement age for Social Security while Cruz supports it ..."
"... Trump has famously promised he'd get along with Vladimir Putin, praised Putin's actions in Syria and has received compliments from the Russian leader; Cruz sticks to the usual anti-Russian rhetoric of the conservative movement calling Putin a "KGB thug" and saying America should undertake more intervention in the Middle East to confront Russia ..."
"... Ted Cruz notoriously called a group of Middle Eastern Christians "consumed with hate" for being insufficiently pro-Israeli while Trump has defended Middle Eastern Christians as a group that is "under assault" from Islamic terrorism ..."
But Donald Trump has changed everything. He has created the potential for a different movement
altogether. Not only is immigration at the center of his campaign, it's part of a larger agenda
that is genuinely different from the "movement conservatism" of Ted Cruz:
Trade.Trump has been a vocal opponent of bad trade deals, while Cruz is a supporter
of "free trade," even vocally backing Trade Promotion Authority for months before opportunistically
voting against it when it no longer mattered [Cruz reverses support for TPA trade bill,
blasts GOP leaders, by Manu Raju, Politico, June 23, 2015]
Safety Net. Trump is opposed to raising the retirement age for Social Security
while Cruz supports it [Where the presidential candidates stand on Social Security, by
Steve Vernon, MoneyWatch, November 23, 2015] Trump is also placing the protection of Medicare
at the center of his campaign, defying conservative movement dogma [Debate over Medicare, Social
Security, other federal benefits divides GOP, by Robert Costa and Ed O'Keefe,Washington Post,
November 4, 2015]
Russia.Trump has famously promised he'd get along with Vladimir Putin, praised
Putin's actions in Syria and has received compliments from the Russian leader; Cruz sticks
to the usual anti-Russian rhetoric of the conservative movement calling Putin a "KGB thug"
and saying America should undertake more intervention in the Middle East to confront Russia
[Ted Cruz: Russia-US tensions increasing over weak foreign policy, by Sandy Fitzgerald,Newsmax,
October 7, 2015]
Christianity. Ted Cruz notoriously called a group of Middle Eastern Christians
"consumed with hate" for being insufficiently pro-Israeli while Trump has defended Middle Eastern
Christians as a group that is "under assault" from Islamic terrorism [Trump: Absolutely
An Assault on Christianity, by Joe Kovacs, WND, August 25, 2015]. At the same time, while Trump
has been quick to defend American Christians from cultural assaults, he is also probably the
Republican "most friendly" to gay rights, as homosexual columnist Mark Stern has mischievously
noted [Of course Donald Trump is the Most Pro-Gay Republican Presidential Candidate, Slate,
December 18, 2015]
http://www.unz.com/article/whither-the-american-right/
Military coup sounds awfully good to me right about now!
xxx
Christianity. Ted Cruz notoriously called a group of Middle Eastern Christians "consumed with
hate" for being insufficiently pro-Israeli while Trump has defended Middle Eastern Christians
as a group that is "under assault" from Islamic terrorism
Maybe, I'm misunderstanding something; maybe I'm just not sure what "insufficiently pro-Israeli"
means, but Ted Cruz didn't condemn the group of Middle Eastern Christians for being "pro-Israel".
He condemned them for being anti-Israel, and said he wouldn't stand with them if they didn't stand
with Israel.
Neoliberalism is self-defeating social system, which creates the mechanism of redistribution of
wealth up, that takes that whole system down.
Notable quotes:
"... The Republicans weren't interested in inequality-but inequality was interested in them. The
conservative elite told us that we were a center-right country, that we didn't do class warfare, that
envy was un-American. But the voters, invertebrates that they are, disagreed. In fact, they thought
Obama was on to something when he said that secretaries shouldn't have to pay a higher tax rate than
their billionaire bosses. ..."
In Kennedy's day, Republicans worried more about budget deficits than economic growth and therefore
opposed his tax cuts. When the legislation came up for a final vote in the House of Representatives,
only 48 Republicans supported it and 126 voted against it, and it passed only because 223 liberal
Democrats voted for it. Remember, we are talking about a top marginal rate of 91 percent, which the
bill reduced to a still very high 65 percent.
... Trump, while he is not the poster child of inclusiveness when it comes to immigrants, has
nonetheless revived the old Reagan coalition by bringing formerly Democratic voters to the voting
booths to support him. They have left a Democratic Party whose leaders think them ignorant rednecks
who cling to their guns and religion, and they're not made to feel especially welcome when Cruz supporters
call them invertebrates and bigots: that's a good way to win an election, said no one ever.
... ... ...
What Obama had spoken to were the classically liberal themes of equality and mobility, of the
promise of a better future. The Republicans weren't interested in inequality-but inequality was
interested in them. The conservative elite told us that we were a center-right country, that we didn't
do class warfare, that envy was un-American. But the voters, invertebrates that they are, disagreed.
In fact, they thought Obama was on to something when he said that secretaries shouldn't have to pay
a higher tax rate than their billionaire bosses.
... ... ...
Our mobility problem results from departures from and not our adherence to capitalism. Rising
inequality in America has been blamed on the "1 percent," the people in the top income centile making
more than $400,000 a year. They alone don't explain American income immobility, however. Rather,
it's the risk-averse New Class-the 1, 2, or 3 percent, the professionals, academics, opinion leaders,
and politically connected executives who float above the storm and constitute an American aristocracy.
They oppose reforms that would make America mobile and have become the enemies of promise.
The New Class is apt to think it has earned its privileges through its merits, that America is
still the kind of meritocracy that it was in Ragged Dick's day, where anyone could rise from the
very bottom through his talents and efforts. Today's meritocracy is very different, however. Meritocratic
parents raise meritocratic children in a highly immobile country, and the Ragged Dicks are going
to stay where they are. We are meritocratic in name only. What we've become is Legacy Nation, a society
of inherited privilege and frozen classes, and in The Way Back I explain how we got here and what
we can do about it.
If Trump is the price we have to pay to defeat Clintonian neoliberalism – so be it.
-- Mumia Abu-Jamal
With these words the revolutionary journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal offers a bold challenge to those
who circulate the fear of a Trump presidency to drum up a mandate for voting for Clinton.
Mumia's words were shared with me just a month ago in a prison visit with him. They are a timely
challenge to Bernie Sanders' endorsement this week of Hillary Clinton's drive for the presidency.
Sanders mantra is anchored in the fear of Trump: "I will do everything possible to help defeat Trump."
But it is not just a Trump presidency that needs defeating. It is just as important to defeat
the very "Clintonian neoliberalism" whose party Sanders now joins.
"... Just as George W. Bush was "wholly ill-suited" so is Mrs. Clinton. It was her policy which is mostly responsible for the refugee flood into Europe from both Libya and Syria. She treats foreign policy like it's a board game. She gets ideologically convinced that overthrowing Assad or Quadifi is a grand idea and starts the process. Neither she nor her advisers ever ask, basic questions about the mechanics of the "process." For example, as part of this "process" the population of Allepo (just Allepo without respect to all the other towns, villages and hamlets) will be reduced from a population of 1.1 million to less than 100,000 with the difference being refugees conscripts or dead. What do we plan to do with the 750,000 plus refugees? Talk about "wholly ill-suited." ..."
"... I don't want to see Trump as President, however, the Dems have picked the one candidate who might actually lose to him. Clinton is not only demonstrably inept and widely recognized as dishonest, she has also contributed a great deal to the mess in the Middle East. ..."
"... The only people currently doing the heavy lifting with cogent and perceptive commentary on serious issues and the systemic inability of political and economic institutions to embrace reality are professional comedians. John Oliver, Jim Jeffries et al are continuing the George Carlin tradition of pointing out the abject lunacy of our "leaders", whose words are reported by the mainstream media (corporate media that is, let's not forget to "follow the money") as if they were something other than delusional drivel. ..."
George W Bush showed himself wholly ill-suited to the presidency within nine months of his
inauguration. Those of us who covered his campaign should have seen that moment coming, even if
we had no idea about Osama bin Laden's plotting.
On board his campaign plane, all Candidate Bush wanted to talk about was baseball statistics. If
he talked about the world, it revolved around his vacations. Perhaps we should have realized he
would find it hard to distinguish Afghanistan from Iraq, and Sunni from Shia.
A charming cut-up as Texas governor, Bush's superficial grasp of policy didn't matter nearly as
much as the fact that he seemed more entertaining than that earnest, wonkish Al Gore. At least
that was the tenor of much of what passed for news analysis of the 2000 campaign.
Bush projected the notion that he understood leadership; that his guts were greater than the
facts. As Tony Blair discovered within a year of 9/11, Bush's leadership was reckless playacting,
and the facts on the ground in Iraq were far more formidable than his gut instincts.
FugitiveColors
Another,be afraid of Donald Trump article. Lets settle this crap right here. Donald trump
is a horrible SOB, even his supporters agree.
Which matters not one iota. Much of America wants crap to change, even if it means using a
wrecking ball.
Bogdanich
Just as George W. Bush was "wholly ill-suited" so is Mrs. Clinton. It was her policy
which is mostly responsible for the refugee flood into Europe from both Libya and Syria. She
treats foreign policy like it's a board game. She gets ideologically convinced that
overthrowing Assad or Quadifi is a grand idea and starts the process. Neither she nor her
advisers ever ask, basic questions about the mechanics of the "process." For example, as part
of this "process" the population of Allepo (just Allepo without respect to all the other
towns, villages and hamlets) will be reduced from a population of 1.1 million to less than
100,000 with the difference being refugees conscripts or dead. What do we plan to do with the
750,000 plus refugees? Talk about "wholly ill-suited."
legalimmigrant
Message to Richard Wolffe - you may enjoy sounding off in your echo chamber but that's all
you're doing. The elites have had their day. The people demand something "different" and if
that "different" is orange colored with a strange folicular arrangement then so be it. You can
get back to frenziedly typing about what a devil DJT is now.
Benjohn6379 -> legalimmigrant
"People in this country have had enough of experts" - Brexit campaigner/propagandist and
huge liar Michael Gove
The anti-establishment movement is real and healthy and global. I can totally understand, as
I'm also sick and tired of being lied to and told that the status quo is the only way. But
don't kid yourself, Trump is one of these elites.
He may seem "different" as you say, but that's only because he's a piece of shit openly as
opposed to trying to hide it, like Hillary.
Neither candidate has any desire to help the middle class.
Confess -> Benjohn6379
Open is good. Americans are sick and tired of being lied and having facts hidden from us.
How can we progress when everything is covered up? Just give us the facts or a real god damn
opinion. All the double talk and cover ups are tearing the country apart. Soon BLM will have
the same amount of power as Muslims, no one can say anything bad about them, even when it's
true. That is what's dangerous.
Obelisk1
I don't want to see Trump as President, however, the Dems have picked the one candidate
who might actually lose to him. Clinton is not only demonstrably inept and widely recognized
as dishonest, she has also contributed a great deal to the mess in the Middle East.
Moreover, her refusal to speak about the ideological basis for so many of the terrorist
atrocities in recent years should be enough to bar her from office.
The US, and the world, is in danger as a result of the failures of both parties to pick
reasonable candidates.
Benjohn6379 -> ohyesHedid
The "war-hawk" meme
It's not a meme, it's reality. Her neo-conservative record speaks for itself. There is a
very real fear that she will take us to war in Syria, as a no fly zone would require tens of
thousands of ground troops in direct opposition to Russia, Assad and numerous terrorist cells.
ISIS has to be stopped, absolutely, but war in Syria will be just another tragic foreign
policy mistake.
I think all this "Hillary hate" is disproportional, possibly sexist.
Some of the "Hillary hate" is sexist, sure, but don't use this excuse as a blanket
statement that covers people that have intelligent and well thought out criticisms of her
policies and voting record.
There are legitimate concerns with both candidates, come at it rationally and intelligently.
Tom Jones
Not a Trump fan. But he called out Bush in the debates.
He wouldn't have invaded Iraq or Libya. War has caused most of these problems. The real scary
part is that he is less of a war monger then Clinton!
Gaurdian applogist pieces are almost as vile as the bigotry from Trump. In fact the bias in th
MSM has led to a Trump.
gunnison 5h ago
Perhaps the voters are confused about how to rate these candidates because there is
almost no coverage of national security and foreign policy. Nobody – except for rarities
like NBC's Andrea Mitchell – wants to produce a block of TV on something that sounds as
complicated as how to fight Isis in Syria.
The only people currently doing the heavy lifting with cogent and perceptive commentary
on serious issues and the systemic inability of political and economic institutions to embrace
reality are professional comedians. John Oliver, Jim Jeffries et al are continuing the George
Carlin tradition of pointing out the abject lunacy of our "leaders", whose words are reported
by the mainstream media (corporate media that is, let's not forget to "follow the money") as
if they were something other than delusional drivel.
Our much-vaunted "free press" has degenerated into becoming a transcription service for power
and privilege, with "journalists" now blatantly finessing the truth for fear of losing the
"access" without which they would be consigned to the outer reaches of internet blogworld.
Hell, if one sifts through the comment threads here or on other "reputable" news sites to
eliminate the usual dross, there's one hell of a lot more accurate and thoughtful commentary
happening down here in the cheap seats than in most of the articles to which those thread are
appended.
Trump is a showman and a conman and a buffoon, and Mike Pence is a rabid ideologue driven by
religious zealotry and a profound misogyny and sexual squeamishness. Neither is the sort of
person who should ever be placed in a position of authority. (None of this should be taken as
covert support for Hillary Clinton. My comment history here exculpates me from any accusations
of being a Clinton shill.)
That's the reality. Presenting the evidence for that, and there is mountains of it, is the
true function of a media which serves the public interest.
Benjohn6379 -> gunnison
Hell, if one sifts through the comment threads here or on other "reputable" news sites to
eliminate the usual dross, there's one hell of a lot more accurate and thoughtful commentary
happening down here in the cheap seats than in most of the articles to which those thread are
appended.
Your whole comment being a prime example of this, very well said.
John Wilson
And so what are you saying here Wolfe. That the alternative is Clinton? She'll be even
faster to push the red button.
"... Much of this has to do with Peronism's founder, and his ability to bring in broad sectors of Argentine society into his political program, broadly against imperialism and for nationalist workers rights and political sovereignty. ..."
"... It is an idea founded on Christian social values that has three basic principles: social justice, political sovereignty and economic independence. ..."
"... It was under Peron that a version of nationalized state capitalism, and an elimination of foreign investors was initiated in Argentina. He used nationalism, unlike his European counterparts, as a weapon of anti-imperialism. Peronism under Peron was Bonapartist in its manipulation of the social classes on behalf of industrializing an underdeveloped country and challenging dominant American imperialism. His style of leadership was one of a leader who took power in a power vacuum when no single class is in the position do so, and using reformist measures to win the radical support of the more populous class. ..."
"... Peron and Peronism also has to be viewed as a stage in the battle of Latin America for economic independence which is still yet to be achieved with at home the oligarchical structures still intact, and foreign manipulation in the country. ..."
Juan Peron is the most important political figure in Argentina, with reams of paper dedicated to
himself and his followers, but surprising little ink has been spilled over his, and the movement
named after him, Peronism's ideology. Perhaps because of its near undefinable nature, that it neither
sits comfortably on the left, right nor center or because of the number of ideological disperse groups
and politicians that call themselves Peronist.
Much of this has to do with Peronism's founder, and his ability to bring in broad sectors
of Argentine society into his political program, broadly against imperialism and for nationalist
workers rights and political sovereignty.
However there are a few key points behind the ideology of Peron himself and Argentina's most political
movement Peronism that can be gleaned.
Peron called his movement "Justicialism", a blending of the Spanish words for social justice and
this is also the name of the party of Argentina's current president Cristina Fernandez.
It is an idea founded on Christian social values that has three basic principles: social justice,
political sovereignty and economic independence. To do this Peron said his movement was in a
"third position" which counterposed itself equally to capitalism and communism. He also aimed to
create a social model of an organized community with direct state intervention to mediate between
labor and capital. Although not the same as a traditional Scandinavian welfare state, the model has
similarities in its mixed economy and a central role for Unions.
In a speech in the Congress in 1948, Peron himself said, "Peronism is humanism in action; Peronism
is a new political doctrine, which rejects all the ills of the politics of previous times; in the
social sphere it is a theory which establishes a little equality among men… capitalist exploitation
should be replaced by a doctrine of social economy under which the distribution of our wealth, which
we force the earth to yield up to us and which furthermore we are elaborating, may be shared out
fairly among all those who have contributed by their efforts to amass it."
The populist program of higher wages and better working conditions, which was actually developed
by the Public Works minister Juan Pistarini could well be the classic ideological core of Peronism,
but it was always dependent on the structural circumstance of Argentina. For example, in the late
1940s, Peronism was more concerned with the women's vote and the export market, and in the 1990s
attempting to rebuild Argentina under a neo-liberal pro market guide.
Indeed, over time it has been an odd mix of socialism, liberalism and populism Peron himself,
and therefore the movement became a symbol of and a champion of what he called the "shirtless ones,"
(descamisados) appealing to the dispossessed, labor, youth and the poor.
Peronism accepts that the state should coordinate society for the common good and that it can
do this without serving class interests.
Peron, and Peronism is hostile to many of the tenets of classic liberalism, although at times
concedes such as considering that democratic and republican institutions are the only ones that can
guarantee freedom and happiness for the people, and a political opposition is admitted as necessary.
But Peron was also hostile to Marxism, thinking that "forced collectivism" robs individuals of
their personality, even though he garnered many supporters from the communist left during the seventies
thinking that he, and his ideology would be the only way for Argentina to implement a communist state.
Yet Peron thought that class conflict could be transcended by a social collaboration mediated by
the state.
It was mostly through this ideological and structural blend that Peron was able to split every
party and political formation from the extreme Catholic Right to the Communist Left and line up the
dissidents behind his banner. As Carleton Beals wrote, his leading opponents had nothing to offer
except to complain of the lack of civil liberties. Their cry for freedom was somewhat suspect, however,
as they had never respected it when in office.
It was under Peron that a version of nationalized state capitalism, and an elimination of
foreign investors was initiated in Argentina. He used nationalism, unlike his European counterparts,
as a weapon of anti-imperialism. Peronism under Peron was Bonapartist in its manipulation of the
social classes on behalf of industrializing an underdeveloped country and challenging dominant American
imperialism. His style of leadership was one of a leader who took power in a power vacuum when no
single class is in the position do so, and using reformist measures to win the radical support of
the more populous class.
Peron and Peronism also has to be viewed as a stage in the battle of Latin America for economic
independence which is still yet to be achieved with at home the oligarchical structures still intact,
and foreign manipulation in the country.
"... The new regime sought to implement a change in the country's social and economic structures, based on strong State intervention, where the long-term goals of the workers coincided with the nation's need for economic development. Perón's work from the Labour Secretariat helped organise the workers' movement (until then divided into Communist, Socialist, and Revolutionary factions) into strong, centralised unions that cooperated with the government in solving labour disputes and establishing collective bargaining agreements, and whose leadership was under government influence. ..."
"... It was during this time that Perón would establish a strong alliance with the unions, who would later become the backbone of peronism. Workers started seeing that many of their historic demands were finally being attended to, including severance pay, retirement benefits, and regulation for rural labour. ..."
"... This new economic paradigm was based around the development of labour-intensive, light industry to create jobs and produce domestic goods for the internal market. The State played an important role in channelling income from agricultural exports to industry, raising import tariffs, and nationalising foreign-owned companies such as the railways, gas, phone and electricity. ..."
"... The political model that accompanied these economic changes was based on a class alliance between the workers, industrial employers, the Armed Forces and the Catholic Church. However, this alliance excluded the old landowners -"the oligarchy" -- who would become the number one enemy of the new government. ..."
"... In political terms, the heterogeneous support base of peronism started to disintegrate. Without Evita, the more combative unionists and political leaders were ousted by the conservative, bureaucratic sectors of the movement. ..."
The coup d'etat that brought the so-called "Década Infame" to an end in 1943, was headed by a
group of Army officials known as GOU (Grupo de Oficiales Unidos). General Pedro Ramírez became president
after the coup, but was removed in 1944 and replaced by General Edelmiro Farrell. During Farrell's
presidency, Colonel Juan Domingo Perón -- who was a member of the GOU -- became vicepresident, Minister
for War and Labour Secretary (simultaneously).
The new regime sought to implement a change in the country's social and economic structures, based
on strong State intervention, where the long-term goals of the workers coincided with the nation's
need for economic development. Perón's work from the Labour Secretariat helped organise the workers'
movement (until then divided into Communist, Socialist, and Revolutionary factions) into strong,
centralised unions that cooperated with the government in solving labour disputes and establishing
collective bargaining agreements, and whose leadership was under government influence.
It was during this time that Perón would establish a strong alliance with the unions, who would
later become the backbone of peronism. Workers started seeing that many of their historic demands
were finally being attended to, including severance pay, retirement benefits, and regulation for
rural labour.
These measures earned him the loyalty and support of the working masses, but strong opposition
from the local bourgeoisie and existing political parties, whose core voters were largely middle
class. The political opposition organised itself around the figure of US Ambassador Spruille Braden
and found enough support from dissident groups within the Armed Forces to pressure Farrell into removing
Perón. Eventually, Perón lost Farrell's support, resigned from all his positions on the 9th October
1945 and was jailed at the Martín García Island, then famous for hosting deposed politicians.
The Federal Workers Confederation (CGT) had called for a strike for the 18th October to support
Perón. However hundreds of thousands of workers spontaneously decided to gather at Plaza de Mayo
a day earlier. On a symbolic level, the images of the workers taking over the heart and soul of Argentine
political life -Plaza de Mayo-, making it their own, washing their feet in the fountains, became
the expression of a new era in the country's social and political history. The relegated masses had
made a triumphal entry into Argentina's political life, leaving behind decades of political isolation.
The images of 17th October 1945 continue to depict the deeper historical meaning of peronism:
the inclusion of the working class in the country's social, political and economic life.
Due to popular pressure, Perón was released that same day and addressed the people from the balconies
of the Casa Rosada in the evening, launching his presidential candidacy for the forthcoming elections.
Perón's First Government (1946-1951)
Perón was elected president in February 1946, winning 56% of the vote. He had the support of the
Labour Party (which was formed by the unions after the 17th October) and a faction of the Radical
party called UCR Junta Renovadora (Perón's eventual vicepresident, Hortensio Quijano, was from this
breakaway). He'd run the presidential campaign around the slogan "Braden or Perón" -where Braden
and the opposition parties centred around the Unión Democrática represented imperialism, while Perón
maintained a nationalist stance.
The period 1946-1955 marked a turning point in the economic development of the country. Up until
that point, the economy had been characterised by a model based around agricultural exports, dominated
by large landowners and a strong intervention of foreign companies-British, and increasingly from
the US. This model had started to weaken during the 1930's, but it was not until the mid-1940s that
it was replaced by what became known as "import substitution industrialisation" (ISI).
This new economic paradigm was based around the development of labour-intensive, light industry
to create jobs and produce domestic goods for the internal market. The State played an important
role in channelling income from agricultural exports to industry, raising import tariffs, and nationalising
foreign-owned companies such as the railways, gas, phone and electricity.
The political model that accompanied these economic changes was based on a class alliance between
the workers, industrial employers, the Armed Forces and the Catholic Church. However, this alliance
excluded the old landowners -"the oligarchy" -- who would become the number one enemy of the new government.
During this period, Perón's charismatic wife, Eva Perón (or "Evita" as her followers called her)
played a prominent role, and it is widely acknowledged that she was the main link between the president
and the workers' movement. Evita also had an active role in the development of womens' rights, such
as the right to vote (1947) and the equality of men and women in marriage and in the care of children
-- even fighting internal opposition to achieve these goals. The Eva Perón Foundation channelled the
social policies of the government, emphasising the concept of social justice as opposed to charity.
Evita was loved and admired by the people as much as she was derided by the opposition and by the
more conservative factions within the peronist movement, whose power and influence in government
were being diminished by her growing profile.
The new role of the State and the rights acquired during this period were articulated in a new
Constitution, adopted in 1949, which put social justice and the "general interest" at the centre
of all political and economic activities. The new constitutional text included a range of "social
rights" (the so-called second generation rights), related to workers, families, the elderly, education
and culture.
Perón's Second Government (1951-1955)
Perón was re-elected in 1951, obtaining a massive 62% of the vote (which, for the first time,
included the female voters). His second term, however, proved to be much more complicated than the
first. The day he took office, 4th June 1952, was the last public appearance of Evita, who died of
cancer the following month. The economic situation worsened, with a drop in the international price
of agricultural products and severe droughts between 1949 and 1952 affecting domestic production.
This prompted Perón to embrace austerity measures, putting the brakes on consumption and wealth
redistribution, and improving the relationship with foreign companies -- such as the Standard Oil,
which was awarded new contracts. All these measures contradicted the model that Perón himself had
implemented, and divided opinion among his followers.
In political terms, the heterogeneous support base of peronism started to disintegrate. Without
Evita, the more combative unionists and political leaders were ousted by the conservative, bureaucratic
sectors of the movement. At the same time, the relationship with the Church became increasingly frosty,
before turning into an open conflict in 1954. In addition, some members of the industrial bourgeoisie,
less favoured by the new economic reality, also started to abandon this alliance and join the ranks
of the opposition, which now included some hardline sectors in the military. All these groups united
against what was perceived as the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of the government, which
had by this point closed down several media outlets and utilised public radio, television and print
media for its own propaganda.
On the 16th June 1955, the political opposition (conservative, radicals and socialists) together
with the Navy and with the support of the Church, carried out a botched coup d'etat against Perón.
Navy planes bombed Plaza de Mayo, where a rally was taking place, killing more than 300 people. Perón's
attempt to appease the crowd failed and that very same night groups of peronist activists took to
the streets of Buenos Aires and burnt several churches.
After the failed coup, Perón tried to keep the situation under control and called for a truce
with the opposition. However on 31st August, after talks with the opposition failed, the president
hardened his position when, during a public speech, he pronounced the now famous phrase: "for each
one of us who fall, five of them will follow". Seventeen days later, on the 16th September, a new
military uprising -- led again by the Navy -- succeeded in deposing Perón, who asked for political refuge
in Paraguay and left the country on the 20th of September. It would be 17 years until he stepped
on Argentine soil again.
Contradictions and Resistance: Peronism Without Perón (1955 – 1960's)
By this time, the peronist movement was made up of a mixture of factions from different backgrounds:
socialists, catholic nationalists, anarchists, yrigoyenist radicals, and conservatives, among others.
From the beginning they co-existed in constant tension -a tension that could only be overcome by
the dominant and unifying figure of Perón.
With Perón in exile, the contradictions between all these factions bubbled to the surface. In
a country now deeply divided by the peronism/anti-peronism dichotomy, new divisions started to emerge
within the peronist side. These would not only mark the evolution of the peronist movement, but would
also play a major role in Argentina's political life to this day. Perón's legendary pragmatism and
political ability became very evident during these years, as even in exile he managed to mantain
an important level of control over the situation, playing the different factions to his advantage.
Two months after the coup, the liberal faction of the self-proclaimed "Liberating Revolution"
took over the government and started a process of "de-peronisation". This involved dissolving the
peronist party and banning any of its members from running for public office, banning the display
of all the peronist symbols and any mention of the names of Perón or Evita, intervening in the CGT,
and proscribing the unions' old leadership. The persecution of the CGT leaders and the weakening
of the peronist unions left many workers once again unprotected and exposed to the abuses of some
employers.
It was in this context that the Peronist Resistance was born-an inorganic protest movement that
carried out clandestine actions of sabotage (ranging from breaking machinery at the workplace to
placing home-made bombs). The Resistance was an expression of the grassroots of the peronism: the
workers who wanted their leader back and were fighting to protect the legacy of his government.
One of the main organisers of the Resistance was John William Cooke, a left-wing peronist deputy
who had been named by Perón as his personal representative whilst in exile. In 1956, peronist General
Juan José Valle led an unsuccessful uprising against the government, which ended up with 30 people
-- many of them civilians -- executed. The violent suppression of the uprising caused Perón and the Resistance
to abandon the idea of armed struggle and focus on reorganising the unions.
If Trump secures the Republican nomination, now an increasingly imaginable prospect, the party
is likely to implode. Whatever rump organization survives will have forfeited any remaining claim
to represent principled conservatism.
None of this will matter to Trump, however. He is no conservative and Trump_vs_deep_state requires no party.
Even if some new institutional alternative to conventional liberalism eventually emerges, the two-party
system that has long defined the landscape of American politics will be gone for good.
Should Trump or a Trump mini-me ultimately succeed in capturing the presidency, a possibility
that can no longer be dismissed out of hand, the effects will be even more profound. In all but name,
the United States will cease to be a constitutional republic. Once President Trump inevitably declares
that he alone expresses the popular will, Americans will find that they have traded the rule of law
for a version of caudillismo. Trump's Washington could come to resemble Buenos Aires in
the days of Juan Perón, with Melania a suitably glamorous stand-in for Evita, and plebiscites suitably
glamorous stand-ins for elections.
That a considerable number of Americans appear to welcome this prospect may seem inexplicable.
Yet reason enough exists for their disenchantment. American democracy has been decaying for decades.
The people know that they are no longer truly sovereign. They know that the apparatus of power, both
public and private, does not promote the common good, itself a concept that has become obsolete.
They have had their fill of irresponsibility, lack of accountability, incompetence, and the bad times
that increasingly seem to go with them.
So in disturbingly large numbers they have turned to Trump to strip bare the body politic, willing
to take a chance that he will come up with something that, if not better, will at least be more entertaining.
As Argentines and others who have trusted their fate to demagogues have discovered, such expectations
are doomed to disappointment.
In the meantime, just imagine how the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library, no doubt taller than
all the others put together, might one day glitter and glisten -- perhaps with casino attached.
"... That assumption, he says, may stem from the sense of status that comes from being in academe. The idea that "if you're in this room, you're an elite - so you're not going to respond to things like trade policy and illegal immigration because these things largely don't affect you." ..."
"... The academics who support Mr. Trump acknowledge that many of his ideas are dangerous. Outweighing that concern is the conviction that something has to change, and that there's no better alternative than a Trump presidency. ..."
"... Compounding their support for the billionaire is a lack of other options. Mr. Van Horn says he would be open to voting for a Democrat, but he thinks the proposals of the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders are unrealistic. As for Hillary Clinton, he neither likes her nor trusts her. (When confronted with the fact that he also says he neither likes nor trusts Mr. Trump, Mr. Van Horn says the former secretary of state is more likely to be beholden to a "very narrow set of society.") ..."
"... But two and a half years into the program, he has found that some academics can be even more closed-minded than people he grew up with. "I was this very liberal person where I was from, and then I come out here and they're all very, very liberal, and they're all very, very rigid." ..."
"... And in political science, where this year's election is particularly relevant, the popular treatment of the Trump candidacy as a joke has made Mr. Van Horn wonder about the costs to scholarship: "How can you do objective scholarly research? You don't even treat American voters as people who are qualified to cast a ballot." ..."
"... Mr. Van Horn still loves studying political science, and he still wants to be a professor. But he watches what he says, and he's more cynical about higher education. "It's a very closed community," he says. "It's like the smallest town in the world." ..."
Conventional wisdom says poorly educated voters have fueled Mr. Trump's improbable rise. "I love
the poorly educated,"
he proclaimed after winning Nevada's primary last month (though he also boasted of winning the
votes of the well educated). "The single best predictor of Trump support in the GOP primary is the
absence of a college degree,"
wrote Derek Thompson in
The Atlantic this month.
In academe - where professionals can have three, four, five degrees - Trump supporters may be
hard to find. But they're out there.
Like many people, Joseph Van Horn first treated Mr. Trump's candidacy as a joke. But as more-traditional
candidates failed to outpace the billionaire, Mr. Van Horn, a Ph.D. student in political science
at the University of California at Los Angeles, listened more closely.
What he heard excited him - among other things, that Mr. Trump was willing to talk about narrow
policy proposals rather than harp on conservative social issues. That willingness, coupled with his
lack of attachment to the political establishment, made Mr. Van Horn think, "When's the last time
I heard a candidate and thought, 'That could really happen'?"
Mr. Van Horn doesn't like Donald Trump personally. And he doesn't find him all that trustworthy.
"I wouldn't give him the key to my apartment," he says. But he's excited about the Trump movement,
particularly how it has spurred higher turnout and more engagement with the election.
When he brings up that sense of excitement in an academic setting, however, he gets shut down,
he says. "I was kind of shocked at how staunchly anti-Trump people are," he says. Many of his peers
are willing to issue a blanket condemnation of Mr. Trump's candidacy as racist and nativist, Mr.
Van Horn says, but "shouting 'racists' and 'bigots' and 'he's Hitler' is just not productive."
"The reaction of everyone in the audience was, you know, chuckling, the implication being that no
one in this room could possibly take Trump seriously."
It's not as if those terms are not warranted at times. Mr. Trump has been shocking and crass,
suggesting, for example, that Mexican immigrants are responsible for widespread rape. "He's certainly
playing to people's prejudices," Mr. Van Horn says, adding that he doesn't share those prejudices.
He hates the proposal to bar Muslims from entering the country ("I think it's really shameful that
we have Muslims in the armed forces that have to listen to this stuff") but thinks such extreme proposals
are unlikely to become policy.
Sharp rhetoric aside, he says, shouldn't a political-science department be willing to take seriously
the merits of a formidable political movement? Mr. Van Horn says the popular dismissal of the Trump
campaign has been disheartening and reflective of a broader bias against right-leaning ideas.
Linda Grochowalski, a Trump supporter who teaches English part time at Assumption College and
Quinsigamond Community College, in Worcester, Mass., encountered that bias once upon moving into
a new office. A previous occupant's poster still hung on the back of the door.
"It essentially said, You have to be pretty stupid to vote for a Republican," she says. "I guess
the writing's on the wall, or the door."
That bias manifests itself in large groups, too. Mr. Calautti recalls attending a colloquium on
civility in public discourse at which the speaker used as an example of uncivil discourse - surprise!
- Mr. Trump's performance in the Republican debates. "The reaction of everyone in the audience was,
you know, chuckling," he says, "the implication being that no one in this room could possibly take
Trump seriously."
That assumption, he says, may stem from the sense of status that comes from being in academe.
The idea that "if you're in this room, you're an elite - so you're not going to respond to things
like trade policy and illegal immigration because these things largely don't affect you."
Gina Marcello, an assistant professor of communication at Georgian Court University, in New Jersey,
says she hasn't often heard the election come up as a topic of conversation on her campus. "If it
does come up," she says, "it's dismissive of Donald Trump." The subtext, which helps prevent her
from talking politics with her colleagues, comes through loud and clear: "You'd have to be out of
your mind to support a Trump candidacy."
Why Trump?
The academics who support Mr. Trump acknowledge that many of his ideas are dangerous. Outweighing
that concern is the conviction that something has to change, and that there's no better alternative
than a Trump presidency.
Ms. Grochowalski says eight years of the Obama administration left her with $8,000 in medical
bills. The Affordable Care Act, she says, forced her and her husband off their preferred health-insurance
plan. And she's been disturbed by President Obama's use of executive orders to bypass Congress.
Ms. Grochowalski, who worked as a marketing and communications director in the private sector,
acknowledges that Mr. Trump lacks experience in public office. But she trusts that he would surround
himself with smart people because of his business experience.
His lack of political experience could be an asset, Ms. Marcello says, enabling him to appoint
the "very best people" to advise him instead of bestowing political patronage.
Compounding their support for the billionaire is a lack of other options. Mr. Van Horn says he
would be open to voting for a Democrat, but he thinks the proposals of the Vermont senator Bernie
Sanders are unrealistic. As for Hillary Clinton, he neither likes her nor trusts her. (When confronted
with the fact that he also says he neither likes nor trusts Mr. Trump, Mr. Van Horn says the former
secretary of state is more likely to be beholden to a "very narrow set of society.")
As for those of Mr. Trump's ideas that Ms. Grochowalski calls "pretty outrageous," legal and constitutional
checks are there to stymie any truly devastating plans, she says. "He probably can't do 30 percent
of them, even if he wanted to."
'The Smallest Town'
For Mr. Van Horn, academe's reaction to the Trump candidacy has been a particularly disappointing
sign of a larger problem. The 29-year-old grew up in Louisville, Ky., which he calls a "small city in the South." He enrolled
in the University of Kentucky when he was 18, but struggled and dropped out after two years. He then became an electrician, but after a few years of doing that, he wasn't satisfied. "You
can always make a lot of money as an electrician, but learning about the world is something different,"
he says.
"I was this very liberal person where I was from, and then I come out here and they're all very,
very liberal, and they're all very, very rigid."
So he returned to school, finishing his undergraduate education at Indiana University-Southeast.
He then applied to the political-science program at UCLA. He was over the moon about getting to follow
his passion for a living - and to broaden his horizons beyond what his upbringing had restricted
him to.
But two and a half years into the program, he has found that some academics can be even more closed-minded
than people he grew up with. "I was this very liberal person where I was from, and then I come out
here and they're all very, very liberal, and they're all very, very rigid."
And in political science, where this year's election is particularly relevant, the popular treatment
of the Trump candidacy as a joke has made Mr. Van Horn wonder about the costs to scholarship: "How
can you do objective scholarly research? You don't even treat American voters as people who are qualified
to cast a ballot."
Mr. Van Horn still loves studying political science, and he still wants to be a professor. But
he watches what he says, and he's more cynical about higher education. "It's a very closed community," he says. "It's like the smallest town in the world."
"... "Sanders is not just a 'lesser evil'. His proposals and policies are good In addition, Sanders seeks to change the current electoral process based on money coming from corporations, political action committees and wealthy individuals. Changing this system is the first step...." ..."
"... The November election will be a referendum on the neolibcon establishment in the U.S. as much as the Brexit vote was for the EU. The Brexit vote showed that people are so fed up that they aren't listening to establishment fear-mongering. ..."
"... No matter how Democratic Party loyalists try to spin it, the blame for a Trump win will fall on the corrupt Democratic Party establishment. It is no accident that the vast majority of Super-delegates have steadfastly stood by Hillary, warts and all. ..."
"... Bernie the sheepdog has failed his movement but the Greens and true progressives will continue. ..."
"... It says a great deal about both Warren and the Democratic Party, in which she is the most high-profile "left" politician, that she never endorsed Bernie and has now enthusiastically endorsed Hillary. It would not be a stretch to say that had Warren endorsed and campaigned for Sanders, it could well have been the difference needed to defeat Clinton in the primary. But she did not. ..."
"... Because of course the problem is much larger than just Warren, Clinton, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz. At the heart of the matter is a political party that is thoroughly undemocratic and corrupt to its very core – one that answers to Wall Street, not working people. It's the second most pro-capitalist party in the world, after the Republican Party. ..."
"... Yes it is the Washington Post, but the point stands: it is a strange place for a 'revolutionary' to deliver his message. Unless that message is one of capitulation (it is) . ..."
Seems you mean the Washington Post, not the WSJ.
Alternet seems to like it.
"What do we want? We want to end the rapid movement that we are currently experiencing toward
oligarchic control of our economic and political life," Sanders concluded. "As Lincoln put it
at Gettysburg, we want a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is what
we want, and that is what we will continue fighting for."
rufus magister | Jun 24, 2016 8:02:34 AM |
86 rufus magister | Jun 25, 2016 9:11:21 AM |
94
This post at
Countepunch takes on the "dog" analogy, arguing that "Sanders is not just a 'lesser evil'.
His proposals and policies are good In addition, Sanders seeks to change the current electoral
process based on money coming from corporations, political action committees and wealthy individuals.
Changing this system is the first step...."
There are any number of arguments that Sanders has changed and will continue to change the
political dyanmics. More and in a different direction might be nice. But after decades of neo-liberal
assaults on the working class, let's not have the best be the enemy of the good.
Sanders' meteoric rise is evidence that unabashed progressive politics is an effective antidote
to the far-right xenophobia on the rise across the developed world. "Every time we have a spasm
of capitalism, whether this is the 1930s or now, the seeds of vulgar ultra-right-wingness sprout
into a very ugly tree," Varoufakis said....
"I am very impressed by his capacity to rise from almost complete marginality to the center
of the debate," Varoufakis continued. "And if you look at the discussion he has invigorated,
or reinvigorated, in the Democratic Party, that just goes to show that it is perfectly possible
to excite young people....
Yeah, he botched with Syriza in Greece. But he was principled enough to resign and move on
politically. I don't know with what sort of success his proposed organization met.
Alternet offers a handy list of things Sanders has already changed about American politics.
I particulary note points 5 and 6, on princples and issues, but the author notes he has brought
progressives together, shown popularly-funded campaigns to be viable, and made socialism respectable.
"Not too shabby."
Politics isn't for the meek, but it doesn't have to be all mud all the time like the GOP's
nominating contest, and Sanders has shown that in state after state....
The passion and public purpose of his campaign has struck deep and wide notes precisely
because of that. More than anything, Sanders has reminded vast swaths of the country that his
democratic socialist agenda is exactly what they want America to be-a fairer and more dignified,
tolerant, responsible and conscientious country.
I have previously noted, the consensus amongst the pundit class is that Sanders is a principled
politician. The conduct of his campaign reflects these principles. I do not agree with them, but
I respect that he has been consistent in their application throughout his political career.
Ah, but "what is to be done" with all of the passion aroused? Sanders clearly intends to keep
the pressure on within the Democratic Party. Though doubtless, it will not all remain there.
I keep hearing that "things" are different, post-Occupy, etc., and that some sort of Green/Libertarian/Trump
miracle is possible. It is also possible, and historically conditioned, that these pressures will
in fact push the Democrats to the left.
This would be good, in and for the short-term. Revolutionary change takes patient work,
especially in early stages. We're quite a "Long March" away, and these are useful baby-steps.
So this whole notion that but the hopes of the masses and left wing of the Democratic Party,
we'd have our Utopia by now, us a cheap alibi as to why the divided left
(as "b" very accurately describes) can't make any headway, even after the economy nearly repeated
the Great Depression.
The nerve of those damn proles, hoping for short-term improvement! What about the intersectionality?
You know, I don't think "Suck it up and butch it out 'til after The Revolution, you ignorant,
evil, unenlightened over-privileged sell-outs" is really that attractive as politics. Maybe that
overstates this argument, but probably not too much. "The Greens know that someone is in the
buff but the Sanders gang has yet to catch on that their emperor has no clothes" does strike a
rather condescending tone, sure to win friends and influence people.
Somewhat at odds with the next paragraph, though. But is topic is the "Green Machine."
Second, and more importantly, Marsh has left out a key point in his analysis. The Greens just
passed a major benchmark to gain federal funding.
Your dismissing of 'collusion' for lack of a smoking gun ignores much circumstantial evidence:
> Sanders has been a Democrat for many years in all but name;
- he has an arrangement with the Democratic Party whereby he runs in Vermont Democratic
Primaries but will not accept the Democratic nomination and the Democratic Party will not
fund candidates that oppose him;
- Obama campaigned for him, Schumer and Reid endorsed him, he calls Hillary "a friend",
etc.
> He pulled punches in his campaign - refusing to attack Hillary or Obama on issues that
could've made a big difference for his campaign, like:
- when Hillary defended taking money by pointing to Obama who has clearly been pro-Wall
Street;
- Obama's record on the economy and black issues (Obama's support has helped Hillary
to win over blacks) ;
- his slowness to criticize Hillary-DNC collusion;
- on Hillary's emails after the State Dept IG report;
- he all but endorsed Hillary from the start.
The November election will be a referendum on the neolibcon establishment in the U.S. as much
as the Brexit vote was for the EU. The Brexit vote showed that people are so fed up that they
aren't listening to establishment fear-mongering.
No matter how Democratic Party loyalists try to spin it, the blame for a Trump win will
fall on the corrupt Democratic Party establishment. It is no accident that the vast majority of
Super-delegates have steadfastly stood by Hillary, warts and all.
If Bernie refuses to break from the Democratic Party, our movement should back Jill Stein
as the strongest left alternative in the presidential election ... Stein deserves the strongest
possible support from Sandernistas .... With Bernie stepping out of the race, and likely
endorsing Clinton, it will be up to us to continue the political revolution and to stand up
against both Clintonism and Trump_vs_deep_state.
And drives home the point with:
It says a great deal about both Warren and the Democratic Party, in which she is the most
high-profile "left" politician, that she never endorsed Bernie and has now enthusiastically
endorsed Hillary. It would not be a stretch to say that had Warren endorsed and campaigned
for Sanders, it could well have been the difference needed to defeat Clinton in the primary.
But she did not.
It says a great deal about the whole of the Democratic Party leadership – which claims that
its key priority is to defeat Trump – that it has fiercely backed Clinton in spite of the fact
that the polls have shown Sanders to be the far stronger candidate in every matchup.
Because of course the problem is much larger than just Warren, Clinton, or Debbie Wasserman
Schultz. At the heart of the matter is a political party that is thoroughly undemocratic and
corrupt to its very core – one that answers to Wall Street, not working people. It's the second
most pro-capitalist party in the world, after the Republican Party.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
@86 Yes it is the Washington Post, but the point stands: it is a strange place for a 'revolutionary'
to deliver his message. Unless that message is one of capitulation (it is) .
While Trump's proposed blanket ban on Muslim travelers is both constitutionally and ethically
wrongheaded and, in my opinion, potentially damaging to broader U.S. interests, his related
demand to temporarily stop travel or immigration from some core countries that have serious
problems with militancy is actually quite sensible. This is because the United States has only a
limited ability to vet people from those countries. The Obama administration claims it is
rigorously screening travelers and immigrants-but it has provided little to no evidence that its
procedures are effective.
The first step in travel limitation is to define the problem. While it is popular in Congress and
the media to focus on countries like Iran, nationals of such countries do not constitute a
serious threat. Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iranians, have characteristically not staged
suicide attacks, nor do they as a group directly threaten American or Western interests. The
Salafist organizations with international appeal and global reach are all Sunni Muslim. In fact,
al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, and al-Nusra all self-define as Sunni Muslim and regard Shi'as as
heretics. Most of the foot soldiers who do the fighting and dying for the terrorist groups and
their affiliates are Sunnis who come from Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and
Somalia, and even the homegrown Europeans and Americans who join their ranks are Sunni.
It is no coincidence that the handful of Muslim countries that harbor active insurgencies have
also been on the receiving end of U.S. military interventions, which generate demands for revenge
against the West and the U.S. in particular. They would be the countries to monitor most closely
for militants seeking to travel. All of them represent launching pads for potential attacks, and
it should be assumed that groups like ISIS would be delighted to infiltrate refugee and immigrant
groups.
U.S. embassies and consulates overseas are the choke points for those potential terrorists.
Having myself worked the visa lines in consulates overseas, I understand just how difficult it is
to be fair to honest travelers while weeding out those whose intentions are less honorable. At
the consulate, an initial screening based on name and birth date determines whether an applicant
is on any no-fly or terrorism-associate lists. Anyone coming up is automatically denied, but the
lists include a great deal of inaccurate information, so they probably "catch" more innocent
people than they do actual would-be terrorists. Individuals who have traveled to Iran, Iraq,
Sudan, or Syria since 2011, or who are citizens of those countries, are also selected out for
additional review.
For visitors who pass the initial screening and who do not come from one of the 38 "visa waiver"
countries, mostly in Europe, the next step is the visitor's visa, called a B-2. At that point,
the consulate's objective is to determine whether the potential traveler has a good reason to
visit the U.S., has the resources to pay for the trip, and is likely to return home before the
visa expires. The process seeks to establish that the applicant has sufficient equity in his or
her home country to guarantee returning to it, a recognition of the fact that most visa fraud
relates to overstaying one's visit to disappear into the unregistered labor market in the U.S.
The process is document-driven, with the applicants presenting evidence of bank accounts,
employment, family ties, and equity like homeownership. Sometimes letters of recommendation from
local business leaders or politicians might also become elements in the decision.
"... "It's either you stick with the establishment or you go for change. People want change. A guy like Donald Trump, he's pushing for change." ..."
"... The blue-collar counties of western Pennsylvania have largely swung Republican as unions have grown weaker and evangelical churches stronger. Despite overwhelmingly endorsing Hillary Clinton, labor unions face a big challenge with frustrated workers like Mr. Haines. That many white male union members are embracing Mr. Trump doesn't necessarily mean overall union membership is moving right, however. In recent years, as unions have organized more government employees and low-wage workers, the percentage of union members who are black, Hispanic or female has risen - and those groups are solidly anti-Trump. ..."
"... The A.F.L.-C.I.O. has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, calling her "an unstoppable champion for working families" while dismissing Mr. Trump as "an unstable charlatan who made his fortune scamming them." ..."
"... On Tuesday, Mr. Trump spoke to applauding workers at a scrap-metal plant in Westmoreland County. He denounced "failed trade policies," saying he would renegotiate Nafta and scrap the proposed Trans-Pacific trade deal. He also borrowed Mr. Sanders's arguments to attack Mrs. Clinton from the left, saying she "voted for virtually every trade agreement." He added that she has betrayed American workers in favor of "Wall Street throughout her career." ..."
"... Mike Podhorzer, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s political director, estimated that around one-third of union members back Mr. Trump. ..."
"... ...some voters are reluctantly backing Mr. Trump simply out of frustration with the status quo. "We need someone who will say things are wrong and will push hard to fix them," said Paul Myers, a 50-year-old steelworker. "Trump might be lying about bringing jobs back, but at least he'll try to." ..."
Greensburg, Pa. - THIS faded mining town east of Pittsburgh seems right out of "The Deer
Hunter," one of many blue-collar, gun-loving communities that dot western Pennsylvania. For
Donald J. Trump, such largely white, working-class towns are crucial to his hopes in the
presidential campaign - and that's one reason he campaigned in this region on Tuesday. By rolling
up large enough margins in former industrial strongholds like Greensburg - not just in
Pennsylvania, but also in Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin - he might offset expected losses in
cities like Philadelphia, Detroit and Cleveland, enabling him to capture those pivotal states.
Mr. Trump's "Make America Great Again" message resonates with many of this region's workers,
whose wages - and hopes - have been tugged downward by the abandoned steel mills and coal mines.
Take Dennis Haines, 57, thrown out of work in January when the printing plant where he worked for
30 years closed. Mr. Haines, a member of the machinists union, said: "It's either you stick
with the establishment or you go for change. People want change. A guy like Donald Trump, he's
pushing for change."
... ... ...
The blue-collar counties of western Pennsylvania have largely swung Republican as unions
have grown weaker and evangelical churches stronger. Despite overwhelmingly endorsing Hillary
Clinton, labor unions face a big challenge with frustrated workers like Mr. Haines.
That many white male union members are embracing Mr. Trump doesn't necessarily mean overall union
membership is moving right, however. In recent years, as unions have organized more government
employees and low-wage workers, the percentage of union members who are black, Hispanic or female
has risen - and those groups are solidly anti-Trump.
... ... ...
The A.F.L.-C.I.O. has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, calling her "an unstoppable champion for
working families" while dismissing Mr. Trump as "an unstable charlatan who made his fortune
scamming them."
... ... ...
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump spoke to applauding workers at a scrap-metal plant in Westmoreland
County. He denounced "failed trade policies," saying he would renegotiate Nafta and scrap the
proposed Trans-Pacific trade deal. He also borrowed Mr. Sanders's arguments to attack Mrs.
Clinton from the left, saying she "voted for virtually every trade agreement." He added that she
has betrayed American workers in favor of "Wall Street throughout her career."
Late this
summer, unions will mobilize a nationwide campaign to knock on doors, mail out pro-Clinton
literature and speak to members at their workplaces.
Tim
Waters, the political director of the United Steelworkers, said his Pittsburgh-based union will
warn its members that Mr. Trump isn't pro-worker: "He's a wolf in sheep's clothing."
Unions
have compiled a long list of objections to Mr. Trump. In one debate, he said wages were too high.
Many workers have sued his companies for cheating them on wages. His Las Vegas hotel is battling
unionization.
"Every
opportunity he's had to help American workers or American jobs, he did the opposite," Mr. Waters
said. "He has had Trump-brand suits, shirts and ties made in Bangladesh, China and Honduras,
everywhere but the U.S. He has imported workers to work at his facilities in Florida."
Mike
Podhorzer, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s political director, estimated that around one-third of union
members back Mr. Trump.
...
... ...
...some voters are reluctantly backing Mr. Trump simply out of frustration with the status quo.
"We need someone who will say things are wrong and will push hard to fix them," said Paul Myers,
a 50-year-old steelworker. "Trump might be lying about bringing jobs back, but at least he'll try
to."
Because coverage for Trump, as with Sanders, has been vile piece of
jobbery by our Acela-rising
press
scorps, I'm going to quote great slabs from Trump's remarks. I'll briefly compare
and contrast what the press said to what Trump's words were. I may add brief commentary
of my own. I'm not going to quote the whole speech. Instead, I'm going to quote
three topic areas[2] from his
prepared remarks. (The transcript of the speech
as delivered, sadly in ALL CAPS,
is here). The topics:
Diversity and Multiculturalism
Blowback
War and Peace
So let's look at what Trump has to say;
1. Diversity and Multiculturalism
After calling for a moment of silence, Trump says[3] this:
TRUMP: Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's
LGBT Community.
This is a very dark moment in America's history.
A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted
to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because
of their sexual orientation.
It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation.
It is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love
who they want and express their identity.
It is an attack on the right of every single American to live in peace and
safety in their own country.
We need to respond to this attack on America as one united people – with
force, purpose and determination.
Let's put aside the question of sincerity: that would require us to treat whatever
Manafort and Stone have cooked up, versus whatever Clinton's focus groups have
emitted, as commensurate; but that's not possible. Let's focus on the fact that
Trump, remarkably for a Conservative Republican, puts "solidarity" (!!!) with "the
members of Orlando's LGBT Community" up front, and treats the ability of people
to "love who they want" at "the heart and soul of who we are as a nation." That's
what we used to call, back in the day at Kos,
performative speech; it changes who the Republicans are as a party by virtue
of having been said.[4] Now, politically I'd guess that Trump won't be winning
a lot of votes in the LGBT community over this any time soon, let alone turning
around
his unfavorables. I'd also guess there will be real, and more subtle, effects:
Trump is disempowering certain Republican factions (especially the "Christian"
right, proven losers), and empowering his own base not to act hatefully
toward gays (and if you believe that Trump voters are authoritarian followers,
that's important)[5].
That said, it's quite remarkable to hear the presumptive nominee of the Republican
Party say that he "stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's
LGBT Community." I'd even go so far as to say it's newsworthy.
WaPo did;
Bloomberg did; the conservative hive mind managed to emit
a "viral" pro-Trump letter by an anonymous gay person; but Times stenographers
Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, in an Op-Ed somehow misfiled as reporting,
omit to mention this portion of the speech altogether. Sad!
More seriously,
Dylann Matthews of Vox does real reporting, connecting Trump ideologically
to the European right, starting with the Netherlands' Pim Fortuyn, gay himself,
who combined support for LGBT rights with a blanket ban on Muslim immigration,
and moving on through Marine LePen, concluding that Trump's support is "a smokescreen
through which to advocate anti-Muslim policies."
But Fortuyn was open about his support of gay rights; and open about banning
Muslim immigration, so isn't "smokescreen" itself a smokescreen, begging the question?
What Matthews really seems to mean is that Fortuyn's support for LGBT
rights is incompatible with Fortuyn's support for banning Muslim immigration. Empirically,
that doesn't seem to be the case; Matthews certainly doesn't document any decrease
in LGBT rights after Fortuyn's rise. So where is the incompatibility? At this point,
we note that Trump shares, with Clinton's liberals, and apparently with Fortuyn,
although not with the left, the idea that to "express identity" is the essence
of a "free people." Speculating freely, we might imagine that Matthews believes
that Muslims, like LGBT people, must also to be free to express their
identities, and that to prevent them from doing so is "Islamophobia," along the
lines of homophobia.
Here identity politics founders on its own contradictions, as identities clash
on both values and interests; identities cannot all be silo-ed in their own "safe
spaces." For example, immigration, like globalization, creates public goods but
has economic costs that some classes disportionately bear, and economic benefits
that some classes disproportionately accrue, as blue collar workers know but professional
economists are only belatedly discovering. Does the expression of identity trump
those costs? Why? And whose identity? One does not sense, for example, that liberals
are fired with concern for heartlanders who identify as Christians (unless Christians
serve a geopolitical purpose in faraway Syria), or with men who identify as gunowners.
So if what liberals (and conservatives) mean by identity politics is really just
power politics and the upward distribution of wealth, straight up, that's fine
and clarifying, but wasn't the alpha and omega supposed to be justice? Even love?
Of course, by now we are far afield from Trump; but as far as accepting LGBT
people as fully human, can't liberals take yes for an answer?
2. Blowback
Trump says:
America must do more – much more – to protect its citizens, especially people
who are potential victims of crimes based on their backgrounds or sexual orientations.
It also means we must change our foreign policy.
The decision to overthrow the regime in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow
of the regime in Syria, among other things, without plans for the day after,
have created space for ISIS to expand and grow.
These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our
ability to work in partnership with our Muslim allies in the region.
For instance, the last major NATO mission was Hillary Clinton's war in Libya.
That mission helped unleash ISIS on a new continent.
(I think the Iran deal is one of the few good things that Obama has done.) Trump
is describing what
Chalmers Johnson called "blowback." Isn't it remarkable the Trump is the only
candidate - including, AFAIK, Sanders - who's even mentioning it? (See here for
Clinton's pivotal role in promoting the LIbya debacle in the Obama administration.)
And if you want a good view into the heart of the foreign policy establishment,
try the Foreign Policy podcast.
They think Obama was weak because
he didn't put "boots on the ground" in Syria; they love Clinton because they think
she'll be "muscular"; and they hate Trump, and think hes's a lunatic. Well, what's
more lunatic then setting the Mediterranean littoral on fire, and provoking a refugee
crisis in the European Union? Moar blowback, anyone?
3. War and Peace
With respect to a military response to "radical Islamism," the difference between
Trump and Clinton can be summed up most effectively in the form of a table. (I've
taken
Clinton's words from this transcript.)
Figure 1: Recommended Military Action Against "Radical Islam"
Trump
Clinton
The attack in Orlando makes it even more clear: we cannot contain
this threat – we must defeat it.
The good news is that the coalition
effort in Syria and Iraq has made real gains in recent months.
So we should keep the pressure on ramping up the air campaign,
accelerating support for
our friends fighting to take and hold ground, and pushing our partners
in the region to do even more.
(Clinton's speech was
delivered at a Cleveland company that makes military helmets. Military Keynesianism,
anyone?)
AP [***cough***] labels Trump's speech as "aggressive," by contrast to Clinton's,
without mentioning (a) that Trump is conscious of blowback and (b) only Clinton
recommends airstrikes and an "accelerated" ground war; ditto
Politico; ditto
The Economist.
WaPo, omitting the same two points, labels Clinton as "sober." I guess a couple
three more
Friedman Units should do it…
Conclusion
Just as a troll prophylactic, let me say that this post is not an endorsement
of any candidate (not even
Sanders, who snagged an F-35 base for Vermont). I'm not sure how to balance
charges of racism, fascism, and corruption in the context of identity politics,
when clearly all three are systemic, interact with each other, and must be owned
by all (both) candidates. (Do the bodies of people of color char differently because
they are far away? Doesn't a
"disposition matrix" sound like something
Adolf Eichmann might devise?)
Rather, this post is a plea for citizens to "do their own research"[6] and listen
to what the candidates actually say, put that in context, and try to understand.
The press, with a few honorable exceptions, seems to be gripped by the same "madness
of crowds" that gripped them in 2008 (except for Obama, against Clinton) or in
2002-2003 (for WMDs, and for the Iraq War). Only in that way can we hope to hold
candidates accountable.
APPENDIX I
Some brief remarks on Trump's advance work:
1) Trump still needs practice with his teleprompter;
2) The mike was picking up Trump's breathing;
3) The staging looks like Dukakis (that is, provincial). It should look like
Reagan (national);
4) Trump's website is simple and easy to use and looks like it was designed
for a normal person, not a laid-off
site developer. However, it looks low budget. Hmm.
APPENDIX II
Here's why I skipped Trump on guns and the NRA. To frame this in partisan terms:
From Democrats, what I consider to be a rational policy on guns -
taxing gun owners for the externalities of gun ownership combined with Darwin
Awards over time, and ridicule - is not on offer, so it's foolish to waste time
with whatever ineffective palliative they propose, especially while they continue
to take money from private equity firms that own gun manufacturers, and arrange
overseas contracts for those same manufacturers. As for Republicans, it's impossible
to see how the country could be more awash in guns than it already is. So if you
want to argue about guns, don't do it here. There's plenty of opportunity in both
Links and Water Cooler.
[2] Except for Section 3, "War and Peace," I'm not going to compare Clinton's
foreign policy speech today to this speech by Trump, because I've analyzed several
Clinton speeches already, and presumably NC readers already know how to parse her.
[3] I'm not going to analyze Trump's rhetoric in in this post, but note the
anaphora: "It is… It is.. It is…." Notice also
the simple, declarative sentences, which Trump uses very effectively as hammer
blows; the most complicated sentence we get in this passage is the parallel construction
of "not only because… not because." And note the sound patterning from the sentence
containing that phrase, gutturals like gunfire: "A radical Islamic
terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because
he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute
gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation."
Whoever Trump hired to write his speeches, they're doing an excellent, and unobtrusive,
job.
[4] That's not to give the parties, let alone Trump, credit; they follow and
don't lead. LGBT people led, in particular the now almost erased ACT-UP, with its
non-violent direct action.
[5] And if you're extremely cynical, you might see Trump as posthumously rehabilitating
Roy Cohn. But today is my day to be kind.
[6] See
PBS,
CBS, and *** cough ***
AP on fact-checking. Sometimes, of course, facts are "facts"; more importantly:
WANTED: CEO
Must be detail oriented
Said no search firm ever.
Which is better: The candidate who gets the big picture right, and details wrong,
or the candidate who's great with detail, and bounces from one clstrfck to another?
You tell me.
The third-party nominee Gary Johnson believes former Republican candidates for president, Jeb
Bush and Lindsey Graham among them, will defect at the polls this November rather than vote for
Donald Trump. He expects they'll vote Libertarian instead.
"When it's all said and done, they'll pull the Johnson-Weld lever because it's a real choice,"
the former governor of New Mexico told the Guardian in a wide-ranging interview this week.
Johnson said he founded his prediction "on instinct", but that he was confident that he had
high-profile Republican votes – "whether they say so or not is another story".
Johnson may already have at least one Republican leader knocking on his door. Mitt Romney, the
party's 2012 nominee, told CNN on Friday that he was considering casting his lot with the
Libertarians.
"If Bill Weld were at the top of the ticket, it would be very easy for me to vote for Bill Weld
for president," he said. Weld is Johnson's running mate and preceded Romney as governor of
Massachusetts.
Johnson, who is at 12% in a recent national poll, hopes that by winning voters disaffected by
Trump and Hillary Clinton, he can establish his party as a political force to be reckoned with.
In particular, Johnson insisted that he is a fit for supporters of a Democrat – the Vermont
senator Bernie Sanders – who may be less than enthused about Clinton's nomination for the party.
He cited an online quiz in which he sided with the Vermont senator 73% of the time, adding:
"We're on the same page when it comes to people and their choices."
"Legalizing marijuana, military intervention and that crony capitalism is alive and well," he
said, rattling off issues of concern that he and the progressive Sanders share. "People with
money are able to pay for privilege, and they buy it."
"... The position Trump is now taking on Libya is not that different from the one that liberal hawks took when the Iraq war started to go badly. They wanted "credit" for supporting regime change and war, but also wanted to be able to second-guess how Bush managed the war. So once things started going wrong, they said they favored invading but disagreed with the way Bush had gone about it. Ritual paeans to the importance of multilateralism usually followed. That put them in the rather absurd spot of attacking Bush for mishandling the illegal, unnecessary war that he started, as if it would have been all right if it had just been managed more competently. ..."
"... This sort of criticism, like Trump's complaint about Libya, takes for granted that there was nothing inherently destabilizing and dangerous in overthrowing a foreign government that better management couldn't have fixed. That misses the crucial point that forcible regime change and its consequences can't be "managed" successfully because so many of its effects are out of the control of the intervening government(s) and some can't be anticipated in advance. ..."
comments on Trump's latest position on the Libyan war:
I'm sure the Libya hawks in the Hillary camp would also prefer a timeline
where their war went off without any bad bits. But if Trump has any ideas
about how the Pentagon could have "take[n] out Qaddafi and his group" without
creating a situation where Libya is "not even a country anymore," he didn't
share them. Instead he's basically saying I'm for a Libya war that worked
out better, without Benghazi and all that. Which is a bit like saying The
Iraq war was a great idea, except for the insurgency or Going into Vietnam
was wise, as long as we could've had a quick victory.
The position Trump is now taking on Libya is not that different from the
one that liberal hawks took when the Iraq war started to go badly. They wanted
"credit" for supporting regime change and war, but also wanted to be able to
second-guess how Bush managed the war. So once things started going wrong, they
said they favored invading but disagreed with the way Bush had gone about it.
Ritual paeans to the importance of multilateralism usually followed. That put
them in the rather absurd spot of attacking Bush for mishandling the illegal,
unnecessary war that he started, as if it would have been all right if it had
just been managed more competently.
This sort of criticism, like Trump's complaint about Libya, takes for granted
that there was nothing inherently destabilizing and dangerous in overthrowing
a foreign government that better management couldn't have fixed. That misses
the crucial point that forcible regime change and its consequences can't be
"managed" successfully because so many of its effects are out of the control
of the intervening government(s) and some can't be anticipated in advance. If
Trump was fine with removing Gaddafi from power by force, and he admits that
he was, he
can't credibly complain about the chaos that followed when the U.S. did
exactly that. Trump has the same problem on Libya that Romney and all other
hawkish candidates have had, which is that he cannot challenge Clinton on the
decision to intervene because he ultimately agreed with that decision and supported
joining the conflict at the time.
Goldwater girl was virtually on a par with John Kasich among big Republican donors
Notable quotes:
"... The thing about the Clintons is that they are, as politicians, honest. When bought, they stay bought. Hence their popularity with businesses. Trump is far too much of a wheeler dealer to stay bought, this is what seems to worry the oligarchy. ..."
"... Later, I developed an alternate theory for why Obama and Clinton were pushed front. As President, either could be trusted to betray their base and lose badly, divide their base (and give them no motive to energize them) setting the stage for zombie resurrection of the Republicans in 2010 - and also, continue the Republican militaristic anti-civll-liberties, shadow-bank friendly, torture-friendly Bush policies. I have no idea if either theory was correct. ..."
"... 2016: A year ago, we had the media pushing Clinton hard, as this implacable juggernaut, with opponents portrayed as annoying gnats at her heels. Sanders came up and got coverage, perhaps because of his major fundraising, perhaps because he was another candidate they could trust. Other candidates got minimal coverage. ..."
"... So: are they being set up for the Fall again? Or is Clinton being engineered as our next President? ..."
"... Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system? Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian bombing" and so forth? ..."
"... Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system? Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian bombing" and so forth? ..."
"... The only people who believe that are the people who also believe that is what Obama will do. ..."
Politico reported in early May, when Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee,
that the Clinton campaign started calling major Republican donors almost immediately , pitching
her as the natural candidate for them. Many of the recipients were cool to the appear, reasoning
that Clinton would probably prevail regardless. But that was before the polls showed that Trump becoming
the virtually official Republican nominee meant he quickly moved in national polls to score a mere
few points behind Clinton, when the widespread assumption had been that he would top out at a much
lower level.
And it's not as if Clinton didn't already have real pull among big Republican givers.
This chart from Time Magazine shows as of late 2015 where 2012 Romney donors were sending their
Presidential bucks in this cycle. You can see that Clinton was virtually on a par with John Kasich
The Financial Times surveyed major US business groups and found
they greatly prefer Clinton . Mind you, "greatly prefer" translates as "loathes Trump, deems
her to be less obviously terrible." Clinton is a status quo candidate, and as much as she would probably
shake her finger at businessmen more than they'd like, she won't break any big rice bowls.
From the Financial Times :
In the most comprehensive survey to date of business views on the US election, half of the
trade groups who responded to the FT said they would break from the traditional party of business
to back Mrs Clinton - despite reservations about the Democratic front-runner's candidacy.
Only a quarter of respondents preferred Mr Trump, who has run a caustic campaign marked by
populist attacks on business. But support for Mrs Clinton was often lukewarm, sparked more by
alarm over the presumptive Republican nominee than enthusiasm for her..
The FT polled 53 Washington-based trade associations and received responses from 16 of them
that lobby for nearly 100,000 businesses with combined annual revenues of more than $3.5tn. A
quarter of respondents said they could not decide which candidate would be best for business because
it was too early to judge their policy platforms, or replied "none of the above".
Several trade groups expressed dismay that for the first time in living memory they faced a
presidential race without a clear pro-business candidate, dashing their hopes of a new dawn after
nearly eight years of what they see as over-regulation by the Obama administration.
Mr [Bill] Reinsch, speaking shortly before retiring from his trade group [companies ranging
from Cisco to General Electric to Procter & Gamble ] this month, added: "The other thing [companies]
want is predictability, which is the antithesis of Trump, who brags about being unpredictable."…
The business groups that said they would prefer Mrs Clinton tended to represent more internationally-minded
members in fast-moving or technology-dependent sectors. The smaller core of Trump support came
from more domestic-oriented sectors and those hurt by the Democratic causes of environmentalism
and trade unions.
The thing about the Clintons is that they are, as politicians, honest. When bought, they stay
bought. Hence their popularity with businesses. Trump is far too much of a wheeler dealer to stay
bought, this is what seems to worry the oligarchy.
I've been wondering… What will really happen in the Fall? All I know is that things will be
interesting, as in cursed. Past history, as I remember: In 2000, the media was quite nice to Candidate
Bush - someone they could sit down and have a beer with. He was the front-runner before a single
primary or caucus was held. Contrast with the serial lying about Candidate Gore, accompanied by
serious coverage of third-party Candidate Nader's campaign.
2008: on the Democratic side, Obama and Clinton were front-runners before a single primary
or caucus was held. My idea back then was that whoever would win would be set up for the Fall
(note the pun). Clinton was subject to the Clinton Rules. Obama had the worst post-9/11 name possible
for a Presidential candidate, not to mention being black.
Of course, economic reality intervened. Later, I developed an alternate theory for why
Obama and Clinton were pushed front. As President, either could be trusted to betray their base
and lose badly, divide their base (and give them no motive to energize them) setting the stage
for zombie resurrection of the Republicans in 2010 - and also, continue the Republican militaristic
anti-civll-liberties, shadow-bank friendly, torture-friendly Bush policies. I have no idea if
either theory was correct.
In 2012, we had minimal coverage of primarying Obama, or of third-party candidates.
2016: A year ago, we had the media pushing Clinton hard, as this implacable juggernaut,
with opponents portrayed as annoying gnats at her heels. Sanders came up and got coverage, perhaps
because of his major fundraising, perhaps because he was another candidate they could trust. Other
candidates got minimal coverage.
So: are they being set up for the Fall again? Or is Clinton being engineered as our next
President?
Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system?
Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian
bombing" and so forth?
Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system?
Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian
bombing" and so forth?
The only people who believe that are the people who also believe that is what Obama will do.
What is important that Hillary past provides so many powerful and easy
avenues of attack on her (and she in not a Democrat; she is a neocon, warmonger neoliberal, hell bent
on US world domination) that it is easy to be distracted by this excessive menu :-)
Notable quotes:
"... Then there's that Sanders factor. The Vermont senator has presented an unexpected challenge to Mrs Clinton. His attacks on her past support for trade deals and her ties to the current political establishment have drawn blood. ..."
"... It seems the Republican was already testing lines of attack in his victory speech on Tuesday night. He brought up Mrs Clinton's support for coal regulations that have caused unemployment in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. He mentioned that Bill Clinton backed the North America Trade Agreement, which he called "the single worst trade deal". ..."
"... If Mr Trump can put the Midwest in play, that previously mentioned electoral tilt may not be so imposing after all. ..."
"... Facing off against Mr Trump is going to take a nimble, creative campaign and candidate. That hasn't always been a strength for the instinctively controlled and cautious Mrs Clinton. ..."
Mr Trump is going to present an unpredictable adversary for the former secretary of state. As
the Republican primary has shown, no topic is off the table for him and no possible line of attack
out of bounds.
"Her past is really the thing, rather than what she plans to do in the future," Mr Trump told the
Washington Post on Tuesday. "Her past has a lot of problems, to put it bluntly."
The day before making those comments, Mr Trump had lunch with Edward Klein, a journalist who has
made a career of writing inflammatory books about the Clintons and their sometimes chequered history.
Chances are, Mr Trump was taking notes.
That Bernie Sanders factor
Then there's that Sanders factor. The Vermont senator has presented an unexpected challenge to
Mrs Clinton. His attacks on her past support for trade deals and her ties to the current political
establishment have drawn blood.
Could some of his true loyalists stay home or vote for a third party? Could some of his working-class
supporters in the industrial mid-west cross over to Mr Trump?
It seems the Republican was already testing lines of attack in his victory speech on Tuesday
night. He brought up Mrs Clinton's support for coal regulations that have caused unemployment in
places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. He mentioned that Bill Clinton backed the North America Trade
Agreement, which he called "the single worst trade deal".
If Mr Trump can put the Midwest in play, that previously mentioned electoral tilt may not be
so imposing after all.
There's no playbook for how a Democrat can run against a Republican like Mr Trump. In some places,
such as immigration, he will be well to her right. In other areas, like foreign policy and trade,
he could come at her from the left.
Can abortion or the social safety net be wedge issues? Probably not against a man who defended Planned
Parenthood and Social Security on a Republican debate stage.
Facing off against Mr Trump is going to take a nimble, creative campaign and candidate. That
hasn't always been a strength for the instinctively controlled and cautious Mrs Clinton.
You know you've come to the end of a fireworks show when the shells start bursting all at once.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference
to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive
view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party
generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest
passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less
stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest
rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural
to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities,
is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.
The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and
repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing
faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes
of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely
out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make
it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It
agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of
one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign
influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the
channels of party passions.
Priority A in this letter is cyber and jihad strategy? Puh-lease. WTAF, another clueless ideologue.
Here's my list:
1. End American Empire. We have 800 bases in 140 countries. Close them and send the personnel
back to the US, give them shovels and backhoes and make them start rebuilding our Third World
infrastructure.
2. Prosecute financial crime. No more "fines", we need perp walks by senior executives. That's
the only thing that will work.
3. Close the DHS. We already have the FBI and CIA Roll back the Patriot Act spying provisions.
4. Audit the Fed. Full transparency of what they own, what their market activities are, who
owns them. Fed chair to be appointed by the Executive branch, not just selected from a list of
"approved" candidates submitted by the Fed.
5. Remove capital gains taxation on physical gold and silver bullion. Americans need to build
more wealth, not more paper.
6. Remove corporate tax exemption for issuing dividends.
7. Tax all unearned income at the same rate as earned income.
8. Fire the entire staff of the FASB and start over. Plain vanilla GAAP accounting including
mark-to-market.
9. End pre-crime drone assasination policy effective immediately.
10. New Marshall Plan for the MidEast. Take 1/2 of the budget we spend blowing the place up
and put it in a fund for development of ME countries. Announce the end of the drone/invasion/occupation
policy and the new investment fund with huge fanfare. We get peace and prosperity and great new
markets full of people who like us again.
11. Putin, Xi and US pres to hold tri-lateral peace talks. End Cold War II. Invite the Eurozone
lapdogs if you must (but no Frenchmen
The pitiful part of that is, we created the jihad is, we support them, arm them, feed them.
They're our mercenaries. So we create a BOOGIEMAN, tell the country that we must do everything
possible to defend against them, send them into other nations to do our dirty work for us, thereby
increasing the fear and terror back home, as they follow orders and chop off heads on television?
Talk about "wagging the dog"? Then they say in order to protect the "HOMELANDS" from these monsters,
we'll, you'll have to sacrifice some rights? You'll have to sacrifice some security? You'll have
to accept some invasion of your privacy. You'll have to allow the government to spend hundreds
of billions of dollars on spying, making war, building killing machines, and you the American
public will have to accept austerity, so we can get through this together? BULLSHIT!
" The very nature of government - monopoly power - makes it the number 1 destination of the
psychosociopaths. "
Only in 'Murika, the government doesn't hold the monopoly power, private corporations do. They
have even bought your governement lock, stock and barrel. Obama is no more than a mouthpiece for
private companies. See how he is travelling salesman for the TTIP, NAFTA and such treaties that
are bad for the USA's population and all other countries' populations too.
Which means you don't have a government at all . You are ruled by a transnational private sector
through political puppets, banana republic style.
"...4. Our problems are huge right now, but one of the most obvious is that we've not passed
along the meaning of America to the next generation..."
Yes you did, Senator Sasse. America, American government and American politics means systemic
psychopathy. Sick, power-seeking and power-hoarding individuals. What you failed to pass on was
your fantasy of what you would like America to be. The next generation can't ignore the reality
of what they see and believe in your fantasy - if anything, they're realists. The meaning of America
to them is a tax-farming organization run for the benefit of the MIC, big ag,
big pharma, big oil, etc. They recognize that they are cattle, not snowflakes.
"...If we don't get them to re-engage..."
Holy crap... seriously? You sound like the MSM trying to figure out some marketing trick to
sell themselves to 'the next generation' - a generation that has already thrown the MSM on the
scrap-heap of history as a useless tool of the rich and powerful. The next generation has ABANDONED
dreams of your fantasy America. They just want to minimize the oppression and pain America causes
them. They want to be left the fuck alone and don't want to fix YOUR mess - it's unfixable to
them. They're not buying the bullshit of 'fixability' any more - that was your generation's weakness.
"...-- thinking about how we defend a free society in the face of global jihadis,.."
Jihadis the CIA created for their latest Middle East clownfuckery? The jihadi 'threat' as manufactured
by the FBI or MSM? Hey, guess what Senator: that's your fucking problem, not theirs. They're afraid
of cops and gangs of immigrants, not fake jihadis .
"...or how we balance our budgets after baby boomers have dishonestly over-promised for decades,..."
Why would they give a fuck? They know they are already 100% screwed - things will never be
as good for them as it was for their parents. They are going to suffer the consequences of shitty
fiscal policy for the next fifty years, and you expect them to somehow be interested in making
the government behave NOW? Fuck that... are you stupid or something? They didn't break it - YOU
did.
"...or how we protect First Amendment values in the face of the safe-space movement..."
Er... their First Amendment rights have already been whored out by your employer, Senator:
the U.S. Congress. And typical of your employer, you 'see' a problem were none exists: a few hundred,
maybe thousand whiney college students DOES NOT equate to a Constitutional problem for the other
five million or so members of that generation. If you want to debate safe spaces while Rome burns,
go ahead. They're not interested.
"...– then all will indeed have been lost..."
Yes, I agree. Congress and the rest of the U.S. government have been throwing away the American
dream for thirty-plus years. Yes, it's lost. That's what happens when you throw something away.
Don't expect them to go on a scavenger hunt for its decayed corpse now. It's worth saving to YOU,
not THEM. You fucked it up so bad that they have no illusions about 'finding' anything useable
again. They're not looking and not interested in being convinced to look, Senator. It's not there
for them any more.
"...One of the bright spots with the rising generation, though, is that they really would like
to rethink the often knee-jerk partisanship of their parents and grandparents. We should encourage
this rethinking..."
No, they are simply rejecting the failed mechanism of a usurped voting process and a failed
constitutional republic. That doesn't mean they're looking for replacement parts to fix that one
thing, because the rest of the republic is completely fucked up . They're not interested in band-aids
on a stinking, rotting corpse. They don't want to have anything to do with it.
A member of Congress trying to 'market' America to the next generation is exactly like the
MSM trying to market themselves to the next generation: it's pathetic and futile. 'America' is
just the name of their current prison and owner. They simply tolerate it. When it becomes intolerable,
they'll leave (if they're allowed to).
I know that's the meme being pushed, but I don't see it in reality. The two parties, supposedly
so polarized, offer minute differences in actual policy. The differences over which they'd claim
to take us to Civil War really boil down to which constituent and contributor group gets greased.
In dictionary definitions, every politician in America is a liberal. In terms of their dedication
to unifying corporate and State power, they're all Fascists. Some are smilier Fascists than others,
but they're all Fascists.
Wrong. America is not a Liberal nation. In a Liberal nation working class would have a say.
As inequality grows, their taxes would go up. Education and healthcare would be free. Labor wouldn't
be taxed.
Corporativism is to the right and not left. Its labor is to the left.
The excerpt below should help clarify the confusion between Democrats and Republicans:
….(Bakunin) predicted that there would be two forms of modern intellectuals, what he called
the 'Red Bureaucracy', who would use popular struggles to try to take control of state power and
institute the most vicious and ruthless dictatorships in history, and the other group, who would
see that there isn't going to be an access to power that way and would therefore become the servants
of private power and the state capitalist democracy, where they would, as Bakunin put it, 'beat
the people with the people's stick,' talk about democracy but beat the people with it. That's
actually one of the few predictions in the social sciences that's come true, to my knowledge,
and a pretty perceptive one." Chomsky On Democracy and Education, page 248.
"... If we are talking about foreign policy, she is definitely unqualified. Her tenure at State
Department was a disaster. No diplomatic skills, whatsoever. She was trying to imitate Madeleine Albright
not noticing that times changed. ..."
"... In case she is elected, she will be a real threat to world peace. It is just unclear what country
she will decide to invade next. But she will definitely invade. ..."
"... Hillary is running around imposing a neocon purity test on the US foreign policy agenda. ..."
"... A vote for Hillary is a vote for mediocrity; especially in the mid-terms. ..."
"... Its a long campaign. They are not suppose to be friends. Stuff gets said, gets misreported
..."
"... Hillary went negative and dragged the primary into the gutter. She said Sanders should apologize
for Sandy Hook. I don't really blame Sanders for getting angry. ..."
Bernie's remark that Hillary is unqualified to be president is immature and sexist.
If we are talking about foreign policy, she is definitely unqualified. Her tenure at State
Department was a disaster. No diplomatic skills, whatsoever. She was trying to imitate Madeleine
Albright not noticing that times changed.
Her appointment of Dick Cheney close associate Victoria Nuland first as State Department Spokesperson
and then Assistant Secretary of State was an act of betrayal of everything Democratic Party should
stand for. It was actually return to Bush II/Cheney (or should it be Cheney/Bush II) foreign policy.
In case she is elected, she will be a real threat to world peace. It is just unclear what
country she will decide to invade next. But she will definitely invade.
likbez said in reply to MIB...
they're not running around imposing some socialist purity test
Hillary is running around imposing a neocon purity test on the US foreign policy agenda.
Rune Lagman said in reply to MIB...
Without Bernie's revolution the mid-terms is just going to be even more dismal. The Democratic
establishment fail in the mid-terms because they don't run on a national program. They believe
it's about the competency of the individual candidate.
Elections should be about issues that voters care about; the Democratic establishment still
don't get that concept.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for mediocrity; especially in the mid-terms.
dd said in reply to MIB...
Hillary is no FDR although a comparison to JFK's father's wall street shenanigans is probably
apt. I particularly admire the tax-free donations to a tax-free entity with of course wall street
as a major donor. I'm sure under her leadership we will begin to explore even more innovative
tax avoidance to help the needy.
sherparick said in reply to jh...
Its a long campaign. They are not suppose to be friends. Stuff gets said, gets misreported
(in this case a WaPo headline that said something that Clinton did not say. The WaPo by the way
has been far more vicious about Bernie then Clinton and her surrogates on her worse day.)
Sanders is a remarkable politician and always has been. I am not in the end voting for him,
I still admire his campaign as one of the great achievements of the American Left in my lifetime.
Actually, Bernie and Jeff Weaver did Clinton a favor by taking the troll bait. She is at her
best counter-punching and fighting from the underdog position. You can say a lot of things about
Hillary, (I worry about her judgement and group think tendencies), but she is tough and courageous
and seems to actually enjoy a good knock down drag out political fight.
Peter said in reply to sherparick...
Hillary went negative and dragged the primary into the gutter. She said Sanders should
apologize for Sandy Hook. I don't really blame Sanders for getting angry.
Obama was much better at staying focused and on message. But then he made some policy mistakes
as President which I don't believe Sanders would have done.
"... Were it not for the DNC's Machiavellian planning of this primary and, had the states been ordered differently, we wouldn't be at roughly the halfway point with such skewed results. Were it not for the horrendous media bias shown Sanders, across mainstream corporate media, voters probably wouldn't be quite so disgusted and angry with the DNC's decision making. ..."
"... This is fundamentally the problem in our system. Each person enters the voting booth in November with two principal choices: Stinks and Stinks-Even-More. ..."
"... Instead, Bernie's chances are slim (#StillSanders), especially thanks to the major establishment outlets. Even if Clinton wins the nomination a lot of us aren't voting for her. She's hardly distinguishable from a Kissinger fangirl. ..."
"... To paraphrase Franklin, we choose not to have our vote manipulated by the fear of the lesser of two evils. We choose not to give up our "essential Liberty" to purchase a little safety because those that give that up deserve neither safety nor Liberty. ..."
"... We can hope that Sanders can come back and win the nomination because if we have Hillary for the Dem nominee Donald Trump will be a very unkind opponent. Sanders could handle the Donald in a debate. At this very moment the Trump campaign is doing their research on the Clintons. ..."
"... The Clintons define "corrupt." Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Hillary Clinton, who never traded commodities, made hundreds of thousands of dollars trading commodities with only several trades. Yet she claims she wasn't tipped. They leased the Lincoln Bedroom like it was their AirBNB. If someone can tell me where Clinton money ends and Clinton Foundation money begins, please let me know. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton refuses to release transcripts of her expensive speeches to Wall Street executives. I, a lifelong Democrat from a family of lifelong FDR Democrats, won't vote for Clinton until I know what she said in her speeches. The Clintons and I have come to the end of the road. ..."
"... I am a 76 year old life-long Democrat, and I would never vote for anyone who voted for the invasion of Iraq, or who supported NAFTA. These two issues have been the undoing of America - - along with Citizens United. ..."
I'm going for the longshot. In fact, I just donated to Bernie again yesterday. Even if he doesn't
win, we need him to have as many delegates as possible going into the convention so that we have
a strong voice against interventionist policies and pay to play government as the party platform
is crafted. We need to send a loud message to the Democratic establishment: Enough is enough!
#feelthebern
America needs him. A guy who stands up for everyone. A guy with no baggage. A honest politician
who wants to swim against the established norms and bring change. People are still living in recession.
Big corporation are still making big money. Why can't young people afford to go to college?, why
can't old people retired in peace?, why can't people not afford healthcare?, Why we need to bomb
n kill innocent people abroad? Change is hard to bring. Bernie has a vision, I hope everyone can
see it. Peace!
Rima Regas. is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA
12 hours ago
Well, well...
That's exactly what the Sanders people have been saying will be the case.
Were it not for the DNC's Machiavellian planning of this primary and, had the states been
ordered differently, we wouldn't be at roughly the halfway point with such skewed results. Were
it not for the horrendous media bias shown Sanders, across mainstream corporate media, voters
probably wouldn't be quite so disgusted and angry with the DNC's decision making.
But here we are... Yes, we do have the other half of the primary to get through and it gets
Bernie-friendly from here on out.
Meanwhile, Democratic voter turn out is very low. When is the mainstream media going to stop
promoting Donald Trump and turn its attention to that? For all the talk about how scary a President
Trump would be, nothing much is being said to voters about the low turn out. Reading most papers,
one might be led to think everything is hunky dory in that respect. It isn't.
This is fundamentally the problem in our system. Each person enters the voting booth in
November with two principal choices: Stinks and Stinks-Even-More. By voting for Stinks, we
compromise our own passion only to send the wrong message that we somehow support the policies
and approach of the lesser-evil. This then just continues our decline, and encourages the press
to continue to ignore folks like Bernie who stand for truly profound, positive change. We can
collectively talk ourselves blue about income inequality, but failing to give Bernie his due time
and press coverage is a travesty.
Shameful. What good does it do for Kristof, Blow, Friedman and the Editorial Board to opine
about gross income inequality, only to turn around and deny Bernie his share of the press coverage.
The press has truly let America down. This includes the 24-hour news cycle, low-quality CNN types
and the presumably more deliberate and thoughtful NY Times. All of them have (for reasons that
the average citizen could probably guess) have decided Bernie wasn't worth the air time and print
space.
"Why? These states aren't as bad for him as those in the South, but they force him to confront
his two weaknesses: diversity and affluence."
These weaknesses could have been mitigated over time had the Times and the mainstream press
actually told its more diverse readers how Sanders' policies would in fact help them, and its
affluent readers that, by the way, their neighbors are starving.
Instead, Bernie's chances are slim (#StillSanders), especially thanks to the major establishment
outlets. Even if Clinton wins the nomination a lot of us aren't voting for her. She's hardly distinguishable
from a Kissinger fangirl. (Kissinger, as a reminder, had no trouble authorizing the murder
and systematic starvation of hundreds of thousands of East Timorese going into the 80s, which,
surprise, the Times didn't mention *at all* for at least a few years.) She disgusts me, and I
will never support her. I suspect it's the same for other Berniebros (as you would mockingly call
us). You've created a fascist beast, American press. Do your job.
Our family loves Bernie. We have waited so long for someone who we truly knew was leveling
with us. God help us if it comes to the disastrous consequences of 2000 when Bush won as some
people abandoned the Dems for an alternate choice but we must vote with our conscience and will
write his name in if that is what it comes to. We just hope the 'great beast' we see within the
hearts of so many Americans will not awaken yet again as it did in 2003 leading us into the obsenity
known as Iraq or worse .
To paraphrase Franklin, we choose not to have our vote manipulated by the fear of the lesser
of two evils. We choose not to give up our "essential Liberty" to purchase a little safety because
those that give that up deserve neither safety nor Liberty.
We stand or fall with Bernie and if the latter be true, it is with the hope that the next generation
finds its way into the light. It appears, from what I am seeing, that they may be better suited
to run this country than my generation has. My apologies to the Greatest Generation for failing
to deliver on their gift born of such great sacrifice.
We can hope that Sanders can come back and win the nomination because if we have Hillary
for the Dem nominee Donald Trump will be a very unkind opponent. Sanders could handle the Donald
in a debate. At this very moment the Trump campaign is doing their research on the Clintons.
If it ends up being a contest between Trump and Clinton the vulnerabilities of the Clintons will
be on full display. And Trump is not known for his kindness or restraint. It would not be pretty.
If Hillary is the candidate then Trump's path to the White House will be much easier. She's got
too many flaws.
The Clintons define "corrupt." Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of
'is' is." Hillary Clinton, who never traded commodities, made hundreds of thousands of dollars
trading commodities with only several trades. Yet she claims she wasn't tipped. They leased the
Lincoln Bedroom like it was their AirBNB. If someone can tell me where Clinton money ends and
Clinton Foundation money begins, please let me know.
Hillary Clinton's brothers were influence peddlers. Hugh Clinton accepted a large amount of
money to influence Pres. Clinton to offer a pardon. Tony Clinton sells his connections to the
highest bidders.
Hillary Clinton refuses to release transcripts of her expensive speeches to Wall Street
executives. I, a lifelong Democrat from a family of lifelong FDR Democrats, won't vote for Clinton
until I know what she said in her speeches. The Clintons and I have come to the end of the road.
I will never understand why black voters would choose Hillary over Bernie when Bernie is the
one who actual has a tracjk record of fighting for civil rights.
The Democratic Party and its corporate affiliates' support for HRC has blinded them to a large
problem, viz. that HRC is very likely to be beaten in the general election. Whether earned or
not, there exists a very high level of antipathy for HRC, among Independents, and yes, Democrats.
Senator Sanders is widely regarded as honest and straightforward. If he is not nominated, the
legions of young Democrats and the large numbers of Independents that support the Senator, will
stay home on election day and/or the extremely disaffected will vote for Trump if he is nominated...very,
very few will vote for HRC (this is my anecdotal observation from many conversations with the
Senator's supporters). It is also well-known, but often suppressed information that Senator Sanders
does better against Trump than HRC in most national polls. The reality is that Senator Sanders
is by far the best choice for Democrats to beat Trump or any other Republican crazy.
I am a 76 year old life-long Democrat, and I would never vote for anyone who voted for
the invasion of Iraq, or who supported NAFTA. These two issues have been the undoing of America
- - along with Citizens United.
Yes, Sanders is down. Yes, his task is a daunting one, but less daunting than Kasich's path
to the Republican nomination, which is getting more media coverage than the 2.8 million votes
that Sanders drew on Tuesday. Sanders "revolution" is revolutionary only to those who accept the
current Republican view of government as our collective nightmare - an us vs. them fight to the
death over guns, immigration, abortion, deteriorating air and water, income inequality, student
debt, access to health care - funded by sacred and unlimited corporate and PAC dollars.
Sanders
proposes nothing that has not been done before, here or abroad, by representative governments
promoting the health, education, and welfare of all their people. I like to imagine Roosevelt,
Truman, and Eisenhower looking down on Sanders' proposals of what America should be able to do
for its people. Maybe the Ides of March got Sanders. Maybe not?
I keep reading in "The New York Times" that it's over. As I recall, a legendary figure, associated
with two legendary New York baseball teams, used to say that "It aren't over 'til it's over. .
. ."
Why "The New York Times" is so anxious to call the Election of 2016 seems to be a question
fit for an investigation. Where is "Woodstein" when we need them!?
Months before Sanders made any noise about running, I only hoped that we would have someone
besides a Bush or a Clinton as a candidate. In a country this big, don't we have any other qualified
candidates, I wondered. Politics aside, I just didn't think the idea of sending another Bush or
Clinton to the White House was good for (the appearance of) democracy.
Fast forward to today: Bush is out and Sanders is struggling to stay in. Look what happened
to the other democrats (and we won't even talk about third party candidates). They didn't have
a chance. It's an absolute miracle that Sanders has come this far given the toxic role of money
in American politics and the corporate control and neutralizing of American media.
Trump pushed Bush out of the race, but this was hardly a victory over the "establishment".
Trump's money and fame gave him instant access -- and he was quickly able to compete with establishment
candidates.
For me, Sanders is a glimmer of hope. I have no illusions about his chances of securing the
democratic nomination. But I find solace in the idea that, despite everything and everyone working
to get him out, he's still there and his campaign in resonating with young people. He has started
a movement, and that is what can lead to real change.
Rima Regas, is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA
12 hours ago
I have to disagree with Cohn on his assessment of the Black vote. While it is true enough that
Clinton had a lock on the South, her narrow win in Illinois and a close look at the Black vote
there gives us a glimpse of what's to come and there are good ideological and factual reasons
for it as I explain in my essay. Mrs. Clinton, in her campaign, has shown a disdain for the new
civil rights movement. While it may not have swayed older voters, younger ones are not pleased.
Their power, as voters will be felt more in the coming primaries and caucuses:
A few more ways Bernie can win- 1)
the FBI or leaks show Hillary used classified server for emails that she didn't want seen by voters
or the press because they are damning to her election. 2) a larger stronger Yuan devaluation sets
off Wall Street volatility, exposing weaknesses in her economic policcies 3) transcripts of her
Wall Street talks are leaked exposing high level corruption 4) a book is written on how the global
leaders did not take her seriously as Secretary of State 5) polls show that independents don't
like or trust her and will not toe the DNC party line ) etc
Bernie Sanders has a better chance of beating Trump, as several polls show. Trump supporters
want an "outsider" who is not "owned" by either party. He has the advantage over Clinton and Trump
in that he is not corrupt. The Times has been biased through the campaign. They endorsed Clinton
a long time ago, and give her the benefit of coverage. But the REAL story is how Sanders has raised
money from small donors. Why aren't they interviewing those donors on a daily basis? Who are they?
Democrats? Republicans? Independents? The Times is not doing their job, such as conducting investigative
reporting on the Clinton Foundation, and asking will the Clintons close down the Clinton Foundation
if Hillary is elected? Will Bill Clinton continue to give $million dollar speeches when married
to the President? Will he be a co-president, back in the oval office that he disgraced? The Times
should be pushing for Hillary to not only publish the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street,
but also her and Bill's speeches to Chinese billionaires, and others listed on Clinton Foundation
web site). The Times might also ask how the Clintons turned a nonprofit foundation into an engine
of personal wealth after leaving the White House claiming poverty. Do your job, NYT!!
It is tragic that what is oft referred to as 'the black vote' may well usher in a Donald J.
Trump Presidency. And It is ironic that votes for H. Clinton, as polling suggests, serves to do
a few things a.) it decreases Sen. Sanders chances to be POTUS, which is obvious, but it also
b.) will galvanize Republican voter turnout and may even c.) shift Independents and even some
Democrats to the Right during the generals. I hold accountable the media and its collusion with
DNC establishment and, honestly, the low-information voter.
H. Clinton offers very little, in stated policy goals, for the poor and middle-class, which is
in stark contrast to Sen. Sander's historical record and future policy goals. Sen. Sanders, even
if I were not a fan, is offering positions (e.g. education w/ out debt, single-payer health care,
combating crony capitalism, defeating citizens united, breaking up the largest banks) that have
clearly promoted equality in many other developed nations. There is a direct correlation between
these policy positions and bettering the lives of others. Piketty, Galbraith, Saez, Stiglitz,
and countless other elite economic minds all agree these measures level the playing field.
It is disheartening to witness, yet again, so many people voting against their own best interests
by responding to dog whistle appeals to the color of one's skin and not the truest needs of the
poor and middle-class. I am resigned to 8 more years of "hope and change" that does nothing for
equality.
Bernie Sanders gives the impression that he will achieve major changes soon. He'll bring about
single-payer health care (with everyone saving money). He'll end super PACs and huge corporate/billionaire
contributions in political campaigns. He'll redo our foreign trade agreements to protect American
jobs and bring manufacturing jobs back. He'll do away with income inequality and make labor unions
strong again. If he expressed these goals as dreams in the manner of Martin Luther King's "I have
a dream" speech, I'd say fine and good. Let's work towards these ends. But leading his followers
astray by claiming that a revolution is taking place now and that these things can be achieved
soon is just outright disgraceful. I'm not sure why African American don't support Senator Sanders,
but they definitely know better than anyone the difference between dreams and reality. They know,
as Dr. King did, that change takes hard work and a lot of time. The political pendulum may be
starting to swing leftwards again (I hope so). But a revolution? No way.
I have worked on too many campaigns to count, before I quit my addiction to pain and got a
real job. His was an odd campaign.
He expected the media to be a partner in helping him get elected. No candidate ever expects
help from the media. Sander got the third best media coverage of all who ran--and arguable the
most favorable given most of Clinton's coverage was the email scandal. At best you can get from
the media is benign neglect. But the minute you are winning expect a scrubbing that would make
a Brillo pad look gentle.
He assumed he would have inroads to groups without courting them believing success with one
group meant everyone would like him.
He never seem to understand Clinton's strengths. He then seemed surprised by them. You always
understand your oppotrengths at the very least to mitigate the damage.
He fought with the establishment despite running in the establishment. Not only are they voters
--they have business intelligence on local operatives and state level politics. He hit a brick
wall in Nevada and got his clocked cleaned in South Carolina despite outspending Clinton because
the apparatus that existed preferred Clinton.
And lastly, where everyone in this business pours over data--their relationship with data seems
foreign. There are several instances where you get the sense they made something up on the fly--and
honestly surprised at the result.
Oh dear. Another white person telling all those ungrateful and ignorant people of color, the African
Americans, the Hispanics, that they're doing this voting thing all wrong. Makes right thinking Bernsters
wonder why we even bother to let them vote, if they're just going to mis-use it so.
Sanders was involved, 60 years ago, in some civil rights activities. Since then, he's been the
elected official of some of the whitest sections of the country and has not depended on the black
or Hispanic vote to ge re-elected. If you want to tar Clinton with the '95 crime bill, even though
she wasn't a senator then, it ricochets to hit Sanders, who voted for it.
Clinton worked to develop connections and a reputation in the African American and Hispanic sectors.
Bernie Sanders, though a good man, did not. Nor did he work with the existing Democratic party to
support down-ticket elections or democratic events. He always ran as an outsider. Now, he wants to
be in the party and benefit from what the DNC has to offer. Funny that his supporters cry foul when
he, a non-Democrat, doesn't get the full breadth of support from the party he shunned.
So to all those Bernsters out there - please calm down. Everyone deals with favorite politicians
getting rejected, it's life. and the millennial vote is no more or less important than any other
group.
Now that the press and the political actuaries have crowned Clinton the presumptive nominee,
some of the passion that has sustained Sanders will ebb, and we'll see him do less well. Progressives
will slowly accept Clinton and either sit out the primary or curb their enthusiasm for the Bern.
Clinton has, from the beginning, garnered votes by presenting herself as inevitable, not inspirational.
Not so much "Yes We Can" but "Yes I Will."
It's a shame, because a transformational FDR-style Democrat is desperately needed at this point
in our history.
Here's the thing - general elections are part of the democratic process, but the nomination
process is controlled by the parties, who make the rules and call the shots. For 40 years or so,
Ms. Clinton has been involved in fund raising and campaigning for senators, congressmen, and governors.
She has been involved in the DNC and has been supported in return.
Sanders runs as a pure outsider. He shunned the party until he decided to join in order to
run. He has few supporters in the Senate, and little good will among down-ticket Democrats.
Clinton isn't winning on superdelegates, but on pledged delegates from the states. She has
earned a plurality of votes. Claiming otherwise demeans the millions who have already cast their
votes in her favor, and assumes that they are ignorant, stupid, or insane. Their decisions were
other than what you would want. That's democracy. Get over it.
The DNC has stacked the deck in Clinton's favor with its Superdelegate apparatchiks clogging
the arteries of a fair nominating process with 465 clots of greasy fat. Where is the Democracy
in the Democratic party when viable contenders are forced to run the race in hobbles? Not even
the Republicans have come up with Tammany Hall tactic - yet.
So yes, Hillary will most likely be the nominee of the Democratic Party. As an independent
I will not be voting for her or any members of the Republican Insane Clown Posse. More than likely
I will be writing in for the /bernie_sanders.Warren ticket as a protest to rigged elections.
While otherwise quite good, this article contains a factual error that continues to play into
the false Clinton narrative about racialized voting and the Sanders campaign.
According to exit polling, Oklahoma's Democratic Primary was only 74% white. Sanders won the
vote in that state by 10.5% points. This means that the following statement is false: "Mr. Sanders's
best showing in a state where less than 75 percent of voters were white was his two-point win
in Michigan."
And, while we do not have exit polling data from Colorado, the electorate there was almost
certainly less than 75% white. Sanders won by 18.5%. Take for instance Denver County. Denver County
is just 53% white only per United States Census's Quick Facts. 31% of Denver is Latina or Latino,
10% is African American, 2% is Native American, and 4% is Asian. Sanders won Denver County by
9.4%.
To pretend, as this article does, that Arizona (31% Latino) or even Washington State (70% white
only per US Census data) are "whiter" states than Tennessee (75%) and Arkansas (73%) is to betray
exactly the kind of anti-Sanders bias that Margaret Sullivan had to call out in another context
this morning.
At the very least, the Times owes it to its readers to correct the factual error here in a
prominent way.
It's actually shameful that black voters in SC refused to listen or engage with the second
candidate in two candidate race, even when he came to their church:
And can we please stop referring to a state where 60% of the primary voters were black as "diverse."
In a country with a 13% black population, it's more accurately described as "extremely unrepresentative"
"Diverse" does not mean "minorities overrepresented by a factor of 4." New Hampshire is far
closer to the racial mix in America than the electorate in any Democratic Primary in the south.
Bernie never said this would be easy. He has lost a few battles, but he will win the war. We
have to stay the course & get his message out to the people.
Democrats must realize that we can not win the presidency with only the support of southern blacks
& senior citizens. The way this election has been run by the DNC & media has totally alienated
Bernie supporters to the point that a great majority will go green or vote Rep. rather than back
Clinton & the DNC. This is becoming a reality more & more every day. I hope that the super delegates
figure this out by the time we reach the convention or all is lost.
The establishment media favoring the establishment candidate paints a rosy picture for HRC.
We get it. The Bernie Blackout marches along in lock-step with the Trump Trumpet. This scenario
is far more than mere perception. Empirical data will be mined for years to come to show the glaring
disparity. Future journalism majors will compose graduate theses using this fodder. Should we
end up, as currently appears likely, with President Trump, the "golly-how-did-that-happen?" crowd
will have it all explained later by some kid who is now in junior high school because today's
print news editors and broadcast news producers suffered from the "if-it-bleeds-it-leads" school.
Even the vaunted NY Times betrays its "all the news that's fit to print" motto and remains mesmerized
by the Trump con act. Hey fellas, how about a new motto? "Covering Carnival Barkers Since 2016"?
I have to be honest here; I don't see much hope for Bernie to get the nomination. I do hope
he wins my state, and yes, I'll be caucusing for him next weekend, but the numbers don't look
good and I'm feeling depressed.
I intend to vote in November for all races on the ballot. If my state is not in play--if we're
safely blue, like we usually are--I'm writing in Bernie. If there's a chance we might go red,
I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary.
I didn't like her in 2008 and I don't like her in 2016. She's a neoliberal hawk and I don't
want her getting the US entangled in more wars we'll never get out of. I don't want her starting
negotiations with the Republicans already close to the center so we'll end up all the way to the
right. I don't think she's trustworthy and I think her only guiding principle is ambition.
Needless to say, I'm depressed, and frankly tuning out of the race at this point. The Republicans
are making the US a laughingstock around the world and the Dems appear to be saddled with a candidate
we don't particularly want. Any way you slice it this is going to be an ugly election, and while
I've been a political junkie all my life, I just don't have the enthusiasm to care about it. I
don't see a winning solution in this any way I look at it.
*This* is Hillary's big problem. People like me, who will grudgingly vote for her if we have
to, but who have absolutely no enthusiasm for it. How many of us will just stay home instead of
voting for the lesser evil?
If electability is your main criteria, you should be voting for Sanders.
Sanders does better against every Republican opponent, in every poll in the last month, because
he gets 3-1 support from independents (40% of the electorate), even if he doesn't get a majority
of democrats (30% of the electorate).
Sanders got 71% of the independent voters in Illinois, 72% of the independent voters in New
Hampshire, and 73% of the independent voters in Michigan (exit poll data)
Clinton has high favorability within the Democratic Party, but among all Americans, she has
a 55% NEGATIVE rating (versus only 42% positive), rivaling Trump. Nothing is red meat to Republicans
like Clinton, and she has no appeal to Independents (see above)
It's why in every poll for the last month among REGISTERED VOTERS, Sanders does better against
every Republican opponent than Clinton.
Bernie's most likely winning opportunity is the self-destruction of his opponent, whose high
unfavorability ratings could prove decisive if her email controversy or any number of other vulnerabilities
gains public attention.
There is much talk of a disqualifying event that will knock Hillary out of the race and allow
Bernie to receive the nomination. Talk of indictments, the content of the Wall Street speeches,
e-mail servers, Benghazi, and so on. The talk on both sides often seems to miss the mark. I agree
with those, generally Clinton supporters, who doubt she said or did anything appalling in any
of these regards. However, I agree with the Sanders supporters that she is not giving adequate
answers on these questions. There is really an element of "I'm not going to address such a ridiculous
question". The problem that I see is that Bernie Sanders, who for the most part is on the same
side as Hillary Clinton and her supporters, has been not forcing the issue- nor would it be appropriate
for him to do so. The Republican nominee will certainly do so, to great affect with the many people
who are not currently strong supporters of Clinton. I don't refer to the people who intensely
dislike her, or would never vote for Democrat/woman/centrist/non-conserative anyway. I mean the
people who when Trump/Cruz raises the question about her speeches or lack of e-mail security will
wonder whether there might be something to it. It is clear that there are many voters looking
for a fresh start away from the usual politics. The Clinton campaign needs to address these questions
with coherent and substantive answers now.
Bernie is the future of Democratic policy; Hillary the past.
Among voters younger than 45 Bernie wins big; by 40 points among millenials.
In 2008 Obama offered a new future of justice but most of his program was broken on the shoals
of mindless GOP hostility. Bernie is more of a fighter.
And now the Dem establishment wants to choke off the voices of the young, those paying the biggest
price for plutocracy and Wall Street government.
Bernie is offering a very limited version of the social democracy that has worked so well in minimizing
poverty and maximizing personal opportunity across Europe, Canada, Australia.
Mass grotesque life-killing poverty is destroying the American 100 million underclass as a parasitic
plutocracy is more and more engorged.
There is an alternative. Continue the Clinton-Sanders debates to the floor of the convention.
Should Hillary win, Bernie is committed to uniting the party behind her for he has actually made
her a better, more progressive candidate, shedding off the muck of triangulation.
Bernie is the hope and change candidate. And he also consistently does better than Hillary matched
up against Cruz/Trump in polling.
As one of those 69 year old millennials, I think I know how the system works. The political
parties put up candidates who take money from huge special interests, they get elected, nothing
is accomplished other than more Corporate control of our country: AKA the buying and selling of
elections and a commitment to becoming a total oligarchy. I recently read that some of the DNC's
super delegates are actually lobbyists. The Democrats and Republicans are running our country
into the ground: polluting the planet, killing our kids in wars for profit; jailing minorities
and thereby disenfranchising them from voting, dumbing down the education system, forcing families
into bankruptcy over medical bills, more rights taken away from citizens (out of fear that people
(like me)are going to take to the streets with their pitchforks). If I may quote Laurel and Hardy
(who this campaign often resembles) This is a fine mess you got me into. I'd like to remind the
Clintons and the DNC of how foolish G W Bush looked after standing under that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
banner at the beginning of the Iraq War. When more than half the country has not yet voted I am
enraged by the arrogance.
The elephant in the room is the potential for an email indictment. Against Trump, Hillary would
be damaged beyond repair if the FBI investigation goes against her. The Clinton campaign is way
too sanguine about this and nobody in the commentariat is talking about it ... but the whole campaign
could turn on it. The FBI is said to be out for blood because Petraeus got off lightly ... and
lesser players getting immunity can't be a good sign.
Bernie needs to keep going if for no other reason than we need another option.
To the Clinton supporters who drone on about HRC's "experience" and track record of getting
things done, please provide citations/links to support your assertions.
The facts show that the bulk of her experience lies in her amazing talents of fabrication and
obfuscation of facts. As First Lady--her longest "political" role, she successfully covered up
and lied for her serially philandering husband, destroying the reputations of his victims in the
process.
During her stint as Senator of her adopted state, backed by Wall Street, big pharma and other
corporate interests, she succeeded in endorsing the disastrous and ongoing war in Iraq and the
repeal of Glass-Steagall, among other dubious votes.
Her time as Secretary of State can be characterized as inconsequential at best and disastrous
at worst, resulting in an FBI investigation and possible indictment.
Her private life, as an obscenely compensated speaker to the Wall Street firms directly responsible
for the financial meltdown, comprise the bulk of her actual accomplishments.
And her refusal to release transcripts of those speeches and the convenient wiping of her unauthorized
email server suggest major character, trust and honesty issues.
Again, citations of what practical experience at running the country she possesses would be
illuminating.
I am ready for a change. I am ready to elect Senator Sanders to be the next President. Let
us leave the establishment behind and make the necessary change for the better. Unlike those who
have been characterized as his mainstay supporters (the young), I am 68 and have waited my entire
grown up adult life for a leader of our country who was not a bought and paid for apparatchik
of the moneyed elite. Never before have I contributed to any political cause or candidate before
Bernie. Now I find someone worth nominating and electing!
The strength of Sanders candidacy has been less in "revelations" about Clinton, and more about
the recognition by voters that there is an alternative to Clinton. This is especially true for
younger voters who don't tend to see the 1990s through rose-colored glasses.
As more people have gotten to know Sanders, his numbers have gone up. The problem for Sanders
has been a question of time and the sequencing of the primary calendar.
Clinton has done exceptionally well with older party regulars, especially in the south. She
lost the 45 and under vote to Sanders 70-30 in Illinois; she is not growing the party.
If Clinton wins in November, she can thank Trump and/or Cruz for doing the work for her. She
can also thank Sanders for getting younger voters engaged in the process and for providing her
with her platform. Al Gore and John Kerry also dominated the primary process. That didn't mean
they were strong general election candidates.
I am a female, late baby boomer. I've voted a straight Democratic ticket my entire life. It
will be a real battle with my conscience to vote for Ms. Clinton. So, if there's any hope for
Bernie Sanders, I will be sending him more funds.
I think college should be provided for everyone who can't afford it. I think medical care should
be provided for everyone who can't afford it. In total, I think everyone should have a substantial
safety net, a floor beneath which no one should fall.
We think of food and shelter in the same way -- as liberals we believe in providing ample food
stamps and decent shelters for those who can't afford it. In our service economy, a formal education
is no longer a luxury but a necessity. As circumstances change, so should our thinking. That's
what true liberalism is all about.
Taxes should be raised on extreme wealth because inequality has already gotten way out of hand.
Joseph in Misoula
"I'm a liberal democrat. But I don't think college should be free for everyone. I do not want
my taxes to go up even more. I do not think Wall Street is an evil entity that should be dismantled.
In fact, I don't think we should try and force a far-left version of America on the large portion
of the population that clearly does not want it."
So who has a right to education? Who should reign in the excesses of the Wall Street casino,
which nearly destroyed the entire world economy? Who should pay more taxes - the broken middle
class, working class, the decimated unions, and the poor, who already all subsidize the exploitation
that fills the coffers of corporations and billionaires? The Democrats once vigorously and almost
universally supported these groups and the ideas that helped them succeed.
You're right. You should absolutely not support Bernie. Because you're not a liberal democrat,
and you're certainly not a progressive. But you are a great representative of Hillary Clinton's
voice, and the Republican lite that now calls itself the Democratic Party. And she's counting
on you.
It's disappointing that no enterprising investigative journalist has found somebody ready to
spill the beans and provide a pirated copy of the now almost legendary Wall Street speeches. But
it may well be that there is such a source, one insisting on substantial compensation, and most
journalists are forbidden from paying for information
It would not be surprising if Trump already has a source picked out, one who, if not subject
to the threat of exposure of some hidden misdeed or under direct obligation to The Donald, is
susceptible to outright bribery, and that Trump is holding that ammunition, waiting to fire after
Clinton has achieved the nomination and is his opponent in the general election.
If that should be the case: Look forward to a President Trump.
Matt Von Ahmad Silverstein Chong, Mill Valley, CA
9 hours ago
Sanders vs Kasich. Only sane choices on both sides.
Otherwise:
Clinton: liar, opportunistic, risk of indictment after nomination risking defeat
Cruz: liar, extremist, not accomplished anything other than shutting the government
Trump: liar, polarizing, risk of defeat as unable to unify party
Not that Sanders and Kasich don't have their own thorns, but in my opinion they are the most
fit to be elected.
Ms. Regas, you write: "Were it not for the DNC's Machiavellian planning of this primary and,
had the states been ordered differently, we wouldn't be at roughly the halfway point with such
skewed results."
The DNC approved and announced the 2016 primary schedule back in August 2014:
Senator Sanders announced his candidacy eight months later on April 30, 2015.
So the Senator and his inner circle of advisors went into this race with eyes wide open knowing
full well what the primary schedule would be and what they would face.
Perhaps you might consider dropping this complaint from your litany.
John S., is a trusted commenter Washington
4 hours ago
I ran the delegate numbers through 15 March excluding Missouri, which is basically a tie like
Illinois was and there will probably be one delegate difference between the winner and loser,
and if the win-to-lose ration stayed the same, then Mrs. Hillary Clinton would still be short
over 200 pledged delegates after all the voting is done.
But the win-to-lose ratio will not remain constant. It will move in favor of Senator Bernard
"Bernie" Sanders and against Mrs. Clinton. Consequently, her shortfall in pledged delegates could
rise to 300-500 pledged delegates.
Keep on running Bernie! I will continue to support your campaign right through Democratic Party
convention.
If Bernie Sanders wins, he would become president. If Hillary Clinton wins , in the White House
will enter Trump.For the success of cause of the change, which wants many Americans, and Bernie
Sanders, must become president ... Trump.
Only one single-minded Republican could exacerbate problems to burst the boil.
There are no simple answers to the very real issues this country faces on every level. Unfortunately,
the individual developed psychologies of voters combined with the natural desire to embrace the
easiest idea that promises to bring a comfortable conclusion to the problems has blinded voters
to the very flawed candidates they have to choose from. I am a Sanders supporter but not because
he can achieve any of his ideas. I support him because he is a brake on the current business as
usual. His qualms about why the two parties cannot get anything done is truth and before we can
fix anything we have to acknowledge what is broken and remove it from any solution we might strive
for. I don't care if the Sanders car breaks down the moment we get off the road. First thing is
first we need to get off the road.
The DNC and RNC are corrupt and liabilities. The Media is covering up their most important
flaws for the sake of business as usual. Too many people have much to lose if this 2 party gravy
train is derailed and that isn't just the billionaires and multi-national corps. An entire system
has compromised the Republic and it need to be cleansed over a period of a decade to just get
rid of the nepotism, corruption, and pay to play shenanigans.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the poster children for this system. I do not favor Ted
Cruz but he is right when he says the former sells influence and the latter buys it. If those
are options, next time won't be so polite.
Every one should vote according to their convictions ignoring what the media has to say or
does not say. It is also important not to pay attention who is going to win in the general election.
I believe the economy is rigged. The political establishment and corporate America as well as
Banks and Wall Street are all in the same bed. They will have a long happy honeymoon until ordinary
folks cannot support their honeymoon expenses. That gives rise to people like Sanders and Trump,
who will disturb the political order. My vote is for Sanders. Here why? I believe free college
is an economic necessity that we cannot afford not have. I believe the economy is rigged and Main
street should regulate the Wall Street and not the other way around. I believe health care to
all is necessary pre-condition to define a human society. I believe we can afford and we must.
Vote what you believe in and the nation will in the right direction.
Sanders hasn't been allowed to debate, and has gotten little to no media coverage. Our society
picks it's leaders based on 2 things. 1) the candidate with the most royal blood connection to
King John (this is a real theory, may not be true, but 98% of U.S. Presidents are the great-great-great-great-great-great
grand children of Charlemagne and King John,) and 2) which candidate they see in the media the
most. If Bernie loses this nomination, Donald Trump will become our next (and possibly final)
commander in chief.
Your tone is absurdly condescending, as if many Sanders supporters aren't graduate school educated
professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants, social workers, educators, etc…) In fact, educated
people in pro-social occupations make up one of his stronger demographics.
The differences between the leftists who left their hippie-dropout lifestyles disillusioned
and moved on to professional careers later, and the more youthful Sanders supporters a couple
generations younger are myriad. Foremost, very few of them are cultural dropouts; they didn't
take the "burn out or sell out" brat route of the Boomers. Most are educated, and many are saddled
with student debt loads difficult for older people to understand (the mechanisms that force students
into debt are especially difficult for affluent Boomers to grasp). They compete for jobs with
all those disillusioned brats who settled down to professional practices - and are still working!
Not to mention the fact that your bitter ones - those who never learned the folly of egalitarianism
- are presumably the same ones who never got graduate degrees and cushy jobs; they're still waiting
for representation, for a pro-labor, pro-working-class candidate who never comes.
Nobody has pulled the wool over anyone's eyes, except perhaps the Clinton, the DNC, and the
media outlets that prop them up by appealing to low information voters while engaging only with
policy that benefits affluent ex-leftists in high aging professional positions.
In past elections, I have admittedly voted for the "lesser of two evils." Now, I realize that
just perpetuated a system which is corrupt. If people got truly educated about the issues and
the candidates, there would be only one choice, Senator Bernie Sanders. Alas, as Senator Adlai
Stevenson once said, getting the vote of every right thinking American was not enough. He needed
a majority. Sadly, this is only more true today.
> "These weaknesses could have been mitigated over time had the Times and the mainstream press
actually told its more diverse readers how Sanders' policies would in fact help them"
ANYBODY who wanted to be consumers of Mr. Sanders' talking points had more than enough sources
for that.
Sadly, your complaint is exactly the same one that conservatives have be putting on the NYT since
the mid-70s
What an intelligent person 'might' complain about in relation to your concerns is that the
MSM spends far too little effort accurately 'telling the voters' how delusional Mr. Sanders' proposals
are, and how there is less than a 1% chance they could EVER be implemented under any imaginable
configuration of the Congress
Related to this, I remember sadly, who NYT, WaPo, and others pointed out the lunacy of GWB's
campaign proposals were in 2000
IMPACT: almost zero
The naked agenda of GWB was to take a roaring economy, running in surplus, and open it up for
the private gain of the highest bidder
The GWB/Cheney agenda was very similar to Mitt Romney's LBO scheme to - take control of organizations
- strip them of as many of their valuable assets as they could efficiently do in as short a time
frame as possible
- load them up with debt, that went back into their own pockets so that they had none of their
own assets at risk
- dump the operation as quick as possible so that they wouldn't be holding-the-bag when the feces-hit-the-fan
- look for the next target
I disagree. There has been a very disproportionate coverage of candidates by the media. In
fact, I would argue that the biggest story of this election cycle is the media's own influence
of the election. I find it quite disturbing. This in not my opinion. It's a conclusion based on
studies I've read in the past several days, one of which was published by the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth...
The mainstream media and its corporate owners are deeply troubled over the issue of Campaign
Finance Reform, which has been the most obvious point of Bernie Sanders' campaign--he has financed
his campaign through small donations from individual citizens, instead of SuperPacs like Hillary
has done, and this has been no small feat.
Corrupt campaign finance is a powerful tool the corporate elite uses to manipulate American voters
into voting against their own interests.
This is why the MSM has treated Sanders so shabbily. A glaring example of this problem was the
first Democratic debate put on by CNN. As it turns out, CNN is a subsidiary of Time-Warner, which
is a big donor to Hillary's campaign. Let that sink in.
So, sure enough, Anderson Cooper asked the candidates Zero questions about campaign finance reform,
Bernie Sanders' main issue, and Bernie had to stick the issue into an answer of his to a question
on a different topic near the end of the program. If not for that, the issue would not have been
raised at all.
The same syndrome has been evident, albeit in milder form, in most of the media, including the
NYT, the WaPo, MSNBC, and so on.
Corporate forces, including the corporate media, are loathe to have someone like Bernie Sanders
come along and take their corrupt financing of American politicians away from them.
Of course this latest interesting development must be giving Hillary palpitations; Can a felon
become President of the United States ??
See Business Insider and Link:
"The FBI is widening its investigation of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's
use of a private email account while she was U.S. secretary of state to determine whether any
public corruption laws were violated, Fox News reported on Monday.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been looking into whether classified material was mishandled
during Clinton's tenure at the State Department from 2009-2013.
It will expand its probe by examining possible overlap of the Clinton Foundation charity with
State Department business, Fox reported, citing three unidentified intelligence officials.
"The [FBI] agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations,
the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," Fox
quoted one of its unidentified sources as saying."
In my mind, the fact that the Clintons have in the past taken money from Donald Trump disqualifies
Hillary from the presidency. I'm on the Bernie train, and if he's railroaded away from the nomination
by anyone, including President Obama, I'm not going to vote in November. I can't vote for either
Trump or Hillary, as they are in cahoots to fleece the average American and criminalize for life,
those whom they don't like, and that is mostly those in economic distress or poor substance abusers
in our country.
Obama's backing of Hillary is a disappointment. The self claimed most transparent administration
in history we were to get, never materialized, rather just the opposite happened, the least transparent
administration in history. His is an administration that went after whistleblowers exposing crimes
against the public, embraced perpetual warfare and mass incarceration, supports the surveillance
state, and his Justice Department and FBI stood by while unarmed American men and children had
their human rights and lives taken away from them by municipalities in Ohio, Illinois, California,
Florida, Texas, etc. etc. ad nauseam, this includes Tamir Rice and the kids drinking leaded water
in Flint. The list of human and civil rights violations under his watch is a long one that goes
on and on and no better than Dubya's. By supporting Hillary over Bernie, the President has proven
that he too, got into politics for the money. How cynical are leaders are today excluding Sanders.
Note that Donald Trump has won 48% of the GOP delegates so far. He would have to win about
54% of the remain delegates to get a majority, and the pundits consider that to be pretty likely.
Bernie has won 42% of the Democratic delegates so far (not counting superdelegates) and would
need to win about 58% of the remaining delegates to win. The pundits seem to consider it to be
pretty unlikely.
Maybe, but I think the pundits might be wrong on this one.
This nonsense about Ralph Nader has been repeated so often that almost seems plausible (…not
unlike many another myth). The historical truth is as follows.
The 2000 election came down to Florida. Running as "independents" were Nader (progressive)
and Pat Buchanan (conservative). Each of them received almost exactly the same number of votes
-- i.e. they cancelled each other out, Buchanan taking as many votes from Bush as Nader did from
Gore.
The one who who gave Bush the election was his brother Jeb. Through his Florida Secretary of
State, he ordered the recount ended -- the excuse proffered was the fear of violence: precinct
stations where poll workers were counting the votes had been attacked by squads of goons (paid
for, as was later revealed) by Karl Rove. The issue of the recount was then thrown to the Supreme
Court, which issued one of the most partisan rulings in its history.
Gore's loss had absolutely nothing to do with Ralph Nader. And those who claim it did are either
woefully uninformed, or are deliberately (and cynically!) distorting history to push some different
agenda of their own.
As I see things, Sanders is a better bet for the fall and the future . Mrs. Clinton was a "Goldwater
Girl" back in her younger days and was/is actually proud of that. I have to wonder if the African
American population realizes what that meant and now means. It hard to believe that she is not
owned by big business. Her possible indictment and the Republican reaction to no indictment. I
do not trust her for so many reasons. Since the polls seem to show that Sanders could defeat the
Republicans it might just be a safer move. Our nation does not want (or should not want) another
mess with another 'Clinton'. Nor should our country have to endure the problems that may well
accompany Mrs. Clinton into office. And hey, does anyone know why Mrs. Clinton discontinued the
use of her maiden name altogether? Has she any identity on her own that is of real value in her
thinking or does she just have to try to ride on a wave created by her hubby----not a very sharp
move for a true feminist. Shame on Mr. Obama for his comments in her favor. I am with Sanders
and probably not bothering to vote for her in the fall if she get the Democratic nomination---just
too hard to justify. The voters
who send her into the fall election just deserve 4 four years of the likes of Mr. Trump. This
might not be the year for Sanders and his approach, but the future lies ahead as an college Professor
always said.
Nate you are delusional if you don't think Bernie will win big in the Bay Area, the days of
smoke filled back rooms with Willie Brown and Diane Feinstein carving up the spoils are thankfully
over. The Bay Area has a very diverse, intelligent populace who can spot a phony when they see
it, Hillary doesn't stand a chance.
Say what you will, Bernie Sanders has breathed life into the Democrat campaign with sound ideas.
He has resurrected some of the old labor friendly ways of a party drifted too far to the right.
His call for a "revolution" of participation in government and civic lifr will resonate past the
election.
I'm glad he's staying in the race. I'd like my chance to vote for him, even if it proves only
symbolicc.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC
8 hours ago
Still waiting for the release of Hillary's transcripts of speeches she gave to special interest
who lathered her with millions. If you support Hillary and you don't care about seeing what she
told special interests you either work for one, or have your head in the sand.
Hillary's favorability ratings are below 50% in every poll taken. She is considered trustworthy
by a much lower percentage than Bernie.
But she is the best candidate for the Dems because she supports big money in politics. No way
to avoid the FACT the Dem party loves big donors and has absolutely no interest in having it any
other way. They are competing with Repubs for big donors.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for continuing pay to play, which has ruined this country for
the past 3 decades. Another bought and paid for candidate.
If it's Clinton v. Trump (of whoever v. Trump), and we the citizenry choose Trump, I must say
that humankind has really not come very far. In our country, the wealthiest in the world, where
by all reasonable measures, we live in significantly better conditions than most (but not all)
of the world population, we will have proven ourselves not so different from the typical ups-and-downs
that third-world countries and banana republics experience. For all our riches and our advancements,
we, as humans, must be somehow consigned, as a collective, to make the same stupid mistakes. I
hope we prove ourselves better than that.
There are quite a few more ways Bernie can win: leaks expose Hilary's Wall Street speeches,
; FBI charges; a strong yuan devaluation causes significant stock market volatility; etc
It's sad that educated "affluent" voters will support Clinton ostensibly to try to hold onto
as much of their wealth as possible even when it's worse for the nation at large. It's the exact
confluence of money and politics that Clinton stands for and Sanders rejects. This race is about
one candidate who is well-liked, genuine, and looking to honestly help people versus another who
pretends to be working for the people, but who's track record is a virtual Frank Underwood guide
book of self-serving political maneuvers for wealth and power.
Sanders ideas to give power back to the people instead of back to the wealthy isn't as radical
as the media portrays him. It's the basic tenets of democracy most of us learned back in grade
school. Hopefully whatever magic spell Clinton has over the black vote will be broken and voters
will wake up to realize there is only one candidate fighting on their behalf.
Actually, public colleges USED to be free for every in-state student. In the flower of my mature
years, I can still remember that.
I also remember making a livable living as a woman with only a HS diploma, serving as an executive
secretary for the high-powered and well-connected.
Many of them were identical to the snarling Democratic women who serve as Hillary*s henchpeople.
Even as they worked for the *better good* in the non-profit and socially advanced universe, they
were more than happy to trample on people like me.
And *me* are, like, legion...
I will never vote for Hillary. I will write in Sanders* name if I have to, and sleep soundly
on Election Night, regardless of what happens, because I will have acted according to my own principles
and ethics. If we all do so Sanders can win. If others do the usual craven Democratic fold--you*ll
get what you deserve.
It is time for the NYTimes and the rest of the corporate media to recognize the very real and
terrifying possibility that Donald Trump will be our next president. It is time to drop their
mindless support of Hillary and to face the facts. Bernie defeats Trump in every poll by wider
margins than Hillary. Bernie has no baggage. He has never faced indictment. He is not owned by
Wall St. and super pacs. He has not been a cheerleader for endless war in the Middle East.
Hillary is vulnerable in a general election; Bernie is not. I don't think the Times bothered to
report it, but Bernie actually earned more votes in North Carolina than Trump did. Many Bernie
supporters will not vote for Hillary. Bernie, however, has higher positive ratings than any other
candidate this year. He won his home state by 87% because he is beloved by Republicans and Independents
as well as Democrats. It is time to explain to African-Americans, Latinos, etc. WHY he is so beloved.
There is no reason on earth for African-Americans not to support him except for the fact that
they know nothing about him. That is your fault, corporate media, and nobody else's.
The truth is that Sanders performs way better against Trump in general election and state-by-state
match-ups than Clinton. He has great appeal for Independents, and even garners 25% of the Republican
vote in his home state of Vermont. One can say that Sanders hasn't yet been "tested" against the
Republican spin machine in a general election, but honestly, the worst they can throw at him is
"socialist," a term that is actually very friendly to those who come to understand the meaning
of "Democratic socialism." Clinton has so many lies (think, for just one, of "landing under sniper
fire in Bosnia), flip-flops and evolutions in her history that the Republicans will have a field
day with her. Independents don't like her, millennials are apathetic to her, and her only real
appeal is with strong Democrats, most of whom she doesn't inspire. What I fear the most is a Trump
presidency, and that Clinton will end up being another John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale.
Cannot fathom why anyone would vote for Hillary
unless you want the "Same Old - Same Old":
The Rich get Richer and Poor get Poorer.
Do you really think someone who took $ 675,000 for making
3 speeches to Goldman Sachs is going to tame the Wall Street Wolves ?
I believe Sen Sanders is committing a terrible error that will cost him the nomination and
the Democrats the presidency.
While sparing HRC all the hovering questions by running a clean campaign
first, he is not only not using the possibility to highlight his superiority on political luggage
and history which could help him with minority groups, veterans and others ,
but also he is not preparing the public for the spectacle waiting the public when the duel with
Trump(or Cruz) starts.
When the issues such as her voting history on wars, Secretary of State
tragic mistakes such as Libya, endangering nation security with the use of a
private server , Bill grotesque history with women and her shaming of the women who went trough,
her past positions on LGBT,
profoundly racist comments as the Superpredators, weird insinuations as the gunfire in Kosovo
start being spit on her by towering, screaming bully of Trump it will be a
a BLOODBATH.
There is so many of them and even now she keep on making them
and when you hear them all spit one by one with a venom and conviction by the "other" candidate,
even diehard Dems will be appalled.
She will be destroyed and no whatsoever credibility will be accorded any
explanation she could give as the offences are BIGGER then anything we have ever witnessed in
president candidate.
Reps are stocking them like silver bullets and they will hit when the time comes.
So shoot now Sanders, otherwise other will use them to kill.
I am a psychiatrist, and I am terrified by the idea that someone with such a narcissistic,
and anti-social personality, would put the future and safety of our country at great risk, in
order to aquire another "property" that he desperately wants, as another trophy to add to his
list of buying everything he wants, no matter the cost or risk.
Unlike a real estate acquisition, you cannot (or should not) bankrupt this country, write it
off as a loss on your taxes, and move on to purchasing another "prize" you want, and feel you
are entitled to "collect/own". For a man who continually demonstrates the temper of a 5 y/o when
he is challenged, and has no political experience mixed with his "ballistic" temper, would you
really choose him to make decisions that involve the safety and welfare of our country, and to
make rationally based decisions in our current state of complex and fragile international affairs?
"... Trump is winning because he is NOT the establishment. Sanders, coming out of nowhere, with only PEOPLE rather than the establishment behind him, is running a fantastic race against a well oiled machine going on twenty years in the building of it. ..."
"... US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options. It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds. The extreme right is doing great in Northern and Central Europe, while the extreme left is doing the same in Southern Europe creating a rift in almost every issue, but specially the immigration policy. many countries are becoming difficult to govern at a time when separatism, both national (Scotland, Catalonia) and supranational (Brexit) is on the increase. ..."
"... "US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options. It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds." ..."
"... The odds are, you are right, about HRC being the nominee, but it is still a race, and it ain't over till it's over. I hope like hell you are right about TRUMP LOSING, regardless of who wins, but I have been following politics since the fifties, and HRC has had a hint of dead fish smell following her from day one. They used to talk about RR being the teflon prez, but compared to HRC, he was Velcro. ..."
"... She stinks in terms of the public's opinion of her, and elections are generally decided in the middle in this country. ..."
"... The Republican party is too far to the right for most Europeans, including me. And as of late it seems to even be going farther to the right (Tea party, Trump, etc). ..."
The MSM are doing their usual thing this morning, managing, like the referee at a pro wrestling
match, to miss the real action. It is true that a win is a win in a winner take all state when
it comes to delegates, but when the results are as close as three points, one or two voters out
of a hundred changing sides changes the results.
The people are obviously sick and tired of our old establishment politicians.
Trump is winning because he is NOT the establishment. Sanders, coming out of nowhere, with
only PEOPLE rather than the establishment behind him, is running a fantastic race against a well
oiled machine going on twenty years in the building of it.
When the actual election rolls around, the people who are pissed at the establishment, meaning
damned near everybody except the handful at the top of the economic and political heap, are going
to wish they could vote for an outsider.
The right wing outsiders will get their wish from the looks of things. They will be voting
AGAINST INSIDERS rather than FOR Trump. Their fires will be burning hot and bright, unless he
goes totally nuts campaigning.
This looks BAD for the country imo. The D's are in great danger of running a CLASSIC insider.
It's time for a change, and the younger people of this country feel it in their bones.
And about this old climate change issue, ahem. We can basically go to bed at night, not worrying
about it very much, in terms of people's beliefs, because all that is really left is a mopping
up operation as far as public opinion is concerned.
My generation will soon be either dead or in nursing homes, and the younger generation will
vote the scientific consensus, after a while.
I remember LOTS of people who were DEAD set, pun intended, in their belief that smoking is
a harmless pleasure. It has been a decade at least since I heard even an illiterate moron claim
that smoking is safe, although I do still hear an occasional smoker in denial say that when your
time comes, your time has come, and it does not matter about the WHY of it coming.
This is not to say we can abandon the fight, but that victory is assured, so long as we keep
it up.
After all, the actual EVIDENCE is accumulating that the world is warming up pretty fast.
I have no doubt at all than unless the last ten days of this month are very close to RECORD
COLD, we will be setting a regional record for the warmest March ever. My personal estimate is
that the odds of a frost kill of the tree fruit crop locally are among the highest ever. All it
takes is ONE good frosty night once the buds are too far advanced.
The Koch brothers and their buddies will continue to fight a dirty and ferocious rear guard
action of course, but in another decade, the issue will no longer be in doubt, as far as the general
public is concerned.
Trump is winning because he is NOT the establishment
Nobody is more establishment than Trump. He's a perfect example of a crony-capitalist. Again, this is the classic strategy of exploiting people's problems, and diverting their anger
towards scapegoats, like immigrants and foreign countries. Trump has proposed a massive tax cut for the 1%, and making life harder for immigrants only
helps business exploit them better, and undercuts wages even more for working people.
There is more than one way do define the word "establishment".
In one sense Trump IS the establishment, but in the sense I used it , he is the ANTI establishment,
no doubt, but he is also a new face on the political scene, running against the D party as WELL
as his own NOMINAL party.
No real republican thinks of Trump as a republican, if we define republican as somebody who
agrees with most or all of the positions and values of the republican party for the last couple
of decades.
What I am saying is that the foot soldiers of the R party have been ready to mutiny for a long
time now, and Trump has provided them the leadership necessary to do so.
The working class conservative voters are THOROUGHLY pissed at the R party establishment, feeling
betrayed at every turn.
People who used to work for a living in the industries sent overseas by the D and R parties
working in collusion have felt trapped until today, betrayed by the D party on the social consensus
they held dear, right or wrong, and fucked over by the R party they have been voting for as the
lesser of two evils.
Not many such people still believe in the American Dream, because they are simply not able
to get ahead anymore, no matter how hard they work.
And while they are mistaken to believe in Trump, at least Trump has not be been lying to them
continuously for the last few decades, AS THEY SEE IT.
( That he is lying to them now , in substantial ways, is irrevelant. He is a NEW face. )
Trump IS Wall Street, and HRC is in the vest pocket of Wall Street, except on cultural issues.
Now these comments may not make much sense to hard core liberals, because hard core liberals
have an incredibly hard time believing anybody who disagrees with them has a brain, or morals,
or a culture that suits THEM.
In actuality, at least half of the country disagrees with the D party social agenda, for reasons
that TO THEM are valid and more than adequate.
I agree: Trump has sold himself as an advocate for the working class.
It's the same strategy Republicans have been using for 40 odd years: using people's fears and
hopes to get them to vote for people who proceed to betray them.
Not that Democrats are enormously better, but, with our current political system they can't
be. If they get too progressive, the other party can move to the middle and cut them out.
It's nice to see you posting again. Your spot on. The Republican establishment has been exploiting
their base for the last 50 years with a whisper campaign of racism and bigotry for their own 1%
economic gain. The Donald has only removed the whisper from the campaign and increased the amount
of lies.
"Trump is the same ol', same ol', only worse"
"That's what puzzles me – this idea that fossil fuels are still valuable."
Nick, you over estimate the educated gray matter of your fellow humans. Most don't have your
vision and will not see it until EV's are the norm(10+ years from now). The fossil fuel Republican
parties base will be the last in the world to see the light. If they aren't already.
US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options.
It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds.
The extreme right is doing great in Northern and Central Europe, while the extreme left is
doing the same in Southern Europe creating a rift in almost every issue, but specially the immigration
policy. many countries are becoming difficult to govern at a time when separatism, both national
(Scotland, Catalonia) and supranational (Brexit) is on the increase.
If we move to the rest of the world we see the very negative result of the Arab Spring. Essentially
no single country that underwent those social revolutions has come better afterwards. Even Tunisia,
a moderate country, has seen its tourism badly damaged and it is now the biggest contributor to
Sirian foreign fighters. Saudi Arabia has a more extremist government that it is making a policy
out of foreign intervention, minority repression and confrontation against Iran, while its population
is cheering the change.
So don't be so surprised by developments in US politics that follow what is happening elsewhere.
It is a product of the times we live.
the world's trend towards more extremist politicians
There's nothing new about demagoguery, in the US or elsewhere, or revolutionary sentiment (I
guess I shouldn't have said Trump was "worse" – he's just a little less subtle about it than has
been the norm lately in the US).
Have you seen any actual data suggesting that there is a real change in "extremism", separatism,
social discontent or other similar things?
"Have you seen any actual data suggesting that there is a real change in "extremism", separatism,
social discontent or other similar things?"
Yes:
French National Front best results ever in 2014-2015 elections. They were the first party in
the last EU parliamentary elections in France with almost 5 million votes.
Alternative for Germany. New party in 2013. Best results ever in 2016 state elections, receiving
second and third place in the three states that held elections.
Freedom Party of Austria second best result ever in 2013 elections with 20,5% of the vote and
30% in Vienna.
Coalition of Radical Left (Syriza) best result ever in 2015 elections with 36.3% of the votes.
Podemos (Radical left in Spain). New party in 2014. Best result ever in 2015 elections with
21% of the votes.
Populism and demagoguery are taking the developed world by storm. New radical (right or left)
parties go from zero to taking second or third places in mere months.
"US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options.
It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds."
I don't have more than the foggiest idea about Javier's personal political beliefs, other than
that he occasionally makes a remark indicating he leans more to the left than to the right. I
don't think you do either.
Folks who are so TRIBALLY oriented that they cannot distinguish a skeptic from a partisan will
always of course assume that anybody who questions anything associated with their IN group is
a member of their OUT GROUP, and a fraud or a phony or an enemy of some sort.
I disagree with Javier's assessment of the potential risk of forced climate change, but he
on the other hand he never has anything to say, other than about the extent of forced climate
change, that sets off my personal alarm bells when it comes to environmental issues. On every
other environmetal question, unless I have overlooked something, he is very much in one hundred
percent agreement with the overall "big picture " environmental camp consensus.
It is GOOD politics to remember what RR had to say about a man who agrees with you just about
all the time. Such a man is a FRIEND, in political terms, and an ally, rather than an enemy.
Now about that fear card- both parties play it on a regular basis.
In case you haven't noticed, I support the larger part of the D party platform, except I go
FARTHER, in some cases, as in supporting single payer for the heath care industry. I have made
it clear that I am NOT a republican, and stated many times that I am basically a single issue
voter, that issue being the environment.
Now HERE is why I am supporting Bernie Sanders, nicely summarized, although I do not take every
line of this article seriously.
Any democrat who is not afraid to remove his or her rose colored glasses, and take a CRITICAL
look at HRC as a candidate, will come away with a hell of a lot to think about if he or she reads
this link.
I personally know a lot of people who have voted D most of their lives who would rather vote
for ANY other D than HRC. It is extremely hard for a lot of people to accept it, but she STINKS,
ethically, in the opinion of a HUGE swath of independents, and a substantial number of committed
democrats . A good many of them may stay home rather than vote for her, but they will vote for
Sanders, out of party loyalty and fear of Trump.
Sanders polls better,virtually across the board, in terms of the actual election, and he does
not have the negative baggage. I WANT a Democrat in the WH next time around.
Read this , and think, if you are not so immersed in party and personal politics that you can't
deal with it.
Millions and millions of D voters have digested it already, for themselves, over the last decade
or two, which is why Sanders is getting half the vote, excluding minorities in the south, even
though he is coming out of nowhere, without the support of the party establishment, without big
money backing him, against HRC who has been organizing and campaigning just about forever.
I am not saying this guy is right in every respect, but he has his finger on the pulse of many
tens of millions of D voters, or potential D voters.
If it comes down to Trump versus HRC, I am not at ALL sure HRC will win, but if Sanders gets
the nomination, I think he WILL, because even though he has been around forever, he is the NEW
face of the D party, and the PEOPLE of this country are SICK and TIRED of the old faces, D and
R both.
Trump and Sanders have in ONE important thing in common . Both of them are new faces, promising
to bring new life to their parties.
I like a lot about what Sanders is bringing to the table. But sorry Mac, I think its going to
be Clinton.
I'm non-aligned (anti-partisan), but I'd vote for Clinton a thousand times over Trump. And I think
a strong majority of the country will as well.
The odds are, you are right, about HRC being the nominee, but it is still a race, and it ain't
over till it's over. I hope like hell you are right about TRUMP LOSING, regardless of who wins, but I have been
following politics since the fifties, and HRC has had a hint of dead fish smell following her
from day one. They used to talk about RR being the teflon prez, but compared to HRC, he was Velcro.
Almost every regular in this forum seems to be mathematically literate. I challenge anybody
here to explain Cattle Gate as any thing except fraud, pure and simple, in realistic terms.
Hey, this ain't YET North Korea, where we actually believe our leader made a hole in one the
first time he ever tried golf, on a day so foggy nobody could see the green.
I absolutely will never vote for EITHER HRC or TRUMP.
If the D's run HRC, the best hope for the country is that the R's broker their convention,
and Trump gives up crashing the R party and his own personal hard core stays home. That would
make the election safe for HRC, assuming the FBI decides in her favor. Not many prez candidates
have ever had a hundred agents on their case.
Six months ago I was almost sure Trump was a flash in the pan, and would be forgotten by now.
I now fear that there is a very real possibility he may win.
The political waters are so muddy it is impossible to say what will happen a year from now.
Trump is the sort of fellow who successfully "aw shucks" away most of his nasty rhetoric once
he has the nomination, and then he will turn his guns on HRC. He won't have far to go to look
for ammo, and he will make damned sure everything smelly is on the front pages from day one, all
the way back to Arkansas.
Sanders is a far more desirable candidate in the actual election.
She stinks in terms of the public's opinion of her, and elections are generally decided in
the middle in this country.
If she can take her ten years plus campaigning advantage into a big industrial state, Obama's
political home, with the party establishment behind her, and win by only TWO POINTS points, what
does this tell you?She should have won by thirty points or more, if the people were really behind
her, rather than beholden to the party machine.
The deep south will vote for Trump in preference to HRC, with a couple of exceptions, maybe
three or four. So her big delegate lead from there doesn't prove a THING in terms of the actual
election. She is taking all the delegates elsewhere in winner take all states by only very narrow
margins. The BURN in D voter's hearts is mostly for Sanders.
Trump would likely be in worse shape in terms of public opinion, except he is a new face, politically,
and it takes a long time to build up such negatives, it doesn't happen overnight.
My personal opinion of HIS ethics is that he makes HRC look like an altar girl.
I am not too interested in politics, and even less in US politics. The Republican party is
too far to the right for most Europeans, including me. And as of late it seems to even be going
farther to the right (Tea party, Trump, etc).
I do not find myself much of a political space because I do not agree much with both left and
right parties in Europe. I am more of a traditional European liberal, which doesn't translate
well into a US political leaning, and even in Europe is very minoritarian. Let's just say that
I believe that individual rights are above collective rights and I believe in small government.
I also think that the economy should be strictly regulated to avoid dominant positions that always
go against the individual, and that medical care and education should be affordable to anybody.
But I am afraid all these belong to a pre-Oil Peak world and we are going to see very different
politics being played out as our economy starts to suffer from lack of affordable oil. Right now
oil is not affordable because producers cannot afford it, but if it goes up significantly in price
consumers will not be able to afford it.
"The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to
stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump,"
Huff Post writes
. Here's a list of attendees:
Apple CEO Tim Cook,
Google co-founder Larry Page,
Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker,
Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),
political guru Karl Rove,
House Speaker Paul Ryan,
GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott
(S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.),
Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.),
Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas)
Kevin McCarthy (Calif.),
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.),
Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.),
Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
Diane Black (Tenn.)
"
A specter was haunting the World Forum--the specter of Donald
Trump,
" the Weekly Standard founder Bill Kristol wrote in an
emailed report from the conference, borrowing the opening lines of the
Communist Manifesto. "There was much unhappiness about his emergence, a
good deal of talk, some of it insightful and thoughtful, about why he's
done so well, and many expressions of hope that he would be defeated."
Heading to AEI World Forum. Lots of interesting
guests. It's off the record, so please do consider my tweets from
there off the record!
Predictably Karl Rove, GOP mastermind, gave a presentation outlining
what he says are Trump's weaknesses. Voters would have a hard time seeing
him as "presidential," Rove said. Which we suppose is why they are
turning out in droves to vote for him.
yup - a group of billionaires meeting at an exclusive resort
debating how to circumvent the democratic process, failing to
consider that's the exact description of what's wrong with
America (and the GOP)
Tom Price'is one of the highest net worth Congressmen. His Georgia office is in Roswell, which is a corrupt little city in North Atlanta. Roswell city officials harassed and fined a mildly retarded man who refused to give up his ownership of about 20 chickens to the point that the guy was going to lose his paid for house, and he committed suicide. (Google Roswell Chicken Man). Tom Price fits right in with that bunch.
Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker,
Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),
political guru Karl Rove,
House Speaker Paul Ryan,
GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.),
Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.),
Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas)
Kevin McCarthy (Calif.),
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.),
Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.),
Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
Diane Black (Tenn.)"~
So work this out with me:
The top 4 people on the list are committed NWO leftists.
The next one and third are reknown RINOs, with the second being a political dirty tricks mechanic.
The rest of the group are owned outright by the banksters.
"Ladies and Gentlemen,
YOUR
REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP!"
Maybe Reince Priebus should get a sworn oath out of these coniving little fucks to support the lead vote getter in the primaries. (Don't count on it.) Say..., where is ol' Reince anyway? Why isn't he out denouncing these weasels?
Flint is where I was born and raised. The Governor gave away billions of Detroit's assets for
pennies on the dollar with no one challah ginger that theft. Now he is stealing lives in Flint.
He needs to step down. I would provide a link for more info but I am not permitted.
Yep, as was likely. Sanders campaign is all about momentum and whether he can bring people on
side or whether they just think he has no chance. In that respect the early ballots were always
going to be tough, apart from NH and Vermont.
March 15 is probably the real decider. Big states, lots of delegates. Sanders really must win
a lot of them to keep going, assuming that the superdelegates stay strongly behind Hillary. He
has done well though this week, winning some smaller states and building some momentum towards
the larger ones. It's not over if he doesn't crush Hillary on the 15th in those big states, but
if he loses several of them it will probably be the end of the momentum he needs.
Sanders is still very much the underdog, but then that's kind of the way he likes it.
"... This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation process of global capitalism & its "1%" class. ..."
"... One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating, is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination economic empire is the goal. ..."
"... The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see the whole electoral mirage for what it is. ..."
"... Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing, especially the race war against the Arab people. ..."
"... Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump? ..."
"... Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept. It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show. What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing. ..."
"... Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more acute. ..."
"... why do American politicians become incontinent when they mention Saudi Arabia ..."
"... recycling mechanism for capitalism ..."
"... there is a suicidal death pact between the West and Saudi Arabia ..."
"... Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. ..."
"... For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism) has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru history 'The 99%'...). ..."
"... So long as he rises to militarily protect "National Interests" abroad - read: imperial billionaire class interests - he's really one of them. ..."
"... He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor. ..."
"... Excellent discussion and lecture. A very important part of the 'due diligence' of democratic participation and research by the people. ..."
Be nice to have a book called "The Foreign Policy of the 1%".
Maybe include references to GATT, TPP, oil wars as mentioned in the presentation.
Other questions:
1) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to Economic Hitman, John Perkins?
2) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to conservative founders like Jeane Kirkpatrick?
3) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to rise to Regan Revolution? Trump?
This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be
copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the
neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation
process of global capitalism & its "1%" class.
Deepest thanks to Vijay Prashad...and to others
like professor Bennis (present in the audience)... whose in-depth analysis of the system can, if
studied, contribute to putting the nascent 'political revolution' Bernie calls for...into a real
democratic movement in this country. We are so woefully ignorant as 'members of the 99%'- it seems
worst of all in America-- intentionally kept isolated from knowing anything about this country/corporation's
'foreign policy' (aka as Capitalist system policy or 'the 1% policy) that Bernie cannot even broach
what Vijay has given here. But he at least opens up some of our can of worms, the interrconnectdedness
of class-interests and the devastation this country's (and the global cabal of ) capitalist voracious
economic interests rains upon the planet.
The Mid-East is a product of Capitalism that will, if
we don't recognize the process & change course & priorties, will soon overtake all of Africa and
all 'undeveloped' (pre-Capitalist) countries around the globe--The destruction and never-ending
blur of war and annihilation of peoples, cultures and even the possibility of 'political evolution'
is a product of the profit-at-any-and-all-costs that is the hidden underbelly of a system of economics
that counts humanity as nothing. It is a sick system. It is a system whose sickness brings death
to all it touches... and we are seeing now it is bringing ITS OWN DEATH as well.
The '99% policy'
(again a phrase Prashad should be congratulated for bringing into the language) is indeed one
that understands that our needs --the people's needs, not 'national interests' AKA capitalist
corporate/financial interests --- are global, that peace projects are essentially anti-capitalist
projects.... and our needs-to build a new society here in the U.S. must begin to be linked to
seeing Capitalism as the root cause of so much suffering that must be replaced by true democratic
awakening a- r/evolutionary process that combines economic and civic/political -- that we must
support in every way possible. Step One: support the movement for changed priorities & values
by voting class-consciously.
The 1% or the oligarchy have completely won the world, our only way to fight against such power
is to abandon buying their products, take great care on who you vote for in any election, only
people who have a long record of social thinking should be considers. They can be diminished but
not beaten.
One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating,
is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination
economic empire is the goal.
The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course
they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and
global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put
forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see
the whole electoral mirage for what it is.
All of what's been said about the elites, the one percent, has already been said many years ago.
The conversation about the wealthy elites destroying our world has changed only in the area of
how much of our world has and is being destroyed. Absolutely nothing else has changed, nothing
else.
Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and
their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than
ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing,
especially the race war against the Arab people. Meanwhile, as we continue to speak the ocean
is licking at our doorstep, the average mean temperature has ticked up a few notches and we are
all completely distracted by which power hungry corporate zealot is going to occupy the office
which is responsible for making our human condition even more dire. The circus that is this election
is merely a ploy by the elites to make us believe that we actually do have a choice. Uh-huh; yet
if I were to suggest what REALLY needs to be done to save the human race I would be in a court
which functions only to impoverish those of us who try to speak the truth of our situation objectively.
The 'Justice' system's only function is to render us powerless. Whether one is guilty or innocent
is completely irrelevant anymore. All they have to do is file charges and they have your wealth.
Good luck to all of us as we all talk ourselves to death.
Dear denden11: You get gold stars in heaven as far as I'm concerned for telling the exact truth
in the plainest possible terms. Bravissimo. "Talk/ing/ ourselves to death" is, I'm sorry to say,
what we are doing. I've been working on these issues for forty years, looking for an exit from
this completely interlocked system. I'm sorry to say I haven't seen the exit. I do understand
how we have painted ourselves into this corner over the past 250 years (since the so-called Enlightenment),
but without repentance on our part and grace on God's part, we're doomed because we all believe
the Big Lies pumped into us moment by moment by Big Brother. And it's the Big Lies that keep us
terminally confused and fragmented.
Don't Believe the Hype was an NWA rap anthem over twenty year ago.
I always liked the shouted line, "And I don't take Ritalin!"
Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does
the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump?
In defeat, will Sander's campaign supporters radicalize or demoralize into apathy or tepid
support for Hillary - on the grounds that she's less of an evil than Trumpty Dumbty?
If not defeated, will Sanders and his campaign mobilize the People to fight the powers that
be? Otherwise, he has no real power base, short of selling out on his domestic spending promises
and becoming another social democratic lapdog for Capital- like Tony Blair.
Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is
weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept.
It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show.
What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing.
As material conditions change drastically for tens of millions of USAns, the old propaganda loses
effect.
New propaganda is required to channel the new class tensions. Still an opening may be created.
People can't heat their homes with propaganda, the kids are living in the basement and grandpa
can't afford a nursing home and he's drinking himself to death. That's the new normal, or variations
on it for a lot of people who don't believe the hype anymore.
Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything
for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more
acute.
Great work Vijay...got my "filters" back on. Cut and pasted original comment below despite TRNN
labeling of "time of posting" which is irrelevant at this point.
Wow...now that I got my rational filters back on this was a great piece by Vijay and succinctly
states what many of us who "attempt" to not only follow ME events but to understand not only the
modern history by the motives of the major players in the region. Thanks for this piece and others...looking
forward to the others.
Posted earlier while my mind was on 2016 election cycle watching MSM in "panic mode"
Thought this was going to be a rational discussion on US foreign policy until the part on ?
"Trumps Red Book". I had hoped to rather hear, "The Red Book of the American Templars" ...taking
from the Knights Templar in Europe prior the collapse of the feudal system. I will say that Vijay's
comment on Cruz was quite appropriate though it would also have been better to not only put it
into context but also illustrate that Cruz's father Rafael Cruz believes in a system contrary
to the founding ideals of the US Constitution: He states in an interview with mainstream media
during his son's primary campaign that [to paraphrase] "secularism is evil and corrupt". Here
is an excerpt of his bio from Wiki:
"During an interview conducted by the Christian Post in 2014, Rafael Cruz stated, "I think
we cannot separate politics and religion; they are interrelated. They've always been interrelated."[29]
Salon described Cruz as a "Dominionist, devoted to a movement that finds in Genesis a mandate
that 'men of faith' seize control of public institutions and govern by biblical principle."[30]
However, The Public Eye states that Dominionists believe that the U.S. Constitution should be
the vehicle for remaking America as a Christian nation.[31]"
Fareed Zakaria interviewed a columnist from the Wall Street Journal today on Fareed's GPS program
and flatly asked him [paraphrased], "Is not the Wall Street Journal responsible for creating the
racist paradigm that Trump took advantage of "? Let us begin with rational dialogue and not demagogy.
Quite frankly with regard to both Cruz and Trump [in context of the 2016 elections cycle] a more
insightful comment would have been...Change cannot come from within the current electoral processes
here in the US with Citizen's United as its "masthead" and "Corporations are people as its rallying
cry"!
Not the West....just the F.I.R.E industries...driving the housing bubble; shopping malls; office
buildings; buying municipal bonds [as they the municipalities bought and built prisons; jails;
SWAT vehicles and security equipment (developed by the Israelis); and keeping the insurance companies
afloat while AllState had time after Katrina to pitch their subsidiaries allowing these subsidiaries
to file for bankruptcy]...now all the maintenance expense is coming due and cities and counties
are going broke... along with the Saudi investments here in US.
Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we
are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation
of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. What about the 99 percent?
While populations simply need and want also income and investment security globally.
What about
populations in massive consumer debt for education, housing, etc. to fund one percent Growth.
Laborers across globe are all in same boat simply labor for food without anything else to pass
along to progeny but what is most important ethics. A world government established by corporatism
advantage by authority of law and advantage all directed toward endless returns to oligarchy family
cartels is not an acceptable world organization of division of resources because it is tranny,
exclusive, extraction and fraudulent. Such madness does NOT float all boats.
All this while oligarchs
control Taxation of government authority and hidden excessive investment and fraud return taxation.
While Governments in west don't even jail corporate criminals while west claims law is just while
skewed in favor of protecting one percent, their returns on investment and investments. Billionaires
we find in some parts of so called Unjust regions of world not yet on board with cartel game are
calling out fraud that harms individuals and society aggressively.
TEHRAN, Iran - An Iranian court has sentenced a well-known tycoon to death for corruption linked
to oil sales during the rule of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the judiciary spokesman
said Sunday.
Babak Zanjani and two of his associates were sentenced to death for "money laundering," among
other charges, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejehi said in brief remarks broadcast on state TV. He did
not identify the two associates. Previous state media reports have said the three were charged
with forgery and fraud.
"The court has recognized the three defendants as 'corruptors on earth' and sentenced them
to death," said Ejehi. "Corruptors on earth" is an Islamic term referring to crimes that are punishable
by death because they have a major impact on society. The verdict, which came after a nearly five-month
trial, can be appealed.
So when Bernie winds up on the regime change band wagon (of mostly leftist governments) and stays
silent in the face of US aided and approved of coups (Honduras/Zelaya being the next most recent
before Ukraine) while railing against the billionaire class on Wall Street and the neoliberal
trade agreements, he's not only missing the elephant in the room; he's part of this elephant.
For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in
the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism)
has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or
even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm
of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign
appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation
it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful
yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru
history 'The 99%'...).
And as all past power-elites have done, our '1%' has misread the age-old
evolution of culture when an old system NO LONGER WORKS that makes freedom, imagination & rebellion
more acceptable more attractive, more exciting and NECESSARY. Then, once energized BY NEED, DESIRE,
and yes HOPE....change begins and can't be stopped like a slow-moving rain that keeps moving.
As with past eras & past changes, in our own day this 'millennial plus 60's' powerful generational
tide is JUST BEGINNING to feel our strength & ability. Turning what was supposed to be a globalist-coronation
into what right now certainly seems like a step towards real change, towards building a recognition
of the power, we 'the 99%' can --IF WE ACT WISELY & WITH COMMITTMENT begin the work of creating
a new world.
Criticising Bernie is criticizing the real way progress works...We need to get out
of an ego-centric adolescent approach to human problem-solving, understand we need to keep our
movement growing even if it doesn't look the WAY WE EXPECTED IT TO LOOK...keep clear on GOALS
that Bernie's campaign is just a part of. The 'left' needs to recognize its our historic moment:
to either move ahead or SELF-destruct.. Impatience needs to be replaced by a serious look down
the road for our children's future. If we don't, the power elite of the System wins again (vote
Hillary?? don't vote??). We need to take a breath & rethink how change really happens because
this lost opportunity Is a loss we can no longer afford. The movement must be 'bigger than Bernie'.
I just hope he does not get forced to resign which the L-MSM is now beginning to parrot so Hillary
can win given the huge turnouts the Repugs are getting in the primaries. I want to see four candidates
at the National Convention...in addition to Third parties.
No one can be elected Commander and Chief by stating they will not defend oligarchs interests
as well as populations interests. We agree populations interests are negated and subverted all
over earth . That cannot be changed by armed rebellion but it can be changed by electing electable
voices of reason such as Sanders. Sanders will fight to protect populations and resist oligarchy
war mongering while holding oligarchs accountable. Sanders will address corrupted law and injustice.
Vote Sanders.
You are probably correct in your thinking, but the real power will never allow any potential effective
changes to the system that is. People who try usually end up dead.
This is why we must as citizens become active players in government far greater then we are today,
we must do far more then voting. We must have time from drudgery of earning a substandard wage
that forces most to have little time for advancing democracy. Without such time oligarchs and
one percent end-up controlling everything.
We can BEGIN the march toward mountain top toward socializations
which will promote aware individualizations. We don't expect we will advance anything without
oppositions in fact we expect increased attacks. Those increased attacks can become our energy
that unites masses as we all observe the insanity they promote as our direction. We merely must
highlight insanity and path forward toward sanity. Nothing can make lasting change this generation
the march will take generations. The speed advance only will depend on how foolish oligarchs are
at attempts to subvert public awareness seeking change. As they become more desperate our movements
become stronger. We must refrain from violence for that is only thing that can subvert our movement.
He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking
down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor.
Instead he does the LOTE thing for the neoliberal-neocon party "D". That's just dishonest bullshit
opportunism.
Do not receives daily email for a long time without clue why? so haven't in contact with TRN's
daily report until subject video appears on youtube website. and impressed by the panelists's
congregated pivotal works done thru all these years.
"... Dewey and Ford emerged from a brokered convention to lose the general election. So why? Because the party elites and elders want to protect us and stop of from falling into the abyss?… Most of us working two or three jobs think we're already in the abyss. The Obama abyss… ..."
In a stunningly honest and frank rant, FOX News' Judge Jeanine unleashes anchor hell upon
Mitt Romney and the GOP establishment hordes.
She begins:
"There's an insurrection coming. Mitt Romney just confirmed it. We've watched
governors, the National Review, conservative leaders, establishment and party operatives trash
Donald Trump. But Mitt Romney will always be remembered as the one who put us over
the edge and awoke a sleeping giant, the Silent Majority, the American people.
Fact. The establishment is panicked. Mitt essentially called for a brokered
convention where the Republican nominee will be decided by party activists and delegates irrespective
of their state's choice… You want a brokered convention? A primer Mitt. Whenever we have
a brokered convention we lose.
Dewey and Ford emerged from a brokered convention to lose the general election. So why?
Because the party elites and elders want to protect us and stop of from falling into the
abyss?… Most of us working two or three jobs think we're already in the abyss. The Obama abyss…
We are sick and tired of legislators of modest means who leave Congress
multimillionaires, whose spouses and families get all the contracts from selling the post offices
to accessing insider information so they can buy property and flip it. You're so entrenched
that you're willing to give Hillary Clinton a win. It doesn't matter to you which party, crony
capitalism and its paradigm will not change for the elite."
And that is just the introduction... Grab a coffee (or something stronger) and watch...
"... Donald Trump represents a challenge to the status quo because he doesn't want to democratize the world through bombing raids, says Richard Spencer from Radix Journal. US Congressman Alan Grayson agrees, saying the Republicans are desperate to stop Trump. ..."
"... The Republican establishment as reflected in Mitt Romney and others is absolutely desperate to stop Donald Trump. But what really is underneath it all is the fact that Trump does not adhere to the Republican Orthodoxy: "they've never met a war they didn't like." ..."
"... After Donald Trump and Fox news journalist Megyn Kelly's previous meeting, comedians and politicians alike have taken quite a few shots at Trump. What should we expect further? ..."
"... From Senator Marco Rubio to Mitt Romney Trump doesn't seem to be afraid of any speeches condemning him. Why is he so self-confident? ..."
"... The fact is Trump's version of nationalism, this idea "it's not be the world's policeman," let's actually look after ourselves, let's use the government to help the people. This kind of nationalism that cuts across left and right, cuts across liberal and conservative, cuts across Democrats and Republicans. It is a new thing for Americans. Trump is leading it. I would never have predicted that, but Trump is leading it. And the fact is the status quo doesn't like it because this is upsetting some of their assumptions. It is upsetting what they take for granted and so they are all in unison attacking him. And in the US the so-called conservatives, the left, the liberals they are all attacking Trump of the exact same reasons. ..."
"... Is Trump likely to issue an apology after his offensive comments towards Megyn Kelly? ..."
Donald Trump represents a challenge to the status quo because he doesn't want to
democratize the world through bombing raids, says Richard Spencer from Radix Journal. US
Congressman Alan Grayson agrees, saying the Republicans are desperate to stop Trump.
US Congressman Alan Grayson: I have to agree, just
this once, with Donald Trump. I think it is irrelevant. Part of the
problem that we are facing this year is that the candidates want to
make this some kind of war of personalities rather than a discussion
of what is good for our country. I think that is very unfortunate. I
don't think the Trump candidacy should be determined on matters of the
value of a degree from Trump University, or any of these ad hominem
attacks that we are seeing by one candidate against the other – often,
by the way, perpetrated by Mr. Trump himself. I don't really think it
matters what the size of his fingers might be; I don't think it
matters that Rubio is definitely a thirsty young man. I don't think it
matters that Bush is low energy, although he is certainly is. These
are not the things that we should use to determine who our national
leaders should be. Obviously, they've all indulged in it from one time
or another. And I don't think the voters favor that. But the fact is
the voters are going to make up their minds based upon what's good for
the country, what's good for them individually. I think the voters
have this one right.
The
Republican establishment as reflected in Mitt Romney and others is
absolutely desperate to stop Donald Trump. But what really is
underneath it all is the fact that Trump does not adhere to the
Republican Orthodoxy: "they've never met a war they didn't like."
It is true that there are hawks within the Republican Party who
are dismayed by the fact that Donald Trump rightly points out that the
war in Iraq was a disaster in everyone's light. And they are
disconcerted by the fact that he is willing to criticize predecessors
like George W. Bush, and frankly, rightly so. America lost four
trillion dollars in the war in Iraq and we left a quarter of a million
of our young men and women with permanent brain abnormalities because
of injuries they suffered in that war. At least there is one
Republican candidate who is willing to actually address those issues
which has caused the hawks a great deal of consternation.
RT: After Donald Trump and Fox news journalist
Megyn Kelly's previous meeting, comedians and politicians alike have
taken quite a few shots at Trump. What should we expect further?
Richard Spencer from Radix Journal: I think we're
going to expect fireworks. In fact the mainstream media, the so-called
conservative movements and the Republican Party have all declared war
on Donald Trump. It was a silent war for many months, now it is an
explicit war. They want anyone but Trump; they want anyone else in the
Republican Party to win this nomination. It doesn't matter if Rubio is
a moderate and Ted Cruz is an extreme Libertarian or something. They
want anyone but Trump because Trump actually represents a different
ideology from traditional American conservatism. Trump actually
represents something closer to European nationalism. It is a version
of the right that is "let's look at the Americans first, let's use
the government to help the American people, let's actually have
friendly relations with great powers like Russia as opposed to: let's
democratize the world through bombing raids." So Trump really
represents something different. He represents a challenge to the
status quo. And that is why the conservative movement, the Republican
Party, the mainstream media are all out to get him.
RT: From Senator Marco Rubio to Mitt Romney
Trump doesn't seem to be afraid of any speeches condemning him. Why is
he so self-confident?
RS: Trump is self-confident because he is Trump;
he was born self-confident. But he is also self-confident because he
has so much popular support. He has brought so many new people into
the Republican Party and he has brought so many more people into the
Republican Party than Mitt Romney did who attacked him. The fact is
Trump's version of nationalism, this idea "it's not be the world's
policeman," let's actually look after ourselves, let's use the
government to help the people. This kind of nationalism that cuts
across left and right, cuts across liberal and conservative, cuts
across Democrats and Republicans. It is a new thing for Americans.
Trump is leading it. I would never have predicted that, but Trump is
leading it. And the fact is the status quo doesn't like it because
this is upsetting some of their assumptions. It is upsetting what they
take for granted and so they are all in unison attacking him. And in
the US the so-called conservatives, the left, the liberals they are
all attacking Trump of the exact same reasons.
RT: Is Trump likely to issue an apology after
his offensive comments towards Megyn Kelly?
RS: I couldn't imagine Donald Trump apologizing. I
don't think he said anything completely outrageous towards Megyn
Kelly. The fact is Megyn Kelly doesn't like Donald Trump. Megyn Kelly
wants the status quo to continue. Megun Kelly wants a neoconservative
candidate or a typical Republican candidate. Maybe Kelly doesn't like
this new kind of nationalism that Trump represents. So there's no way…
that Donald Trump will apologize to Megyn Kelly. What he said
effectively is that "Megyn Kelly is out to get me." … But the
fact is, Trump has proved that you don't need Fox News; Trump has
proved you don't need the GOP establishment; Trump has proved you
don't need the conservative movement establishment. Trump is Trump.
Trump has a populist base that's bigger than those forces.
"... In my view, Clinton wants to be President only because it is there and it is a powerful role. For her, I think it affirms her egotistical belief that she is the best person for the job. She is a by the numbers politician; lacking passion and a cause and is beholden to Wall St. ..."
"... Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldnt vote for anyone who was, no matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me. ..."
"... The media likes a simplistic narrative, and the media wants Clinton win, no matter what the Democratic base wants. Its annoying, but not surprising, that they are trying to cast the Democratic primary as they have. ..."
This disgraceful episode shows the dark side of the sexism arguments. Equality is about every
women having the same opportunities as men. But what gets lost in the debate, or conveniently
ignored, is that an incompetent woman has no place taking or claiming precedence over a competent
man. Margaret Thatcher wrought a trail of destruction in the UK - her Reagan-esque and neo-liberal
policies led to many more Britons living in poverty and being left with no prospect of any dignity;
instead being trapped in a life-long welfare-cycle. How is it plausible that she should not be
judged on her performance, rather on some esoteric and exaggerated feminist ideal. She was a female
PM, sure, but she was an awful PM. Her political salvation was the Argentine conflict over the
Falklands. Without that, she would have deservedly been confined to the political scrap-heap much
sooner.
In my view, Clinton wants to be President only because it is there and it is a powerful role.
For her, I think it affirms her egotistical belief that she is the best person for the job. She
is a "by the numbers" politician; lacking passion and a cause and is beholden to Wall St. That
surely makes her sound more like a conservative rather than a liberal (the equivalent of Tony
Blair). Sanders might be a silly old fool, but he has a passion for the American ideal - that
all men (and women) were indeed created equal and his policies support that ideal. Clinton has
no policies - she is essentially asking the American people to trust her, when in reality, they
don't - not because she is a woman, but because she has a history of duplicity.
Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldn't vote for anyone who was, no
matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me.
"I am increasingly dismayed that 'older, wiser, more mature' voters are portrayed as solidly in
Hillary's corner"
The media likes a simplistic narrative, and the media wants Clinton win, no matter what the
Democratic base wants. It's annoying, but not surprising, that they are trying to cast the Democratic
primary as they have.
"... A somewhat campy (okay, VERY campy) take on the French Revolution, it quite effectively depicts the way hopelessness and inequality corrode away the moral fabric of human relations. ..."
"... it was Mike Nichols who said, Funny is very rare. And I would add, very valuable, and slightly deadly. ..."
[BILL CLINTON:] "I understand why we've got a race on our hands, because a lot of people
are disillusioned with the system and a lot of young people want to take it down. … I understand
what it's like for people who haven't had a raise in eight years. There are a lot of reasons
[to be angry]. But this is not a cartoon. This is real life."
Don't rag on cartoons, Bill. Many are more worth paying attention to than you are. I recommend
the following:
Galaxy Express 999
A wonderfully grim satire of neoliberalism, globalization, and Kurzweil-ian narcissistic
techno-utopianism.
The Roses of Versailles
A somewhat campy (okay, VERY campy) take on the French Revolution, it quite effectively
depicts the way hopelessness and inequality corrode away the moral fabric of human relations.
Both can easily be streamed online with English subtitles.
They used to say that Hitchcock was, "damned with faint praise," by being called a master
of horror. I think the same thing tends to happen to those who are funny. I think it was
Mike Nichols who said, "Funny is very rare." And I would add, very valuable, and slightly deadly.
"... Political consultants by and large, and especially in the establishment tier, operate and strategize on the sole core premise that voters are a) stupid (in the Pavlovian sense), and b) unreliable. The idea that small donors would be reliable over the course of a campaign is inconceivable (the larger donors certainly aren't that reliable). And if you're willing to flip messages in a heartbeat, it is probably not a safe bet; Sanders is pulling it off in part (so far?) through his own massive (so far…) consistency (and legacy). Also, he's positioned so far from anybody else (except maybe Trump?!?) that it's difficult to slipstream him and steal his donor base. ..."
"... I think that some basic economic/market concepts (commitment bias, sunk costs) can be considered as well. But the establishment consultants (who generally do quite well, thank you) don't see a $20 donation as a significant commitment with an expectation attached; it's a restaurant tip. BTW, Sanders' three million donations come from over one million donors, that's a rough average of two follow-up donations. Some of these folks are living hand-to-mouth; they're almost literally all in, unlike any millionaire or billionaire who maxes out and gives the rest to PACs. ..."
"... And Clinton's not dumb; not dumb? mmm, Ok, is she smart? Personally, I don't think so. Conniving and persistent? absolutely. ..."
And Clinton's not dumb; she could have tried just the same strategy. Why didn't she?
Because of her consultants.
Think of it as a jobs program. Fundraising consultants are important assets throughout the
life of a campaign (including the period after the election).
The fundraisers get a cut of funds they raise (10%-20% is common, I've seen higher… even ActBlue
asks for a tip, but they ask and don't require it, and it doesn't come out of your donation, it's
on top). This is an industry, which also has vendors (NGP / VAN and other political data platforms
have fundraising modules, before merging with VAN, NGP was a stand-alone campaign accounting,
compliance, and fundraising tool).
And in case there is any lingering confusion or doubt in anyone's mind; the campaign fundraising
context is a major conduit for "constituent" input on policy. When candidates say "I've heard
from/spoken with my constituents", unless they just did a townhall meeting, they are talking about
conversations at fundraising events. The candidates feel that they are actually connecting with
their constituents… and they are, just not with all of them. Naturally, business owners and affluent
blowhards are well-represented.
Which means that backing out of the existing fundraising mechanisms would be wrenching for
campaign and candidate alike, on several levels. It would also be considered an overt act of disloyalty;
and loyalty is the coin of the realm.
Political consultants by and large, and especially in the establishment tier, operate and
strategize on the sole core premise that voters are a) stupid (in the Pavlovian sense), and b)
unreliable. The idea that small donors would be reliable over the course of a campaign is inconceivable
(the larger donors certainly aren't that reliable). And if you're willing to flip messages in
a heartbeat, it is probably not a safe bet; Sanders is pulling it off in part (so far?) through
his own massive (so far…) consistency (and legacy). Also, he's positioned so far from anybody
else (except maybe Trump?!?) that it's difficult to slipstream him and steal his donor base.
I think that some basic economic/market concepts (commitment bias, sunk costs) can
be considered as well. But the establishment consultants (who generally do quite well, thank you)
don't see a $20 donation as a significant commitment with an expectation attached; it's a restaurant
tip. BTW, Sanders' three million donations come from over one million donors, that's a rough average
of two follow-up donations. Some of these folks are living hand-to-mouth; they're almost literally
all in, unlike any millionaire or billionaire who maxes out and gives the rest to PACs.
optimader
And Clinton's not dumb; not dumb? mmm, Ok, is she smart? Personally, I don't think so.
Conniving and persistent? absolutely.
The vote count is currently 62% for Bernie and 32% for Hilary, yet she has scored 6 delegates
vs. zero for him. What am I missing (besides a functioning brain)?
Yeah but Super Delegates only exist in case commoner voters come up with the wrong answer.
Hahaha. Pathetic. I will write in Bernie regardless of how the Dems 'fix' the selection.
Super Delegates: part of the modern Dem machine. Carter was the first nominee and pres under
the super delegate system. (Started 1972 after the McGovern nomination, i.e 'wrong' answer.) Carter
was also the start of Dem presidents who de-regulate business. Super Delegates act as supporters
of the status quo, making the party less responsive to voters.
Notice the Republicans don't have super delegates. Which party is really more democratic? It's
a ratchet, there's a check on how far populist left movements go in this country, but maybe not
populist right ones.
So far the partially reported totals are from the hinterlands, which is the only possible explanation
I can offer for whoever the hell Greenstein is with 7% of the vote.
Also wrt phone banking/push polling in NH: those of us who live here know this is why caller
ID was invented, and act accordingly.
adding:
The Dems came up with the idea of super delegates after the McGovern nomination in 1972. The idea
was to keep the party bosses in control of the nominating process. Studebaker talks about Carter.
Carter was the first Dem nominee under the super delegate system.
The GOP does not have super delegates to their convention.
But just because Trump is an imperfect candidate doesn't mean his candidacy can't be instructive.
Trump could teach Republicans in Washington a lot if only they stopped posturing long enough to watch
carefully. Here's some of what they might learn:
He Exists Because You Failed
American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush,
who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though,
the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or
waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the
Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn't.
Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center
adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and
foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should
probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period?
Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical,
dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising.
Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider it wasted.
Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming
tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics
have noted
in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism."
Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider
conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding?
They're the ones who've been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose
populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while
implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic
change. Now they're telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don't, they're liberal.
It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its
voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most
Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy.
That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged
the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that
was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The
only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.
On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like
Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live
in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don't
go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant
is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the
day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous
while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It's all good.
Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn't said anything especially
shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals
- these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the "ghost of George Wallace" that a
Politico piece described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder
their voters are rebelling.
Truth Is Not Only A Defense, It's Thrilling
When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for
fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn't been
long. That's not just a talking point about political correctness. It's the central problem with
our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can't fix
a problem if you don't have the words to describe it. You can't even think about it clearly.
This depressing fact made Trump's political career. In a country where almost everyone in public
life lies reflexively, it's thrilling to hear someone say what he really thinks, even if you believe
he's wrong. It's especially exciting when you suspect he's right.
A temporary ban on Muslim immigration? That sounds a little extreme (meaning nobody else has said
it recently in public). But is it? Millions of Muslims have moved to Western Europe over the past
50 years, and a sizable number of them still haven't assimilated. Instead, they remain hostile and
sometimes dangerous to the cultures that welcomed them. By any measure, that experiment has failed.
What's our strategy for not repeating it here, especially after San Bernardino-attacks that seemed
to come out of nowhere? Invoke American exceptionalism and hope for the best? Before Trump, that
was the plan.
Republican primary voters should be forgiven for wondering who exactly is on the reckless side
of this debate. At the very least, Trump seems like he wants to protect the country.
Evangelicals understand this better than most. You read surveys that indicate the majority of
Christian conservatives support Trump, and then you see the video: Trump on stage with pastors, looking
pained as they pray over him, misidentifying key books in the New Testament, and in general doing
a ludicrous imitation of a faithful Christian, the least holy roller ever. You wonder as you watch
this: How could they be that dumb? He's so obviously faking it.
They know that already. I doubt there are many Christian voters who think Trump could recite the
Nicene Creed, or even identify it. Evangelicals have given up trying to elect one of their own. What
they're looking for is a bodyguard, someone to shield them from mounting (and real) threats to their
freedom of speech and worship. Trump fits that role nicely, better in fact than many church-going
Republicans. For eight years, there was a born-again in the White House. How'd that work out for
Christians, here and in Iraq?
What is interesting is that Trump is 100% right... I think he has a marketing talent. One
thing for certain, he created a problem for Repugs establishment and all those yellow US MSM and their
owners...
"... "She should be in jail, by the way, for what she did," Trump said. "Everybody knows she should
be in jail. What she did with the emails is a disgrace," he added. ..."
He then blamed US President Barack Obama and his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, for
the Islamic State's rise.
"They have a bunch of dishonest people," he continued. "They've created ISIS. Hillary Clinton
created ISIS with Obama - created with Obama. But I love predicting because you know, ultimately,
you need somebody with vision."
Trump and Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, have fiercely sparred in recent weeks. Trump
took particular exception to Clinton saying that his provocative campaign-trail statements had
become propaganda for the Islamic State, especially his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the
US.
The Republican billionaire demanded that Clinton apologize, but her campaign
replied at the time: "Hell no. Hillary Clinton will not be apologizing to Donald Trump for correctly
pointing out how his hateful rhetoric only helps ISIS recruit more terrorists."
After Clinton said Trump had generally displayed a
"penchant for sexism," Trump went after her husband, former US President Bill Clinton. Trump
recently proclaimed that the former president has
"a terrible record of women abuse," referring to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, among other things.
At his Saturday rally, Trump also blasted Hillary Clinton for
a report on her husband's paid speeches while she was secretary of state. As he has done frequently
before, Trump further asserted that Clinton "shouldn't be allowed to run" because of the private
email system she used for her State Department work.
"She should be in jail, by the way, for what she did," Trump said. "Everybody knows she should
be in jail. What she did with the emails is a disgrace," he added.
An interesting and plausible hypothesis: Trump as a candidate who answers voters frustration with
neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... The data suggest theres some kind of connection. According to polls, whites with a high school
degree or less disproportionately favor Trump. These are the same people who have seen their economic
opportunities decline the most in recent years. This group also disproportionately favors tough restrictions
on immigration. ..."
"... A new study released this week showed that in Germany, the economic frustrations of trade nudged
many people into becoming right-wing extremists over the past two decades - throwing their support behind
the country's neo-Nazi parties. ..."
"... Still, these far-right parties have consistently earned a percentage point or two of the German
national vote. And the economists found that they have been particularly popular with people who have
been negatively impacted by trade. ..."
"... using German data on elections, employment, and commerce, they showed that places where trade
caused the most pain also had the largest increases in support for far-right parties. Over the past
20 years, Germanys exports and imports have both skyrocketed, first thanks to the fall of the Iron Curtain,
then due to Chinas rise as a major manufacturer. ..."
"... Workers whose industries were hurt by trade were were more likely to say they would start voting
for one of the extreme right parties. Even workers whose own industries were unaffected by trade were
more likely to support a neo-Nazi political party if they lived in a region hurt by trade. ..."
"... Christian Dippel, one of the authors of the study, says it's also important to look at the
context in each country. The neo-Nazi parties happen to be the voice of anti-globalization in Germany.
But in Spain, for instance, these views are the trademark of Podemos, a far-left party "known for its
rants against globalization and the tyranny of markets," according to Foreign Affairs. ..."
"... The larger lesson, Dippel says, is that globalization creates a class of angry voters who will
reward whoever can tap into their frustrations. These are usually extremist parties, because the mainstream
tends to recognize the overall benefits of trade. "When the mainstream parties are all, in a loose sense,
pro-globalization, there's room for fringe groups to latch onto this anti-globalization sentiment and
profit from it," he says. ..."
"... Author has shown that in America, recent trends in trade have hurt low-wage workers the most.
With his co-authors David Dorn, Gordon Hanson and Jae Song, he published a widely-cited 2014 paper measuring
the negative impacts of manufacturing imports from China, America's largest trading partner. Most of
those ill-effects - like unemployment and lower earnings - were borne by the workers with the lowest
wages. ..."
"... "Immigration always seems to be the most tangible evidence of the impingement of others on
your economic turf," Author adds. ..."
"... "In Germany, these three things get bundled up in these far-right platforms in a way that's
very difficult to unpack," he says. "It could be that you're bundling these ideas together for a reason.
It could be that you're bundling together what's really happening with an idea that's more tangible,
that you could sell more easily to angry voters." ..."
A popular theory for Donald Trump's success emphasizes the economic anxiety of less-educated whites,
who have struggled badly over the past few decades.
Hit hard by factory closings and jobs moving abroad to China and other places, the story goes,
blue-collar voters are channeling their anger at immigrants, who have out-competed them for what
jobs remain. Trump, with his remarks about Mexicans being rapists, has ridden this discontent to
the top of the polls.
The data suggest there's some kind of connection. According to polls, whites with a high school
degree or less disproportionately favor Trump. These are the same people who have seen their economic
opportunities decline the most in recent years. This group also disproportionately favors tough restrictions
on immigration.
But just because there appears to be a connection doesn't mean there is one. Has globalization
pushed working-class voters to the right? Nobody has proven that globalization has in fact pushed
working-class voters to the right or made them more extreme, at least not in the United States, where
the right kind of data aren't being collected. But unique records from Germany have allowed economists
to show how free trade trade changes people's political opinions.
A new study released this week showed that in Germany, the economic frustrations of trade
nudged many people into becoming right-wing extremists over the past two decades - throwing their
support behind the country's neo-Nazi parties. Written by economists Christian Dippel, of University
of California, Los Angeles, Stephan Heblich, of the University of Bristol, and Robert Gold of the
Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the paper was released by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Germany's far-right politicians, it should be noted, are not garden-variety nationalists. German
intelligence keeps tabs on these people, who frequently use racist and anti-Semitic language. They
say things like: "Europe is the continent of white people and it should remain that way." Many believe
in a global Jewish conspiracy. They are much more radical than, say, Marine Le Pen's National Front
party in France.
Still, these far-right parties have consistently earned a percentage point or two of the German
national vote. And the economists found that they have been particularly popular with people who
have been negatively impacted by trade.
How they measured the radicalizing power of trade
The economists took two different approaches to measure the connection between globalization and
right-wing extremism.
First, using German data on elections, employment, and commerce, they showed that places where
trade caused the most pain also had the largest increases in support for far-right parties. Over
the past 20 years, Germany's exports and imports have both skyrocketed, first thanks to the fall
of the Iron Curtain, then due to China's rise as a major manufacturer.
The researchers looked individually at Germany's 408 local districts, which are roughly equivalent
to counties in the United States. Each of these places was affected by increasing trade in different
ways. Areas that specialized in high-end cars, for instance, saw a happy boost from expanded exports.
Areas that specialized in, say, textiles, were stomped on by cheap Chinese and Eastern European imports.
This map shows changes in imports (bad!) compared to exports (good!). The dark blue regions are
places where imports increased a lot more than exports. These are the places where trade made things
worse, where people lost jobs and factories were shuttered.
These also happen to be the places where far-right parties made the most gains, on average. This
is true after controlling for demographics in each county, the size of the manufacturing sector,
and what part of the country the county was in.
The researchers argue that this relationship is more than just a correlation. To prove that trade
caused far-right radicalization, they only look at changes to the German economy inflicted by external
forces - say, a sudden increase in Chinese manufacturing capacity.
(Also, to get around the problem of German reunification, which happened in 1990, the researchers
split up the analysis into two time periods. From 1987 to 1998, they only looked at West Germany.
From 1998 to 2009, they looked at both regions.)
This evidence from patterns of trade and voting records is convincing, but there is one major
hole. The turmoil from trade caused certain counties to become friendlier to extremist parties -
but was it because the people living there became radicalized? Or did all the moderate voters flee
those places, leaving behind only the crusty xenophobes?
So, to follow up, the researchers used a special German survey that has been interviewing some
of the same people every year since the 1980s. This is a massively expensive project - the U.S. doesn't
have anything quite like it - and it allowed the researchers to actually observe people changing
their minds.
Workers whose industries were hurt by trade were were more likely to say they would start
voting for one of the extreme right parties. Even workers whose own industries were unaffected by
trade were more likely to support a neo-Nazi political party if they lived in a region hurt by trade.
In part this is because trade affects more than just the people who lose their jobs when the shoe
factory closes. Those assembly line workers need to find new jobs, and they put pressure on people
in similar occupations, say, at the garment factory or the tweezer factory.
What this means for the U.S.
All in all, the power of trade to radicalize people was rather small, measured in changes of a
fraction of a percent. This makes makes sense, because, again, Germany's far-right parties are way
out there. It takes a lot of economic suffering to cause someone to start voting with these neo-Nazis.
Christian Dippel, one of the authors of the study, says it's also important to look at the
context in each country. The neo-Nazi parties happen to be the voice of anti-globalization in Germany.
But in Spain, for instance, these views are the trademark of Podemos, a far-left party "known for
its rants against globalization and the tyranny of markets," according to Foreign Affairs.
The larger lesson, Dippel says, is that globalization creates a class of angry voters who
will reward whoever can tap into their frustrations. These are usually extremist parties, because
the mainstream tends to recognize the overall benefits of trade. "When the mainstream parties are
all, in a loose sense, pro-globalization, there's room for fringe groups to latch onto this anti-globalization
sentiment and profit from it," he says.
But is there an analogy between the far-right radicals in Germany and the wider group of disaffected
working class Americans who, say, support Donald Trump or the tea party? Certainly leaders on the
left also capitalize on anti-trade sentiment, but they usually use less harsh rhetoric or seldom
attack immigration.
David Autor, a labor economist at MIT, has been working to address the question of whether the
same dynamics are at play in the U.S. But it's a tough one, he says.
"What [Dippel and his colleagues] are doing is totally sensible, and I think the results are plausible
as well - that these trade shocks lead to activity on the extreme right, that they bring about ultranationalism,"
Autor says.
"We actually started on this hypothesis years ago for the U.S. to see if it could help to explain
the rise of angry white non-college males," he said. "But so far, we just don't have the right kind
of data."
Author has shown that in America, recent trends in trade have hurt low-wage workers the most.
With his co-authors David Dorn, Gordon Hanson and Jae Song, he published a widely-cited 2014 paper
measuring the negative impacts of manufacturing imports from China, America's largest trading partner.
Most of those ill-effects - like unemployment and lower earnings - were borne by the workers with
the lowest wages.
The higher-paid (and probably higher-skilled workers) were able to find new jobs when their companies
went bust. Often, they found jobs outside of the manufacturing industry. (An accountant, for instance,
can work anywhere.) But the lower-paid workers were trapped, doomed to fight over the ever-dwindling
supply of stateside manufacturing jobs.
China, of course, has been in Trump's crosshairs. He accuses the country of being a "currency
manipulator," which may have once been true, but not any more. He has threatened to impose a 25 percent
tax on Chinese imports to punish China.
But Trump has attracted the most attention for his disparaging remarks about immigrants - which
is something of puzzle. While it's true that non-college workers are increasingly competing with
immigrants for the same construction or manufacturing jobs, Author points out that there's little
evidence that immigrants are responsible for the woes of the working class.
"There's an amazing discrepancy between the data and the perception that I still find very hard
to reconcile," he says. "The data do not strongly support the view that immigration has had big effects
[on non-college workers], but I don't think that's how people perceive it."
"Immigration always seems to be the most tangible evidence of the impingement of others on
your economic turf," Author adds.
Dippel says that conflating these ideas could be a political strategy. He makes a distinction
between three different kinds of globalization - there's the worldwide movement of capital, goods,
and people.
"In Germany, these three things get bundled up in these far-right platforms in a way that's
very difficult to unpack," he says. "It could be that you're bundling these ideas together for a
reason. It could be that you're bundling together what's really happening with an idea that's more
tangible, that you could sell more easily to angry voters."
Jeff Guo is a reporter covering economics, domestic policy, and everything empirical. He's
from Maryland, but outside the Beltway. Follow him on Twitter: @_jeffguo.
...According to an Interfax report of his annual year-end news conference, Putin
called the Republican presidential candidate "a very bright and talented man," as
well as an "absolute leader" in the race for the presidency. (Another account,
from Reuters, translated Putin as saying Trump is "a very flamboyant man.")
"He says that he wants to move to another level of relations, to a deeper level
of relations with Russia. How can we not welcome that? Of course we welcome it,"
Putin said, according to Reuters' report.
The Russian president also said that it is none of his business "to assess
tricks Donald Trump [is] using to boost his popularity," according to Interfax.
Trump has repeatedly praised the Russian leader's toughness and said he would
be able to cut deals with him.
"He does not like Obama at all. He doesn't respect Obama at all. And I'm sure that Obama
doesn't like him very much," Trump said of Putin in October. "But I think that I would probably
get along with him very well. And I don't think you'd be having the kind of problems that you're
having right now."
Trump has also backed Russia's intervention in Syria, which Putin has said is aimed at
eradicating the Islamic State. "And as far as him attacking ISIS, I'm all for it," he told CBS
News' John Dickerson. "If he wants to be bombing the hell out of ISIS, which he's starting to do,
if he wants to be bombing ISIS, let him bomb them, John. Let him bomb them. I think we probably
work together much more so than right now."
"... The Rubes are mad at the state of the economy and blame Obama first but also believe that the GOP establishment has sold them down river. The squishy economy has caused the GOP elites to lose out to Trump and his antiestablishment we are not winning pitchfork toting mob. ..."
Could have been worse. Could have been shutdown or new round
of austerity. GOP intransigence is coming back to bite them.
The Rubes are mad at the state of the economy and blame Obama
first but also believe that the GOP establishment has sold
them down river. The squishy economy has caused the GOP
elites to lose out to Trump and his antiestablishment "we are
not winning" pitchfork toting mob.
The Dems need to get in
front of this parade before the General.
Billy Joe said...
I am hearing, adding on to Bakho's point above, this
was a 2 way deal. The Fed begins its modest tightening
schedule with Congress beginning a modest fiscal
loosening.
This is not a accident. It comes from a second hand source
related to a Republican Congressmen. Basically, Yellen
told Congress, if they loosen fiscal policy, they will
raise rates. That is what happened.......on a small scale.
Christine Todd Whitman fear mongering serves one purpose -- to support establishment
candidates. I do not remember her condemning Bush go killing million of Iraqis. She was
actually a part of this clique. So she should shut up and sit quietly (as any person belong to
criminal Bush II administration should)
The parallels are chilling. In pre-WWII Germany, the economy was in ruins, people were scared,
and they wanted someone to blame. Today we find ourselves with a nation of people who feel under
attack both physically and economically and are fearful. The middle class has never fully
recovered economically from the Great Recession. Income disparity is growing
...Language shapes behavior. Hateful language gives susceptible people permission to act on
their fears. Preying on the marginalized who are scared of the future is the time-honored tactic
of bullies and dictators. When times are difficult, people always look for someone to blame: It
is easy to pick out a target
Christine Todd Whitman is a former governor of New Jersey and former head of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
"... The argument began with Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, alone among the candidates a consistent voice against American intervention in the Mideast, who said the "majority" of his competitors for the nomination "want to topple Assad. And then there will be chaos, and I think ISIS will then be in charge." ..."
"... Mr. Cruz made the case for keeping dictators like Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt close. "Qaddafi was a bad man," he said., "Mubarak had a terrible human rights record. But they were assisting us" in the cause of "fighting radical Islamic terrorists." He argued that this was far better than "being a Woodrow Wilson democracy promoter." ..."
"... Mr. Cruz's argument was meant to differentiate him from Marco Rubio, the Florida senator who had supported the ouster of Mr. Qaddafi and Mr. Mubarak, and whose campaign has attracted some veterans of the George W. Bush White House. But along the way it exposed a significant rift in Republican thinking, and puts him in a much different place than where his party was a decade ago. ..."
"... Hizbolah is only a terrorist to IDF when they enter Lebanon, the Israelis cannot do in South Lebanon what they get way with in Gaza and the West Bank. Too many GOP playing for AIPAC. ..."
"... If you dont like Assad why do you like al Sisi? Aside from the Egyptian military dictator has promised not to use the $3B annual bribe from the US to attack Israel...... ..."
"... While Rubio wants to arm al Qaeda so they can run Syria to do more 9/11s. ..."
"... Trump is right the media lies all the time and his thuggee opponents take them up on their lies. ..."
The candidates took strong positions on the
need to use force, but at times seemed uncertain about America's past military and diplomatic
interventions in the region.
At Republican Debate, Straying Into Mideast,
and Getting Lost http://nyti.ms/1m7DUuE
NYT - DAVID E. SANGER - DEC. 16
WASHINGTON - In a surprisingly substantive debate on foreign policy Tuesday night, the upheaval
in the Middle East gave Republican presidential candidates a chance to show off alternatives to
what they portrayed as President Obama's failed approach, but at many moments, the politics and
history of the region eluded them as they tried to demonstrate their skills at analysis and leadership.
At times during the two-hour debate, several of the candidates seemed uncertain about America's
past military and diplomatic interventions in the region, and did not acknowledge Mr. Obama's
continuing attempts to negotiate a cease-fire in Syria. And for most of them – Jeb Bush seemed
an exception – the strategy to defeat the Islamic State largely seemed to boil down to this: Drop
your bombs first and figure out the diplomacy later, if at all.
In their efforts to show that they were skilled at realpolitik, putting national interests
ahead of ideals, almost all of them dismissed the stated goal of Mr. Bush's brother, the last
Republican president. It was George W. Bush who declared in his second inaugural address that
"the calling of our time" was to support "the growth of democratic movements and institutions
in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
But to some in this generation of Republicans, democracy building is out; supporting dictators,
perhaps including Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who are willing to fight the Islamic State, is in.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the debate was long on the need to use military force, and short
on the question of how one gets at the roots of radical Muslim jihadism – or engages the Muslim
community in the United States and abroad in that effort. That discussion began with Senator Ted
Cruz of Texas defending, and expanding on, his recent vow to carpet-bomb the Islamic State, wherever
it may be.
"What it means is using overwhelming air power to utterly and completely destroy ISIS," said
Mr. Cruz, using an acronym for the Islamic State. He argued that in "the first Persian Gulf War,
we launched roughly 1,100 air attacks a day. We carpet-bombed them for 36 days, saturation bombing,"
and then sent in troops to mop up "what was left of the Iraqi army."
In fact, the Persian Gulf war was the first big testing ground for precision-guided munitions.
The last big "carpet bombing" was in the Vietnam War; military officials, including Britain's
defense minister, have noted recently that any such technique used in Syria would kill thousands
of innocent civilians living in places like Raqqa, the Islamic State's de facto capital.
But Mr. Cruz pressed on when challenged by Wolf Blitzer of CNN, the moderator. "The object
isn't to level a city," he said. "The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists." He never said how
that is possible without tremendous civilian casualties, which is why carpet bombing is often
considered a war crime.
In some ways the debate was remarkable for the fact that it delved into the politics of the
Middle East at all; many of the candidates on the stage Tuesday night in Las Vegas did not appear
interested in that discussion even a few months ago. But the terrorist attacks in Paris and San
Bernardino left them no choice: They had to pass the commander-in-chief test, and the first step
in that process is to be able piece together something that sounds like a strategy.
The result was that a few of them were testing out their thinking about longtime questions
like regime-change – and whether it is better to press for democracy, even if it creates chaos
and openings for terrorist groups, or to back reliable dictators.
Syria poses the most urgent test, and there was disagreement over whether Mr. Assad had to
go first, or whether the United States and its partners should focus first on defeating the Islamic
State, even if that means leaving in power a dictator under whom upward of a quarter-of-a-million
of his own people have been killed.
The argument began with Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, alone among the candidates a consistent
voice against American intervention in the Mideast, who said the "majority" of his competitors
for the nomination "want to topple Assad. And then there will be chaos, and I think ISIS will
then be in charge."
Though administration officials will not say so in public, they largely agree – which is why
getting rid of Mr. Assad has been pushed down the road, though Secretary of State John Kerry says
Mr. Assad's removal must be the eventual outcome if Sunni rebel groups are going to be enticed
into fighting the Islamic State.
Mr. Cruz made the case for keeping dictators like Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya and Hosni Mubarak
of Egypt close. "Qaddafi was a bad man," he said., "Mubarak had a terrible human rights record.
But they were assisting us" in the cause of "fighting radical Islamic terrorists." He argued that
this was far better than "being a Woodrow Wilson democracy promoter."
Mr. Cruz's argument was meant to differentiate him from Marco Rubio, the Florida senator who
had supported the ouster of Mr. Qaddafi and Mr. Mubarak, and whose campaign has attracted some
veterans of the George W. Bush White House. But along the way it exposed a significant rift in
Republican thinking, and puts him in a much different place than where his party was a decade
ago. ...
ilsm said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
Thuggee debates:
If your bombing (questionable whether it worked in WW II, utter failure against
VC/NVA) is failing eliminating "rules of engagement" and increasing civilian casualties is not
going to change the outcome. If the Germans had won WW II Bomber Harris would have been hanged,
and for Japan Le May would have been beheaded.
Hizbolah is only a "terrorist" to IDF when they enter Lebanon, the Israelis cannot do in South
Lebanon what they get way with in Gaza and the West Bank. Too many GOP playing for AIPAC.
Replacing a brutal dictator with a bunch of terrorists is insanity, the GOP has no other answer.
The mess in Lebanon and Iraq was caused by Reagan and worsened by GW.
If you don't like Assad why do you like al Sisi? Aside from the Egyptian military dictator
has promised not to use the $3B annual bribe from the US to attack Israel......
While Rubio wants to arm al Qaeda so they can run Syria to do more 9/11's.
Trump is right the media lies all the time and his thuggee opponents take them up on their
lies.
"... There's little doubt that what has happened to America's middle class has helped to create the climate that has fueled Trump's sudden rise. ..."
"... Those living in middle-class households no longer make up a majority of the population. ..."
"... The report is not entirely gloomy. Every category gained in income between 1970 and 2014. Those in the top strata saw incomes rise by 47 percent. Middle-income Americans saw theirs rise by 34 percent. Those at the bottom saw the most modest increases, at 28 percent. ..."
"... But the share of income accounted for by the middle class has plummeted over the past 4 1 / 2 decades. In 1970, middle-class households accounted for 62 percent of income; by 2014, it was just 43 percent. Meanwhile, the share held by those in upper-income households rose from 29 percent to 49 percent, eclipsing the middle class's share. ..."
"... For most families, the two recessions have wiped out previous gains and widened the wealth and income gap between the wealthiest and all others. "The losses were so large that only upper-income families realized notable gains in wealth over the span of 30 years from 1983 to 2013," according to the Pew study. ..."
"... Until the recession of 2007-2009, middle-income earners saw a significant rise in their overall wealth, but the economic calamity mostly wiped away those gains. Today, the median net worth of families in the middle (in 2014 dollars) is barely higher than it was in 1983. Those at the top have weathered the recession far better and, despite losses, have seen a doubling of their net worth over that same period. ..."
"... Politicians in both parties have sought for some time to appeal to middle-class voters who are economically stressed. President Obama made his 2012 reelection campaign about appealing to the middle class and casting Republican nominee Mitt Romney as out of touch and insensitive to their concerns. ..."
"... Trump, however, has tapped a vein of frustration and resentment among those who have suffered most from the economic maladies of the past decade and a half, and he has ridden it to the top of the GOP polls. He has done it by eschewing political correctness. ..."
"... Trump draws strong support from the kinds of voters who see illegal immigration as eroding the values of the country and who might worry that their jobs are threatened by the influx. About half of those Republicans who favor deporting immigrants who are here illegally back Trump for the party's nomination. ..."
"... Trump's campaign slogan is not just "Make America Great" but "Make America Great Again." He summons a time when the middle class was prosperous and incomes were rising. This was a time when the lack of a college degree was not the impediment to a more economically secure life that it has become - and a time when white people made up a higher share of the population. ..."
"... Whatever happens to Trump's candidacy over the coming months, the conditions that have helped make him the front-runner for the GOP nomination will still exist, a focal point in a divisive debate about the future of the country. ..."
"... He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you whos to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections ..."
"... Their replies were striking. Where merely affluent Americans are more likely to identify as Democrats than as Republicans, the ultrawealthy overwhelmingly leaned right. They are far more likely to raise money for politicians and to have access to them; nearly half had personally contacted one of Illinois's two United States senators. ..."
"... Probably the biggest single area of disconnect has to do with social welfare programs," said Benjamin I. Page, a political scientist at Northwestern University and a co-author of the study. "The other big area has to do with paying for those programs, particularly taxes on high-income and wealthy people. ..."
"... Where the general public overwhelmingly supports a high minimum wage, the one percent are broadly opposed. ..."
"... Where merely affluent Americans are more likely to identify as Democrats than as Republicans, the ultrawealthy overwhelmingly leaned right. ..."
"... That would explain the survey results discussed yesterday showing Clinton to be the preferred candidate among millionaires -- a category almost as factually broad and ambiguous as the middle class . The merely affluent -- AKA the liberal elite -- would be the Clinton supporters, whereas the ultrawealthy would support Rubio (or whatever other candidate they were sponsoring). ..."
"... it is not necessarily an endorsement of Trump but a relative statement - that he resonates with people more than the other contenders. This kind of thing (people rallying around alpha-type strongmen with supremacist narratives) has reliably happened anywhere and anytime there was a bad economy and serious lack of positive outlook. ..."
"... Trump 24%, Cruz 16% in South Carolina Poll ..."
"... Five Reasons Congress Hates Ted Cruz http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/09/30/Five-Reasons-Congre ..."
Charting Trump's rise through the decline of the middle class
By Dan Balz December 12 at 10:59 AM
For anyone trying to understand the emergence of Donald Trump as a force in this pre-election
year, the Pew Research Center this past week provided some valuable insight. There's little
doubt that what has happened to America's middle class has helped to create the climate that has
fueled Trump's sudden rise.
The Pew study charts the steady decline of the middle class over the past four decades. It
is a phenomenon often discussed and analyzed, but the new findings highlight a tipping point:
Those living in middle-class households no longer make up a majority of the population.
There has been a "hollowing out" of the middle class, as the study puts it. In 1971, the middle
class accounted for 61 percent of the nation's population. Today, there are slightly more people
in the upper and lower economic tiers combined than in the middle class.
The report is not entirely gloomy. Every category gained in income between 1970 and 2014. Those
in the top strata saw incomes rise by 47 percent. Middle-income Americans saw theirs rise by 34
percent. Those at the bottom saw the most modest increases, at 28 percent.
But the share of income accounted for by the middle class has plummeted over the past 4 1 /
2 decades. In 1970, middle-class households accounted for 62 percent of income; by 2014, it was
just 43 percent. Meanwhile, the share held by those in upper-income households rose from 29 percent
to 49 percent, eclipsing the middle class's share.
The past 15 years have been particularly hard on wealth and income because of the recession
of 2001 and the Great Recession of 2007-2009. For all groups, incomes rose from 1970 to 2000.
In the next decade, incomes for all groups declined. During the past four years, incomes rose
3 percent for the wealthiest, 1 percent for middle-income Americans, and not at all for those
with the lowest incomes. For those in the middle, the median income in 2014 was 4 percent lower
than in 2000, according to the study.
For most families, the two recessions have wiped out previous gains and widened the wealth
and income gap between the wealthiest and all others. "The losses were so large that only upper-income
families realized notable gains in wealth over the span of 30 years from 1983 to 2013," according
to the Pew study.
Until the recession of 2007-2009, middle-income earners saw a significant rise in their
overall wealth, but the economic calamity mostly wiped away those gains. Today, the median net
worth of families in the middle (in 2014 dollars) is barely higher than it was in 1983. Those
at the top have weathered the recession far better and, despite losses, have seen a doubling of
their net worth over that same period.
Within the overall trends of the middle class, there are winners and losers, according to the
Pew study. Winners included people older than 65, whose overall economic standing has increased
sharply over the past four decades. In 1971, more than half of all Americans ages 65 and older
were in the lowest income tier. Today, nearly half qualify as middle-income.
Those with college degrees have remained fairly stable in terms of their percentages in the
lower-, middle- and upper-income tiers. Then comes this telling finding from the Pew study: "Those
without a bachelor's degree tumbled down the income tiers, however. Among the various demographic
groups examined, adults with no more than a high school diploma lost the most ground economically."
This is where the report connects directly to what's happened politically this year. Pair those
last findings from the Pew study with what recent polling shows about who supports Trump.
A recent Washington Post-ABC News survey found Trump leading his rivals overall, with 32 percent
support among registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Among white people with
college degrees, he was at 23 percent and led his nearest rival by only four percentage points.
Among white people without a college degree, however, his support ballooned to 41 percent - double
that of Ben Carson, who was second at 20 percent, and five times the support of Sens. Marco Rubio
(Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Tex.), who were tied for third.
Those without college educations have regressed economically. The Pew study shows that many
who have either a high school degree or at most two years of college have fallen out of the middle
class over the past four decades. Among those with high school degrees, the percentage in the
lowest-income tier has risen from 17 percent in 1971 to 36 percent in 2015. A similar pattern
exists for those with some college education but not a four-year degree.
Politicians in both parties have sought for some time to appeal to middle-class voters
who are economically stressed. President Obama made his 2012 reelection campaign about appealing
to the middle class and casting Republican nominee Mitt Romney as out of touch and insensitive
to their concerns.
In the absence of progress during Obama's presidency, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner,
and her principal challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), have made issues of inequality and wage
stagnation central to their appeals. Clinton's team long has believed that the election will turn
on issues of middle-class economics.
Trump, however, has tapped a vein of frustration and resentment among those who have suffered
most from the economic maladies of the past decade and a half, and he has ridden it to the top
of the GOP polls. He has done it by eschewing political correctness.
Trump draws strong support from the kinds of voters who see illegal immigration as eroding
the values of the country and who might worry that their jobs are threatened by the influx. About
half of those Republicans who favor deporting immigrants who are here illegally back Trump for
the party's nomination. These are also the kinds of voters who agree most with Trump's call
to ban the entry of Muslims into the United States until security concerns are laid to rest.
Trump's campaign slogan is not just "Make America Great" but "Make America Great Again."
He summons a time when the middle class was prosperous and incomes were rising. This was a time
when the lack of a college degree was not the impediment to a more economically secure life that
it has become - and a time when white people made up a higher share of the population.
Whatever happens to Trump's candidacy over the coming months, the conditions that have
helped make him the front-runner for the GOP nomination will still exist, a focal point in a divisive
debate about the future of the country.
EMichael said in reply to Peter K....
Baker was too kind to Balz.
Amazing that appeals to racist imbeciles are considered to be appeals
to middle class America. Over two decades ago, Trump's platform(if you can call it that) was accurately
described in The American President:
"I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the
reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't
get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that
he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them.
And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested
in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of
it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."
Peter K. said in reply to EMichael...
Also the corporate media refuses to focus on the one percent.
"The rich families remaking Illinois are among a small group around the country who have
channeled their extraordinary wealth into political power, taking advantage of regulatory,
legal and cultural shifts that have carved new paths for infusing money into campaigns. Economic
winners in an age of rising inequality, operating largely out of public view, they are reshaping
government with fortunes so large as to defy the ordinary financial scale of politics. In the
2016 presidential race, a New York Times analysis found last month, just 158 families had provided
nearly half of the early campaign money.
...
Around the same time that Mr. Rauner began running for governor, a group of researchers
based at Northwestern University published findings from the country's first-ever representative
survey of the richest one percent of Americans. The study, known as the Survey of Economically
Successful Americans and the Common Good, canvassed a sample of the wealthy from the Chicago
area. Those canvassed were granted anonymity to discuss their views candidly.
Their replies were striking. Where merely affluent Americans are more likely to identify
as Democrats than as Republicans, the ultrawealthy overwhelmingly leaned right. They are far
more likely to raise money for politicians and to have access to them; nearly half had personally
contacted one of Illinois's two United States senators.
Where the general public overwhelmingly supports a high minimum wage, the one percent are
broadly opposed. A majority of Americans supported expanding safety-net and retirement programs,
while most of the very wealthy opposed them. And while Americans are not enthusiastic about
higher taxes generally, they feel strongly that the rich should pay more than they do, and
more than everyone else pays.
"Probably the biggest single area of disconnect has to do with social welfare programs,"
said Benjamin I. Page, a political scientist at Northwestern University and a co-author
of the study. "The other big area has to do with paying for those programs, particularly
taxes on high-income and wealthy people.""
EMichael said in reply to Peter K....
"Where the general public overwhelmingly supports a high minimum wage, the one percent
are broadly opposed."
Yep
So what they do is to distract people from the need to increase wages by altering the minimum
wage and make low wages the responsibility of illegal immigrants.
Plausible(if not true) story made believable if you are a racist.
"Where merely affluent Americans are more likely to identify as Democrats than as Republicans,
the ultrawealthy overwhelmingly leaned right."
That would explain the survey results discussed yesterday showing Clinton to be the preferred
candidate among "millionaires" -- a category almost as factually broad and ambiguous as "the middle
class". The merely affluent -- AKA the "liberal elite" -- would be the Clinton supporters, whereas
the ultrawealthy would support Rubio (or whatever other candidate they were sponsoring).
cm said in reply to EMichael...
"Amazing that appeals to racist imbeciles are considered to be appeals to middle class America."
etc.
Are you suggesting the survey percentages are not accurate? One can suspect a significant sampling
error, but if the numbers were off let's say 5-10 percentage points, would it really make much
of a difference in quality?
Also it is not necessarily an endorsement of Trump but a relative statement - that he resonates
with people more than the other contenders. This kind of thing (people rallying around alpha-type
strongmen with supremacist narratives) has reliably happened anywhere and anytime there was a
bad economy and serious lack of positive outlook.
The competition between GOP presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz heated up Sunday,
with Trump calling Cruz "a bit of a maniac."
Appearing on "FOX News Sunday," Trump said the Texas senator was not qualified to be president
because he doesn't have the right temperament and judgement to get things done.
"Look at the way he's dealt with the Senate, where he goes in there like a - you know, frankly
like a little bit of a maniac," Trump said. "You can't walk into the Senate, and scream, and call
people liars, and not be able to cajole and get along with people." ...
Previously: Ted Cruz Questions Donald Trump's 'Judgment' to
Be President http://nyti.ms/1XZ3RxD via @NYTPolitics
- Dec 10
"... Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street reforms and actions Bill Clinton performed as President including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator? Cutting the capital gains tax? Are you aware of Greenspan's record? ..."
"... The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 0.1 percent tax on stock trades, scaled with lower taxes on other assets, would raise $50 billion a year in tax revenue. The implied reduction in trading revenue was even larger. Senator Sanders has proposed a tax of 0.5 percent on equities (also with a scaled tax on other assets). This would lead to an even larger reduction in revenue for the financial industry. ..."
"... Great to see Bakers acknowledgement that an updated Glass-Steagall is just one component of the progressive wings plan to rein in Wall Street, not the sum total of it. Besides, if Wall Street types dont think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful effects, why do they expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too much. ..."
"... Yes thats a good way to look it. Wall Street gave the Democrats and Clinton a lot of campaign cash so that they would dismantle Glass-Steagall. ..."
"... Slippery slope. Ya gotta find me a business of any type that does not protest any kind of regulation on their business. ..."
"... Yeah, but usually because of all the bad things they say will happen because of the regulation. The question is, what do they think of Clintons plan? Ive heard surprisingly little about that, and what I have heard is along these lines: http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-plan/ ..."
"... Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Streets excesses on Thursday. The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief. ..."
"... There is absolutely NO question Bernie is for real. Wall Street does not want Bernie. So theyll let Hillary talk as big as she needs to . Why should we believe her when an honest guy like Barry caved once in power ..."
"... Perhaps too often we look at Wall Street as monolithic whether consciously or not. Obviously we know its no monolithic: there are serious differences ..."
"... This all coiled change if Bernie surges. How that happens depends crucially on New Hampshire. Not Iowa ..."
"... I believe Hillary will be to liberal causes after she is elected as LBJ was to peace in Vietnam. Like Bill and Obomber. ..."
Hillary Clinton Is Whitewashing the Financial Catastrophe
She has a plan that she claims will reform Wall Street-but she's deflecting responsibility
from old friends and donors in the industry.
By William Greider Yesterday 3:11 pm
Hillary Clinton's recent op-ed in The New York Times, "How I'd Rein In Wall Street," was intended
to reassure nervous Democrats who fear she is still in thrall to those mega-bankers of New York
who crashed the American economy. Clinton's brisk recital of plausible reform ideas might convince
wishful thinkers who are not familiar with the complexities of banking. But informed skeptics,
myself included, see a disturbing message in her argument that ought to alarm innocent supporters.
Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the financial catastrophe. She has produced a
clumsy rewrite of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently leaves her husband out
of the story. He was the president who legislated the predicate for Wall Street's meltdown. Hillary
Clinton's redefinition of the reform problem deflects the blame from Wall Street's most powerful
institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, and instead fingers less celebrated players
that failed. In roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is assuring old friends and
donors in the financial sector that, if she becomes president, she will not come after them.
The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the repeal of the New Deal's Glass-Steagall
Act of 1933, which had separated banking into different realms: investment banks, which organize
capital investors for risk-taking ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as borrowers
and lenders. That law's repeal, a great victory for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton
in 1999, assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sector's armies of lobbyists. The "universal
banking model" was saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional banks to participate
directly and indirectly in long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.
Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and credit-default swaps flourished, enabling
old-line bankers to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale. The banks invented "guarantees"
against loss and sold them to both companies and market players. The fast-expanding financial
sector claimed a larger and larger share of the economy (and still does) at the expense of the
real economy of producers and consumers. The interconnectedness across market sectors created
the illusion of safety. When illusions failed, these connected guarantees became the dragnet that
drove panic in every direction. Ultimately, the federal government had to rescue everyone, foreign
and domestic, to stop the bleeding.
Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to
do with it. She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions
like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her argument amounts
to facile evasion that ignores the interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180 billion
bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadn't acted and
had allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.
These sound like esoteric questions of bank regulation (and they are), but the consequences
of pretending they do not matter are enormous. The federal government and Federal Reserve would
remain on the hook for rescuing losers in a future crisis. The largest and most adventurous banks
would remain free to experiment, inventing fictitious guarantees and selling them to eager suckers.
If things go wrong, Uncle Sam cleans up the mess.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and other reformers are pushing a simpler remedy-restore the Glass-Steagall
principles and give citizens a safe, government-insured place to store their money. "Banking should
be boring," Warren explains (her co-sponsor is GOP Senator John McCain). That's a hard sell in politics, given the banking sector's bear hug of Congress and the White
House, its callous manipulation of both political parties. Of course, it is more complicated than
that. But recreating a safe, stable banking system-a place where ordinary people can keep their
money-ought to be the first benchmark for Democrats who claim to be reformers.
Actually, the most compelling witnesses for Senator Warren's argument are the two bankers who
introduced this adventure in "universal banking" back in the 1990s. They used their political
savvy and relentless muscle to seduce Bill Clinton and his so-called New Democrats. John Reed
was CEO of Citicorp and led the charge. He has since apologized to the nation. Sandy Weill was
chairman of the board and a brilliant financier who envisioned the possibilities of a single,
all-purpose financial house, freed of government's narrow-minded regulations. They won politically,
but at staggering cost to the country.
Weill confessed error back in 2012: "What we should probably do is go and split up investment
banking from banking. Have banks do something that's not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that's
not going to be too big to fail."
John Reed's confession explained explicitly why their modernizing crusade failed for two fundamental
business reasons. "One was the belief that combining all types of finance into one institution
would drive costs down-and the larger institution the more efficient it would be," Reed wrote
in the Financial Times in November. Reed said, "We now know that there are very few cost efficiencies
that come from the merger of functions-indeed, there may be none at all. It is possible that combining
so much in a single bank makes services more expensive than if they were instead offered by smaller,
specialised players."
The second grave error, Reed said, was trying to mix the two conflicting cultures in banking-bankers
who are pulling in opposite directions. That tension helps explain the competitive greed displayed
by the modernized banking system. This disorder speaks to the current political crisis in ways
that neither Dems nor Republicans wish to confront. It would require the politicians to critique
the bankers (often their funders) in terms of human failure.
"Mixing incompatible cultures is a problem all by itself," Reed wrote. "It makes the entire
finance industry more fragile…. As is now clear, traditional banking attracts one kind of talent,
which is entirely different from the kinds drawn towards investment banking and trading. Traditional
bankers tend to be extroverts, sociable people who are focused on longer term relationships. They
are, in many important respects, risk averse. Investment bankers and their traders are more short
termist. They are comfortable with, and many even seek out, risk and are more focused on immediate
reward."
Reed concludes, "As I have reflected about the years since 1999, I think the lessons of Glass-Steagall
and its repeal suggest that the universal banking model is inherently unstable and unworkable.
No amount of restructuring, management change or regulation is ever likely to change that."
This might sound hopelessly naive, but the Democratic Party might do better in politics if
it told more of the truth more often: what they tried do and why it failed, and what they think
they may have gotten wrong. People already know they haven't gotten a straight story from politicians.
They might be favorably impressed by a little more candor in the plain-spoken manner of John Reed.
Of course it's unfair to pick on the Dems. Republicans have been lying about their big stuff
for so long and so relentlessly that their voters are now staging a wrathful rebellion. Who knows,
maybe a little honest talk might lead to honest debate. Think about it. Do the people want to
hear the truth about our national condition? Could they stand it?
Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street "reforms" and actions Bill Clinton performed as
President including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator? Cutting the capital gains tax? Are you aware of Greenspan's record?
Yes Hillary isn't Bill but she hasn't criticized her husband specifically about his record and
seems to want to have her cake and eat it too.
Of course Hillary is much better than the Republicans, pace Rustbucket and the Green Lantern
Lefty club. Still, critics have a point.
I won't be surprised if she doesn't do much to rein in Wall Street besides some window dressing.
sanjait said in reply to Peter K....
"Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street "reforms" and actions Bill Clinton
performed..."
That, right there, is what's wrong with Bernie and his fans.
They measure everything by whether it is "pro- or anti- Wall Street".
Glass Steagall is anti-Wall Street. A financial transactions tax is anti-Wall Street.
But neither has any hope of controlling systemic financial risk in this country. None.
You guys want to punish Wall Street but not even bother trying to think of how to achieve useful
policy goals. Some people, like Paine here, are actually open about this vacuity, as if the only
thing that were important were winning a power struggle.
Hillary's plan is flat out better. It's more comprehensive and more effective at reining in the
financial system to limit systemic risk. Period.
You guys want to make this a character melodrama rather than a policy debate, and I fear the
result of that will be that the candidate who actually has the best plan won't get to enact it.
likbez said in reply to sanjait...
"You guys want to make this a character melodrama rather than a policy debate, and I
fear the result of that will be that the candidate who actually has the best plan won't get
to enact it."
You are misrepresenting the positions. It's actually pro-neoliberalism crowd vs
anti-neoliberalism crowd. In no way anti-neoliberalism commenters here view this is a
character melodrama, although psychologically Hillary probably does has certain problems as
her reaction to the death of Gadhafi attests.
The key problem with anti-neoliberalism crowd is the question "What is a realistic
alternative?" That's where differences and policy debate starts.
RGC said in reply to EMichael...
"Her argument amounts to facile evasion"
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to RGC...
'The majority favors policies
to the left of Hillary.'
... The Democrats' liberal faction has been greatly overestimated by pundits who mistake
noisiness for clout or assume that the left functions like the right. In fact, liberals hold
nowhere near the power in the Democratic Party that conservatives hold in the Republican
Party. And while they may well be gaining, they're still far from being in charge. ...
Paine said in reply to RGC...
What's not confronted ? Suggest what a System like the pre repeal system would have done in
the 00's. My guess we'd have ended in a crisis anyway. Yes we can segregate the depository
system. But credit is elastic enough to build bubbles without the depository system
involved
Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Cracking Down on Wall Street
by Dean Baker
Published: 12 December 2015
The New Yorker ran a rather confused piece on Gary Sernovitz, a managing director at the investment
firm Lime Rock Partners, on whether Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton would be more effective
in reining in Wall Street. The piece assures us that Secretary Clinton has a better understanding
of Wall Street and that her plan would be more effective in cracking down on the industry. The
piece is bizarre both because it essentially dismisses the concern with too big to fail banks
and completely ignores Sanders' proposal for a financial transactions tax which is by far the
most important mechanism for reining in the financial industry.
The piece assures us that too big to fail banks are no longer a problem, noting their drop
in profitability from bubble peaks and telling readers:
"not only are Sanders's bogeybanks just one part of Wall Street but they are getting less
powerful and less problematic by the year."
This argument is strange for a couple of reasons. First, the peak of the subprime bubble frenzy
is hardly a good base of comparison. The real question is should we anticipate declining profits
going forward. That hardly seems clear. For example, Citigroup recently reported surging profits,
while Wells Fargo's third quarter profits were up 8 percent from 2014 levels.
If Sernovitz is predicting that the big banks are about to shrivel up to nothingness, the market
does not agree with him. Citigroup has a market capitalization of $152 billion, JPMorgan has a
market cap of $236 billion, and Bank of America has a market cap of $174 billion. Clearly investors
agree with Sanders in thinking that these huge banks will have sizable profits for some time to
come.
The real question on too big to fail is whether the government would sit by and let a Goldman
Sachs or Citigroup go bankrupt. Perhaps some people think that it is now the case, but I've never
met anyone in that group.
Sernovitz is also dismissive on Sanders call for bringing back the Glass-Steagall separation
between commercial banking and investment banking. He makes the comparison to the battle over
the Keystone XL pipeline, which is actually quite appropriate. The Keystone battle did take on
exaggerated importance in the climate debate. There was never a zero/one proposition in which
no tar sands oil would be pumped without the pipeline, while all of it would be pumped if the
pipeline was constructed. Nonetheless, if the Obama administration was committed to restricting
greenhouse gas emissions, it is difficult to see why it would support the building of a pipeline
that would facilitate bringing some of the world's dirtiest oil to market.
In the same vein, Sernovitz is right that it is difficult to see how anything about the growth
of the housing bubble and its subsequent collapse would have been very different if Glass-Steagall
were still in place. And, it is possible in principle to regulate bank's risky practices without
Glass-Steagall, as the Volcker rule is doing. However, enforcement tends to weaken over time under
industry pressure, which is a reason why the clear lines of Glass-Steagall can be beneficial.
Furthermore, as with Keystone, if we want to restrict banks' power, what is the advantage of letting
them get bigger and more complex?
The repeal of Glass-Steagall was sold in large part by boasting of the potential synergies
from combining investment and commercial banking under one roof. But if the operations are kept
completely separate, as is supposed to be the case, where are the synergies?
But the strangest part of Sernovitz's story is that he leaves out Sanders' financial transactions
tax (FTT) altogether. This is bizarre, because the FTT is essentially a hatchet blow to the waste
and exorbitant salaries in the industry.
Most research shows that trading volume is very responsive to the cost of trading, with most
estimates putting the elasticity close to one. This means that if trading costs rise by 50 percent,
then trading volume declines by 50 percent. (In its recent analysis of FTTs, the Tax Policy Center
assumed that the elasticity was 1.5, meaning that trading volume decline by 150 percent of the
increase in trading costs.) The implication of this finding is that the financial industry would
pay the full cost of a financial transactions tax in the form of reduced trading revenue.
The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 0.1 percent tax on stock trades, scaled with lower taxes
on other assets, would raise $50 billion a year in tax revenue. The implied reduction in trading
revenue was even larger. Senator Sanders has proposed a tax of 0.5 percent on equities (also with
a scaled tax on other assets). This would lead to an even larger reduction in revenue for the
financial industry.
It is incredible that Sernovitz would ignore a policy with such enormous consequences for the
financial sector in his assessment of which candidate would be tougher on Wall Street. Sanders
FTT would almost certainly do more to change behavior on Wall Street then everything that Clinton
has proposed taken together by a rather large margin. It's sort of like evaluating the New England
Patriots' Super Bowl prospects without discussing their quarterback.
Syaloch said in reply to Peter K....
Great to see Baker's acknowledgement that an updated Glass-Steagall is just one component
of the progressive wing's plan to rein in Wall Street, not the sum total of it. Besides, if Wall
Street types don't think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful effects, why do they
expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too much.
Peter K. said in reply to Syaloch...
Yes that's a good way to look it. Wall Street gave the Democrats and Clinton a lot of campaign
cash so that they would dismantle Glass-Steagall. If they want it done, it's probably not
a good idea.
EMichael said in reply to Syaloch...
Slippery slope. Ya' gotta find me a business of any type that does not protest any kind of regulation
on their business.
Syaloch said in reply to EMichael...
Yeah, but usually because of all the bad things they say will happen because of the regulation.
The question is, what do they think of Clinton's plan? I've heard surprisingly little about that,
and what I have heard is along these lines:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-plan/
"Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Street's excesses on Thursday.
The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief."
pgl said in reply to Syaloch...
Two excellent points!!!
sanjait said in reply to Syaloch...
"Besides, if Wall Street types don't think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful
effects, why do they expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too
much."
It has an effect of shrinking the size of a few firms, and that has a detrimental effect on
the top managers of those firms, who get paid more money if they have larger firms to manage. But it has little to no meaningful effect on systemic risk.
So if your main policy goal is to shrink the compensation for a small number of powerful Wall
Street managers, G-S is great. But if you actually want to accomplish something useful to the American people, like limiting
systemic risk in the financial sector, then a plan like Hillary's is much much better. She explained
this fairly well in her recent NYT piece.
Paine said in reply to Peter K....
There is absolutely NO question Bernie is for real. Wall Street does not want Bernie. So they'll
let Hillary talk as big as she needs to . Why should we believe her when an honest guy like
Barry caved once in power
Paine said in reply to Paine ...
Bernie has been anti Wall Street his whole career . He's on a crusade. Hillary is pulling a sham
bola
Paine said in reply to Paine ...
Perhaps too often we look at Wall Street as monolithic whether consciously or not. Obviously we
know it's no monolithic: there are serious differences
When the street is riding high especially. Right now the street is probably not united but
too cautious to display profound differences in public. They're sitting on their hands waiting
to see how high the anti Wall Street tide runs this election cycle. Trump gives them cover and
I really fear secretly Hillary gives them comfort
This all coiled change if Bernie surges. How that happens depends crucially on New Hampshire.
Not Iowa
EMichael said in reply to Paine ...
If Bernie surges and wins the nomination, we will all get to watch the death of the Progressive
movement for a decade or two. Congress will become more GOP dominated, and we will have a President
in office who will make Hoover look like a Socialist.
You should like the moderate Democrats after George McGovern ran in 1972. I'm hoping we have another
1964 with Bernie leading a united Democratic Congress.
EMichael said in reply to pgl...
Not a chance in the world. And I like Sanders much more than anyone else. It just simply cannot,
and will not, happen. He is a communist. Not to me, not to you, but to the vast majority
of American voters.
pgl said in reply to EMichael...
He is not a communist. But I agree - Hillary is winning the Democratic nomination. I have only
one vote and in New York, I'm badly outnumbered.
ilsm said in reply to Paine ...
I believe Hillary will be to liberal causes after she is elected as LBJ was to peace in Vietnam.
Like Bill and Obomber.
pgl said in reply to ilsm...
By 1968, LBJ finally realized it was time to end that stupid war. But it seems certain members
in the State Department undermined his efforts in a cynical ploy to get Nixon to be President.
The Republican Party has had more slime than substance of most of my life time.
pgl said in reply to Peter K....
Gary Sernovitz, a managing director at the investment firm Lime Rock Partners? Why are we listening
to this guy too. It's like letting the fox guard the hen house.
"... If memory serves me correctly the last time CNBC did a millionaires poll Hillary won. She is not a populist, barely a liberal. Two political parties, zero candidates I can vote for. Yuck. ..."
"... Rubinite neo liberal. She is also popular with PNAC and the Kagan's neocon favorite she would hire Wolfowitz ... Management in big war profiteer firms is not afraid of Hillary as they suspect the Donald. ..."
"... Rubinite neoliberal is a very good definition of what Hillary actually represent politically. Third Way is another term close in meaning to your Rubinite neoliberal term. ..."
"... But unlike the Third Way term your term captures an additional important quality of Hillary as a politician: On foreign policy issues she is a typical neocon and would feel pretty comfortable with most of Republican candidates foreign policy platforms. Her protégé in the Department of State Victoria Nuland was a close associate of Dick Cheney. ..."
"... Very true. Brad has been moving left for a couple years or more. It's now obvious. He lets krugman lead the way but he follows. Notice Summers too has moved left . Is this for real or just to cut the wind out of Bernie sails ? ..."
"... One thing is certain: the old Rubinite toxic line is no longer dominant in the. big D party top circles. We can call that progress if we need to ..."
"... Is this for real or just to cut the wind out of Bernie sails ? Even if it's the second, it legitimates Bernie's views and critique. Also DeLong here is criticizing Brookings and other centrist organizations specifically for working with AEI. ..."
"... Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street reforms and actions Bill Clinton performed as President including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator? Cutting the capital gains tax? Are you aware of Greenspan's record? ..."
"... I won't be surprised if she doesn't do much to rein in Wall Street besides some window dressing. ..."
If memory serves me correctly the last time CNBC did a "millionaires poll" Hillary won.
She is not a populist, barely a liberal. Two political parties, zero candidates I can vote
for. Yuck.
(Rubio was the top GOP choice, but Clinton still beat Rubio by a 21% margin.)
Syaloch -> EMichael...
Well, here are the issues millionaires indicated as being most important to them, and
presumably candidates of choice are based on their positions on these issues. Make of it what
you will.
Since she intends to be the Dem nominee, progressives expect she must be one of them. Only
when necessary. As someone has said, 'Run from
the left, rule from the center.' Always, always, run from the left.
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Rubinite neo liberal.
She is also popular with PNAC and "the Kagan's" neocon favorite she would hire Wolfowitz and
spend more trillions protecting the Saudis from their rising victims.
Clinton has said: Iran is the enemy.
She will keep fighting Iran while Sunni terrorists fund ISIS!
Trump is merely less nuanced in insanity.
Management in big war profiteer firms is not afraid of Hillary as they suspect the Donald.
likbez -> ilsm...
"Rubinite neo liberal. She is also popular with PNAC
and "the Kagan's" neocon favorite she would hire
Wolfowitz ... Management in big war profiteer firms is
not afraid of Hillary as they suspect the Donald."
Exactly --
"Rubinite neoliberal" is a very good definition of
what Hillary actually represent politically. Third Way
is another term close in meaning to your "Rubinite
neoliberal" term.
But unlike the "Third Way" term your term captures
an additional important quality of Hillary as a
politician: On foreign policy issues she is a typical
neocon and would feel pretty comfortable with most of
Republican candidates foreign policy platforms. Her
protégé in the Department of State Victoria Nuland was
a close associate of Dick Cheney.
She is probably more warmongering candidate then
Jeb! and a couple of other republican candidates.
But at the same time she does not look like
completely out of place as an establishment candidate
from Dems, which are actually are "Democrats only by
name" -- a typical "Third Way" party. From Wikipedia
=== quote ===
In politics, the Third Way is a position akin to
centrism that tries to reconcile right-wing and
left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of
right-wing economic and left-wing social
policies.[1][2] The Third Way was created as a serious
re-evaluation of political policies within various
centre-left progressive movements in response to
international doubt regarding the economic viability of
the state; economic interventionist policies that had
previously been popularized by Keynesianism and
contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity
for economic liberalism and the New Right.[3] The Third
Way is promoted by some social democratic and social
liberal movements.[4]
Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony
Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was
different from traditional conceptions of socialism.
Blair said "My kind of socialism is a set of values
based around notions of social justice ... Socialism as
a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and
rightly".[5] Blair referred to it as "social-ism" that
involves politics that recognized individuals as
socially interdependent, and advocated social justice,
social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen, and equal
opportunity.[6] Third Way social democratic theorist
Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the
traditional conception of socialism, and instead
accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by
Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views
social democratic governments as having achieved a
viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust
elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and
other policies, and that contemporary socialism has
outgrown the Marxian claim for the need of the
abolition of capitalism.[7] Blair in 2009 publicly
declared support for a "new capitalism".[8]
It supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in
society through action to increase the distribution of
skills, capacities, and productive endowments, while
rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve
this.[9] It emphasizes commitment to balanced budgets,
providing equal opportunity combined with an emphasis
on personal responsibility, decentralization of
government power to the lowest level possible,
encouragement of public-private partnerships, improving
labour supply, investment in human development,
protection of social capital, and protection of the
environment.[10] === end of quote ===
ilsm -> likbez...
H. Clinton is as likely to keep US out of the wrong quagmire as LBJ in 1964. Except, LBJ
may have actually changed his mind after he was elected.
Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...
(Yes, There Will Be Triangulating. This is not a great example of it.)
Hillary Is Already Triangulating Against Liberals
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/hillary_clinton_triangulates_against_bernie_sanders.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top
via @slate - Nov 18
The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign has begun using an odd new line of attack against
upstart Democratic primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders: He's too liberal on taxes and universal
health insurance. Why is she doing this? After returning to the position in which she entered
the race-as the near-certain nominee-she seems to be setting herself up for the general
election. But it's strange to see her now, after the previously shaky ship has been steadied,
attacking a candidate whose supporters she'll need in any general election campaign over an
issue that his supporters care about very deeply.
Triangulating against Sanders (and, by proxy, the left wing of the Democratic Party) with
conservative attacks does make some sense. For one, she is a Clinton, and this is what they
do.
At issue is Sanders' support for a single-payer universal health care system, which he and
others brand as "Medicare for all." A single-payer bill he introduced in 2013 would have
levied a 2.2 percent tax on individuals making up to $200,000 or couples making up to
$250,000, and progressively increased that rate to 5.2 percent for income beyond $600,000. It
also would have tacked an extra 6.7 percent payroll tax on the employer side, at least some of
which employers would likely pass on to workers.
The Clinton campaign is suddenly quite upset about that proposal and wants everyone to know.
She has committed to the same (policy-constricting) pledge that President Obama took in 2008
and 2012, ruling out tax increases on individuals making less than $200,000 per year or joint
filers making less than $250,000. This neatly positions her camp to say, by contrast, that the
bug-eyed socialist Bernie Sanders wants to take all of your money. ...
(Where HRC will get a lot of votes & contributions will be among those in the $250K & below
set, so no need to antagonize THEM. Not when she can
practically smell the nomination.)
Paine -> Peter K....
Very true. Brad has been moving left for a couple years or more. It's now obvious. He
lets krugman lead the way but he follows. Notice Summers too has moved left . Is this for real
or just to cut the wind out of Bernie sails ?
One thing is certain: the old
Rubinite toxic line is no longer dominant in the. big D party top circles. We can call
that progress if we need to
Peter K. -> Paine ...
"Is this for real or just to cut the wind out of Bernie sails ?" Even if it's the
second, it legitimates Bernie's views and critique. Also DeLong here is criticizing Brookings
and other "centrist" organizations specifically for working with AEI.
Syaloch -> Paine ...
Just as the revolution within the Republican party was the result of the undue influence of
an out-of-touch elite, the Democratic coalition has been threatened by the influence of the
Brookings-Third Way wing which seems, for example, to imagine that they can sell to the base
cuts to Social Security, an elite priority that has nothing to do with the reasons
working-class people vote Democrat.
"We supported and helped pass into law the Simpson-Bowles commission that came close to
securing the bipartisan grand bargain budget agreement for which we fought. We proposed our
own Social Security fix plan that combined tax increases on upper income earners with
benefit cuts on well-to-do seniors and benefit increases to poor seniors. We first proposed
then brought Democrats and Republicans together on a Social Security Commission plan that
remains the only bipartisan legislation to fix Social Security. We became the lead
center-left organization to promote chain weighted CPI and eventually counted President
Obama as one of our supporters."
"Yielding to pressure from congressional Democrats, President Obama is abandoning a
proposed cut to Social Security benefits in his election-year budget...
"Democrats on Capitol Hill had pleaded with Obama to reverse course on the chained consumer
price index (CPI), fearing it could become a liability for the party in the upcoming
midterm elections, which typically bring high turnout among older voters.
"More than 100 House Democrats wrote to Obama on Wednesday urging him to drop the chained
CPI proposal, following a similar letter from 16 Senate Democrats that was led by Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)."
RGC said...
Hillary Clinton Is Whitewashing the Financial Catastrophe
She has a plan that she claims will reform Wall Street-but
she's deflecting responsibility from old friends and
donors in the industry.
By William Greider
Yesterday 3:11 pm
Hillary Clinton's recent op-ed in The New York Times,
"How I'd Rein In Wall Street," was intended to reassure
nervous Democrats who fear she is still in thrall to those
mega-bankers of New York who crashed the American economy.
Clinton's brisk recital of plausible reform ideas might
convince wishful thinkers who are not familiar with the
complexities of banking. But informed skeptics, myself
included, see a disturbing message in her argument that
ought to alarm innocent supporters.
Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the
financial catastrophe. She has produced a clumsy rewrite
of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently
leaves her husband out of the story. He was the president
who legislated the predicate for Wall Street's meltdown.
Hillary Clinton's redefinition of the reform problem
deflects the blame from Wall Street's most powerful
institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, and
instead fingers less celebrated players that failed. In
roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is
assuring old friends and donors in the financial sector
that, if she becomes president, she will not come after
them.
The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the
repeal of the New Deal's Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which
had separated banking into different realms: investment
banks, which organize capital investors for risk-taking
ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as
borrowers and lenders. That law's repeal, a great victory
for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton in 1999,
assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sector's
armies of lobbyists. The "universal banking model" was
saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional
banks to participate directly and indirectly in
long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.
Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and
credit-default swaps flourished, enabling old-line bankers
to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale. The
banks invented "guarantees" against loss and sold them to
both companies and market players. The fast-expanding
financial sector claimed a larger and larger share of the
economy (and still does) at the expense of the real
economy of producers and consumers. The interconnectedness
across market sectors created the illusion of safety. When
illusions failed, these connected guarantees became the
dragnet that drove panic in every direction. Ultimately,
the federal government had to rescue everyone, foreign and
domestic, to stop the bleeding.
Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that
repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it. She
claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the
reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or
insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her
argument amounts to facile evasion that ignores the
interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180
billion bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman
Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadn't acted and had
allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.
These sound like esoteric questions of bank regulation
(and they are), but the consequences of pretending they do
not matter are enormous. The federal government and
Federal Reserve would remain on the hook for rescuing
losers in a future crisis. The largest and most
adventurous banks would remain free to experiment,
inventing fictitious guarantees and selling them to eager
suckers. If things go wrong, Uncle Sam cleans up the mess.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and other reformers are
pushing a simpler remedy-restore the Glass-Steagall
principles and give citizens a safe, government-insured
place to store their money. "Banking should be boring,"
Warren explains (her co-sponsor is GOP Senator John
McCain).
That's a hard sell in politics, given the banking sector's
bear hug of Congress and the White House, its callous
manipulation of both political parties. Of course, it is
more complicated than that. But recreating a safe, stable
banking system-a place where ordinary people can keep
their money-ought to be the first benchmark for Democrats
who claim to be reformers.
Actually, the most compelling witnesses for Senator
Warren's argument are the two bankers who introduced this
adventure in "universal banking" back in the 1990s. They
used their political savvy and relentless muscle to seduce
Bill Clinton and his so-called New Democrats. John Reed
was CEO of Citicorp and led the charge. He has since
apologized to the nation. Sandy Weill was chairman of the
board and a brilliant financier who envisioned the
possibilities of a single, all-purpose financial house,
freed of government's narrow-minded regulations. They won
politically, but at staggering cost to the country.
Weill confessed error back in 2012: "What we should
probably do is go and split up investment banking from
banking. Have banks do something that's not going to risk
the taxpayer dollars, that's not going to be too big to
fail."
John Reed's confession explained explicitly why their
modernizing crusade failed for two fundamental business
reasons. "One was the belief that combining all types of
finance into one institution would drive costs down-and
the larger institution the more efficient it would be,"
Reed wrote in the Financial Times in November. Reed said,
"We now know that there are very few cost efficiencies
that come from the merger of functions-indeed, there may
be none at all. It is possible that combining so much in a
single bank makes services more expensive than if they
were instead offered by smaller, specialised players."
The second grave error, Reed said, was trying to mix
the two conflicting cultures in banking-bankers who are
pulling in opposite directions. That tension helps explain
the competitive greed displayed by the modernized banking
system. This disorder speaks to the current political
crisis in ways that neither Dems nor Republicans wish to
confront. It would require the politicians to critique the
bankers (often their funders) in terms of human failure.
"Mixing incompatible cultures is a problem all by
itself," Reed wrote. "It makes the entire finance industry
more fragile…. As is now clear, traditional banking
attracts one kind of talent, which is entirely different
from the kinds drawn towards investment banking and
trading. Traditional bankers tend to be extroverts,
sociable people who are focused on longer term
relationships. They are, in many important respects, risk
averse. Investment bankers and their traders are more
short termist. They are comfortable with, and many even
seek out, risk and are more focused on immediate reward."
Reed concludes, "As I have reflected about the years
since 1999, I think the lessons of Glass-Steagall and its
repeal suggest that the universal banking model is
inherently unstable and unworkable. No amount of
restructuring, management change or regulation is ever
likely to change that."
This might sound hopelessly naive, but the Democratic
Party might do better in politics if it told more of the
truth more often: what they tried do and why it failed,
and what they think they may have gotten wrong. People
already know they haven't gotten a straight story from
politicians. They might be favorably impressed by a little
more candor in the plain-spoken manner of John Reed.
Of course it's unfair to pick on the Dems. Republicans
have been lying about their big stuff for so long and so
relentlessly that their voters are now staging a wrathful
rebellion. Who knows, maybe a little honest talk might
lead to honest debate. Think about it. Do the people want
to hear the truth about our national condition? Could they
stand it?
"She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the
reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or
insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks."
Of course this claim is absolutely true. Just like GS
would not have affected the other investment banks,
whatever their name was. And just like we would have had
to bail out those other banks whatever their name was.
Peter K. -> EMichael...
Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street
"reforms" and actions Bill Clinton performed as President
including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator?
Cutting the capital gains tax? Are you aware of
Greenspan's record?
Yes Hillary isn't Bill but she hasn't criticized her
husband specifically about his record and seems to want to
have her cake and eat it too.
Of course Hillary is much better than the Republicans,
pace Rustbucket and the Green Lantern Lefty club. Still,
critics have a point.
I won't be surprised if she doesn't do much to rein in
Wall Street besides some window dressing.
"... Sanders says he is for "having a government which represents all people, rather than just the wealthiest people, which is most often the case right now in this country." But what that misses is the extent to which that has always been the case, and not by happenstance. ..."
"... Mortified by the threat to their wealth and power, the elite sought to reconfigure the government more to their liking, and to ensure that such an outburst of popular sentiment couldn't happen again. ..."
"... The main purpose of the new Constitution, then, was to preserve inequalities among individuals and the inequalities in the distribution of property among them. "Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society," Madison observes. Ever had it been, and ever under the Constitution would it be. The division of wealth and political power, between the haves and the have-nots, between (as the new Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan has put it) the makers and the takers, was to be carefully maintained. For Madison, in Federalist No. 10, the question was how to do so while at least nominally "preserv[ing] the spirit and the form of popular government." ... ..."
Conventional political wisdom says that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, however popular in certain
corners, can't possibly win election to the White House. Too radical, goes the thinking. Inspiring,
common-sense ideas, perhaps, but come Election Day, a majority of American voters won't back the
redistribution of wealth implicit in his proposals. Why is that?
Believe it or not, one place to look for an answer is the Constitution, crafted by the richest
and most powerful Americans of their day to perpetuate their own control over the government and
economy.
Sanders says he is for "having a government which represents all people, rather than just the
wealthiest people, which is most often the case right now in this country." But what that misses
is the extent to which that has always been the case, and not by happenstance.
In late 1786, a farmer and veteran of the Revolution named Daniel Shays led an armed insurrection
of debtors and veterans in the hills of Western Massachusetts. Objecting to an onerous regime of
taxes and confiscations the state imposed to pay its creditors, the rebels marched through the countryside,
threatening the new federal arsenal at Springfield and shutting down courthouses to stop foreclosure
proceedings. Bankers and merchants in Boston - the same parties who owned the state's debt - lent
Massachusetts more money to put the insurrection down.
In October of that year, General Henry Knox, secretary of war, summarized the rebels' philosophy:
"Their creed is 'That the property of the United States has been protected from the confiscations
of Britain by the joint exertions of all, and therefore ought to be the common property of all. And
he that attempts opposition to this creed is an enemy to equity and justice, and ought to be swept
off the face of the earth.' "
Mortified by the threat to their wealth and power, the elite sought to reconfigure the government
more to their liking, and to ensure that such an outburst of popular sentiment couldn't happen again.
As schoolchildren learn - and adults often forget - the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was
only tasked with amending the Articles of Confederation, the document that had governed the breakaway
Colonies since 1781. The convention wasn't supposed to rewrite them entirely. The progressive historian
Charles Beard, whose influential "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution" was the first work
to reveal the class-based nature of our founding charter, stated the matter plainly when he called
it a coup d'etat.
Contrary to what many assume, the Constitution was never subjected to a popular referendum, but
to the votes of state ratifying conventions that were themselves largely elected by only white propertied
males; indeed, only about 150,000 Americans elected delegates, out of a population of some 4 million.
With the goal of persuading New Yorkers to elect pro-Constitution delegates to the state's convention,
James Madison, with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, wrote a series of 85 essays under the pseudonym
Publius that were published in local papers between November 1787 and August 1788 under the title,
The Federalist. Madison's most famous contribution, Federalist No. 10, is widely acclaimed for its
idea that factions of citizens with disparate interests should be balanced against one another in
order to create a republic that would neither succumb to what John Adams called "tyranny of the majority"
nor lose its responsiveness to the people as it grew larger in stature and scale.
Yet despite the attention Federalist No. 10 has received from political scientists, it ought to
be much better known among all who favor a more equal distribution of wealth, because it explains
how our political system, often described as rigged, has in fact been rigged from the start.
"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens," Madison writes
near the beginning of the essay, gesturing, as he does throughout The Federalist, to the fallout
from Shays' Rebellion, "that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded
in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the
rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and
overbearing majority."
That majority, it slowly becomes clear, are the debtors and small landowners, those more recently
designated the 99 percent. "The diversity in the faculties of men," Madison explains, leads to different
"rights of property," and this difference represents "an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of
interests" in the political community. "The protection of these faculties is the first object of
government," he adds.
The main purpose of the new Constitution, then, was to preserve inequalities among individuals
and the inequalities in the distribution of property among them. "Those who hold and those who are
without property have ever formed distinct interests in society," Madison observes. Ever had it been,
and ever under the Constitution would it be. The division of wealth and political power, between
the haves and the have-nots, between (as the new Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan
has put it) the makers and the takers, was to be carefully maintained. For Madison, in Federalist
No. 10, the question was how to do so while at least nominally "preserv[ing] the spirit and the form
of popular government." ...
(Richard Kreitner is the archivist of the The Nation magazine.)
Some Republicans
are now worrying that Donald Trump could cost them the Senate
-- or even put their seemingly solid House majority in
danger.
Republicans have long known they were vulnerable in the
Senate in 2016. They currently hold a 54-46 majority, but far
more Republican seats are up in this cycle than Democratic
seats, and several of those are in tough states for
Republicans to hold (such as Wisconsin and Illinois). In the
House, Democrats stand to gain here and there because
Republicans won so many competitive seats in 2014, but few
analysts have considered the GOP's majority at risk.
If Trump actually wins the Republican nomination, the
question would be the scale of the disaster for the party.
The best-case possibility is that Trump tones things down
enough to be able to run as a mainstream conservative
Republican and the party can unite behind him. If that's the
case, the party would still likely do unusually badly with
the groups Trump has insulted so far, but the losses might be
contained. Trump might have little chance to win but he
wouldn't excessively drag down Republicans in races down the
ballot. Democrats would likely make modest gains in the House
and Senate.
Let's suppose, however, that Trump wins the nomination
while still proving unacceptable to many Republican elected
officials and other party actors. Then, yes, huge GOP losses
in Congress, state legislatures and other races are quite
plausible. If high-visibility Republicans denounce their own
nominee, plenty of GOP voters will wind up staying home in
November. Some might even cross party lines at the top of the
ballot and vote for Hillary Clinton, and won't cross back to
vote Republican for other contests. Republican candidates
will face a choice of pledging loyalty to a damaging nominee
or risk adding to the chaos in their party. ...
One potentially significant indirect effect, however, is
possible. Important decisions in House elections are being
made right now. Suppose disgust with the party or fear that
2016 will be a Republican debacle pushes some House
Republicans into retirement or hurts Republican recruitment
for quality candidates for seats that are open or currently
held by weak Democrats. The Trump factor could also be
affecting Democratic decisions today as well, possibly
encouraging better candidates to jump into congressional
races.
The upshot of all this is that Republican politicians and
all those who care about continuing Republican control of
Congress have strong incentives to ramp up their efforts to
defeat Trump. ...
'If high-visibility Republicans denounce their own
nominee, plenty of GOP voters will wind up staying home in
November.'
So why would he hand Hillary the job as prez by going
independent?
Faced with the rising clown shows of Donald Trump and
Ben Carson, the implosion of Jeb! Bush, and the fact that
everyone except his immediate family fates Ted Cruz, the
GOP establishment and the media tried very hard to give
Rubio a boost. The calculus makes sense: Rubio against
iether Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would make a nice
"young vs. old" storyline for the 2016 election while
giving the Republicans a chance to dump the image of the
party of old, racist white fogies, This despite glaring
evidence that Rubio's policy positions are so far to the
right, they might make Barry Goldwater nervous.
"... life simply because she was married to a President like he would like us to believe. If that was the case there would've been more first ladies running for office. She was a political animal from the start and was involved in every political decision her husband made and shaped his policies dating back to Arkansas. She came in as first lady and immediately announced she was not going to be like other first ladies. I think Hitchens is sort of being lazy with his analysis on how the Clintons attain power and how they've cultivated the path to their success in the political arena ..."
"... I'm sure Hitch would have some very colourful remarks to make about Mrs. Clinton's e-mail shenanigans were he still with us. ..."
"... The woman is remarkably despicable and I hate to have such a jaded view of the average American voter but I'm afraid she is going to get the Presidency based in large part because of the potential for the first female President. ..."
What he failed to realize is how is she reaching these platforms to try and reach the
highest office in the land. Did she get where she is in life simply because she was
married to a President like he would like us to believe. If that was the case there would've
been more first ladies running for office. She was a political animal from the start and was
involved in every political decision her husband made and shaped his policies dating back to
Arkansas. She came in as first lady and immediately announced she was not going to be like
other first ladies. I think Hitchens is sort of being lazy with his analysis on how the
Clintons attain power and how they've cultivated the path to their success in the political
arena
juicer67 2 months ago
I'm sure Hitch would have some very colourful remarks to make about Mrs. Clinton's
e-mail shenanigans were he still with us. He was irreplaceable.
michael davis 1 month ago
+juicer67 And a lot more to say about Benghazi as well. The woman is remarkably
despicable and I hate to have such a jaded view of the average American voter but I'm afraid
she is going to get the Presidency based in large part because of the potential for the first
female President. From my experience with chatting with people before the 2008 election,
many were voting for Obama in large part because he had a chance to be the first black
President - people were excited about that regardless of his stances. I'm afraid the same will
happen with Clinton and she likely knows it too. Its sad that people vote in that way.
"... But never mind us - how does she manage? When you and your husband have banked $125 million in speaking fees from the odious malefactors of wealth, and you insist that you feel the pain of the middle class. How do you maintain the deadpan after you've cashed $300,000 for a half-hour speech at a state university - which fee comes from student dues - and then declaim against crippling student loans? ..."
"... Small lies are often more revealing, especially when there was no need for them. Claiming, say, that you were named after Sir Edmund Hillary when you were born six years before he became a household name; or that you sought to enlist in the US Marines after years of protesting against the Vietnam War, graduating from Yale Law School and working on the campaigns of Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern; or that you dodged sniper fire on the tarmac in Bosnia, when TV footage shows you strolling across it, smiling. ..."
"... There's the Iraq War vote flip-flop; the gay marriage flip-flop; the Keystone Pipeline flip-flop; the legalising marijuana flip-flop; and most recently, the Trans-Pacific Partnership flip-flop. ..."
"... 'The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry.' Christopher, thou shouldst be living at this hour. ..."
"... She is a self-obsessed, me me me first totally political greaseball. ..."
The presidential campaign here in the land hymned by one of its earliest immigrants as a
shining 'city on a hill' looks more and more likely to boil down to electing Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton.
It is of course possible that the party of Lincoln and Reagan will not go completely off its meds
and nominate Mr Trump. It's possible, too, that the wretched FBI agents tasked with reading Mrs
Clinton's 55,000 private emails will experience a Howard Carter/King Tut's tomb moment and find
one instructing Sidney Blumenthal to offer Putin another 20 per cent of US uranium production in
return for another $2.5 million donation to the Clinton Foundation, plus another $500,000 speech
in Moscow. Absent such, Mrs Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. As we say here: deal with it.
Only last summer, her goose seemed all but cooked. Every day she offered another Hillary-ous
explanation for why as Secretary of State she required two Blackberries linked to unclassified
servers. Eventually this babbling brook of prevarication became so tedious that even her Marxist
challenger, Comrade Bernie Sanders of the Vermont Soviet, was moved to thump the debate podium
and proclaim: 'I'm sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!' (He has since backtracked,
declaring himself now deeply interested in her damn emails.)
... ... ...
But never mind us - how does she manage? When you and your husband have banked $125
million in speaking fees from the odious malefactors of wealth, and you insist that you feel the
pain of the middle class. How do you maintain the deadpan after you've cashed $300,000 for a
half-hour speech at a state university - which fee comes from student dues - and then declaim
against crippling student loans?
Small lies are often more revealing, especially when there was no need for them. Claiming,
say, that you were named after Sir Edmund Hillary when you were born six years before he became a
household name; or that you sought to enlist in the US Marines after years of protesting against
the Vietnam War, graduating from Yale Law School and working on the campaigns of Eugene McCarthy
and George McGovern; or that you dodged sniper fire on the tarmac in Bosnia, when TV footage
shows you strolling across it, smiling.
... ... ...
Changing one's position on an issue isn't the same as lying, but along with the 'Which lie did
I tell?' thought bubble permanently hovering over Mrs Clinton's head, one sees too the licked
finger held aloft. The American lingo for this is 'flip-flop,' as in the rubber sandal thingies
you wear on the beach before going inside to give a $200,000 speech to Goldman Sachs.
Mrs Clinton's flip-flop closet has reached Imelda Marcos levels. There's the Iraq War vote
flip-flop; the gay marriage flip-flop; the Keystone Pipeline flip-flop; the legalising marijuana
flip-flop; and most recently, the Trans-Pacific Partnership flip-flop.
And yet, as you work your way down this bill of attainder you feel like an old village scold.
Another member of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. A tiresome ancient mariner, banging on at the
wedding.
There's nothing new there. It's all been gone into, again and again. This election isn't about
the past. It's about the future.
And before you know it, you too, like Comrade Bernie - the prior version, anyway - are sick and
tired of hearing yourself whinge. Because it has all been gone into before. It's all 'damn' stuff
now. Mrs and Mr Clinton have been with us since 1992, our political lares et penates - and after
all this time, less than half the electorate think she's honest.
During one of the 2008 Democratic debates, the moderator asked her about the, er, 'likeability
factor'. It was a cringey moment. One's heart (I say this sincerely) went out to the lady. The
shellac deadpan mask melted. She smiled bravely, tears forming, and answered demurely with a
hurt, girlish smile and said: 'Well, that hurts my feelings.'
Whereupon candidate Obama interjected, with the hauteur and sneer of cold command that we've come
to know so well: 'You're likable enough, Hillary.'
The nervous laughter in the auditorium quickly curdled into chill disdain. How could he! But,
lest we slip into sentimentality, let me quote Christopher Hitchens on this anniversary of his
death, who in 2008 wrote: 'The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut.
Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more
media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for
us, she may cry.' Christopher, thou shouldst be living at this hour.
When the latest version of Hillary was rolled out like a new product by her campaign apparatus,
she was rebranded as a doting granny. What's more 'likeable' than a granny? Unfortunately for
her, the meme didn't stick. But then it's hard to look like a cooing old sweetie when you're
swatting away snarling congressmen on Benghazi and explaining that you're suddenly against a
trade treaty you promoted for years. None of this does much for the likeability or honesty
factor.
Mrs Clinton has her champions to be sure, but it's been a long slog for them, too, with an awful
lot of heavy lifting. When her choir cranks up to sing her praise, one detects the note of
obbligato, not genuine ardour.
If it does come down next November to Trump vs Clinton we will - all of us - be presented with a
choice even the great Hobson could not have imagined. And those of us who would sooner leap into
an active, bubbling volcano than vote for Mr Trump will have to try to convince ourselves that
really, she's not that bad. Is she?
... ... ...
Christopher Buckley is an American novelist, essayist and critic, and a former speechwriter
to George H.W. Bush.
Jack Rocks • 19 minutes ago
What a coincidence. I was just watching Christopher Hitchens talk about Hilary Clinton
(no, he's not been resurrected, these are clips from a while ago).
sidor
Someone once placed Cherie Blair in between lady Macbeth and madam Clinton. I wonder if in
this linearly ordered sequence Cherie was meant to be a nicer person than Hillary?
George > Toy Pupanbai
Considering Trump is the only candidate who has signaled any sort of desire to depart from
the accelerating march toward globalist corporate totalitarianism, the vote is between Trump
and Everyone Else.
Terry Field
She is a self-obsessed, me me me first totally political greaseball. Trump is
uncouth, loud, but lacks smoothness as he TELLS IT AS IT BLUDDEE WELL IS. There IS a massive
local Muslim worry and that is evidenced by the gore that ran through the transport system of
London courtesy of home grown muslim (NOT islamist) killlers.
He SHOULD get the GOP nomination, since the rest are gutless and dissembling.
He could well win against that dreadful woman. Clinton supported Morsi in Egypt. Blood on
her hands.
James Morgan
Ah yes. Christopher Hitchens. I do miss that man.
Randal > James Morgan
Yes, because yet another ageing neocon warmonger and "former communist" idiot is just what
we are missing around here these days.
freddiethegreat
Just as Goofy would have been better than Obama, even Lady Macbeth would be better than
Hilary
"... Clinton is also increasingly seen as the least honest in the field, with 46% of likely Democratic primary voters now saying she is least honest out of the three remaining candidates. ..."
Clinton is also increasingly seen as the least honest in the
field, with 46% of likely Democratic primary voters now
saying she is least honest out of the three remaining candidates.
That's up from 33% in September and 28% back in June.
As for the rest of the field, it is beginning to look somewhat grim:
Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson continues to lose ground with 14 percent
of the Republican vote. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who still must be
considered an up and comer, is at 12 percent. All other candidates
currently have the support of less than 5 percent of the Republican
electorate, including former Florida governor Jeb Bush.
And in other news, Trump is favored to beat Clinton for the presidency via the Electoral College.
Clinton still has the popular votes, but as Gore found out, popular vote doesn't mean a thing
in US presidential elections.
I still don't think there is the slightest chance Trump is going to be President – he's just too
much of a loose cannon and too uncoupled from the political inside track. My money is still on
Rubio. I'm not surprised that Trump could beat Hillary, though. Even if she were not a warhag
nutjob, Barack Obama has poisoned the well for the Democrats for this election, and quite possibly
the next as well depending on how the Republicans play their first term.
"... No candidate, including Sanders, is going to confess that endless U.S. interventionism in the middle east serves the Lobby's objective of keeping Israel's enemies divided and destabilized. ..."
"... Of course, the fact that a nominated Sanders would not only drag the national dialog left, but almost certainly win the Presidency, is strong motivation for the corporate world to intervene vigorously in all the different ways it can. A Sanders candidacy frightens them far more than narcissistic neoliberal Trump who would have little to no chance of winning against a hyena and only slightly better prospects of winning against HIllary. A Sanders' nomination might even frighten them more than winning the Presidency itself, since the nomination would have the effect of opening the flood gates to actual alternatives to the status quo. Once opened, those would be very hard to close. ..."
"... Now where there may still be a choice is in the American colonies. How long could Washington's endless wars last without the support of the Quisling leadership of its allies? I'm talking about a leader saying: "you stop attacking other countries or we impose a trade embargo." Maybe that's unrealistic but any moral leader of a western country would make this stand. Too bad we only vote in psychopaths. But, unlike America where it is too late, other countries still have the possibility of electing anti-war leaders – like the UK Labour Party. ..."
"... My one cynical add is that just because the 'law' says the president can do this or that, doesn't mean Bernie will be able to. Most of the democratic party will be against him. And an immediate impeachment process could very easily happen against him. No, he doesn't have to die in a plane crash, or be (JKF was not )assassinated by the CIA …the powers that run this country could just impeach him. ..."
"... Still, I really want him to win. My hate is pure for the neo liberal democrats. My compromise ideologically is easy for me to stomach. Go Bernie. Meanwhile, lets organize for a better world, outside of the corrupt political machine. ..."
"... Speeches, schmeeches. Words are wind. Look at the record. Hillary Clinton is a monster. The issue is not Bernie vs. Hillary. The issue is how could any sane American even consider voting for Hillary Clinton, against any candidate, even Trump (yes really). ..."
"... Just because Sanders has pledged to support the Democratic candidate in the general election doesn't mean that his supporters are obligated to do so. If Sanders is not the Democratic nominee, I will very likely vote Third Party, as I did in 2012. And you can do the same. ..."
"... I don't think his pledge to support the nominee undermines his candidacy at all. First, it's pro forma and carries no force. Besides, it was also absolutely required to even join the contest at a high level. If he wanted to have any impact on this election cycle, he had very literally no choice about it. To think otherwise seems more than a little naive, which seems to be an ongoing problem generally with the American left. ..."
"... Sanders is *almost* everything one could realistically ever hope for in a legacy party candidate with a real shot, and yet a significant portion of the left inevitably goes straight into the back corner of the drawer looking for reasons not to support him–or even to go further and declare him unfit. Worse yet, those saying this stuff offer no viable plans or alternatives at all. It's really astonishing to me and perhaps explains why the left is ever so easy to marginalize and push around. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders was the first senator to announce that he would boycott Netanyahu's speech in Congress, and he is the only senator who does not take any money from the pro-Israel lobby. He was one of a small majority in the Senate who did not sign the resolution last summer to approve of Israel's bombing of Gaza - and he didn't vote for it (there was no vote) or otherwise agree to it. The "unanimous consent" thing that Chris Hedges jumps up and down about and others parrot as "proof" that Sanders is pro-Israel is a procedural rule in the Senate, and there was no way to "object" to it, other than not signing the resolution in the first place. That's what he did, even though more than three-fourths of this colleagues signed on. And he has criticized Israel. You'd just never know it by reading Hedges and the CounterPunch crowd. ..."
"... To be fair, there's the sheepdog scenario (again, a terrible metaphor, put about by the Greens, which implies conscious collusion by Sanders, for which there's very little evidence). If that comes true, is that so bad? No, because we're not any worse off than we were before, and see #4 and #5 above. ..."
"... I just don't see how Sanders running is anything other than a net positive. The left really does need to figure out how to take yes for an answer. ..."
"... It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US Gov't happen with the approval of the executive branch. The military and intelligence services generally don't speak out or publicly act against the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit everywhere (the mysterious "high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever the president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with. It is a real problem, one that makes me nervous. We know exactly where corporations go when their iron grip on democracy loosens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot ..."
I mentioned near the end of a piece called "Blowback,
Money & the Washington War Party" that I would compare Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton with
respect to its main subject, America and its wars. For context, I'd like to repeat the start of that
piece:
Whatever your answer might be, or mine, I think Stockman's answer is Yes, and he details
that answer in an excellent looking-back and looking-forward essay about the U.S. and its Middle
East "involvement." I have excerpted several sections below, but the whole is worth a full top-to-bottom
read.
Before we turn to Stockman's points, though, I just want to highlight two semi-hidden ideas
in his essay. One is about money. What Stockman calls the "War Party" in Washington is really
the bipartisan Money Party, since the largest-by-far pile of cash looted from the federal budget
(in other words, from taxpayers) goes to fund our military and its suppliers and enablers. Which
means that most of it is stolen and diverted in some way. Which means that those who do the stealing
have a lot of "skin in the game" - the game that keeps the money flowing in the first place.
Recall that what's now called the Money Party was what
Gore Vidal called the "Property Party":
"There is only one party in the United States,
the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat."
Which means the Washington War Party is a bipartisan gig. Thus our bipartisan wars, which for
Stockman answers the first part of the imputed question above. Yes, America does have the wars
it seeks. …
It concludes with this:
How Will This End?
It's easy to see that this ends in either of two ways. It will end when we stop sending money
and arms into the region - i.e., when we impoverish our wealth-drunk arms industry and starve
the fighting - or it will not end.
Which means, it will lead to continuous tears, American ones. And when, again, you factor in
the continuing spiral toward chaos guaranteed by continuing global warming, we may look back and
say, "Paris was our generation's Sarajevo." It's hard to stop a war when only a nation's people
don't want it. It's almost impossible to stop a war when the people unite with the wealthy to
promote it.
Which brings me to Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, war, and speeches each gave recently. But
that's for later. …
Later is now. I'm providing this context because I don't want to leave the impression this piece
is about Sanders and Clinton. It's not. This piece is about us, our future, and that of our children
… the future of all of us, in other words, who may choose to live in Washington's endless war-profiteering
environment - until that war comes home with a vengeance.
Do we have I choice? I believe we do, for now. I don't think that choice will persist, will be
available forever.
Sanders, Clinton & America's Endless War
In a piece by Tom Cahill in
usuncut.com, which starts with a report of Bernie Sanders' "socialism" speech, we find this near
the middle, a comparison of the foreign policy statements in Sanders' speech with a speech given
at nearly the same time by Hillary Clinton.
First, about Sanders, Cahill writes:
Sanders Acknowledges Error of CIA-Sponsored Coups
Sanders' [socialism] speech also surprised many viewers with exhaustive foreign policy proposals
aimed at reaching peace in the Middle East, while letting Muslim countries lead the fight against
ISIS. the Vermont senator cautioned against using the military to force regime change, citing
past CIA-sponsored coups in Latin America and the Middle East as examples of forced regime change
gone wrong.
"Our response must begin with an understanding of past mistakes and missteps in our previous
approaches to foreign policy," Sanders said. "It begins with the reflection that the failed policy
decisions of the past – rushing to war, regime change in Iraq, or toppling Mossadegh in Iran in
1953, or Guatemalan President Árbenz in 1954, Brazilian President Goulart in 1964, Chilean President
Allende in 1973. These are the sorts of policies do not work, do not make us safer, and must not
be repeated."
To defeat ISIS, Sanders urged the US to form a new NATO-like coalition with Russia and enemies
of ISIS in the Middle East, and force Muslim countries to lead the fight with support from the
West. …
"Saudi Arabia has the 3rd largest defense budget in the world, yet instead of fighting ISIS
they have focused more on a campaign to oust Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen," Sanders said.
"Kuwait, a country whose ruling family was restored to power by U.S. troops after the first Gulf
War, has been a well-known source of financing for ISIS and other violent extremists. It has been
reported that Qatar will spend $200 billion on the 2022 World Cup, including the construction
of an enormous number of facilities to host that event – $200 billion on hosting a soccer event,
yet very little to fight against ISIS."
"All of this has got to change. Wealthy and powerful Muslim nations in the region can no longer
sit on the sidelines and expect the United States to do their work for them," Sanders continued.
Not perfect if you're strongly pro-peace, but this would nonetheless represent a major
shift in both policy and spending, if implemented - something that can be done, I remind you, by
our commander-in-chief, acting alone. It may take Congress, or the illusion of congressional approval,
to make war. It doesn't require a single Republican (or war-making Democratic) vote to make peace.
Now about Clinton, from the same piece (my emphasis):
Hillary Clinton: U.S. Should Lead War on ISIS
Sanders' Georgetown address was a stark contrast to Hillary Clinton's speech at the Council
of Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York[.]
The former Secretary of State outlined her proposal to fight ISIS, which primarily consisted
of the US military taking and maintaining a leading role for an undetermined period of time.
"It is time to begin a new phase and intensify and broaden our efforts to smash the would-be
caliphate and deny ISIS control of territory in Iraq and Syria," Clinton said early in the speech.
"That starts with a more effective coalition air campaign, with more allied planes, more strikes,
and a broader target set."
"The Iraqi national army has struggled. It is going to take more work to get it up to fighting
shape," Clinton continued. "As part of that process, we may have to give our own troops advising
and training the Iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local
units and helping target airstrikes."
Clinton's entire speech (about 30 minutes)
is above.
Endless War or a Move Toward Peace - Last Chance to Decide?
I'm not suggesting to you what to want. If you really want to enrich billionaire arms manufacturers
and their enablers in and out of office, that's up to you. If you want to give a well-organized foreign
fighting force yet more reason to encourage the same acts in the U.S. as their local sympathizers
perform in Europe, that's also up to you. If you want to remove American fingerprints - and national
entanglement - from foreign feuds, that's also your choice as well.
I merely want to point out that for once, there is a choice, and you can make that choice by choosing
between these two candidates, just as you can choose, using these two candidates, whether to aggressively
reign in
carbon use or continue to serve the wealthy who serve up
global warming.
Withdraw from foreign wars, or expand into them? Sanders or Clinton? The day is coming soon when
this will have mattered, and not just on late-night comedy shows. It's entirely likely that within
the term of the next president, our foreign policy chickens will come home to roost.
Me, I'd prefer those chickens not be armed.
(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for President. If you'd like to help him,
click here. This page also lists every progressive incumbent and candidate who has endorsed him.
You can adjust the split in any way you wish.)
Jim Haygood, December 5, 2015 at 2:59 pm
'Sanders urged the US to form a new NATO-like coalition with Russia and enemies of ISIS in the
Middle East, and force Muslim countries to lead the fight with support from the West.'
*yawn* Same old, same old yankee interventionism.
The sole reason for supporting Sanders is not for his tired old interventionist shtick, but to
deprive the Sheldon Adelson Republiclown Party of across-the-board control of Kongress and the
presidency (a disturbingly likely prospect).
No candidate, including Sanders, is going to confess that endless U.S. interventionism in the
middle east serves the Lobby's objective of keeping Israel's enemies divided and destabilized.
susan the other, December 5, 2015 at 3:51 pm
When, why, and how did the brand of globalism we have now (supra national corporatism) become
an article of faith for the global economy? Why can't we have a different form of globalism, not
one based on profiteering which is just war in a different uniform, a suit and tie? The
environment could unite us, Naomi Klein style. Equality could too because a global effort against
inequality would eventually have to end the looting and aggression of international corporatism
and feudalism. Isn't it an irony that all the great corporations and capitalist geniuses
pretending to manage the world can't fix the mess they made without taxpayers?
And consumers? If citizens in every country stopped buying things we'd win the planet back in
a month. The only thing we need besides dedication is local survival safety nets.
Brooklin Bridge, December 5, 2015 at 11:28 am
Agreed. It's one thing to observe -factually- that Sanders' momentum has halted, by some mix
of his own devices and those of an antithetical MSM and a traitorous corporate centric DNC, it's
another thing not to at least try to get him nominated. If that were to happen, no matter how
unlikely, the national discussion would virtually have to deal with Sander's platform and it is
hard to even imagine just how healthy that would be.
Of course, the fact that a nominated Sanders would not only drag the national dialog left,
but almost certainly win the Presidency, is strong motivation for the corporate world to
intervene vigorously in all the different ways it can. A Sanders candidacy frightens them far
more than narcissistic neoliberal Trump who would have little to no chance of winning against a
hyena and only slightly better prospects of winning against HIllary. A Sanders' nomination might
even frighten them more than winning the Presidency itself, since the nomination would have the
effect of opening the flood gates to actual alternatives to the status quo. Once opened, those
would be very hard to close.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:00 pm
FWIW, I think Sanders numbers have plateaued for a very simple reason: He's not reaching
enough voters. We'll see how that goes when we are nearer the caucuses, and after the Sanders
campaign has made more attempts to peel away from some of Clinton's constituencies (which it's
trying hard to do).
Again, my litmus test is this: Sanders has said it will take a movement to get his platform
accomplished. So where is it? A movement implies staff, branding, events, etc. And professionals
know how it's done; Dean 2004 and Obama 2008. So where is it?
Carla, December 5, 2015 at 1:30 pm
The Democrat Party will not nominate Bernie Sanders. Period. Not gonna happen so quit holding
your breath.
In my state, we declare party membership by requesting a ballot of our chosen party in the
primary. Obama cured me of ever - EVER - asking for a Democrat ballot again. I'm Green and clean
for life - thanks, Barry!
Vatch, December 5, 2015 at 4:14 pm
If the Green party has a primary in your state, I understand why you wouldn't want to vote in
the Democratic primary. But the Greens don't have primaries, so you're missing a chance to to
have a very small influence over the choice of the Democratic candidate (or the Republican
candidate). If enough leftists decide that it's not possible for the Democrats to choose Sanders,
it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
In 2008 I voted for Obama (a mistake, of course, but a vote for McCain would also have been a
mistake). In 2012, I changed my ways, first by voting in the Republican primary, mostly so I
could have a say in the nomination of candidates for some lesser offices. I voted for Huntsman in
the primary, because he wasn't a total lunatic like Santorum. In the general election I voted for
Green candidate Stein. In 2016, I will vote in the Democratic primary, and then I'll wait to see
who's been nominated by the various parties.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:00 pm
Then if Sanders is strong enough, the party will split. That's a good thing.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:07 pm
Sanders:
To defeat ISIS, Sanders urged the US to form a new NATO-like coalition with Russia and enemies
of ISIS in the Middle East, and force Muslim countries to lead the fight with support from the
West. …
If one accepts America's imperial role, that's a reasonable play. (If one imagines that our
ruling class is long conflict investment, then all that matters is conflict, period; there's no
policy reason for the conflict needed, except as window dressing.)
Of course, I don't accept that. Clinton v. Sanders reminds me of Freud's comment about
psychotherapy turning hysterical misery into ordinary unhappiness. But even so, there's a lot of
unhappiness to go around, and on a global, grandiose scale.
BEWARE: I may have to start moderating for outright endorsements. (Readers will note neither Yves
nor I have endorsed anybody). I've seen blogs torn apart by battles over candidates, and I don't
want that to happen to Naked Capitalism.
EoinW, December 5, 2015 at 8:32 am
Given the Obama experience, I'm not so sure there is a true choice. More like the illusion of
a choice. heck even if Rand Paul became President I'd expect him to go against his promises, as
Obama did and Sanders will do.
Now where there may still be a choice is in the American colonies. How long could
Washington's endless wars last without the support of the Quisling leadership of its allies? I'm
talking about a leader saying: "you stop attacking other countries or we impose a trade embargo."
Maybe that's unrealistic but any moral leader of a western country would make this stand. Too bad
we only vote in psychopaths. But, unlike America where it is too late, other countries still have
the possibility of electing anti-war leaders – like the UK Labour Party.
This in my opinion is the last chance to stop Washington democratically. An aggressive
anti-American stance which creates costs that even the War Party can't sustain. After all, those
who have started these wars going back to Yugoslavia have paid zero cost. Even in 2008 I thought
that Obama's election would be a blow for peace chances. Bush and the Republicans were making it
difficult for other leaders to obediently follow the Empire. Eight years of McCain might have
succeeded in finally isolating Washington. Instead we got Obama and the illusion of change. That
gave our Quislings the politcal cover to run back to the Empire. it's been full steam ahead ever
since then.
tommy strange, December 5, 2015 at 9:11 am
Well written thoughtful piece. I do hope Bernie gets through the fixed primary, cuz he can win
the general easily, especially since the economy is going to tank even deeper by then. I do know
that the only real change can happen through a bottom up libertarian mass force (anarchist,
democratic con federalist, etc), but we are NOT doing that now, and I am aghast we are not even
organizing for 'it'…and so…. Clinton has the record of a completely right wing arrogant fool that
would still even bomb Iran. Just imagine that one obvious possibility and what that would cause.
My one cynical add is that just because the 'law' says the president can do this or that,
doesn't mean Bernie will be able to. Most of the democratic party will be against him. And an
immediate impeachment process could very easily happen against him. No, he doesn't have to die in
a plane crash, or be (JKF was not )assassinated by the CIA …the powers that run this country
could just impeach him.
Still, I really want him to win. My hate is pure for the neo liberal democrats. My
compromise ideologically is easy for me to stomach. Go Bernie. Meanwhile, lets organize for a
better world, outside of the corrupt political machine.
JTMcPhee, December 5, 2015 at 10:11 am
The body– all the organs, fluids, nerves, hormones, etc. - of a person when some of whose
cells have turned on the whole, gone destructively rogue and metastatic - well, even as those
cells link and proliferate and multiply and trick the dying carcass into growing ever more and
larger conduits to deliver blood to the tumors, the "person" searches for treatments and
maintains hope and a grim determination and positive mental attitude, hoping for a cure that will
restore homeostasis and return the tissues to their proper function. Bear in mind that cancers
are cells that have shucked off the restraints on and regulation of growth, in favor of SIMPLY
MORE, unconcerned about the death of the body that feeds them. And those cells usually have
figured out how to hide from the body's regulatory processes. In the Actual World Battlespace,
aircraft and "units" carry devices that let them (nominally) Interrogate Friend or Foe, so they
won't or are at least less likely to be killed by "friendly fire." Somatic cells get identified a
similar way, and the immune system cuts the psychopathic cells out and recycles them. "The
Military" of course employs the same spoofing and fraud tricks that cancer cells use, in addition
to the ever-growing diversion of life resources into tumor growth, so the immune system is
suckered into thinking they are benign. The related disease processes, corporatization and
financialization, have pulled the same trick. (Cancerous livers and pancreases and pituitaries
keep sort of functioning, putting out hormones and converting nutrients and filtering and stuff,
until they don't, or they die with the rest of the body as some other essential-to-life function
fails and stops.)
There's what, maybe half a million "Troops" invested in the Imperial Project overseas and at
home. Their expertise is in killing, destabilization, raising up Sepoy armies and "national
police forces," on the idiotic assumption that the latter two will be under the orders of the
High Command. Even if these sh_ts did not just "bowstring" a Bernie Sanders, a hugely brave man
imo, if "we," whoever that is, speaking of agency, somehow arrange to "disengage" and demobilize,
these creatures that exist at all levels of the chain of command will then do what? Get good
paying jobs back home, become good citizens? Or go join up with the Eric Princes and other
private mercenary or "national" armies, to keep a paycheck and benefits and keep doing what so
many of the get off on? Let alone the other tumors like the rest of the Imperial and other-nation
state security types? And of course the Elites that rule us and happily will kill us because
"Apres nous le deluge…"
Yah, "We" as agents have to try, to "reform" the aberrant cells. But looking at the patient's
chart, the electrolytes are way out of whack, cachexia is well advanced, and the tumors are
pressing on and colonizing the vital organs… I personally don't think "we" can do better, but who
knows?
TG, December 5, 2015 at 10:30 am
Speeches, schmeeches. Words are wind. Look at the record. Hillary Clinton is a monster.
The issue is not Bernie vs. Hillary. The issue is how could any sane American even consider
voting for Hillary Clinton, against any candidate, even Trump (yes really).
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made America de-facto allies of extremist groups including
Al Qaeda. You know, the guys that blew up the trade center towers on 9/11? Yes really. No it's
not in her speeches – she just actually did it. And here was Libya, and it's leader wasn't a
saint, but he mostly did good for his people – highest standard of living in Africa! – and he'd
made nice with US the last few years, and helped against terrorism etc. And Hillary allied with
extremist jihadist nut jobs and trashed the place, and now it's like something out of a Mad Max
movie and the average Libyan sorely misses Gaddafi, and ISIS is spreading, and refugees are
spilling out all over and there is no end in sight etc.
Somehow we have to get past the notion that anyone treated as 'serious' by the New York Times is
actually serious, and look at their record. Press releases are not reality. Trump may be an
arrogant loudmouth, and Bernie not a saint, etc., but Hillary should be beyond the pale.
roadrider, December 5, 2015 at 10:56 am
Yeah, Sanders sounds more reasonable but he's still endorsing the "War on Terrah!" and making
it sound like we're engaged in some kind of noble effort but being undermined by our so-called
allies. The part about being undermined is true but his overall stance ignores the elephant in
the room – not only did our our military/covert paramilitary misadventures lead to the emergence
of Al-Qaeda an ISIS but our continued association with the repressive, oligarchic petro-states in
the Gulf fuel the growth of Islamic extremism and sectarian violence in that region. Sanders
recognizes part of that problem but his prescription is far from a cure.
This post encourages support for Sanders but count me out. I get that Sanders is better than
Clinton on many issues but I can't support him in the primary because 1) I'm no longer a Democrat
and can't vote in the primary even if I were so inclined (and no, I'm not going to re-register as
a Democrat just to do that) and 2) Sanders has already endorsed Clinton (he'll support her if she
wins the primary) so how seriously should we take their policy differences?
Carla, December 5, 2015 at 1:55 pm
I agree. The fact that Sanders has pledged to support Clinton fatally undermines his
candidacy. Here in Ohio, arguably the most "progressive" member of the U.S. Senate, Sherrod
Brown, endorsed Clinton several weeks ago.
I'm telling ya, the Democrats will never allow a Sanders win. Votes don't matter.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:23 pm
Again, there's no way to win running as a Democrat without pledging to support the Democratic
candidate. There just isn't. (And nobody said the support couldn't turn out to be nothing more
than a ritual pledge, right?)
And what's the better option? Creating a third party is not on*, and the Greens have their own
candidate (and the Greens have also been ill-treated by star candidates parachuting in; if I were
a Green, I don't think I'd support Sanders).
So IMNSHO the whole "ZOMG!!!! He pledged to support Clinton!!!!" is a test of ritual purity,
nothing more. It has no relevance to electoral politics at all.
The more important issue is whether Sanders is building up a parallel structure to the Democrats.
The small donations says yes. A real movement (my litmus test) would shout yes.
That would bypass the whole endorse/not endorse discussion, and totally f2ck the Democrats, too,
a consummation devoutly to be wished.
* Start with ballot access.
Vatch, December 5, 2015 at 7:40 pm
Sanders has already endorsed Clinton (he'll support her if she wins the primary)
Bernie Sanders has been in the Congress for more than 2 decades as an Independent. This year,
he suddenly starts campaigning in the Democratic primaries for the Presidency. Some Democrats,
especially life long Democrats, view this with suspicion. "What's this carpet bagger doing in our
primaries?", they think. To alleviate their fears of an outsider poaching on their territory, he
pledges to support the ultimate Democratic candidate for President. This allows undecided
Democratic primary voters to feel a little more comfortable about voting for Sanders. If he
manages to win the nomination, the Clinton supporters will be more likely to vote for him in the
general election.
Just because Sanders has pledged to support the Democratic candidate in the general election
doesn't mean that his supporters are obligated to do so. If Sanders is not the Democratic
nominee, I will very likely vote Third Party, as I did in 2012. And you can do the same.
Kurt Sperry, December 5, 2015 at 9:08 pm
I don't think his pledge to support the nominee undermines his candidacy at all. First,
it's pro forma and carries no force. Besides, it was also absolutely required to even join the
contest at a high level. If he wanted to have any impact on this election cycle, he had very
literally no choice about it. To think otherwise seems more than a little naive, which seems to
be an ongoing problem generally with the American left.
Sanders is *almost* everything one could realistically ever hope for in a legacy party
candidate with a real shot, and yet a significant portion of the left inevitably goes straight
into the back corner of the drawer looking for reasons not to support him–or even to go further
and declare him unfit. Worse yet, those saying this stuff offer no viable plans or alternatives
at all. It's really astonishing to me and perhaps explains why the left is ever so easy to
marginalize and push around.
TedWa, December 5, 2015 at 12:14 pm
Since Bernie has voted against pretty much all our involvement in the ME, I wonder if what
he's saying is that if the ME doesn't care enough to get rid of ISIL, then why should we? For
those doubting his character, please do read up on him more. He's not there for show, he gets
things done and does it for the people. What more could you ask for than a candidate that refuses
to take Wall St money and dark money fomr Super-Pacs? I mean, really – what more could you ask?
If he wins out goes citizens united. The TBTF banks will be broken up. SS will be solid for a 100
years and the things that matter to the people the most – will be his goal. He's no phony and
he's no psychopath like the past 2 Presidents or his adversary in this run up. I see no guile in
the man. When he says he's going to do something he gets it done. No one in Congress has been
able to cross party lines and get things done for "we the people" like Bernie Sanders. Look up
his record.
I support Bernie on a monthly basis and will continue to do so. I voted Jill Stein last time and
while that was a vote with a clear conscience, I knew there was no chance. Here we the people
have a chance. Come on now, NO SUPER-PAC MONEY OR MONEY FROM WALL ST !! What does that say? Is he
for you or against you? I'd say it screams that he is on our side. Jill Stein? Great. But there's
no way she can win. The media and TPTB won't cover her and won't let her debate. I can vote for
Bernie with a clear conscience because I took the time to see what the man is about.
3.14e-9, December 5, 2015 at 6:37 pm
Bernie Sanders was the first senator to announce that he would boycott Netanyahu's speech
in Congress, and he is the only senator who does not take any money from the pro-Israel lobby. He
was one of a small majority in the Senate who did not sign the resolution last summer to approve
of Israel's bombing of Gaza - and he didn't vote for it (there was no vote) or otherwise agree to
it. The "unanimous consent" thing that Chris Hedges jumps up and down about and others parrot as
"proof" that Sanders is pro-Israel is a procedural rule in the Senate, and there was no way to
"object" to it, other than not signing the resolution in the first place. That's what he did,
even though more than three-fourths of this colleagues signed on. And he has criticized Israel.
You'd just never know it by reading Hedges and the CounterPunch crowd.
As for endorsing Hillary, that remains to be seen. He said that in the beginning when he and
everyone else thought maybe he'd get a few votes from the fringe. Circumstances have changed
dramatically, and he's got millions of supporters who have said they will not vote for Clinton,
period. So we'll see whether he sticks with the party - which, goddess knows, has done everything
in its power to block him and to which he owes nothing - or whether he'll find another
alternative.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:39 pm
Of course Obama and the Democrats have consistently betrayed their voters. Heck, go back to
Pelosi in 2006 taking impeachment off the table, or the Democrats in 2000 rolling over when Bush
was selected in Bush v. Gore. I mean, water is wet.
I just don't see any downside in Sanders running as a Democrat. No downside at all.
1) Sanders wins the nomination. Is that so bad?
2) The regulars screw Sanders over so badly that the Democrats split. Is that so bad?
3) Sanders actually starts a movement. Is that so bad?
4) Sanders puts single payer and free college on the national agenda. Socialism gets on the
national agenda.* Is that so bad?
5) Sanders runs on small contributions ONLY, with no SuperPAC money, achieving unheard of success
totally against conventional wisdom. Is that so bad?
To be fair, there's the sheepdog scenario (again, a terrible metaphor, put about by the
Greens, which implies conscious collusion by Sanders, for which there's very little evidence). If
that comes true, is that so bad? No, because we're not any worse off than we were before, and see
#4 and #5 above.
I just don't see how Sanders running is anything other than a net positive. The left really
does need to figure out how to take yes for an answer.
* Please name another politician who has or could have achieved this.
GlassHammer, December 5, 2015 at 1:57 pm
Are we assuming that the Pentagon, DoD, etc… are just going to accept new guidance from the
top? (That sounds like wishful thinking to me.)
And if they (Pentagon, DoD, etc…) resist new guidance, what is going to be done about it?
Curretly more Americans trust the military than any institution or politician. I highly doubt
anyone could swing public opinion against the Deep State at this point in time.
Daryl, December 5, 2015 at 2:55 pm
It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US Gov't happen with
the approval of the executive branch. The military and intelligence services generally don't
speak out or publicly act against the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit
everywhere (the mysterious "high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever
the president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with. It is a real problem,
one that makes me nervous. We know exactly where corporations go when their iron grip on
democracy loosens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
McPhee, December 5, 2015 at 3:29 pm
Any Agent of Actual Change has to fear the "bowstring…"
I wonder if there is a real chance Jesse Ventura will be nominated by the Libertarian Party at
their convention in May or June and put him on the ballot in about 48 states. He says he's
interested and he's got my vote. I agree Bernie has no chance to win, partly because he's just
too humble and polite. He was a great athlete in high school, but he never talks about it. That
would get him some support in sports-minded Iowa.
"... "One thing with Hillary, she doesn't have the strength or the stamina to be president. She doesn't have it," Trump said at a Wednesday-night campaign rally in Manassas, Virginia. ..."
"... "Hillary shouldn't be allowed to run because what she did is illegal. What she did is illegal," Trump asserted Thursday. ..."
"... I don't know if Clinton privatizing her email server is illegal. I do know it's corrupt to the bone . ..."
"... However, the one line of attack that is substantial, and that she's had the most trouble dispelling, is her closeness to Wall Street . So is there anything Clinton can do to rid herself of the Wall Street albatross? Of course there is. She should say that if elected president, she'd subject the Wall Streeters to a higher tax rate than anyone else. (I'd exclude venture capitalists from this penalty, since they primarily fund innovation.) ..."
"Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Thursday lashed out at Donald Trump's comments suggesting that
Israel should offer 'sacrifices' to win a peace deal, telling a prominent Republican Jewish group
that conflict is the Middle East amounts to more than "a real estate deal."" [The
Hill]. Trump outflanks Clinton on Israel to the left. Hilarity ensues.
The Voters
Trump: "Think of it. Obama, your African-American youth - 51 percent unemployment, right? You
guys our age, they have unemployment that's double or triple what other people have. What the
hell has he done for the African-Americans? He's done nothing. He's done nothing. I don't think
he cares about them. He's done nothing. It's all talk, it's all words with this guy" [The
Hill]. Sadly, Trump is correct, on both counts. And he forgot to mention the foreclosure crisis,
which disproportionately affected Blacks.
"73% of Republican voters say Trump would win the general [Quinippiac].
Rubio: 63%; Cruz: 59%; Carson: 55%. So, not only a gigantic upraised middle finger to their own
party establishment and the entire political class, but pragmatic, too.
The Trail
"Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, broke with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel
on Wednesday and called for a federal probe of the city police department following the release
of a video last week showing the death of a black teen, who was shot by a white police officer"
[Wall
Street Journal, "Hillary Clinton Calls for Federal Probe of Chicago Police Department"]. Say,
who is this "Rahm" character, anyhow? He just seemed to pop up one day, and now he's all over
the news. What gives? Where the heck did he come from?
"In a seven-page confidential memo that imagines Trump as the party's presidential nominee,
the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee urges candidates to adopt many of Trump's
tactics, issues and approaches - right down to adjusting the way they dress and how they use Twitter"
[WaPo].
"One thing with Hillary, she doesn't have the strength or the stamina to be president. She
doesn't have it," Trump said at a Wednesday-night campaign rally in Manassas, Virginia.
Trump's other lines that Clinton shouldn't even be "allowed" to run for president because
of her controversial email practices at the State Department. The FBI has said it is investigating
whether any material was mishandled in connection to Clinton's email account, which was run
using a private server in her home.
"Hillary shouldn't be allowed to run because what she did is illegal. What she did is illegal,"
Trump asserted Thursday.
I don't know if Clinton privatizing her email server is illegal. I do know it's
corrupt to the bone.
"How Hillary Clinton can shake the one charge that sticks to her" [Harold Meyerson,
WaPo].
However, the one line of attack that is substantial, and that she's had the most
trouble dispelling, is her
closeness to Wall Street.
So is there anything Clinton can do to rid herself of the Wall Street albatross? Of course
there is. She should say that if elected president, she'd subject the Wall Streeters to a higher
tax rate than anyone else. (I'd exclude venture capitalists from this penalty, since they primarily
fund innovation.)
"... One issue that is raised by Samwicks piece is the degree to which infrastructure spending should be connected with countercyclical policy. Certainly, it makes sense to have mechanisms available for dialing infrastructure spending up in response to slumps. ..."
Samwick points out that Hillary's infrastructure plan is a good start but too small.
The media portrays it as a bank buster.
Progressives need to start criticizing the Hillary plan as being too small, which it is. We should
aim for a much larger plan and maybe we could get what Hillary has suggested. It's a problem if
that is the starting point in the negotiation.
pgl said in reply to bakho...
I suggested the other day she should make it bigger. Andrew Samwick is one of the few honest Republican
economists.
pgl said in reply to bakho...
"It was almost eight years ago that I started writing about spending on infrastructure as a means
of countercyclical fiscal policy. There was an op-ed in The Washington Post, followed by an essay
in The Ripon Forum, as the Great Recession was beginning. I returned to it occasionally as the
weak recovery and inelegant policy discussions of economic stimulus continued the need for a sensible
plan to boost economic activity. This op-ed at U.S. News Economic Intelligence blog is a good
example."
I used to read Andrew's blog regularly but then I stopped. Too bad as he has been
all over the need for fiscal stimulus via infrastructure from the beginning. And Andrew is generally
considered right of center. So liberal and conservative economists have both been making this
argument.
Of course our resident gold bug troll JohnH insists that economists have not been calling for
such stimulus. OK - JohnH is not one to read Andrew's blog as Andrew writes some really high quality
posts which will not show up in JohnH's Google for Really Dumb Stuff program.
Seems Congress has passed a highway bill financed by gimmicks rather than raising the gasoline
tax. Speaker Ryan's dishonesty at its finest!
Peter K. said in reply to pgl...
I agree with Drum's main point.
However as I understand it Ryan had to pass this with votes from Democrats and some Republicans.
His supporters are framing it as continuing Boehner's parting deal to disgruntled Tea Partiers
who won't vote for anything.
Drum writes:
""Among other things, the measure would raise revenue by selling oil from the nation's emergency
stockpile and taking money from a Federal Reserve surplus account that works as a sort of cushion
to help the bank pay for potential losses." ... On the other hand, the revenue sources they're tapping in order to pass this bill are probably
pretty ill considered. "
The Fed can print up money so I don't understand why it has a "rainy day" fund. Sounds like
a budgetary gimmick which Drum glosses over.
Some of the money will come from the Federal Reserve. The bill cuts the Fed's annual dividend
payments to large commercial banks, redirecting that money to highway construction. It also drains
money from the Fed's rainy-day fund.
The banking industry opposed the dividend cut, but won only a partial victory. The Senate voted
to replace the current 6 percent dividend with a 1.5 percent dividend. The final version instead
ties the dividend to the interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds, currently 2.2 percent, up to
a maximum of 6 percent.
The bill also requires the Fed to fork over $19 billion from a rainy-day fund that has ballooned
to $29 billion in recent years. The size of the rainy-day fund also would be limited to $10 billion.
A Fed spokesman declined to comment, but Fed officials have previously criticized both the
dividend cut and the draining of the rainy-day fund, arguing Congress should not use Fed funds
to bankroll specific programs.
...."
Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....
It's slightly ironic that Paul Ryan and John Taylor wrote an op-ed criticizing the Fed for "easing
the pressure" on fiscal policy with monetary policy, when that's exactly what the highway bill
does.
Do all of these lefty critics of monetary policy not want it to "ease the pressure" of
fiscal policy either?
Hillary Clinton Unveils $275 Billion Infrastructure Investment Plan
By Amy Chozick
Evoking the investment in American infrastructure by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald
Reagan, Hillary Clinton on Monday unveiled the most sprawling - and costliest - government program
of her campaign to date.
Mrs. Clinton said her five-year, $275-billion federal infrastructure program was aimed at creating
middle-class jobs while investing heavily in improving the country's highways, airports and ports....
[ That would be $275 / 5 = $55 billion per year spending on infrastructure.
That comes to $55 / $18,065 = .3% of GDP infrastructure spending. ]
pgl said in reply to anne...
Then let's double her proposal to make it 0.6% of GDP! Dean Baker would love this calculation.
bakho said in reply to pgl...
I say multiply it by 10 and let the GOP win by whittling away 80%.
It is worth quoting Donald
Trump on this:
""I'm going to put this plan in front of lots of different people. It's going to go through lots
of scrutiny. There's room to negotiate. I'm a negotiator. There's room to negotiate.
Other people don't have any room to negotiate. But there's always going to be room to negotiate.
When I put something forward, I always have to leave something on the table, and if we have things
on the table. We can give up certain things.
ilsm said in reply to anne...
The pentagon is diverting $1,000B is resources into nuclear bombs to destroy the world.
How
about less militarist Keynesianism and some for the people?
It's hard to call a plan that spends $275 billion in taxpayer dollars over five years "modest"
and keep a straight face. But that may be the best way to describe the proposal Hillary Clinton
unveiled on Monday to upgrade the nation's ailing infrastructure.
Clinton's blueprint is certainly broad in scope: It aims to bolster not only roads and bridges
but also public transit, freight rail, airports, broadband Internet, and water systems. It's the
most expensive domestic policy proposal she's made to date. And when added to the nearly $300
billion Congress is poised to authorize in a new highway bill, the Clinton plan tops the $478
billion that President Obama sought for infrastructure earlier this year.
Yet the reaction from advocates of more robust infrastructure spending has been less than enthusiastic,
a nod to the fact that the size of the Clinton plan falls well short of what studies have shown
the country needs. "Secretary Clinton is exactly right to call her plan a 'down payment,'" said
Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO's director of public policy. "The reality of our infrastructure deficit
is in the trillions, not billions."
Specifically, that deficit has been pegged at $1.6 trillion-the amount of additional money
governments at all levels would have to spend by 2020 to bring the nation's infrastructure up
to date, according to a widely-cited report issued two years ago by the American Society of Civil
Engineers. Even Bernie Sanders didn't make it that high, but he came a lot closer than Clinton
by introducing legislation to spend $1 trillion over the next five years on infrastructure.
The Clinton campaign has tagged the Sanders agenda as overly expensive, requiring either a
dramatic increase in the deficit or tax increases that hit not only the nation's wealthiest but
millions of middle-class families as well. Politically, the Sanders plan is only achievable with
the kind of the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate that Obama enjoyed briefly in 2009.
Clinton's proposal, by contrast, is pegged to the reality that barring an electoral tsunami in
2016, she would have to work with at least one chamber of Congress controlled by Republicans,
and maybe two. ...
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to bakho...
(It could be larger if there were to be some aggressive financing, meaning not 'just' closing
corporate loopholes, taxing offshore cash, etc. Like the suggested income tax increase on the
top 3%. Unfortunately ALL of this is unlikely unless both House and Senate come under Dem control.)
Hillary Clinton previewed her $275 billion infrastructure plan during a campaign event in Boston
on Sunday with construction workers, labor leaders and Democratic Mayor Martin J. Walsh, who endorsed
her candidacy. "Investing in infrastructure makes our economy more productive and competitive
across the board," she said in kicking off a week of appearances and announcements geared to creating
new jobs.
Clinton's proposal is two-pronged: It would rely on $250 billion of direct federal expenditures
for highways, bridges, tunnels and other major projects, and $25 billion more for a national infrastructure
bank designed to leverage public and private investments into billions of dollars of fresh low-interest
loans and other incentives for construction projects.
The lion's share of this additional federal spending on infrastructure would be offset by closing
pricey corporate tax loopholes, including tax inversion provisions that allow major corporations
to avoid high U.S. tax rates by moving their headquarters overseas while retaining their material
operations in this country. The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced last week that it was doing
just that in a planned merger with Allergan to take advantage of much lower corporate taxes in
Ireland.
The remainder of the financing for Clinton's infrastructure proposal would come from a new
infrastructure bank that would put up federal dollars to attract private investments to help bankroll
highway, bridge, mass transit and other construction projects to spur economic growth. ...
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
Any such proposal from Dems is seen as a gift to union labor, and calls from labor leaders to
enlarge it only makes that seem more obvious.
This is entirely the wrong way to sell such a
plan.
But a larger (Trump-scale!) plan would raise further ire from GOPsters. So, must go with the
timid version.
This could be a very dubious strategy, unless one is *extremely* confident of victory in Nov.
Dan Kervick said in reply to bakho...
One issue that is raised by Samwick's piece is the degree to which infrastructure spending
should be connected with countercyclical policy. Certainly, it makes sense to have mechanisms
available for dialing infrastructure spending up in response to slumps. But it may be a mistake
to build too close a political connection between infrastructure goals and macroeconomic stabilization
goals.
If the main pitch the public hears is is that we need to build infrastructure to boost
the economy, then when the economy is no longer in need of a boost, the political pressure for
infrastructure spending will flag. But it doesn't have to be that way at all - and shouldn't be
that way. We are very far behind where we need to be as a nation in our public works, as is shown
by that civil engineers scorecard. The various components of the infrastructure agenda need to
be part of a long-term plan for national development. When the economy improves and revenues flow
in to government coffers, great. The government then has more money to build stuff. The fact that
the next president and congress needs to get really busy re-developing our country has little
to do with whether job growth has "crested" or whether we will or will not be in a more of a slump
in 2017.
Another potential drawback of yoking infrastructure policy too closely to countercyclical policy
is that it risks casting the infrastructure development movement as economic ambulance chasers,
secretly pining for recessions so they can push through the infrastructure spending, and constantly
proclaiming recessions so they can trigger the countercyclical policy.
The infrastructure development agenda should be part of a broader agenda of re-commitment to
goals for national development, national excellence or national greatness. People who read a lot
about economic conditions - like the folks here - know how far America has slipped. But I think
many Americans are still amazingly in the dark about how far the US has fallen behind in many
standard measures of national prosperity and success. Politicians still don't have the nerve to
tell the people that we ain't what we used to be.
"... The temptation to ignore or downplay wrongness on your own side is obvious. In fact it's a bit of a prisoners dilemma. Reasonable people on both sides of the aisle would be better off if all reasonable people spent more time arguing with unreasonable ideological allies. However, unreasonable ideological allies are useful fools because they share an enemy with you, and sling mud and win skirmishes for "your side". ..."
"... Rush Limbaugh has long been a popular source of misinformation, foolishness, and insanity on the right. And let's not forget Glenn Beck. But it does represent the continued growth of a know-nothing right-wing media and subculture. ..."
Trump's success is a coat of many colors, arising from a patchwork of economic, social, political,
and cultural conditions. Not to mention the part attributable to the extraordinary nature of Trump
himself. But I do think one piece of the blame lies with conservatives lack of willingness to argue
with themselves. This is a not a unique problem to conservatives, but it is having disastrous consequences
there more than anywhere else right now.
The temptation to ignore or downplay wrongness on your
own side is obvious. In fact it's a bit of a prisoners dilemma. Reasonable people on both sides of
the aisle would be better off if all reasonable people spent more time arguing with unreasonable
ideological allies. However, unreasonable ideological allies are useful fools because they share
an enemy with you, and sling mud and win skirmishes for "your side". This is why among all
ideologies and parties, almost nobody spend enough effort and time arguing among themselves.
Breitbart news, Sarah Palin, and other Trump defenders are not a new phenomenon. Rush Limbaugh
has long been a popular source of misinformation, foolishness, and insanity on the right. And let's
not forget Glenn Beck. But it does represent the continued growth of a know-nothing right-wing media
and subculture. Until the rise of Trump though, it was too rare that smart conservatives would argue
against this with the fervor, effort, and rhetorical seriousness that they reserve for Democrats.
As Donald Trump continues to insist that he saw "thousands" of Muslims cheering the destruction
of the World Trade Center - let's pause to remember that
several Israelis were arrested and eventually deported for acting suspiciously on 9/11.
Trump has said he personally witnessed large numbers of Muslims holding "tailgate parties" in
New Jersey on Sept. 11, 2001, and his campaign manager suggested that "special interests" who control
the media have conspired to bury video footage to back the Republican candidate's claims.
The GOP frontrunner has dug himself in so deep defending those claims - which are not supported
by law enforcement or media accounts - that he mocked a disabled reporter who questioned his recollection.
Police detained, questioned and eventually released a number of Muslims in the New York City area
who were accused of behaving suspiciously following the terrorist attacks - but investigators found
most of those claims to be unfounded.
A New Jersey woman, however, reported some suspicious men she saw recording video from a moving
van that actually did result in arrests.
The woman, identified by police and news reports only as Maria, said she spotted three men kneeling
on the roof of a white van outside her New Jersey apartment building as she watched the towers burn
through binoculars.
She called police, who arrested five men - identified as Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner,
Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel - later that day near Giants Stadium while driving in a van registered
to Urban Moving.
Although it's never been confirmed, the company and the men are widely believed to have been part
of an undercover operation set up by Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad, and they have been the
subject of numerous conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks.
Their case was transferred out of the FBI's Criminal Division and into its Foreign Counterintelligence
Section shortly after the men were jailed, and they were held ostensibly for overstaying their tourist
visas.
An immigration judge ordered them deported two weeks later, but
ABC News reported
that FBI and CIA officials put a hold on their case.
The men were held in detention for more than two months and given multiple lie detector tests,
and at least one of them spent 40 days in solitary confinement.
Intelligence experts suspect the men may have been conducting surveillance on radical Islamists
in the U.S., but Israeli officials have denied the men were involved at all in intelligence operations.
Investigators determined the men had no advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks, and they were
eventually sent back to Israel after 71 days.
One of the men denied Maria's claims that they had been laughing as they recorded video of the
doomed World Trade Center towers.
"The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily," the man
told investigators. "Our purpose was to document the event."
A lawyer for the men suggested at the time that Maria had exaggerated her claims because she mistook
the men for Muslims.
"One of the neighbors who saw them called the police and claimed they were posing, dancing and
laughing, against the background of the burning towers,"
said attorney Steve
Gordon. "The five denied dancing. I presume the neighbor was not near them and does not understand
Hebrew. Furthermore, the neighbor complained that the cheerful gang on the roof spoke Arabic."
"... Establishment Republicans, after initially dismissing Trump's appeal to the party base, have grown increasingly concerned with the durability his campaign has demonstrated. Trump has repeatedly issued the types of public statements that have been deemed gaffes, and proved fatal, in past campaigns. ..."
"... But he continues to enjoy a healthy lead both in New Hampshire and in national polling. ..."
WASHINGTON - Donald Trump has proven to be the GOP's summer fling gone awry: fun at first, when there
was no expectation of a commitment. But he's stuck around - long after the party establishment wishes
he were gone.
Now, concerned about lasting damage to the party's image, some in the Republican establishment
are plotting a full-scale attempt to torpedo his candidacy.
Fergus Cullen, former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, on Monday filed a formal complaint
with the New Hampshire secretary of state challenging Trump's place on the first-in-the-nation primary
ballot, arguing in vain that the billionaire reality TV star did not provide proof he's a Republican.
Some Republican consultants are forming a group - Trump Card LLC - with the explicit goal of taking
out the brash-talking political neophyte. And the conservative Club for Growth has run anti-Trump
ads in Iowa.
"This is no longer a joke," said Cullen, who lost his bid before the state Ballot Law Commission
to knock Trump off the ballot. "Donald Trump is a dangerous demagogue. He's doing damage to the Republican
brand that will prevent us from running a competitive national election next year."
With less than three months before the nominating process begins, Trump is still leading in state
and national polls, seeming to gain strength from his divisive rhetoric, rather than collapsing under
it.
The concern, party leaders and strategists say, is not just winning the general election and reclaiming
the White House. In a year when the GOP is hoping to maintain control of the Senate, party leaders
are increasingly worried about the impact Trump's campaign could have on down-ballot candidates in
purple states such as the reelection bids by Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Rob Portman
of Ohio.
"Kelly Ayotte is losing votes every day because of Donald Trump," Cullen said. "It's not like
Passover where voters make a distinction between good Republicans and bad Republicans. They will
throw them all out. Or they will reasonably ask, 'Why didn't you stand up to him? Was your silence
consent?' " ...
Donald Trump's popularity in New Hampshire seems to be seeping into Massachusetts, according to
a new poll.
Thirty two percent of likely Republican primary voters in the state called Trump their first choice
in the race for the GOP nomination for president, according to the survey by Suffolk University.
Eighteen percent picked Senator Marco Rubio in the poll. Senator Ted Cruz earned 10 percent, followed
by former Florida governor Jeb Bush at 7 percent, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 5 percent, and
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey and former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina both
at 4 percent.
No other GOP candidate drew significant support ...
Former state GOP chairman tries, fails to kick Trump off NH ballot
http://fw.to/I4okFoh
Donald Trump supporters
can exhale: their man will be on the ballot in New Hampshire's Feb. 9 presidential primary.
Not that Trump supporters were holding their breath. A challenge by former state Republican chairman
Fergus Cullen to Trump's eligibility was quickly thrown out Tuesday by the New Hampshire Ballot Commission.
Cullen had filed a complaint Monday arguing Trump was ineligible to be on the Republican ballot
because his views are inconsistent with the Republican party platform. The complaint, filed on behalf
of GOP presidential candidate John Kasich's super PAC, A New Day for America, claimed the real estate
mogul had previously supported Democrats and therefore should not be allowed on the Republican ballot.
...
(Is this what will be cited as 'unfair treatment' by future independent candidate
Trump, or just a silly maneuver by pissant Kasich?)
... While Donald Trump continues to hang onto the first-place spot, everyone else continues to
shift positions. In the last two months, the second-place spot has belonged to Ben Carson, former
Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, Ohio Governor John Kasich and US Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.
But the battle for second place isn't even the GOP's most interesting contest. Republicans want
to know who will emerge among Rubio, Kasich, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, and New Jersey Governor
Chris Christie as the moderate/establishment choice (Some Republicans also include Fiorina in this
camp).
That question is anyone's guess. Ayotte is the only one who can provide the answer.
But to be sure, her decision is complicated.
Rubio ran television ads in her defense when she voted against the Manchin-Toomey amendment on
background checks for guns. As chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Christie spent millions
of dollars attacking Ayotte's foe, Governor Maggie Hassan, in her reelection bid last year (even
then, Republicans expected Hassan would challenge Ayotte in 2016).
However, endorsing Bush would give Ayotte access to his national fundraising base -- something
she will need for her own race. Kasich also seems like a safe bet: His Ohio background could mean
he is the most electable in a general election. What's more, Fiorina on top of the ballot could blunt
any energy female voters have to elect Democrat Hillary Clinton as the first female president, which
could have implications for Ayotte's own race.
Last but not least, Ayotte has a personal friendship with US Senator Lindsey Graham, with whom
she watches movies with her children.
The easiest thing for Ayotte is to not endorse. It is something of a New Hampshire tradition to
cheer from the sidelines when facing a major election in the upcoming year to avoid upsetting members
in their own party. ...
(It is likely that outgoing NH Dem governor
Maggie Hassan, who plans to run against
Kelly Ayotte in 2016 would be swept in
by a HRC landslide in NH.)
Donald Trump holds a commanding lead in the New Hampshire Republican primary, which is less than
three months away.
But the state party's chairwoman doesn't think the developer and television personality will ultimately
prevail there, calling his political style a poor fit for the first state to host a primary.
"Shallow campaigns that depend on bombast and divisive rhetoric do not succeed in New Hampshire,
and I don't expect that they will now," state GOP chair Jennifer Horn said Wednesday in a phone interview,
when asked about Trump's candidacy.
Establishment Republicans, after initially dismissing Trump's appeal to the party base, have grown
increasingly concerned with the durability his campaign has demonstrated. Trump has repeatedly issued
the types of public statements that have been deemed gaffes, and proved fatal, in past campaigns.
But he continues to enjoy a healthy lead both in New Hampshire and in national polling.
"In New Hampshire, historically, the truth is, people really don't make their final decisions
until very, very close until Election Day," Horn said, noting that US Senator Marco Rubio has been
climbing in state polls.
"People are probably underestimating [New Jersey Governor] Chris Christie. And, certainly, [former
Florida governor Jeb] Bush is working very, very hard in New Hampshire," she added. ...
WASHINGTON - Senator Marco Rubio is preparing a New Hampshire advertising blitz in the final weeks
before the first-in-the-nation presidential primary, challenging rival Republican Jeb Bush for airwaves
dominance and highlighting the Granite State's importance to his nomination hopes.
Rubio and an outside group supporting him have already reserved more than 1,900 spots - representing
$2.8 million worth of television ads - on Manchester-based WMUR-TV, the state's dominant television
station ...
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Someone is dumping Carson road signs all over the NH place.
US Is the Most Unequal Developed Economy Outside
Southern Europe http://bloom.bg/1NrQVeT
via @Bloomberg
Kasia Klimasinska - November 25, 2015
The developed world's most unequal economies are in struggling
southern Europe, closely followed by the U.S.
That's according to a new report from Morgan Stanley, where analysts looked at indicators including
the gender pay gap, involuntary part-time employment and Internet access. The bank also found
that the rise of economies such as China and India has helped drive down inequality between countries,
even though inequality within many individual has grown. Since the mid-1980s, income inequality
has risen the most in Sweden when looking at developed economies. Even after that increase, Sweden
(along with the rest of Scandinavia) still had the lowest levels of inequality. ...
Peter K. said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
And yet Hillary mocked Bernie Sanders for wanting the U.S. to be more like Denmark.
PPaine said in reply to Peter K....
Excellent example of her opportunism, unprincipled ambition and revolting sense of superiority
Among her peers those dangerous broiled creatures of middle class strivers domestic brimstone
She makes fellow victim turned brute [to the extent that] Dick Nixon look sympathetic
"... With less than 12 weeks to go before the New Hampshire primary, all Bernie Sanders has is New
Hampshire. ..."
"... In Iowa, Hillary Clinton leads him by 18 points. In South Carolina, Clinton is ahead of Sanders
by 54 points. Nationally, the latest poll had Clinton's lead at 33 percentage points. ..."
"... Over the past month it has become clear that New Hampshire is no longer Bernie Sanders's firewall,
but it remains the only reason he has an argument that there is a contest at all. Should Clinton ever
take a double-digit lead in the Granite State, there will be nothing for anyone to talk about in terms
of the Democratic contest. ..."
"... A substantial lead in the polls could prompt any candidate to look beyond the primary to try
to get a head start on the general election, but in Mrs. Clinton's case, gazing past Mr. Sanders to
next November is part of the intensified strategy to defeat him. ..."
"... "They are running on the same economic policies that have failed us before," Mrs. Clinton said
at a rally in Memphis on Friday. She did not mention Mr. Sanders, but his stances on wealth and income
have seemed to influence his rival's populist tone. "Trickledown economics, cut taxes on the wealthy,
get out of the way of big corporations," she said. "Well, we know how that story ends, don't we?" ..."
"... Mr. Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said Mrs. Clinton's obsession with the Republican
Party is a tactic to diminish her main Democratic primary opponent, whose economic message has attracted
enormous crowds and enthusiasm. ..."
"... "We are much closer to Secretary Clinton today than Senator Obama was in 2008," Mr. Weaver
said. "I don't think they think this is locked up." ..."
"... Among Democrats, Mrs. Clinton holds a 25 percentage point lead against Mr. Sanders nationally,
according to a Bloomberg Politics poll released on Friday, compared with a nine percentage point advantage
in the same poll conducted in September that also included Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who later
said he would not seek the nomination. ..."
"... The primary is by no means determined. Polls in Iowa, in particular, tend to undercount Mr.
Sanders's young supporters who do not have landline phones, his aides say. And he continues to lead
in some polls in New Hampshire, a state that was supposed to be a stronghold for Mrs. Clinton. ..."
"... Even as Mrs. Clinton focuses firmly on the Republicans, her campaign is increasing its indirect,
if aggressive, moves to squeeze Mr. Sanders. She has secured the backing of major labor unions, including
most recently the Service Employees International Union, which has two million members. Her campaign
has emphasized Mrs. Clinton's commitment to gun control, an issue that Mr. Sanders, as a senator from
a hunting state, has been less vehement about, and she delivered a major foreign policy speech on Thursday
in New York, the same day Mr. Sanders delivered a speech about Democratic socialism in Washington. ("Ah,
the attempted bigfoot," Mr. Weaver said of the timing of the two speeches. The Clinton campaign announced
its speech a day earlier than the Sanders team.) ..."
"... Hillary Clintons speech on ISIS to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) showed clearly what
to expect in a Clinton presidency: more of the same. In her speech, Clinton doubled down on the existing,
failed U.S. approach in the Middle East, the one she pursued as Secretary of State. ..."
"... The CIA-led policy in the Middle East works like this. If a regime is deemed to be unfriendly
to the U.S., topple it. If a competitor like the Soviet Union or Russia has a foothold in the region,
try to push it out. If this means arming violent insurgencies, including Sunni jihadists, and thereby
creating mayhem: so be it. And if the result is terrorist blowback around the world by the forces created
by the US, then double down on bombing and regime change. ..."
With less than 12 weeks to go before the New Hampshire primary, all Bernie Sanders has
is New Hampshire.
In Iowa, Hillary Clinton leads him by 18 points. In South Carolina, Clinton is ahead of
Sanders by 54 points. Nationally, the latest poll had Clinton's lead at 33 percentage points.
But in New Hampshire a poll this week showed the race tied. And last night, the state's largest
union decided to endorse him, bucking the national union which announced it was with Clinton.
Over the past month it has become clear that New Hampshire is no longer Bernie Sanders's
firewall, but it remains the only reason he has an argument that there is a contest at all. Should
Clinton ever take a double-digit lead in the Granite State, there will be nothing for anyone to
talk about in terms of the Democratic contest.
But so far Sanders is hanging on, even if there are some growing pains amid his campaign's
quick attempt to scale up with new campaign cash. Sanders now has more than 60 staffers, and he
opened his 14th campaign office, this one in Laconia, this week. ...
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
There is also a chance that Dems will go with the First Secular Jewish Major Party Candidate,
if The Donald has his say.
Hillary Clinton Looks Past Primaries in Strategy to Defeat Bernie Sanders
By AMY CHOZICK
NOV. 23, 2015
NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. - "Whenever Republicans get into the White House, they mess it up. They
mess it up, folks," Hillary Rodham Clinton told a crowd gathered in a field lined with trees covered
in Spanish moss here on Saturday.
At rallies these days, Mrs. Clinton criticizes the Republican presidential candidates for their
economic policies ("Our economy does better with a Democrat in the White House"); she knocks their
foreign policy approaches and says their positions on immigration and women's issues would set
the country "backwards instead of forwards."
What she does not do is mention her main Democratic primary opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders
of Vermont.
Mrs. Clinton has regained her footing in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, and she has locked
in the support of major labor unions and over half the Democratic Party's superdelegates, party
leaders and elected officials, needed to secure the nomination. She is now acting as if she were
no longer running against one rival, Mr. Sanders, but 14: the Republicans who are still preoccupied
with cutting down one another.
A substantial lead in the polls could prompt any candidate to look beyond the primary to
try to get a head start on the general election, but in Mrs. Clinton's case, gazing past Mr. Sanders
to next November is part of the intensified strategy to defeat him.
Even voters who support Mr. Sanders often say that Mrs. Clinton appears more electable when
compared with a Republican nominee. And while her economic message, considering her ties to Wall
Street and the "super PAC" supporting her, can seem muddled when contrasted with Mr. Sanders's,
it sounds more forceful to Democratic voters compared with Republican proposals. And, as a campaign
aide points out, the Republican candidates consistently criticize Mrs. Clinton, so it makes sense
for her to punch back.
"I love Bernie, and I feel he'd get something done about the lopsided distribution of wealth
in this country," said Siobhan Hansen, 58, an undecided voter in Charleston. "But," she added,
"I hate to admit it but I just think Hillary has a better chance in the general election."
Even as Mrs. Clinton's campaign has invested heavily in Iowa and New Hampshire and her schedule
revolves around visiting states with early primaries, her message has become a broader rejoinder
reminding voters of the 2008 financial crisis and linking the Republican candidates to the foreclosures
and joblessness that President Obama inherited. It is a strategy her campaign believes will be
effective in a general election contest after having a dry run before the primaries.
"They are running on the same economic policies that have failed us before," Mrs. Clinton
said at a rally in Memphis on Friday. She did not mention Mr. Sanders, but his stances on wealth
and income have seemed to influence his rival's populist tone. "Trickledown economics, cut taxes
on the wealthy, get out of the way of big corporations," she said. "Well, we know how that story
ends, don't we?"
At a town-hall-style event in Grinnell, Iowa, this month, Mrs. Clinton, talking about the importance
of voter participation, even seemed to forget, albeit briefly, that the short-term goal was to
win the Iowa caucuses. "If not me, I hope you caucus for somebody," she said. She paused. "I hope
more of you caucus for me."
Mrs. Clinton is focused on capturing the nomination and has been contrasting herself with the
Republicans since she announced her candidacy in April, the campaign aide said.
Mr. Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said Mrs. Clinton's obsession with the Republican
Party is a tactic to diminish her main Democratic primary opponent, whose economic message has
attracted enormous crowds and enthusiasm.
As Mr. Sanders delivered his standard speech about inequality here on Saturday, Mr. Weaver
closely watched the voters in the front row who wore blue "H" T-shirts, indicating their support
for Mrs. Clinton, as they cheered for Mr. Sanders several times.
"We are much closer to Secretary Clinton today than Senator Obama was in 2008," Mr. Weaver
said. "I don't think they think this is locked up."
Mrs. Clinton may have been helped by the campaign's shift to foreign policy, where Mr. Sanders
is seen as weaker, in the aftermath of the Nov. 13 terrorist attack in Paris. Mrs. Clinton said
in a speech in New York on Thursday that the Republicans' approach to fighting the Islamic State,
compared with her own, amounted to "a choice between fear and resolve." She derided as un-American
the Republicans who said they would either bar Syrian refugees from resettling in the United States
or allow only Christian refugees.
"There are forces no candidate can control, and they can be detrimental," Representative James
E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, said when asked about the newfound focus on defeating
the Islamic State. "I believe in this case third-party forces are working in her favor."
Among Democrats, Mrs. Clinton holds a 25 percentage point lead against Mr. Sanders nationally,
according to a Bloomberg Politics poll released on Friday, compared with a nine percentage point
advantage in the same poll conducted in September that also included Vice President Joseph R.
Biden Jr., who later said he would not seek the nomination.
"By turning up the heat on Republicans, going after Trump, that's all part of the essence of
saying, 'I am the leader of the Democratic Party,' " said Robert Shrum, a strategist for Democratic
presidential candidates including John Kerry and Al Gore.
The primary is by no means determined. Polls in Iowa, in particular, tend to undercount
Mr. Sanders's young supporters who do not have landline phones, his aides say. And he continues
to lead in some polls in New Hampshire, a state that was supposed to be a stronghold for Mrs.
Clinton.
Even as Mrs. Clinton focuses firmly on the Republicans, her campaign is increasing its
indirect, if aggressive, moves to squeeze Mr. Sanders.
She has secured the backing of major labor unions, including most recently the Service Employees
International Union, which has two million members. Her campaign has emphasized Mrs. Clinton's
commitment to gun control, an issue that Mr. Sanders, as a senator from a hunting state, has been
less vehement about, and she delivered a major foreign policy speech on Thursday in New York,
the same day Mr. Sanders delivered a speech about Democratic socialism in Washington. ("Ah, the
attempted bigfoot," Mr. Weaver said of the timing of the two speeches. The Clinton campaign announced
its speech a day earlier than the Sanders team.)
Mrs. Clinton has also started to imply that Mr. Sanders's single-payer "Medicare for All" health
care plan would amount to a middle-class tax increase.
In recent days, she has unveiled a plan to give Americans with unexpected medical costs a tax
credit of $2,500 for an individual or $5,000 for a family. On Sunday in Iowa, she introduced another
tax credit to cover up to $6,000 of medical expenses for middle-class families caring for ailing
parents or grandparents. "I believe you deserve a raise, not a tax increase," she said in Memphis.
The Sanders campaign said that his plan would save the average family $5,000 a year through
the elimination of premiums, deductibles and co-payments, and it called Mrs. Clinton's plan "Republican-lite"
because it proposed short-term tax cuts over long-term benefits.
Mrs. Clinton's opponents point out that there is no more precarious place for her to be than
when she seems inevitable, as she did in the early months of the 2008 Democratic primary before
she finished third in the Iowa caucuses behind Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards.
This month, just after Mrs. Clinton had officially put her name on the ballot in New Hampshire,
she sat down to take some questions from the local reporters who gathered around her in a cramped
room at the State House in Concord. The first question: "How does it feel to once again be inevitable?"
Mrs. Clinton said she had put her name on the ballot in that very room in 2007. "I'm back again,"
she said. "I intend to do everything I can to work as hard as possible to be successful this time."
Hillary Clinton and the ISIS Mess
By Jeffrey D. Sachs
Hillary Clinton's speech on ISIS to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) showed clearly
what to expect in a Clinton presidency: more of the same. In her speech, Clinton doubled down
on the existing, failed U.S. approach in the Middle East, the one she pursued as Secretary of
State.
The CIA-led policy in the Middle East works like this. If a regime is deemed to be unfriendly
to the U.S., topple it. If a competitor like the Soviet Union or Russia has a foothold in the
region, try to push it out. If this means arming violent insurgencies, including Sunni jihadists,
and thereby creating mayhem: so be it. And if the result is terrorist blowback around the world
by the forces created by the US, then double down on bombing and regime change.
In rare cases, great presidents learn to stand up to the CIA and the rest of the military-industrial-intelligence
complex. JFK became one of the greatest presidents in American history when he came to realize
the awful truth that his own military and CIA advisors had contributed to the onset of the Cuban
Missile Crisis. The CIA-led Bay of Pigs fiasco and other CIA blunders had provoked a terrifying
response from the Soviet Union. Recognizing that the U.S. approach had contributed to bringing
the world to the brink, Kennedy bravely and successfully stood up to the warmongering pushed by
so many of his advisors and pursued peace, both during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He
thereby saved the world from nuclear annihilation and halted the unchecked proliferation of nuclear
arms.
Clinton's speech shows that she and her advisors are good loyalists of the military-industrial-intelligence
complex. Her speech included an impressive number of tactical elements: who should do the bombing
and who should be the foot soldiers. Yet all of this tactical precision is nothing more than business
as usual. Would Clinton ever have the courage and vision to push back against the U.S. security
establishment, as did JFK, and thereby restore global diplomacy and reverse the upward spiral
of war and terror?
Just as the CIA contributed to the downward slide to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and just as
many of JFK's security chiefs urged war rather than negotiation during that crisis, so too today's
Middle East terrorism, wars, and refugee crises have been stoked by misguided CIA-led interventions.
Starting in 1979, the CIA began to build the modern Sunni jihadist movement, then known as the
Mujahedeen, to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The CIA recruited young Sunni Muslim men
to fight the Soviet infidel, and the CIA provided training, arms, and financing. Yet soon enough,
this US-created jihadist army turned on the US, a classic and typical case of blowback.
The anti-U.S. and anti-Western blowback started with the first Gulf War in 1990, when the U.S.
stationed troops throughout the region. It continued with the Second Gulf War, when the U.S. toppled
a Sunni regime in Iraq and replaced it with a puppet Shia regime. In the process, it dismantled
Saddam's Sunni-led army, which then regrouped as a core part of ISIS in Iraq.
Next the U.S. teamed up with Saudi Arabia to harass, and then to try to topple Bashir al-Assad.
His main crime from the perspective of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia: being too close to Iran. Once
again, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia turned to Sunni jihadists with arms and financing, and part of
that fighting force morphed into ISIS in Syria. The evidence is that the covert U.S. actions against
Assad pre-date the overt U.S. calls for Assad's overthrow in 2011 by at least a couple of years.
In a similar vein, the U.S. teamed up with France and the UK to bomb Libya and kill Muammar
Qaddafi. The result has been an ongoing Libyan civil war, and the unleashing of violent jihadists
across the African Sahel, including Mali, which suffered the terrorist blow last week at the hands
of such marauders.
Thanks to America's misguided policies, we now have wars and violence raging across a 5,000-mile
stretch from Bamako, Mali to Kabul, Afghanistan, with a U.S. hand in starting and stoking the
violence. Libya, Sudan, the Sinai, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all cases where
the U.S. has directly intervened with very adverse results. Mali, Chad, Central African Republic,
Somalia are some of the many other countries indirectly caught up in turmoil unleashed by U.S.
covert and overt operations....
Jeffrey D. Sachs is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
pgl said in reply to anne...
Jeff Sachs is right to praise Kennedy for not falling in line with the anti Castro nutcases. But
he just skipped over Kennedy's blunder re Vietnam. It was the dumbest thing we had ever done.
But then came March 2003 and Iraq. Hillary Clinton may be too eager for regime change but the
Republicans want to redo the Crusades.
ilsm said in reply to pgl...
Lodge etc. were being lied to by the pentagon reps in RVN, but JFK kept the lid on advisors.
The big mistake on Vietnam was LBJ assuming Goldwater was right.
That said JFK helped usher in the concept of "flexible response" which moved US closer to fitting
out US forces for the past 50 years' quagmires.
Keenan's containment strategy was ruined by NSC 68 which put pentagon responses senior to State.
pgl said in reply to ilsm...
The big mistake on Vietnam was listening to Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara. The Dick Cheney and
Don Rumsfeld of the 1960's.
RGC said in reply to anne...
A Timeline of CIA Atrocities
By Steve Kangas
The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed
by the CIA (1)
CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad
are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader
because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize
foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment.
So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition.
First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them
a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency
then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy).
It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion,
blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and
disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic
sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which
installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator's security apparatus to crack down
on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims
are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor
union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human
rights abuses follow.
This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special
school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning,
Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins."
Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use
of interrogation, torture and murder.
The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as
a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly
calls this an "American Holocaust."
The CIA justifies these actions as part of its war against communism. But most coups do not
involve a communist threat. Unlucky nations are targeted for a wide variety of reasons: not only
threats to American business interests abroad, but also liberal or even moderate social reforms,
political instability, the unwillingness of a leader to carry out Washington's dictates, and declarations
of neutrality in the Cold War. Indeed, nothing has infuriated CIA Directors quite like a nation's
desire to stay out of the Cold War.
The ironic thing about all this intervention is that it frequently fails to achieve American
objectives. Often the newly installed dictator grows comfortable with the security apparatus the
CIA has built for him. He becomes an expert at running a police state. And because the dictator
knows he cannot be overthrown, he becomes independent and defiant of Washington's will. The CIA
then finds it cannot overthrow him, because the police and military are under the dictator's control,
afraid to cooperate with American spies for fear of torture and execution. The only two options
for the U.S at this point are impotence or war. Examples of this "boomerang effect" include the
Shah of Iran, General Noriega and Saddam Hussein. The boomerang effect also explains why the CIA
has proven highly successful at overthrowing democracies, but a wretched failure at overthrowing
dictatorships.
The following timeline should confirm that the CIA as we know it should be abolished and replaced
by a true information-gathering and analysis organization. The CIA cannot be reformed - it is
institutionally and culturally corrupt.
1929
The culture we lost - Secretary of State Henry Stimson refuses to endorse a code-breaking operation,
saying, "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail."
1941
COI created - In preparation for World War II, President Roosevelt creates the Office of Coordinator
of Information (COI). General William "Wild Bill" Donovan heads the new intelligence service.
1942
OSS created - Roosevelt restructures COI into something more suitable for covert action, the
Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Donovan recruits so many of the nation's rich and powerful
that eventually people joke that "OSS" stands for "Oh, so social!" or "Oh, such snobs!"
1943
Italy - Donovan recruits the Catholic Church in Rome to be the center of Anglo-American spy
operations in Fascist Italy. This would prove to be one of America's most enduring intelligence
alliances in the Cold War.
1945
OSS is abolished - The remaining American information agencies cease covert actions and return
to harmless information gathering and analysis.
Operation PAPERCLIP – While other American agencies are hunting down Nazi war criminals for
arrest, the U.S. intelligence community is smuggling them into America, unpunished, for their
use against the Soviets. The most important of these is Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's master spy who
had built up an intelligence network in the Soviet Union. With full U.S. blessing, he creates
the "Gehlen Organization," a band of refugee Nazi spies who reactivate their networks in Russia.
These include SS intelligence officers Alfred Six and Emil Augsburg (who massacred Jews in the
Holocaust), Klaus Barbie (the "Butcher of Lyon"), Otto von Bolschwing (the Holocaust mastermind
who worked with Eichmann) and SS Colonel Otto Skorzeny (a personal friend of Hitler's). The Gehlen
Organization supplies the U.S. with its only intelligence on the Soviet Union for the next ten
years, serving as a bridge between the abolishment of the OSS and the creation of the CIA However,
much of the "intelligence" the former Nazis provide is bogus. Gehlen inflates Soviet military
capabilities at a time when Russia is still rebuilding its devastated society, in order to inflate
his own importance to the Americans (who might otherwise punish him). In 1948, Gehlen almost convinces
the Americans that war is imminent, and the West should make a preemptive strike. In the 50s he
produces a fictitious "missile gap." To make matters worse, the Russians have thoroughly penetrated
the Gehlen Organization with double agents, undermining the very American security that Gehlen
was supposed to protect.
1947
Greece - President Truman requests military aid to Greece to support right-wing forces fighting
communist rebels. For the rest of the Cold War, Washington and the CIA will back notorious Greek
leaders with deplorable human rights records.
CIA created - President Truman signs the National Security Act of 1947, creating the Central
Intelligence Agency and National Security Council. The CIA is accountable to the president through
the NSC - there is no democratic or congressional oversight. Its charter allows the CIA to "perform
such other functions and duties… as the National Security Council may from time to time direct."
This loophole opens the door to covert action and dirty tricks.
1948
Covert-action wing created - The CIA recreates a covert action wing, innocuously called the
Office of Policy Coordination, led by Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner. According to its secret
charter, its responsibilities include "propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action,
including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile
states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist
elements in threatened countries of the free world."
Italy - The CIA corrupts democratic elections in Italy, where Italian communists threaten to
win the elections. The CIA buys votes, broadcasts propaganda, threatens and beats up opposition
leaders, and infiltrates and disrupts their organizations. It works -- the communists are defeated.
1949
Radio Free Europe - The CIA creates its first major propaganda outlet, Radio Free Europe. Over
the next several decades, its broadcasts are so blatantly false that for a time it is considered
illegal to publish transcripts of them in the U.S.
Late 40s
Operation MOCKINGBIRD - The CIA begins recruiting American news organizations and journalists
to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. The effort is headed by Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles,
Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham is publisher of The Washington Post, which becomes a major
CIA player. Eventually, the CIA's media assets will include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated
Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service
and more. By the CIA's own admission, at least 25 organizations and 400 journalists will become
CIA assets.
1953
Iran – CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after
he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran,
whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.
Operation MK-ULTRA - Inspired by North Korea's brainwashing program, the CIA begins experiments
on mind control. The most notorious part of this project involves giving LSD and other drugs to
American subjects without their knowledge or against their will, causing several to commit suicide.
However, the operation involves far more than this. Funded in part by the Rockefeller and Ford
foundations, research includes propaganda, brainwashing, public relations, advertising, hypnosis,
and other forms of suggestion.
1954
Guatemala - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz
has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director
Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty
policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.
1954-1958
North Vietnam - CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist
government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize
a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win
the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy,
land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA's continuing failure results in escalating
American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.
1956
Hungary - Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev's Secret Speech,
in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight.
This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a
major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.
1957-1973
Laos - The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos' democratic
elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a
member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine"
of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA's army suffers numerous defeats,
the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World
War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.
1959
Haiti - The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his
own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They
will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal
human rights record.
1961
The Bay of Pigs - The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro's Cuba. But "Operation
Mongoose" fails, due to poor planning, security and backing. The planners had imagined that the
invasion will spark a popular uprising against Castro -– which never happens. A promised American
air strike also never occurs. This is the CIA's first public setback, causing President Kennedy
to fire CIA Director Allen Dulles.
Dominican Republic - The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington
has supported since 1930. Trujillo's business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent
of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.
Ecuador - The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco
to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency
with its own man.
Congo (Zaire) - The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public
support for Lumumba's politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents
in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.
1963
Dominican Republic - The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military
coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta.
Ecuador - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not
socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command,
cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.
1964
Brazil - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao
Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty
in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America's first death squads, or bands of
secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these "communists"
are no more than Branco's political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death
squads.
1965
Indonesia - The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The
CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination
to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor,
General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist."
The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.
Dominican Republic - A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the
country's elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military
regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.
Greece - With the CIA's backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous
has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.
Congo (Zaire) - A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. The hated
and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.
1966
The Ramparts Affair - The radical magazine Ramparts begins a series of unprecedented anti-CIA
articles. Among their scoops: the CIA has paid the University of Michigan $25 million dollars
to hire "professors" to train South Vietnamese students in covert police methods. MIT and other
universities have received similar payments. Ramparts also reveals that the National Students'
Association is a CIA front. Students are sometimes recruited through blackmail and bribery, including
draft deferments.
1967
Greece - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections.
The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years,
the "reign of the colonels" - backed by the CIA - will usher in the widespread use of torture
and murder against political opponents. When a Greek ambassador objects to President Johnson about
U.S. plans for Cypress, Johnson tells him: "Fuck your parliament and your constitution."
Operation PHEONIX - The CIA helps South Vietnamese agents identify and then murder alleged
Viet Cong leaders operating in South Vietnamese villages. According to a 1971 congressional report,
this operation killed about 20,000 "Viet Cong."
1968
Operation CHAOS - The CIA has been illegally spying on American citizens since 1959, but with
Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosts the effort. CIA agents go undercover as
student radicals to spy on and disrupt campus organizations protesting the Vietnam War. They are
searching for Russian instigators, which they never find. CHAOS will eventually spy on 7,000 individuals
and 1,000 organizations.
Bolivia - A CIA-organized military operation captures legendary guerilla Che Guevara. The CIA
wants to keep him alive for interrogation, but the Bolivian government executes him to prevent
worldwide calls for clemency.
1969
Uruguay - The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political
strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces
them to use it as a routine, widespread practice. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in
the precise amount, for the desired effect," is his motto. The torture techniques he teaches to
the death squads rival the Nazis'. He eventually becomes so feared that revolutionaries will kidnap
and murder him a year later.
1970
Cambodia - The CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping
them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian
troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer
Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.
1971
Bolivia - After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup
overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will
have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.
Haiti - "Papa Doc" Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son "Baby Doc" Duvalier the dictator
of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA
1972
The Case-Zablocki Act - Congress passes an act requiring congressional review of executive
agreements. In theory, this should make CIA operations more accountable. In fact, it is only marginally
effective.
Cambodia - Congress votes to cut off CIA funds for its secret war in Cambodia.
Wagergate Break-in - President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices
at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard
Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP),
which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon's illegal campaign
contributions. CREEP's activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.
1973
Chile - The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America's first democratically
elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in
Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende
with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in
a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.
CIA begins internal investigations - William Colby, the Deputy Director for Operations, orders
all CIA personnel to report any and all illegal activities they know about. This information is
later reported to Congress.
Watergate Scandal - The CIA's main collaborating newspaper in America, The Washington Post,
reports Nixon's crimes long before any other newspaper takes up the subject. The two reporters,
Woodward and Bernstein, make almost no mention of the CIA's many fingerprints all over the scandal.
It is later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House, and knows
many important intelligence figures, including General Alexander Haig. His main source, "Deep
Throat," is probably one of those.
CIA Director Helms Fired - President Nixon fires CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to
help cover up the Watergate scandal. Helms and Nixon have always disliked each other. The new
CIA director is William Colby, who is relatively more open to CIA reform.
1974
CHAOS exposed - Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation
CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S.
The story sparks national outrage.
Angleton fired - Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus
Angleton, the CIA's chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns
and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA
House clears CIA in Watergate - The House of Representatives clears the CIA of any complicity
in Nixon's Watergate break-in.
The Hughes Ryan Act - Congress passes an amendment requiring the president to report nonintelligence
CIA operations to the relevant congressional committees in a timely fashion.
1975
Australia - The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime
Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John
Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam
government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the
Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the
nation.
Angola - Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry
Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger's assertions, Angola is a
country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs
the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents
into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976,
but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again.
This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.
"The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" - Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing
history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming
an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an
intelligence official in the State Department.
"Inside the Company" - Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA Agee has worked
in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took
part.
Congress investigates CIA wrong-doing - Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on
CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation ("The Church Committee"), and
Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite a 98 percent incumbency reelection
rate, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number
of reforms intended to increase the CIA's accountability to Congress, including the creation of
a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra
scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.
The Rockefeller Commission - In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee,
President Ford creates the "Rockefeller Commission" to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless
reforms. The commission's namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA
figure. Five of the commission's eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations,
a CIA-dominated organization.
1979
Iran - The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the
rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA's backing of SAVAK, the Shah's bloodthirsty
secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
Afghanistan - The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to
any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when
the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess
state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the
World Trade Center bombing in New York.
El Salvador - An idealistic group of young military officers, repulsed by the massacre of the
poor, overthrows the right-wing government. However, the U.S. compels the inexperienced officers
to include many of the old guard in key positions in their new government. Soon, things are back
to "normal" - the military government is repressing and killing poor civilian protesters. Many
of the young military and civilian reformers, finding themselves powerless, resign in disgust.
Nicaragua - Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take
over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty
reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of
the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista
government throughout the 1980s.
1980
El Salvador - The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian
to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses.
Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D'Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while
saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting
against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming
military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing
atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women
and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.
1981
Iran/Contra Begins - The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits
to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that
the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say 'uncle.'" The CIA's Freedom Fighter's Manual
disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery,
blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination.
1983
Honduras - The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training
Manual – 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras' notorious "Battalion 316" then uses
these techniques, with the CIA's full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least
184 are murdered.
1984
The Boland Amendment - The last of a series of Boland Amendments is passed. These amendments
have reduced CIA aid to the Contras; the last one cuts it off completely. However, CIA Director
William Casey is already prepared to "hand off" the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally
continues supplying the Contras through the CIA's informal, secret, and self-financing network.
This includes "humanitarian aid" donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon, and military aid funded
by Iranian arms sales.
1986
Eugene Hasenfus - Nicaragua shoots down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies
to the Contras. The lone survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, turns out to be a CIA employee, as are the
two dead pilots. The airplane belongs to Southern Air Transport, a CIA front. The incident makes
a mockery of President Reagan's claims that the CIA is not illegally arming the Contras.
Iran/Contra Scandal - Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally
captures the media's attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like
Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community. CIA Director William Casey
dies of brain cancer before Congress can question him. All reforms enacted by Congress after the
scandal are purely cosmetic.
Haiti - Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President
for Life" only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies
the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the
upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps
the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military
by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture
and assassination.
1989
Panama - The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel
Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA's payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with
the CIA's knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega's growing independence and intransigence
have angered Washington… so out he goes.
1990
Haiti - Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand
Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed
military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country, as thousands of Haitian refugees
escape the turmoil in barely seaworthy boats. As popular opinion calls for Aristide's return,
the CIA begins a disinformation campaign painting the courageous priest as mentally unstable.
1991
The Gulf War - The U.S. liberates Kuwait from Iraq. But Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, is
another creature of the CIA With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. During this
costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein's forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence,
training and financial backing. This cemented Hussein's power at home, allowing him to crush the
many internal rebellions that erupted from time to time, sometimes with poison gas. It also gave
him all the military might he needed to conduct further adventurism - in Kuwait, for example.
The Fall of the Soviet Union - The CIA fails to predict this most important event of the Cold
War. This suggests that it has been so busy undermining governments that it hasn't been doing
its primary job: gathering and analyzing information. The fall of the Soviet Union also robs the
CIA of its reason for existence: fighting communism. This leads some to accuse the CIA of intentionally
failing to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union. Curiously, the intelligence community's budget
is not significantly reduced after the demise of communism.
1992
Economic Espionage - In the years following the end of the Cold War, the CIA is increasingly
used for economic espionage. This involves stealing the technological secrets of competing foreign
companies and giving them to American ones. Given the CIA's clear preference for dirty tricks
over mere information gathering, the possibility of serious criminal behavior is very great indeed.
1993
Haiti - The chaos in Haiti grows so bad that President Clinton has no choice but to remove
the Haitian military dictator, Raoul Cedras, on threat of U.S. invasion. The U.S. occupiers do
not arrest Haiti's military leaders for crimes against humanity, but instead ensure their safety
and rich retirements. Aristide is returned to power only after being forced to accept an agenda
favorable to the country's ruling class.
EPILOGUE
In a speech before the CIA celebrating its 50th anniversary, President Clinton said: "By necessity,
the American people will never know the full story of your courage."
Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing
the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem
in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform.
Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked.
Furthermore, Clinton's statement is simply untrue. The history of the agency is growing painfully
clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not know the details
of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA These facts
began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today we have a remarkably accurate
and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different
directions.
The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern.
(Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific
Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed
and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners.
(See Philip Agee's On the Run for an example of early harassment.) However, over the last two
decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the CIA has found that it does not have
enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is especially true in the age of the Internet,
where information flows freely among millions of people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency
must now defend itself with apologetics. Clinton's "Americans will never know" defense is a prime
example.
Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must
deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with
this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of
democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants.
The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.
Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: "Which American interests?" The
CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's
cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight
the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. The second begged
question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?"
The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes
against humanity. Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal
of collecting and analyzing information. As for covert action, there are two moral options. The
first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about
the Adolf Hitlers of the world. So a second option is that we can place covert action under extensive
and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members
could review and veto all aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote. Which
of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear: like dictatorship,
like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs they are.
North Vietnam - CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist
government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize
a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win
the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy,
land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA's continuing failure results in escalating
American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War."
We should have let the elections of 1956 go forward. Had we - we could have avoided the entire
Vietnam disaster.
RGC said in reply to pgl...
When you look at that list and you realize that it was done in our name and we were funding it,
it might piss you off a little.
Fred C. Dobbs said...
'Thinking About the Trumpthinkable' - Paul Krugman
Alan Abramowitz reads the latest WaPo poll
and emails:
'Read these results and tell me how Trump doesn't win the Republican nomination? I've been
very skeptical about this all along, but I'm starting to change my mind. I think there's at least
a pretty decent chance that Trump will be the nominee.' ...
Related:
Is Hillary Clinton Any Good at Running for President?
http://nym.ag/1DwluuR via @NYmag - Jazon Zengerle
- April 5
... The election model that's most in vogue - that scored the highest when applied to presidential
elections since World War II, correctly predicting every outcome since 1992 - is one created by
Emory political scientist Alan Abramowitz called "Time for a Change." Abramowitz argues that the
fundamentals in a presidential election are bedevilingly simple: the incumbent president's approval
rating in late June or early July, the rate of real GDP growth in the second quarter, and how
many terms the party has been in the White House.
In 2012, for instance, Obama's relatively lopsided victory may have shocked Republicans on
Election Night, but by Abramowitz's reckoning it was practically preordained. Although second-quarter
real GDP growth was a relatively unimpressive 1.5 percent and Obama's approval rating was a good-but-not-great
46 percent that June, he was seeking reelection, and, according to Abramowitz, "first-term incumbents
rarely lose." In fact, he believes that being a first-term incumbent is worth 4 percentage points.
There was nothing in the Abramowitz model that looked good for John McCain in 2008 (bad economy,
bad approval ratings of a second-term president from McCain's party). In 1988, by contrast, George
H.W. Bush was also running to give his party a third term, but Q2 real GDP growth that year was
a booming 5.24 percent and Ronald Reagan's approval rating was above 50 percent.
Sound familiar? "If Obama's approval rating is close to 50 percent and the economy is growing
at a decent rate in the fall of 2016 - both of which seem quite possible, maybe even likely -
then I think Hillary Clinton would have a decent chance of winning," Abramowitz says. But then
there's the "Time for a Change" factor and those four extra points Obama enjoyed in 2012 that
Hillary won't have this time around. In other words, it would be an extremely close race.
Which brings us full circle. "What determines the outcome in 2016," Abramowitz says, "could
very well be the quality of the candidates." ...
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
Tweet: @AlanIAbramowitz
Trump exploits a crack
in the GOP's foundation http://wpo.st/ZHHn0
Fareed Zakaria - Washington
Post - November 12
Today's conventional wisdom is that Donald Trump's best days are behind him and that his poll
numbers will soon descend. Maybe. But Trump has come to represent something fundamental about
the Republican Party: the growing gap between its leaders and its political constituency. Even
if he disappears, this gap is reshaping the GOP.
At the start, Trump's campaign was based largely on his personality. On the issues, he had
a grab bag of positions and lacked coherence and consistency. But like a good businessman, he
seems to have studied his customers - the Republican electorate - and decided to give them what
they want. And what they want is not what their party leaders stand for. ...
pgl said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
"On the issues, he had a grab bag of positions and lacked coherence and consistency. But like
a good businessman, he seems to have studied his customers - the Republican electorate - and decided
to give them what they want. And what they want is not what their party leaders stand for"
What
his customers want is racism. And guess what - the alleged party leaders are racing to the front
to see who can be the most racist. This party has become a dysfunctional disgrace.
"... Mrs. Clinton's windfalls from Wall Street banks and other financial services firms - $3 million
in paid speeches and $17 million in campaign contributions over the years - have become a major vulnerability
in states with early nomination contests. ..."
"... In the primaries, Mrs. Clinton's advisers privately concede that she will lose some votes over
her Wall Street connections. They declined to share specific findings from internal polls, but predicted
the issue could resonate in Democratic contests in Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Michigan, where many have
lost homes and businesses to bank foreclosu ..."
"... Mr. Sanders zeros in on Wall Street donations to Mrs. Clinton in an aggressive new television
commercial that started running in Iowa and New Hampshire on Saturday: The truth is, you can't change
a corrupt system by taking its money, he warns. ..."
"... One of Mrs. Clinton's most prominent supporters in Ohio, former State Senator Nina Turner,
defected to Mr. Sanders this month in part, she said, because she felt he would be tougher on special
interests. And some Democratic superdelegates, whose backing is crucial, said Mrs. Clinton's ties to
big banks, and her invocation of 9/11 to defend her ties to Wall Street at the Nov. 14 debate, only
made them further question her independence from the financial industry. ..."
"... My parents had a saying in Spanish - 'Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres' - which means,
'Tell me who you're hanging with and I'll tell you who you are,' said Alma R. Gonzalez, an uncommitted
superdelegate from Florida. A lot of my Democratic friends feel that way about Hillary and Wall Street.
..."
"... Will she be another President Clinton who appoints a Treasury secretary from Wall Street? These
are major concerns. ..."
"... Indeed, Mr. Clinton's close relationships with Wall Street executives like Robert E. Rubin
of Goldman Sachs, whom he named his Treasury secretary, and his support for undoing parts of Glass-Steagall
have contributed to misgivings about Mrs. Clinton. ..."
"... While Mr. Sanders and another candidate for the Democratic nomination, former Gov. Martin O'Malley
of Maryland, have argued that big donors inevitably had influence with her, her campaign has pushed
back against suggestions that the financial services industry has bankrolled her campaign. Her aides
also said ads by a new group, Future 45, attacking Mrs. Clinton would only underscore her independence,
because the group's major donors include Wall Street magnates like Paul Singer. ..."
"... Bashing Wall Street is not an automatic win for Mr. Sanders, however. Ms. Gonzalez, the Florida
superdelegate, and some other undecided Democrats said they viewed Mr. Sanders as too hostile to banks
and corporations and too divisive in his remarks about American wealth. ..."
"... Ms. Turner, the former Ohio lawmaker, said the blocks of foreclosed homes in Cleveland were
a painful reminder that banks prioritize their own corporate interests. Mr. Sanders has been criticizing
the corrupt economy symbolized by Wall Street greed for decades, she said. ..."
Wall St. Ties Linger as Image Issue for Hillary Clinton
By Patrick Healy
Saturday, 21 Nov 2015 | 2:52 PM ET
The New York Times
John Wittneben simmered as he listened to Hillary Rodham Clinton defend her ties to Wall Street
during last weekend's Democratic debate. He lost 40 percent of his savings in individual retirement
accounts during the Great Recession, while Mrs. Clinton has received millions of dollars from
the kinds of executives he believes should be in jail.
"People knew what they were doing back then, because of greed, and it caused me harm," said Mr.
Wittneben, the Democratic chairman in Emmet County, Iowa. "We were raised a certain way here.
Fairness is a big deal."
The next day he endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders in the presidential race.
Mrs. Clinton's windfalls from Wall Street banks and other financial services firms - $3
million in paid speeches and $17 million in campaign contributions over the years - have become
a major vulnerability in states with early nomination contests. Some party officials who
remain undecided in the 2016 presidential race see her as overly cozy with big banks and other
special interests. At a time when liberals are ascendant in the party, many Democrats believe
her merely having "represented Wall Street as a senator from New York," as Mrs. Clinton reminded
viewers in an October debate, is bad enough.
It is an image problem that she cannot seem to shake.
Though she criticizes the American economy as being "rigged" for the rich, Mrs. Clinton has
lost some support recently from party members who think she would go easy on Wall Street excess
if elected. Even as she promises greater regulation of hedge funds and private equity firms, liberals
deride her for refusing to support reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, a law that separated
commercial and investment banks until its repeal under President Bill Clinton. (Mr. Sanders favors
its restoration.) And for many Democrats, her strong support from wealthy donors and a big-money
"super PAC" undercuts her increasingly progressive rhetoric on free trade and other economic issues.
Her advisers say most Democrats like her economic policies and believe she would fight for
middle-class and low-income Americans. Most opinion polls put Mrs. Clinton well ahead of Mr. Sanders
nationally and in Iowa, and they are running even in New Hampshire, but she fares worse than him
on questions about taking on Wall Street and special interests. And even if Mrs. Clinton sews
up the nomination quickly, subdued enthusiasm among the party's liberal base could complicate
efforts to energize Democratic turnout for the general election.
In the primaries, Mrs. Clinton's advisers privately concede that she will lose some votes
over her Wall Street connections. They declined to share specific findings from internal polls,
but predicted the issue could resonate in Democratic contests in Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Michigan,
where many have lost homes and businesses to bank foreclosures.
Mr. Sanders zeros in on Wall Street donations to Mrs. Clinton in an aggressive new television
commercial that started running in Iowa and New Hampshire on Saturday: "The truth is, you can't
change a corrupt system by taking its money," he warns.
One of Mrs. Clinton's most prominent supporters in Ohio, former State Senator Nina Turner,
defected to Mr. Sanders this month in part, she said, because she felt he would be tougher on
special interests. And some Democratic superdelegates, whose backing is crucial, said Mrs. Clinton's
ties to big banks, and her invocation of 9/11 to defend her ties to Wall Street at the Nov. 14
debate, only made them further question her independence from the financial industry.
"My parents had a saying in Spanish - 'Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres' - which
means, 'Tell me who you're hanging with and I'll tell you who you are,'" said Alma R. Gonzalez,
an uncommitted superdelegate from Florida. "A lot of my Democratic friends feel that way about
Hillary and Wall Street.
"Are the working people in this country going to be able to count on hard decisions being made
by President Hillary Clinton with regard to her Wall Street chums?" Ms. Gonzalez continued. "Will
she be another President Clinton who appoints a Treasury secretary from Wall Street? These are
major concerns."
Indeed, Mr. Clinton's close relationships with Wall Street executives like Robert E. Rubin
of Goldman Sachs, whom he named his Treasury secretary, and his support for undoing parts of Glass-Steagall
have contributed to misgivings about Mrs. Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton has proposed imposing risk fees on unwieldy big banks and empowering regulators
to break them up if necessary - though this is not the wholesale breakup that Mr. Sanders favors
under a return of Glass-Steagall. She also proposes to make sure fines for corporate wrongdoing
hit executive bonuses, and to pursue criminal prosecutions when justified.
Yet even though she has taken tough stands in the past, such as chastising banks for widespread
foreclosures in 2007 and 2008, some Democrats are skeptical that she would ever crack down hard
on the executives in her social circles in Manhattan, the Hamptons and Washington.
Jake Quinn, an uncommitted Democratic superdelegate from North Carolina, said he was concerned
about Mrs. Clinton's willingness to clamp down on Wall Street malfeasance. "The financial sector's
ongoing relative lack of accountability makes me suspicious of any candidate who sources it for
significant support," he said.
Mrs. Clinton's advisers say that she has advanced the strongest regulatory proposals of any
candidate, putting the lie to claims that she would protect Wall Street's interests as president.
Any political harm resulting from her Wall Street ties would be minimal, they maintain, because
she never took action in exchange for donations. They also play down the possibility that Mrs.
Clinton will face voter turnout and enthusiasm problems if she wins the nomination.
While Mr. Sanders and another candidate for the Democratic nomination, former Gov. Martin
O'Malley of Maryland, have argued that big donors inevitably had influence with her, her campaign
has pushed back against suggestions that the financial services industry has bankrolled her campaign.
Her aides also said ads by a new group, Future 45, attacking Mrs. Clinton would only underscore
her independence, because the group's major donors include Wall Street magnates like Paul Singer.
"When billionaire hedge fund managers are forming super PACs to run ads attacking her, it's
clear they fear she will take action as president to crack down on the industry's abuses," said
Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman.
Bashing Wall Street is not an automatic win for Mr. Sanders, however. Ms. Gonzalez, the
Florida superdelegate, and some other undecided Democrats said they viewed Mr. Sanders as too
hostile to banks and corporations and too divisive in his remarks about American wealth.
But others said they were more concerned that Mrs. Clinton had not broken with Wall Street
in a clear way, noting the lengths she went to at the debate to explain the relationship.
"She was waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 to defend herself, which we're accustomed to seeing
with demagogues on the right, and it just didn't feel quite right," said Kurt Meyer, a co-chairman
of the Mitchell County Democrats in Iowa, who has not endorsed a candidate. "She connected two
things, 9/11 and her ties to Wall Street, that I didn't like her sewing together."
Ms. Turner, the former Ohio lawmaker, said the blocks of foreclosed homes in Cleveland
were a painful reminder that banks prioritize their own corporate interests. Mr. Sanders has been
criticizing "the corrupt economy symbolized by Wall Street greed" for decades, she said.
"He shows righteous indignation and speaks for the common woman and man in saying they have
a right to be outraged at Wall Street," Ms. Turner said. "He doesn't just talk the talk. He walks
the talk."
And Mrs. Clinton? "Her ties are her ties," Ms. Turner said.
Mark--The passage "As Paul Krugman points out" links not to PK, but to a Brad Plummer Vox
article. I assume that you wanted to link to PK's column in this AM's NYT.
BTW, you may want to point to this Jeb! Tweet:
http://bit.ly/1gVFixr I think that he may have set a record for the total number of
horribly bad policy positions that one can advocate in 140 characters or less.
...and apparently the buzz in the automotive world is that "everyone" was doing it...
Anybody who thinks Mr. Cook and Apple can't disrupt the automobile industry clearly isn't paying
attention to the automobile industry. It seems designed more by cads than CAD. Smart elegant design?
The auto industry is retrogressive: low hanging fruit. The whole damn kit: from CEOs to Dealers
to Mechanics you can't trust. It's a moral atrocity.
Apple can and will seize the wheel and make a ton of money doing so...
As Paul Krugman points out, the scandal makes a nice counterpoint with Jeb Bush's latest "anti-regulation"
rant.
Of course there are many others. And of course there are also many cases of over-regulation. But
you don't win an argument for smart regulation unless you have plenty of examples to draw from.
I suspect Mrs. Clinton will be well-armed that way come the big time debates with Jeb!
Brett
Fisher's reaction is so typical for many economic libertarians that I've met. They can't
really dismiss environmental problems altogether, so instead they diminish and minimize - "Oh,
it's just some marginal emissions/a small amount of forest land/a little pollution into the
river! What's the harm? And do you really want to hurt an important company that employs
thousands over it over a little bit of dirty air?"
Jarndyce
Mark is too easy on both VW and GM in this paragraph:
"That's not as bad as an ordinary murder, where the killer picks out a specific
victim, because being personally singled out to be killed is somehow worse than being a
random victim. But in both the GM case and the VW case, people wound up dead (or injured,
or sick) through the choice of someone else. In the GM case, the company's culpability was
mostly passive: it made a design or manufacturing mistake and then didn't disclose it or
act promptly or adequately to fix it. What VW did was much worse: the 'defeat software'
wasn't a defect, but a deliberate decision to break the law with the predictable
consequence of killing hundreds of people, at least twice as many as died of GM's
malfeasance. I don't think you need to live in Marin County to find that objectionable."
The pertinent question is whether VW or GM knew that people would die as a result of their
actions. If they did, then they are as culpable as an ordinary murderer, despite not having
picked out a specific victim or having acted "passively" in deciding not to disclose their
mistake. They are comparable to a person who randomly fires a machine gun in a crowd.
David T
One of the ICCT engineers who uncovered this seems to be telling every news shop that will
listen that people should be checking other automakers for the same problem. VW's behavior is
so appalling and frankly stupid (destroy a company to sell a few diesels? It's not even their
biggest product line) that it's hard to understand what they could have possibly been
thinking. The general amorality of corporate culture may be part of it. But I wonder if there
was a bit of "everybody else is doing it" going on here too. (BMW must be pretty happy that
their car passed.)
Keith_Humphreys
Perfect movie reference(The
Third Man, 1949). The sociopathic black marketeer
Harry Lime is played by Orson Welles and his moral American friend Holly Martins by Joseph
Cotten. As they ride in a Ferris wheel far above the people of Vienna, this exchange occurs:
Martins: Have you ever seen any of your victims?
Harry: You know, I never feel comfortable on these sort of things. Victims? Don't
be melodramatic. [gestures to people far below] Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if
one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every
dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you
calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of
income tax - the only way you can save money nowadays.
Ok. This may be an extremely stupid question, but how do we know that this was illegal?
Many regulations of this type in the electronics/telecommunications field are overspecified
and everybody knows the tests (and they cheat in similar fashions if not so explicitly and in
such wholesale fashion). If the regulation was written to state that an engine will pass the
following test then that's what would be built. Unless there was an explicit prohibition in
switching modes or a requirement that the test mode be comparable to driving mode then the
engineers may have just seen it as a game. So I'm not defending the amorality of this, but the
question of conspiracy is harder to prove if it may not be illegal except under the EPA's
theory. And if it wasn't obviously illegal, then what is the moral obligation of the worker to
trade-off their livelihood for exposing the fraud.
He'll be colorful, entertaining figure in the Republican's primary circus. He might be able to expose
the hypocrisy of other candidates. I hope he stays in it for a couple of debates...
I like one of his quotes: "I'm a free trader, but the problem is you need really talented people
to negotiate for you ... But we have people that are stupid." "
"I don't need anybody's money ... I'm using my own money, I'm not using the lobbyists,
I'm not using donors, I don't care. I'm really rich."
"The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems."
"Nobody would be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump. Nobody."
"When Mexico sends its people they're not sending their best ... They're sending people that
have lots of problems ... They are bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists."
"I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created. I will bring back our jobs from
China, from Mexico, from Japan, from so many places. I'll bring back our jobs and I'll bring back
our money."
"How stupid are our leaders? How stupid are the politicians to allow this to happen? How stupid
are they?"
"I'm a free trader, but the problem is you need really talented people to negotiate for you
... But we have people that are stupid."
"Saudi Arabia, without us, is gone. They're gone."
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.