Some Reflections On "If I Were Trump"
I had really intended to make one final point in my essay. I have no personal ambition for fame, power and glory. I don't underestimate resistance to change for proposals like delegating power and authority to states and localities. I think I've won only one election, heading the altar boys for my parish in south Texas during high school, and that was primarily due to the support of my more popular middle brother, about 3 years younger. (He himself ran for a school board in the far south suburbs of Chicago during the latter 90's and lost.) I think I have just one follower to my blog and a few dozen on Twitter (even though I've attracted nearly a quarter million views of Tweets over the past month); in fact, I don't think one of my friends or relatives is following me.
I've probably added a dozen or so Twitter followers over the past month, but new followers can be fickle. Sometimes Trumpkins might like my critical tweets on "progressives", and the "progressives" would usually cheer on my critical tweets on Trump. I routinely get slammed by all sides; progressives allege I'm a Russian plant, an alt-right guy or funded by Koch or Mercer. Trumpkins regularly call me a liberal (as in the modern social liberal/progressive sense). I don't generally respond to uncivil tweets (that's what mute or block is for); I really don't mind people disagreeing with me, but be respectful and don't waste my time repeating standard talking points or soundbites.
I've been known to adjust opinions; a dozen years back I was more ambivalent on proactive foreign policy, the Federal Reserve, etc., and I largely bought into the conventional explanation of the atomic bombs (WWII) and the Civil War. Could I change my mind? I go with where the evidence leads me; but on a number of issues, since I started the blog, I've read countless articles from differing points of views; it's possible an argument I haven't considered could flip my opinion.
The point here, it's unlikely to see how I would ever run a successful political campaign, maybe if I was the only opponent to an incumbent Congressman who was outed as a pedophile just before an election. My niche is more to provide a pro-liberty perspective; it's not sure much the extent as the nature of the people who follow me. It would be nice if some of the others in the pro-liberty crowd, like Boudreaux, Block, Tucker, DiLorenzo and others, cited me, but I haven't published anything original in their literature. I've had a couple of testy exchanges with Woods and Tucker on Facebook (Woods took a cheap shot at Romney, and Tucker ridicules the idea of intellectual property.) Make no mistake; I didn't like Romney's being a godfather of ObamaCare, his anti-immigrant policy, or his aggressive neo-con foreign policy, but on paper he was a credible executive who also had to work with an 85% Democrat legislature. He would have never been a Trump.
When I think of Trump, I have mixed emotions. I never bought into his salesman act, but in a deep, crowded field of 15 far more experienced, accomplished politicians(senators and current/former multi-term governors), he quickly attained a 25-30% plurality--and never looked back. It was mixture of admiration and disgust. Romney had faced justifiable criticisms in 2008 for flipping on positions during his Senate contest with Kennedy in the 1990's (most notably abortion). McCain faced a lot of criticism for campaign finance reform and his opposition to Bush's early tax cuts.
But Trump had changed party affiliations multiple times between 1999 and 2012. We are not talking about Hillary Clinton's and Ronald Reagan's principled one-time flips. We are talking about a man who joined Perot's Reform Party to run for President in 1999-2000, and then was a registered Democrat during and beyond the Bush Administration, who had financially backed and endorsed Clinton and then Obama. These are light years beyond the alleged infidelities of Romney and McCain which nearly killed their eventual nominations.
It's the sheer audacity of Trump's blaming Romney's 2012 loss on his "cruel" self-deportation policy and then going astonishingly anti-immigrant with his Mexico prison dumping allegations across the border. his huge Wall, supersized deportations, etc. Never mind the preponderance of GOP policy since the Eisenhower era has been generally pro-immigrant and the fact that unauthorized aliens are actually down over the past 8 years. Similarly, Trump's anti-trade rhetoric is out of step of GOP support for trade (although Trump's crackpot opinions on trade are probably his one point of consistency on policy).
It certainly takes audacity for a man who has had high profile business failures (e.g., his casinos) to paint himself as a "successful" businessman who knows how to grow jobs in America.
How did Trumpian populism succeed given:
How did a billionaire with no public policy record manage to win over a majority of delegates? I really don't have a clue. Yes, he had an advantage of universal name recognition. It seemed he tapped into this anti-Establishment message; why anyone would think that Trump is anti-Establishment and is out for the folks vs. his own power and glory? For instance, why would Trump give away the store at Trump University, unless he found it easier to make money from desperate, gullible people than doing the same deals on his own? He didn't like competition in Atlantic City.
Trumpkins buy into Trump's excuses, his comparisons of his listed public corporations going under as equivalent to any of his hundreds of branded (licensed) interests, like Trump Ice?
But on the big issues, Trump alleges that "he" and only he knows how to "make America great" again. And his adversaries are "corrupt" because they're not "rich" like him. Never mind his understanding of public policy is paper-thin, little more than rehearsed soundbites.
Trump has no principles other than maintaining his power. The master dealer can't cut a deal, even with his own party. He's bashing GOP Congressmen, even his own Cabinet members. He creates his own problems with impulsive, ill-considered tweets and public statements. His attempted reform of despised ObamaCare crash and burned. He's losing influence internationally. His job approval rating is stuck in an all-time first-term mid-30's low. He tries to scapegoat his opposition as the Establishment, the fake mainstream news, and anti-American globalism. His principal accomplishments seem to be judicial appointments and some modest deregulation efforts. The job market and the stock market have been doing okay, although to some extent that may reflect unrealistic expectations of long-overdue tax reform--and there are a number of things that could trigger a correction, including North Korea, the upcoming debt ceiling fight, etc.
This was not intended to be yet another NeverTrump rant. But Trump dug a hole for himself in terms of unrealistic expectations. No, there are issues affecting our growth--but Trump is looking at the wrong "answers"--they aren't an issue of immigrant and trade competition. It has more to do to obstacles weighing down the free market.
I do realize that Trump's rhetoric, like threats to tear up NAFTA or impose a 40-odd% tariff on China trade, may be mere posturing. But let's be clear--anything you do to muck up the free market, free trade, and free movement of workers will have a negative impact on the US standard of living, will increase costs of US factors of production and make our products and services less competitive. I'm absolutely convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Trumponomics means a shrinking, not growing economy, and that's bad for job-seekers.
Politicians can make conditions for growth more supportive, e.g., lower uncertainty, make tax rates more competitive, streamline dubious regulations and mandates. The idea is to lessen the government footprint in the markets. If you think a billionaire is a surrogate for the cumulative judgments and transactions of 323M American consumers, you're fatally mistaken.
I got back on the soda kick during my recent summer relocation from Arizona (mostly to guard against dehydration on the road), but I'm already tapering back down. But during two 1995 business trips to Sao Paulo, Brazil, I developed a taste to the local favorite soft drink, Antartica Guarana. It's difficult to describe the taste, more like a fruity ginger ale. I hadn't had any beyond a few cans I put in my luggage home. The shipping costs for things like soda and bread (e.g., Food For Life sprouted grain) are ridiculous. Recently I came across an offer on Walmart.com for a 6-pack of 2-liter bottles, regular, not sugar-free, for under $20. A little pricey when you can buy 3 or 4 store-brand diet cola 2-liters for the price of 1 guarana bottle, but a small price to pay for a great taste I remember from years back. (Rather interesting bottle shape, longer and slimmer body.) I don't want Trump messing with my preferred purchases
I've probably added a dozen or so Twitter followers over the past month, but new followers can be fickle. Sometimes Trumpkins might like my critical tweets on "progressives", and the "progressives" would usually cheer on my critical tweets on Trump. I routinely get slammed by all sides; progressives allege I'm a Russian plant, an alt-right guy or funded by Koch or Mercer. Trumpkins regularly call me a liberal (as in the modern social liberal/progressive sense). I don't generally respond to uncivil tweets (that's what mute or block is for); I really don't mind people disagreeing with me, but be respectful and don't waste my time repeating standard talking points or soundbites.
I've been known to adjust opinions; a dozen years back I was more ambivalent on proactive foreign policy, the Federal Reserve, etc., and I largely bought into the conventional explanation of the atomic bombs (WWII) and the Civil War. Could I change my mind? I go with where the evidence leads me; but on a number of issues, since I started the blog, I've read countless articles from differing points of views; it's possible an argument I haven't considered could flip my opinion.
The point here, it's unlikely to see how I would ever run a successful political campaign, maybe if I was the only opponent to an incumbent Congressman who was outed as a pedophile just before an election. My niche is more to provide a pro-liberty perspective; it's not sure much the extent as the nature of the people who follow me. It would be nice if some of the others in the pro-liberty crowd, like Boudreaux, Block, Tucker, DiLorenzo and others, cited me, but I haven't published anything original in their literature. I've had a couple of testy exchanges with Woods and Tucker on Facebook (Woods took a cheap shot at Romney, and Tucker ridicules the idea of intellectual property.) Make no mistake; I didn't like Romney's being a godfather of ObamaCare, his anti-immigrant policy, or his aggressive neo-con foreign policy, but on paper he was a credible executive who also had to work with an 85% Democrat legislature. He would have never been a Trump.
When I think of Trump, I have mixed emotions. I never bought into his salesman act, but in a deep, crowded field of 15 far more experienced, accomplished politicians(senators and current/former multi-term governors), he quickly attained a 25-30% plurality--and never looked back. It was mixture of admiration and disgust. Romney had faced justifiable criticisms in 2008 for flipping on positions during his Senate contest with Kennedy in the 1990's (most notably abortion). McCain faced a lot of criticism for campaign finance reform and his opposition to Bush's early tax cuts.
But Trump had changed party affiliations multiple times between 1999 and 2012. We are not talking about Hillary Clinton's and Ronald Reagan's principled one-time flips. We are talking about a man who joined Perot's Reform Party to run for President in 1999-2000, and then was a registered Democrat during and beyond the Bush Administration, who had financially backed and endorsed Clinton and then Obama. These are light years beyond the alleged infidelities of Romney and McCain which nearly killed their eventual nominations.
It's the sheer audacity of Trump's blaming Romney's 2012 loss on his "cruel" self-deportation policy and then going astonishingly anti-immigrant with his Mexico prison dumping allegations across the border. his huge Wall, supersized deportations, etc. Never mind the preponderance of GOP policy since the Eisenhower era has been generally pro-immigrant and the fact that unauthorized aliens are actually down over the past 8 years. Similarly, Trump's anti-trade rhetoric is out of step of GOP support for trade (although Trump's crackpot opinions on trade are probably his one point of consistency on policy).
It certainly takes audacity for a man who has had high profile business failures (e.g., his casinos) to paint himself as a "successful" businessman who knows how to grow jobs in America.
How did Trumpian populism succeed given:
- his flagrant actual or attempted abuse of eminent domain
- his advocacy of tariffs, which make lower-income consumers worse off
- his history of self-serving political connections and contributions ?
How did a billionaire with no public policy record manage to win over a majority of delegates? I really don't have a clue. Yes, he had an advantage of universal name recognition. It seemed he tapped into this anti-Establishment message; why anyone would think that Trump is anti-Establishment and is out for the folks vs. his own power and glory? For instance, why would Trump give away the store at Trump University, unless he found it easier to make money from desperate, gullible people than doing the same deals on his own? He didn't like competition in Atlantic City.
Trumpkins buy into Trump's excuses, his comparisons of his listed public corporations going under as equivalent to any of his hundreds of branded (licensed) interests, like Trump Ice?
But on the big issues, Trump alleges that "he" and only he knows how to "make America great" again. And his adversaries are "corrupt" because they're not "rich" like him. Never mind his understanding of public policy is paper-thin, little more than rehearsed soundbites.
Trump has no principles other than maintaining his power. The master dealer can't cut a deal, even with his own party. He's bashing GOP Congressmen, even his own Cabinet members. He creates his own problems with impulsive, ill-considered tweets and public statements. His attempted reform of despised ObamaCare crash and burned. He's losing influence internationally. His job approval rating is stuck in an all-time first-term mid-30's low. He tries to scapegoat his opposition as the Establishment, the fake mainstream news, and anti-American globalism. His principal accomplishments seem to be judicial appointments and some modest deregulation efforts. The job market and the stock market have been doing okay, although to some extent that may reflect unrealistic expectations of long-overdue tax reform--and there are a number of things that could trigger a correction, including North Korea, the upcoming debt ceiling fight, etc.
This was not intended to be yet another NeverTrump rant. But Trump dug a hole for himself in terms of unrealistic expectations. No, there are issues affecting our growth--but Trump is looking at the wrong "answers"--they aren't an issue of immigrant and trade competition. It has more to do to obstacles weighing down the free market.
I do realize that Trump's rhetoric, like threats to tear up NAFTA or impose a 40-odd% tariff on China trade, may be mere posturing. But let's be clear--anything you do to muck up the free market, free trade, and free movement of workers will have a negative impact on the US standard of living, will increase costs of US factors of production and make our products and services less competitive. I'm absolutely convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Trumponomics means a shrinking, not growing economy, and that's bad for job-seekers.
Politicians can make conditions for growth more supportive, e.g., lower uncertainty, make tax rates more competitive, streamline dubious regulations and mandates. The idea is to lessen the government footprint in the markets. If you think a billionaire is a surrogate for the cumulative judgments and transactions of 323M American consumers, you're fatally mistaken.
Finally, Some Guarana This Holiday Weekend
If you've ever read my companion nutrition blog, you know I'm not crazy about soda pop. (I do have my favorites since my youth, principally ginger ale, cream, root beer, Dr. Pepper, and flavored colas (vanilla, cherry, etc.) Oh, and years later I discovered Canfield's Diet Chocolate Fudge.) I was never really an addict; I used to restrict myself to one serving a day. I've basically been having to watch my weight almost my whole adult life and so it's been mostly mostly diet drinks since college. But for the most part, I stopped drinking sodas (except when I travel, which is when I might do fast food). There are various reasons, including the concern over tooth health and the possible metabolic side-effects of artificial sweeteners. As a native Texan, I've drunk innumerable gallons of iced tea, over the last several years sweetened with stevia.I got back on the soda kick during my recent summer relocation from Arizona (mostly to guard against dehydration on the road), but I'm already tapering back down. But during two 1995 business trips to Sao Paulo, Brazil, I developed a taste to the local favorite soft drink, Antartica Guarana. It's difficult to describe the taste, more like a fruity ginger ale. I hadn't had any beyond a few cans I put in my luggage home. The shipping costs for things like soda and bread (e.g., Food For Life sprouted grain) are ridiculous. Recently I came across an offer on Walmart.com for a 6-pack of 2-liter bottles, regular, not sugar-free, for under $20. A little pricey when you can buy 3 or 4 store-brand diet cola 2-liters for the price of 1 guarana bottle, but a small price to pay for a great taste I remember from years back. (Rather interesting bottle shape, longer and slimmer body.) I don't want Trump messing with my preferred purchases
