Blog Credo
Saturday, December 17, 2016
We Are So Screwed
As long as these people lead the Democrats, opposition to Trumpism will be fractured and muted.
Friday, December 16, 2016
Manchester-By-The-Sea
Last night, I saw one of the best movies I've seen in a year full of great movies: Manchester By The Sea. As I described it to a friend, a great eulogy makes you laugh and cry in equal measures and the movie was a lovely eulogy for a man who is still alive.
This morning, I rummaged around to read reviews on the film, which was mostly very well received. However, there were more than a few reviewers who discussed the movie in terms of race, especially the Sad White Person genre (which I didn't know existed). There were talks about privilege, which I found baffling, because the movie deals with a freaking janitor suffering from depression so deep it touches the earth's core.
I understand that discussions of white privilege are precisely about people like the one's in the film, who don't have to add racial anxiety to the otherwise shitty conditions in their life. But while I agree that discussions of white privilege are important, blanket accusations of "privilege" make no sense in the context of many WWC. In fact, all they do is engender the sort of backlash that creates Trump.
This is at the heart of the identity politics/economic populism debate that is currently roiling the Democrats and the Left. In some ways, this is just another form of weird preferences of the Left for moralism over coalition building.
Anyway, it's a helluva movie.
This morning, I rummaged around to read reviews on the film, which was mostly very well received. However, there were more than a few reviewers who discussed the movie in terms of race, especially the Sad White Person genre (which I didn't know existed). There were talks about privilege, which I found baffling, because the movie deals with a freaking janitor suffering from depression so deep it touches the earth's core.
I understand that discussions of white privilege are precisely about people like the one's in the film, who don't have to add racial anxiety to the otherwise shitty conditions in their life. But while I agree that discussions of white privilege are important, blanket accusations of "privilege" make no sense in the context of many WWC. In fact, all they do is engender the sort of backlash that creates Trump.
This is at the heart of the identity politics/economic populism debate that is currently roiling the Democrats and the Left. In some ways, this is just another form of weird preferences of the Left for moralism over coalition building.
Anyway, it's a helluva movie.
Thursday, December 15, 2016
The Anti-Democrats
The GOP is engaged in incredibly scummy behavior in NC. Look, I understand that "politics ain't beanbag." The one thing that disturbs me is the outright assault on the fundamental principle of "one person, one vote." My guess is that Clinton lost NC because of GOP voter suppression. Maybe not, but it was close enough.
As we enter Trumpistan, and we see an economic collapse from terrible policies, plus a war, the GOP will need to rely on assaults on democracy in order to stay in power.
This will get worse.
(Although it looks like there is a plan to fight back.)
As we enter Trumpistan, and we see an economic collapse from terrible policies, plus a war, the GOP will need to rely on assaults on democracy in order to stay in power.
This will get worse.
(Although it looks like there is a plan to fight back.)
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Normalizing Trumpism
Again, to support the "by any means necessary" Hamilton Electors gambit, I offer this chart. It shows, powerfully, the effect of Trumpism multiplied by increasingly high partisanship.
Agree To Disagree
I'm normally a fan of Jon Chait's writing, but I think he's 100% wrong on the issue of the "Hamilton Electors."
Chait says we shouldn't be gaming the EC to deny Trump the presidency. If this isn't the moment for the electors to engage in a critical examination of the results, then there is LITERALLY NO PURPOSE TO THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. If electors are simply ciphers for the state-by-state popular vote, then why have human electors at all? If we take Hamilton's word for it, one of the purposes of the EC was to deny the presidency to people exactly like Trump.
Secondly, if the Hamilton Electors gambit pays off and tosses the election to the House, that would allow the Republicans to really and truly own the trainwreck of whatever comes next. Let's say it goes to the House, with each state getting an equal vote. Republicans enjoy control of 32 of the state delegations. Democrats control 17 with one delegation split 1-1. In other words, let's say 40 Trump electors defect to John Kasich. That would send the election to the House, where they would have to choose between Trump, Clinton and Kasich. If they choose Trump, they truly own everything that comes next. If they choose Kasich, they not only own the Randian dystopia of Republican shitty policies, but they also own the anger of the Trumpenproletariat.
Win-win. (In fact, arguably the worst result for the Democrats would be the GOP throwing the election to Clinton, and creating a four year run of a lame duck.)
Finally, Chait says that the Democrats should eschew "gimmicks" in order to practice normal opposition politics. He notes, as I do, that Trump is likely to be VERY unpopular, and he notes, as I do, that Democrats need to start building towards 2018 and 2020 today. But planning for 2018 and 2020 does not have to come at the exclusion of the Hamilton Electors gambit. You can do both. You should do both.
While I agree that the Democrats should hone their strategy as an opposition party, they should not count on usual methods working. Trump has managed a Chait put it to "suborn his followers into facially absurd lies." The rampant abuse of the notion of objective truth is the hallmark of Trumpism. Four years of a Trump regency would further exacerbate what is already the most chilling political fact about the American political system: one of it's two major parties is factually illiterate. Given the level of polarization, four years of Trump will simply create a cohesive mass of tens of millions of Americans who will believe what Trump says, even if you can prove it to be factually ridiculous.
Trump or Kasich will pursue an agenda that is deeply harmful to American civil rights and liberties, voting rights, economic opportunity and equality and America's role in the world. That's GOING TO HAPPEN.
But Trump represents a threat to the very idea of objective reality that Kasich simply doesn't.
That makes the Hamilton Elector gambit worth the effort.
Chait says we shouldn't be gaming the EC to deny Trump the presidency. If this isn't the moment for the electors to engage in a critical examination of the results, then there is LITERALLY NO PURPOSE TO THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. If electors are simply ciphers for the state-by-state popular vote, then why have human electors at all? If we take Hamilton's word for it, one of the purposes of the EC was to deny the presidency to people exactly like Trump.
Secondly, if the Hamilton Electors gambit pays off and tosses the election to the House, that would allow the Republicans to really and truly own the trainwreck of whatever comes next. Let's say it goes to the House, with each state getting an equal vote. Republicans enjoy control of 32 of the state delegations. Democrats control 17 with one delegation split 1-1. In other words, let's say 40 Trump electors defect to John Kasich. That would send the election to the House, where they would have to choose between Trump, Clinton and Kasich. If they choose Trump, they truly own everything that comes next. If they choose Kasich, they not only own the Randian dystopia of Republican shitty policies, but they also own the anger of the Trumpenproletariat.
Win-win. (In fact, arguably the worst result for the Democrats would be the GOP throwing the election to Clinton, and creating a four year run of a lame duck.)
Finally, Chait says that the Democrats should eschew "gimmicks" in order to practice normal opposition politics. He notes, as I do, that Trump is likely to be VERY unpopular, and he notes, as I do, that Democrats need to start building towards 2018 and 2020 today. But planning for 2018 and 2020 does not have to come at the exclusion of the Hamilton Electors gambit. You can do both. You should do both.
While I agree that the Democrats should hone their strategy as an opposition party, they should not count on usual methods working. Trump has managed a Chait put it to "suborn his followers into facially absurd lies." The rampant abuse of the notion of objective truth is the hallmark of Trumpism. Four years of a Trump regency would further exacerbate what is already the most chilling political fact about the American political system: one of it's two major parties is factually illiterate. Given the level of polarization, four years of Trump will simply create a cohesive mass of tens of millions of Americans who will believe what Trump says, even if you can prove it to be factually ridiculous.
Trump or Kasich will pursue an agenda that is deeply harmful to American civil rights and liberties, voting rights, economic opportunity and equality and America's role in the world. That's GOING TO HAPPEN.
But Trump represents a threat to the very idea of objective reality that Kasich simply doesn't.
That makes the Hamilton Elector gambit worth the effort.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Common Clay Of The New West
You know...Morons.
When you read that piece - and you should - you need to really dig deeper into the reasons why the WWC continually votes against their economic interests.
First of all, as this fine fellow pointed out, they don't necessarily define their interests in economic terms. You hear echoes of it in the interviews about wanting Trump "to shake things up." You also hear, repeatedly, incredulity that the GOP would be so cruel and callous as to wrench away health insurance from tens of millions of Americans. Simultaneously, you hear carping about the unwieldiness and expense of ACA. But as much as they bitch about it, they need it.
Usually, the conventional wisdom that says politicians lie about their plans is wrong. Politicians almost always try to accomplish what they say they want to do. In fact, that's exactly what GOP House members are doing when they talk about cutting Social Security benefits, ending Medicare as we know it and, yes, repealing Obamacare.
This is the wages of cynicism, sure as the voters who pulled the lever for Jill Stein. These voters assumed that Trump wouldn't do what Trump said he would do.
And it will kill some of them.
So, they aren't voting against their economic interests. They are voting FOR their ethnic and racial interests. They are placing a primacy on their whiteness and ruralness over their economic well being. Hey, I get why a rich guy voted for Trump out of the cynical understanding he would get more money from tax cuts. Sickens me, but I get it.
What we have seen from WWC voters - especially in the South, and what is rural Pennsylvania but Pennsyltucky - is a repeated denial of their economic interests in preference for their racial interests.
But, yes, let's talk about how Clinton had a messaging problem.
When you read that piece - and you should - you need to really dig deeper into the reasons why the WWC continually votes against their economic interests.
First of all, as this fine fellow pointed out, they don't necessarily define their interests in economic terms. You hear echoes of it in the interviews about wanting Trump "to shake things up." You also hear, repeatedly, incredulity that the GOP would be so cruel and callous as to wrench away health insurance from tens of millions of Americans. Simultaneously, you hear carping about the unwieldiness and expense of ACA. But as much as they bitch about it, they need it.
Usually, the conventional wisdom that says politicians lie about their plans is wrong. Politicians almost always try to accomplish what they say they want to do. In fact, that's exactly what GOP House members are doing when they talk about cutting Social Security benefits, ending Medicare as we know it and, yes, repealing Obamacare.
This is the wages of cynicism, sure as the voters who pulled the lever for Jill Stein. These voters assumed that Trump wouldn't do what Trump said he would do.
And it will kill some of them.
So, they aren't voting against their economic interests. They are voting FOR their ethnic and racial interests. They are placing a primacy on their whiteness and ruralness over their economic well being. Hey, I get why a rich guy voted for Trump out of the cynical understanding he would get more money from tax cuts. Sickens me, but I get it.
What we have seen from WWC voters - especially in the South, and what is rural Pennsylvania but Pennsyltucky - is a repeated denial of their economic interests in preference for their racial interests.
But, yes, let's talk about how Clinton had a messaging problem.
The Anti-Government
Eugene Robinson makes an interesting point: Trump is not assembling a government, but an anti-government. People with no relevant experience in either government or the agencies they purport to lead. The good news is that Rick Perry might finally remember the name of the Energy Department. Ooops!
Business leaders have a single goal: maximize shareholder value. It gets beaten in to the them in business school. That is exactly not the goal of a cabinet secretary, whose job is to bring the best policy results to the greatest number of people.
This will be the most corrupt and incompetent administration in our republic's history. The difference is that the federal government didn't have enough power in Grant or Harding's day to make it dangerous and there was considerably less money to steal.
But by all means, let's discuss Hillary's emails and how both sides blah blah blah.
Business leaders have a single goal: maximize shareholder value. It gets beaten in to the them in business school. That is exactly not the goal of a cabinet secretary, whose job is to bring the best policy results to the greatest number of people.
This will be the most corrupt and incompetent administration in our republic's history. The difference is that the federal government didn't have enough power in Grant or Harding's day to make it dangerous and there was considerably less money to steal.
But by all means, let's discuss Hillary's emails and how both sides blah blah blah.
Monday, December 12, 2016
I Have Yale Law On My Side
Heather Gerken, a law professor at Yale, has taken up my call for progressive federalism. To be fair, since she's a fancy pants grad school prof, she takes it in other more interesting directions. Her argument is about policy and how federalism can shape policy.
That's a critical part of my thinking, too, but I also want to cast this as a political strategy. Gerken mentions spillovers, which is how one state's actions affect other states. These can be negative - like when one state stops regulating gun purchases and the neighboring state is suddenly awash in guns - but it can also be positive.
California is currently progressive America's best hope. It has an extraordinary market share of the economy. If it could combine with New York and Illinois, it could basically shape important aspects of our economy, from fuel efficiency standards to consumer financial protections. The GDP of those states is around $4.6B. That's roughly the same GDP from those three states as the GDP of all the states Trump carried except North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. And North Carolina and Pennsylvania have Democratic governors.
All I would add to the debate is the idea that blue states need to work together on certain issues. New England and New York could get together and set a new minimum wage. The Pacific coast states could set common energy standards.
But it has to be public, because the most important elections of 2018 might very well be the governors' races. Democrats need to start party building at the state level. Winning governor's mansions in Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio and Wisconsin should be just as important as playing defense in the Senate in a rough electoral map.
This will require three things.
First, it will require an aligned federalism that brings blue states into cooperation with each other to create progressive policies that improve the lives of their citizens and creates a blueprint for other state level candidates to run on.
Second, it will require finding good candidates at the state level who can win those gubernatorial races. No more goddamned Martha Coakleys.
Third, and perhaps most difficult, is getting a DC-bound Democratic party to see the benefit of expending resources on these governor's races when they will be playing defense in the Senate.
Now, if Trumpism is as disastrous as I think it will be, then you can do both.
But the time to start doing both is now.
That's a critical part of my thinking, too, but I also want to cast this as a political strategy. Gerken mentions spillovers, which is how one state's actions affect other states. These can be negative - like when one state stops regulating gun purchases and the neighboring state is suddenly awash in guns - but it can also be positive.
California is currently progressive America's best hope. It has an extraordinary market share of the economy. If it could combine with New York and Illinois, it could basically shape important aspects of our economy, from fuel efficiency standards to consumer financial protections. The GDP of those states is around $4.6B. That's roughly the same GDP from those three states as the GDP of all the states Trump carried except North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. And North Carolina and Pennsylvania have Democratic governors.
All I would add to the debate is the idea that blue states need to work together on certain issues. New England and New York could get together and set a new minimum wage. The Pacific coast states could set common energy standards.
But it has to be public, because the most important elections of 2018 might very well be the governors' races. Democrats need to start party building at the state level. Winning governor's mansions in Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio and Wisconsin should be just as important as playing defense in the Senate in a rough electoral map.
This will require three things.
First, it will require an aligned federalism that brings blue states into cooperation with each other to create progressive policies that improve the lives of their citizens and creates a blueprint for other state level candidates to run on.
Second, it will require finding good candidates at the state level who can win those gubernatorial races. No more goddamned Martha Coakleys.
Third, and perhaps most difficult, is getting a DC-bound Democratic party to see the benefit of expending resources on these governor's races when they will be playing defense in the Senate.
Now, if Trumpism is as disastrous as I think it will be, then you can do both.
But the time to start doing both is now.
Sunday, December 11, 2016
WTF Are We Supposed To Do With These Assholes?
There is literally nothing that exists as truth to these sons of bitches.
An Amplification
Here is what is so terrifying about the Russian involvement in this year's election: the GOP will basically defend it because it brings them into power.
This point needs to be repeated, because it's critical to get beyond this bullshit false equivalency. For every Bernie Bro or Steiniac who was saying that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats? You look like idiots. Absolute simpering, drool-on-yourself idiots.
We have a great deal of evidence - both hard and circumstantial - that Russia wanted Trump to win and worked hard to make that happen. When these allegations are made public, most of the GOP leadership responds by...attacking the CIA. Really?
Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are basically willing to let a foreign power fuck about in our elections, because it gets them closer to funneling tax cuts to the richest 1% and deregulating Goldman Sachs and the petrochemical industries.
They literally are willing to see democracy undermined if it means getting their (unpopular) agenda across the president's desk.
Trump will be a terrible president. He will likely - in no particular chronological order - crash the global trade networks, sparking a recession; start an unnecessary war; engage in unprecedented corruption and personal enrichment; undermine public discourse and unravel centuries of established political norms.
And when the bill comes due - providing there is an election worth having - it is incumbent that we don't allow the GOP to divorce themselves from this shitshow.
They own it, because they can't get beyond the zero-sum political discourse of "anything Democrats say must be the opposite of what we want."
Ugh.
This point needs to be repeated, because it's critical to get beyond this bullshit false equivalency. For every Bernie Bro or Steiniac who was saying that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats? You look like idiots. Absolute simpering, drool-on-yourself idiots.
We have a great deal of evidence - both hard and circumstantial - that Russia wanted Trump to win and worked hard to make that happen. When these allegations are made public, most of the GOP leadership responds by...attacking the CIA. Really?
Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are basically willing to let a foreign power fuck about in our elections, because it gets them closer to funneling tax cuts to the richest 1% and deregulating Goldman Sachs and the petrochemical industries.
They literally are willing to see democracy undermined if it means getting their (unpopular) agenda across the president's desk.
Trump will be a terrible president. He will likely - in no particular chronological order - crash the global trade networks, sparking a recession; start an unnecessary war; engage in unprecedented corruption and personal enrichment; undermine public discourse and unravel centuries of established political norms.
And when the bill comes due - providing there is an election worth having - it is incumbent that we don't allow the GOP to divorce themselves from this shitshow.
They own it, because they can't get beyond the zero-sum political discourse of "anything Democrats say must be the opposite of what we want."
Ugh.
Saturday, December 10, 2016
This Is Why We Are Pissed
In our upcoming New Year's congregation of several families, we have agreed to ban political discussions in order to maintain a sense of comity. OK. This came from one member of the group who apparently said, "You lost, get over it."
I think there are a fair number of Republicans who see it this way. We had an election, the Republican won and now Democrats won't stop crying about it like little babies.
The problem with this thinking is that it fails to encompass how fundamentally radical this transformation could be if we DO stop protesting and fighting about it.
Russia interfered in our electoral process in order to elect a psychologically imbalanced neophyte. Republicans - led by Mitch McConnell - stopped the intelligence agencies from publicizing this information prior to the election, because they wanted to win more than they gave a shit that we were electing a psychologically imbalanced neophyte.
Clinton won a substantial plurality of the popular vote. Trump literally won on a technicality. He is the least popular person ever to enter the White House, and that unpopularity is likely only to increase.
He has empowered a cabal of the most radical people to ever hold power in this country. I'm saying that as a historian and I'm sorry/not sorry if it comes off as hyperbolic. They want to - in no particular order - cut Social Security benefits to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy; privatize Medicare; toss 20-23 million people off their health insurance; roll back as much environmental protection as they possibly can; and of course, FSM only knows what they will do to race relations and immigrants.
Paul Ryan's fiscal plan is a nightmare of upwards redistribution of wealth - already the most pressing economic problem we face, and ironically the thing that "elected" Trump.
So the Trump administration can be summed up in the following ways:
- Of dubious electoral legitimacy, due to outside interference and a failure of the Electoral College.
- A magnification of the concentration of wealth in the 1%.
- An assault on the environment.
- An assault on non-whites.
- An assault on women.
This is why we can't "get over it" because we lost. The Republican Party, over the course of the 21st century has become a radical outlier. They have embraced an extremist agenda of plutocracy, anti-science and vote suppression. This accelerated after Democrats took over the Congress in 2006 - prompted in part by the GOP efforts to privatize Social Security - and so there has always been a buffer between the radicals and the commonweal.
That's gone. We lie naked and exposed to the worst impulses of the Tea Party and the Robber Barons.
My own estimation is that these policies are going to be a disaster. Hopefully, they will be a disaster soon enough to flip at least one house of Congress in 2018. But they will eventually be a disaster.
When that happens - and hopefully there will be enough of America left to salvage - it is incumbent to make sure that we understand the history of these years. It's important that we understand the following.
Donald Trump is not going to screw us over and run us into a ravine. The Republican Party is. They are inseparable.
I think there are a fair number of Republicans who see it this way. We had an election, the Republican won and now Democrats won't stop crying about it like little babies.
The problem with this thinking is that it fails to encompass how fundamentally radical this transformation could be if we DO stop protesting and fighting about it.
Russia interfered in our electoral process in order to elect a psychologically imbalanced neophyte. Republicans - led by Mitch McConnell - stopped the intelligence agencies from publicizing this information prior to the election, because they wanted to win more than they gave a shit that we were electing a psychologically imbalanced neophyte.
Clinton won a substantial plurality of the popular vote. Trump literally won on a technicality. He is the least popular person ever to enter the White House, and that unpopularity is likely only to increase.
He has empowered a cabal of the most radical people to ever hold power in this country. I'm saying that as a historian and I'm sorry/not sorry if it comes off as hyperbolic. They want to - in no particular order - cut Social Security benefits to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy; privatize Medicare; toss 20-23 million people off their health insurance; roll back as much environmental protection as they possibly can; and of course, FSM only knows what they will do to race relations and immigrants.
Paul Ryan's fiscal plan is a nightmare of upwards redistribution of wealth - already the most pressing economic problem we face, and ironically the thing that "elected" Trump.
So the Trump administration can be summed up in the following ways:
- Of dubious electoral legitimacy, due to outside interference and a failure of the Electoral College.
- A magnification of the concentration of wealth in the 1%.
- An assault on the environment.
- An assault on non-whites.
- An assault on women.
This is why we can't "get over it" because we lost. The Republican Party, over the course of the 21st century has become a radical outlier. They have embraced an extremist agenda of plutocracy, anti-science and vote suppression. This accelerated after Democrats took over the Congress in 2006 - prompted in part by the GOP efforts to privatize Social Security - and so there has always been a buffer between the radicals and the commonweal.
That's gone. We lie naked and exposed to the worst impulses of the Tea Party and the Robber Barons.
My own estimation is that these policies are going to be a disaster. Hopefully, they will be a disaster soon enough to flip at least one house of Congress in 2018. But they will eventually be a disaster.
When that happens - and hopefully there will be enough of America left to salvage - it is incumbent to make sure that we understand the history of these years. It's important that we understand the following.
Donald Trump is not going to screw us over and run us into a ravine. The Republican Party is. They are inseparable.
Friday, December 9, 2016
This Is A Good Idea
Let's move some governmental agencies to the Rust Belt. Personally, I would add Montana and Wyoming to that list, because why the hell not. If you were to move the National Geologic Survey and National Weather Service to Missoula, that would have a pretty nice effect on that state's education demographics. Frankly, there needs to be a way to un-do the Big Sort. You can't really coerce private enterprises to do so, but if you moved the National Health Service to Cleveland, you would really change aspects of that community for the betterment of all.
Yes And No
The argument that Trump can be popular by divorcing himself from his own policies is an...interesting one. Presidents get blamed for everything. They get blamed for the weather.
The Trump Two Step is legitimately a thing. Trump is adept at changing the subject from poor policy decisions by doing or saying something outrageous. When a truly troubling story comes out, he quickly does something like insult the cast of Hamilton or pick a fight with some average citizen. And the press - like the freaking morons that they are - follow the shiny object of the latest Tweet and lose the thread of what's really important.
However...Trump's policies are objectively bad ones. He might get a short term bounce out of some of them, but they are mostly crappy and unpopular ideas. If Paul Ryan tries to privatize Medicare or Tom Price shuts down ACA or there is massive fraud in the infrastructure projects or there is an oil spill that the EPA ignores...that will accrue to the President.
Also, some of the ideas that Trump really does seem to care about - notably trade - are also objectively bad ideas. Rumors of a 45% tariff on Chinese goods? That's a colossally bad idea. Same with withdrawing from NAFTA. If tens of thousands of people start losing their jobs AND the price of many consumer goods goes up, then Trump won't be able to distract the masses with a Twitter fight with Lady Gaga.
Increasingly though, the key to surviving Trump is allowing him to pick these trade fights, while opposing rollbacks of important programs domestically, then reaping an electoral harvest in 2018 that will allow them to investigate what is sure to be massive levels of corruption.
Two things to remember about this election. First, Democrats won a bunch more votes. Second, Trump voters are fickle and likely to stay home or flip back to Democrats if they feel betrayed. This isn't the hardcore Teanderthals I'm talking about, but those counties that went from being 60-40 Romney to 80-20 Trump.
The Trump Two Step is legitimately a thing. Trump is adept at changing the subject from poor policy decisions by doing or saying something outrageous. When a truly troubling story comes out, he quickly does something like insult the cast of Hamilton or pick a fight with some average citizen. And the press - like the freaking morons that they are - follow the shiny object of the latest Tweet and lose the thread of what's really important.
However...Trump's policies are objectively bad ones. He might get a short term bounce out of some of them, but they are mostly crappy and unpopular ideas. If Paul Ryan tries to privatize Medicare or Tom Price shuts down ACA or there is massive fraud in the infrastructure projects or there is an oil spill that the EPA ignores...that will accrue to the President.
Also, some of the ideas that Trump really does seem to care about - notably trade - are also objectively bad ideas. Rumors of a 45% tariff on Chinese goods? That's a colossally bad idea. Same with withdrawing from NAFTA. If tens of thousands of people start losing their jobs AND the price of many consumer goods goes up, then Trump won't be able to distract the masses with a Twitter fight with Lady Gaga.
Increasingly though, the key to surviving Trump is allowing him to pick these trade fights, while opposing rollbacks of important programs domestically, then reaping an electoral harvest in 2018 that will allow them to investigate what is sure to be massive levels of corruption.
Two things to remember about this election. First, Democrats won a bunch more votes. Second, Trump voters are fickle and likely to stay home or flip back to Democrats if they feel betrayed. This isn't the hardcore Teanderthals I'm talking about, but those counties that went from being 60-40 Romney to 80-20 Trump.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)