Tag Archives: Trump

Unintended Consequences?

One of the dangers of even thoughtful policymaking is the possibility of unintended consequences; as I used to tell my students, even the best-intended legislative efforts can create unforeseen “spinoffs” that range from unfortunate to truly damaging. That’s why careful attention to policy details, consultation with people having expertise on the subject, and thorough review of available evidence are all so important.

So what happens when people in positions of authority are incapable of thoughtful policymaking and dismissive of evidence and expertise? We are about to face the consequences of policymaking by ignorant egomaniacs, and Paul Krugman has identified some of the most obvious.

Krugman notes that the new PM of Canada has ordered a review of that country’s plan to buy a substantial number of U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets, joining European nations that are similarly reconsidering their dependence on U.S. weapons.

This turn away from military dependence on the U.S. is understandable. America is no longer a reliable ally to the world’s democracies; indeed, between Trump’s turn toward Putin and his talk of annexing Canada and Greenland, we don’t look like an ally at all. Rumors that U.S. jets have a “kill switch” that would allow Trump to disable them at will are probably false, but sophisticated military equipment requires a lot of technical support, so you don’t want to buy it from a country you don’t trust.

He then considered several other emerging responses to the chaos being caused by our mad kings, pointing out that a nation “that can’t be trusted to honor agreements or follow the rule of law has to have monetary as well as political and diplomatic consequences.”

Several of those monetary consequences will be very damaging. Krugman says he’s been exploring the available data, and “U.S. exposure to foreign revulsion looks quite large.”

Military hardware isn’t the only export likely to suffer from our new rogue nation status. Our trade deficit in goods is partly offset by a surplus in services trade, but several of our major service exports will definitely be hurt by America’s turn to the dark side.

One of these is education. Many foreigners come to America to study, attracted by the quality of our colleges and universities. In 2023, the most recent year for which data are available, they spent more than $50 billion. But if you were a foreigner considering study in the U.S. next year, wouldn’t you be worried that you might find yourself arrested and deported for expressing what the current administration considers anti-American views? I would. So we can expect a hit to higher education, which, although we rarely think of it this way, is a major U.S. export.

Personal travel — basically tourism — was even bigger, more than $100 billion. But you can be sure that we’ll be seeing a lot fewer Canadians this year and next. And it won’t just be Canadians reconsidering their plans.

Media is already reporting cratering European tourism.

Krugman admits that he’s much more worried about Trump’s threat to our democracy than his bad economic policies. He also notes that– even in purely economic terms–the self-inflicted damage from tariffs and deportations is likely to outweigh the costs caused by other countries’ loss of trust in the United States. That said, those costs are real.

One way to think about this is to say that Trump is doing to America what Elon Musk is doing to Tesla, destroying a valuable brand through erratic behavior and repulsive ideology. Did I mention that Tesla sales in Europe appear to be cratering?

True, there are differences between a private business and a nation-state. I don’t think people visiting Tesla showrooms are subject to random arrest, or that Musk will kill your car if you say something he doesn’t like (although to be honest I’m not entirely sure on either count, especially since Musk seems to be running much of the government.) On the other hand, Tesla depends a lot more on buyer goodwill than the United States as a whole does.

Still, Trump’s belief that America holds all the cards, that the rest of the world needs access to our markets but we don’t need them, is all wrong. We are rapidly losing the world’s trust, and part of the cost will be financial.

I think it’s unlikely that either of our mad megalomaniacs considers the probable or improbable consequences of their actions. The hard core of MAGA cultists will refuse to acknowledge even the outcomes that negatively affect them (and the data suggests that Red states will likely bear the brunt).

We can only hope that a sufficient number of “softer” Trump supporters will realize that the costs of voting their racism have become too high.

Comments

Doonesbury Understands What MAGA Doesn’t…

I tried to reproduce last Sunday’s Doonesbury cartoon in lieu of today’s post, but my digital skills weren’t up to the task, so I will have to describe and discuss it instead.

The comic strip’s radio personality, Mark, gets a call from Al Gore. The conversation focuses on what Mark says was Gore’s “jam”–government efficiency. Gore explains that it had indeed been his “job one” as Vice President, and that in the space of seven years that effort had reduced the federal workforce by 426,000 workers, consolidated 800 agencies and eliminated 640,000 pages of rules.

When Mark says “Wait. Why didn’t I know any of that,” Gore responds “You didn’t notice because the process was carefully planned and responsibly executed. It never disrupted essential public services. Compare that to now.”

As I read that comic strip, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. (Okay, I did both.)

In just a few panels, Gary Trudeau made an essential point: if your intent was really to improve service delivery, to root out fraud and waste (and in most bureaucracies, very much including government, waste is a far more prevalent problem than intentional fraud), you would go about that task carefully. Responsibly. You wouldn’t approach it with what Paul Krugman has aptly called a group of Dunning-Kruger interns and a meat-ax.

You would take the time to determine what each agency did, and take care not to lose valuable institutional knowledge with your layoffs and firings–especially when that knowledge was essential to the management of things like atomic weaponry. You would learn the vagaries of government’s (frequently antiquated) digital systems, and avoid jumping to incorrect conclusions, avoiding ludicrous and easily debunked assertions that millions of dead Americans are receiving Social Security checks.

It has become abundantly clear that Musk’s manic exhibit with a chain-saw was a perfect representation of his real motive: to destroy the federal government–what the Rightwing crazies call their war against “the administrative state.”

I think there are two distinct reasons for pursuing that destruction, although they are not mutually exclusive. (Musk rather obviously falls into both categories.)

One motivation for the chain-saw approach is the naive and increasingly divorced from reality belief that we don’t really need government, except perhaps to maintain law and order. All those regulations that–among other things– keep your groceries safe to eat, prevent your bank from ripping you off and keep your airplane from crashing, and all those silly programs that do things like feed schoolchildren and support cancer research–and especially all those intrusive rules that prevent you from discriminating against people who have different skin colors, genders or religions–all of that activity is an unnecessary intrusion on your individual rights.

Once Musk bought Twitter and turned it into the cesspool of bigotry and ignorance that is now called X, his belief that government should operate minimally– and only for the benefit of rich White men– became clear. (As if we’d failed to notice..)

The second motivation is greed. We’ve seen the billionaires “bend the knee” to an administration that is hell-bent on destroying the economic system that facilitated their acquisition of wealth, evidently in the belief that when markets crash and they are free of regulations and that pesky rule of law, they will be in a position to buy low. (Their accompanying belief that they will be able to sell high after a time, however, is fatally flawed–stock values are unlikely to rebound in the absence of a stable democratic society, just as America’s reputation as a reliable ally is unlikely to recover in our lifetimes, if ever.)

Sometimes, uncomfortable truths are better conveyed by humor than by the efforts of would-be pundits writing blogs like this one. People of a certain age still quote a very famous Pogo strip for an essential insight: We have met the enemy and he is us.

The question we are now facing is: how many of us are willing to confront that particular insight? How many of us are willing to accept the unavoidable inefficiencies and annoyances that come with a government able to serve us all–and to fight for its preservation?

I guess we’ll find out…..

Comments

What Real Conservatives Understand

Bret Stephens is a conservative columnist for the New York Times. He recently penned an essay titled “Democracy Dies in Dumbness”–a take-off the Washington Post’s slogan “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” That essay made two points I’ve tried to convey here.

Genuine conservatives, like Stephens, are appalled by what is being done by the MAGA radicals who are routinely identified as conservative. MAGA, Trump and Musk are anything but, and to label them such is an affront to actual conservatives. The second point–and the one amply documented in Stephens’ essay– is that the most obvious element of this horrific administration is its profound stupidity.

A lot of people, especially well-meaning “libruls,” strain to find some nefarious logic to the disasters Trump is perpetrating in Washington–some evidence that he’s an “evil genius,” or at the very least operating with some sort of intent, misplaced though it may be. To this I say bullfeathers! He’s ignorant, very stupid and also very clearly mentally ill. (I leave it to each of you to decide what that says about those in his devoted MAGA base.)

Stephens detailed much of the ignorance:

It used to be common knowledge — not just among policymakers and economists but also high school students with a grasp of history — that tariffs are a terrible idea. The phrase “beggar thy neighbor” meant something to regular people, as did the names of Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis Hawley. Americans broadly understood how much their 1930 tariff, along with other protectionist and isolationist measures, did to turn a global economic crisis into another world war. Thirteen successive presidents all but vowed never to repeat those mistakes.

Until Donald Trump. Until him, no U.S. president had been so ignorant of the lessons of history. Until him, no U.S. president had been so incompetent in putting his own ideas into practice.

Stephens labels Trump “a willful, erratic and heedless president,” and says he’s prepared to risk both the U.S. and the global economy “to make his ideological point.” I disagree with him only on his evident belief that Trump has an “ideological point.”  I really doubt that Trump could spell ideological, let alone that he possess an articulable “point” he wants to make. He acts solely out of grievance, racism, anger and an insatiable desire for attention–as the inconsistency of his impulsive and damaging actions show, there is no coherent belief system motivating any of this.

Stephens does take on the obvious stupidity:

The Department of Government Efficiency won’t end well. It is neither a department nor efficient — and “government efficiency” is, by Madisonian design, an oxymoron. A gutted I.R.S. work force won’t lower your taxes; it will delay your refund. Mass firings of thousands of federal employees won’t result in a more productive work force; it will mean a decade of litigation and billions of dollars in legal fees. High-profile eliminations of wasteful spending (some real, others not) won’t make a dent in federal spending; they’ll mask the untouchable drivers of our $36 trillion debt: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense.

Just as you don’t cure cancer by shutting down cancer research, walking away from NATO won’t achieve greater security for anyone, including ourselves. What passes for Trumpian foreign policy has already done incalculable damage. His “policy”– centered on cozying up to Russia– is monumentally stupid; as Stephens notes, what Trump has achieved internationally is a Russia that sees even less reason to settle, a Europe that sees more reason to go its own way, a China that believes America will eventually fold, and a once-again betrayed Ukraine that will have even less reason to trust international guarantees of its security.

In his last paragraph, Stephens makes a point with which I entirely agree.

Trump’s critics are always quick to see the sinister sides of his actions and declarations. An even greater danger may lie in the shambolic nature of his policymaking. Democracy may die in darkness. It may die in despotism. Under Trump, it’s just as liable to die in dumbness.

I just hope that there will be a government to salvage when we finally eject Trump, Musk, the clown show they’ve assembled and the sorry bunch of Christian Nationalists and elected invertebrates who continue to enable them.

Comments

The Real DEI

As Trump and Musk continue to destroy the government agencies that monitor or prevent the illegal activities that enrich them, they’ve pursued an ancillary effort that lays bare the source of Trump’s narrow electoral win: MAGA’s war on “wokism” in general and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs in particular.

As I have previously noted, the animosity toward efforts to address social and legal discrimination are part and parcel of an unfortunate but persistent strain of American bigotry. To our shame, millions of Americans have defended slavery and Jim Crow, opposed votes for women, donned white sheets and marched with the Ku Klux Klan. Others–who were less virulent but no less bigoted–merely refrained from hiring or otherwise doing business with minority folks, and blackballed Blacks and Jews from their country clubs and other venues.

The current assaults, ironically, are evidence of the nation’s historic protection of straight White Christian males from the uncomfortable reality that they are not a superior breed. It turns out that intellect, character and ability–and absences thereof– are pretty equally distributed among all races, religions and genders.

For confirmation of that fact, we need look no farther than the collection of clowns, incompetents and sycophants Trump has installed in important positions, and compare them to the credentialed and competent “DEI hires” he ejected from those same positions. If we ever needed evidence that White skin is no guarantee of intelligence, integrity or competence, virtually all of Trump’s appointees provide that evidence.

Trump’s base undoubtedly approves of the ferocity with which the administration has pursued its assault on anti-discrimination efforts, but it turns out that Americans in general have moved on from the days when your police chief was a disciple of Sheriff James Clark and your friendly banker or dentist was a Grand Dragon of the KKK.

A recent article in the Atlantic looked at the survey research, and concluded that the extreme positions—and appointments—of the Trump administration are wildly at odds with the views of most Americans.

The extreme positions—and appointments—of the Trump administration are self-evidently at odds with Americans’ views in the main. Recently, Trump appointed Darren Beattie to a senior diplomatic position at the State Department. Beattie is notorious for making arguments such as “Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men.” I don’t need to look at survey data to argue that this is a fringe position.

Earlier in the article, the author did look at survey data, and shared evidence of Americans’ views on DEI efforts in general.

Given the way this administration has targeted DEI and “woke” policies, you’d be forgiven for assuming that Americans were completely on board. Yet according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted right before the election, just one-fifth of employed adults think that focusing on DEI at work is “a bad thing.” Even among workers who are Republican or lean Republican, a minority (42 percent) say that focusing on DEI is “a bad thing.” In a January poll from Harris/Axios, a majority of Americans said DEI initiatives had no impact on their career; more respondents among nearly every demographic polled (including white people, men, and Republicans) said they believed it had benefited their careers more than it had hindered them. (The sole, amusing exception being Gen X.) A June 2024 poll from The Washington Post and Ipsos found that six in 10 Americans believed DEI programs were “a good thing.” And all of this was before any backlash to Trump’s presidency had time to set in.

An early signal that the administration is overreaching comes from a Washington Post poll on early Trump-administration actions, which found that voters oppose ending DEI programs in the federal government (49–46) and banning trans people from the military (53–42). When asked about one of Trump’s signature issues, deportation, the poll showed that, by a nearly 20-point margin, Americans do not want people to be deported if they “have not broken laws in the United States except for immigration laws.” It’s hard to imagine that those same Americans approve of sending a man to Gitmo for riding his bike on the wrong side of the street, or of calling a city’s administrator for homelessness services a “DEI hire” because she’s a white woman.

If there’s one thing Trump excels at, it’s demonstrating that White Christian men are not universally superior–and that those who most resent DEI tend to be both unintelligent and dangerously inept.

Comments

Who Do You Distrust?

In 2009, I wrote a book titled “Distrust, American Style.” The publisher’s blurb summed up its theme: “When people wake up every morning to a system that doesn’t respond to their efforts or accomodate their most basic needs, it should not be surprising that they don’t face the day with an abundance of trust.”

Declining trust has ominous implications for something that sociologists call social capital--the relationships among members of society that facilitate individual and/or collective action. The term refers to networks of human relationships that are characterized by reciprocity and trust. As one scholarly paper has put it, social capital is the lubricant that facilitates getting things done, that allows people to work together and benefit from social relationships. It is absolutely essential to the internal coherence of society– the “glue” that facilitates social and economic functioning.

It isn’t really necessary to understand the functioning and varieties of social capital to understand the importance of trust. Think about your daily activities: you drop your favorite sweater off at the cleaners, trusting that it will be returned–clean. You deposit your paycheck in your bank, trusting that the funds will be credited to your account and available to spend. You  pick up a prescription, trusting that the medication has been properly prepared and is safe. At the grocery, you trust that food you buy is safe to eat. You board a plane, trusting that it will not crash into another mid-air.

You get the picture. In the absence of trust, society and the economy cannot function. And an enormous amount of that trust is based upon effective and competent government regulation of banks, food processors and air traffic (among other things).

In my book, I examined the decline of social trust, and the theories being offered for that decline. Robert Putnam suggested that growing diversity had eroded interpersonal trust; my own research pointed to a different culprit: the prominent failures of religious,  business and governmental institutions. When I wrote the book, America was in the midst of widely-reported scandals: Enron and other major companies engaging in illegal activities, sports figures taking performance-enhancing drugs, the Catholic Church covering up priestly child molestation, and several others. We were just emerging from an Iraq war widely understood to have been waged on specious grounds.

My conclusion was that fish rot from the head–that when a citizenry is no longer able to trust its economic and governing and religious institutions–especially its governing institutions– that lack of trust threatens essential elements of social functioning.

In the years since, our entire environment has become rife with distrust. White Christian Nationalists suspect and reject most elements of modernity; we’re faced with the enormous gap between the rich and the rest (and evidence that not all the rich amassed those fortunes ethically or legally); we have a rogue judiciary, a castrated Congress, and most recently a federal coup by mentally-ill autocrats intent upon destroying the government agencies that have been most effective at earning citizens’ trust.

A recent Gallup Poll surveyed the trust landscape, to determine who we still trust–and who we don’t.

Three in four Americans consider nurses highly honest and ethical, making them the most trusted of 23 professions rated in Gallup’s annual measurement. Grade-school teachers rank second, with 61% viewing them highly, while military officers, pharmacists and medical doctors also earn high trust from majorities of Americans.

The least trusted professions, with more than half of U.S. adults saying their ethics are low or very low, are lobbyists, members of Congress and TV reporters.

Of the remaining occupations measured in the Dec. 2-18, 2024, poll, six (including police officers, clergy and judges) are viewed more positively than negatively by Americans, although with positive ratings not reaching the majority level. The other nine, notably including bankers, lawyers and business executives, are seen more negatively than positively, with  more than 50% rating their ethics low.

That poll was conducted before the takeover of our government by Trump and Musk, before the clearly illegal, unethical and untruthful activities that have–in Steve Bannon’s immortal words–“flooded the zone with shit.” Even before that assault, Gallup reported that there had been a serious long-term decline in Americans’ confidence in U.S. institutions. Trust in Judges, police and clergy has plummeted.

In that 2009 book, I wrote that the trustworthiness of business and nonprofit enterprises depends on the ability of government to play its essential role as “umpire,’ impartially applying and reliably enforcing the rules. When government is not trustworthy, when citizens cannot rely on the Food and Drug Administration, the FAA or the Social Security Administration, among others, trust and social capital decline.

We’re back to Hobbes’ state of nature.

Comments