It's The Economy, Stupid (Or, It's Stupid's Economy)

I suppose the good news after last night's whiney rant is that the lunatic in the White House hadn't decided to invade Venezuela (yet). But even if you somehow believe that Trump is an effective leader, what specifically, did last night's rage fest accomplish?

I think you know the answer to that: not a thing. 

It's a characteristic of our political climate that the electorate will blame any bad news on whoever happens to be occupying the Oval Office. During the last half of President Biden's term there were two major things that reflected badly on him and his administration. 

1. Immigration: there was a record number of people entering the country at the Southern border. Not all of them were coming in illegally, but the immigration system was being overwhelmed and the not-unreasonable assumption was that things were out of control. 
2. The economy: inflation had risen to near-record levels in 2022, and although the inflation rate had dropped to close to normal levels by 2024, the higher prices it had engendered hadn't gone away.

Trump capitalized on these two weaknesses. I'll save immigration for another day, but Biden did himself no favors by trying to convince the voters that their perceptions about the state of the economy were wrong. As far as the big picture went, he had a point. Average wages had risen as prices went up. The higher prices were never going to go back down—and we don't realistically want them to. Deflation can be just as bad as inflation. Wholesale reduction in prices means that profit margins go down—and when that happens the first thing that business owners do to compensate is reduce staffing—people lose their jobs. Then we have unemployment rising. But most people don't think about the big picture, they look at their own situation. For some, they haven't benefitted from the average increase in wages, so their paycheck doesn't go as far. For most, there is a perception of what a reasonable price for something should be, and even if their wages went up to help them afford the higher prices, they still think the old price is the right price. 

The economic situation, real and perceived, gave many voters the cover they needed to ignore all the many things that made Trump an unsuitable president. After all, wasn't the economy humming along nicely when he was president?

Yes and no. Most economic indicators were positive during Trump's first term. Unemployment was low, the stock market was rising, job creation was robust, inflation was within normal, low levels. Of course, all of this was simply a continuation of the trend that started during the Obama administration. But it made for an effective campaign point: Biden > high inflation/bad economy; Trump > no inflation/good economy. Simplistic, but effective...as long as you didn't have the slightest understanding of economics. Because if you did understand economics you'd realize that the inflation of 2022 was mostly due to the supply chain disruptions that started in 2020 (who was president in 2020?) and Econ 101 supply and demand when the world mostly opened up in 2021. It was unavoidable. 

By 2024 things were starting to settle down. Prices were never going to go back down, but neither were wages. Even minimum wages were up in most states. Inflation was slowly dropping. Trump could have coasted, doing nothing and subsequently taking credit as the economy righted itself. He could have still campaigned on what a mess that Biden had made of the economy, and comparing Biden's economy to his first term. Instead he implausibly promised to end inflation and to roll back prices on "day one". He could have pointed out that "fixing the economy" would be a year-long project and set a goal of returning inflation to a normal level, increasing job creation, and keeping unemployment low, to be accomplished at the one year mark. He could have sat back and done nothing, other than perhaps his tax credits for tips and overtime, and taken the credit as the economy adjusted. 

But not only did he make unattainable promises, but he took action to make the situation worse. There is no question that his tariff actions (I can't bring myself to call it a policy) exacerbated the problems, keeping inflation higher than it would have otherwise been due to the tariffs being paid by consumers. What makes it worse is that there's no logical reason for most of the tariffs (See my blog on tariffs from April). While normally inflation rises and falls without any contributing action by the president, in this case, it's inarguable that this president directly caused the economic mess that we're currently in. 

But, as usual with Trump, it's never his fault. He blames his predecessor. He throws money at the problem (or says he will). He whines about the unfairness of it all. He invents statistics that are often mathematically impossible. That's what you get when you elect an ignorant, incompetent, moron.

And, unless he dies first, we're stuck with him for another three years

Presidential Character

Character is a slippery, if not ephemeral, thing. It's one of those things that is difficult to define, but we know it when we see it. But does it actually matter when it comes to our elected officials? It does and it doesn't. It depends on what you prioritize. 

If your priority is "getting things done" (with the "things" being the policies that you agree with) then all that matters is that those "things" get done. If the policies being implemented are those that one is opposed to, then character traits might seem more important. Three decades ago Bill Clinton's character was so important to Republicans that he was impeached for lying to Congress about a sexual act with someone not his wife. His marital infidelities were prima facie evidence to them that he was a bad president. Democrats were willing to overlook his cheating because he was their cheater, implementing their policies. We often intuit that dishonesty in one area necessarily means general untrustworthiness, but it's not that simple. People who fudge the truth about their finances on their tax return don't automatically cheat on their spouses. Someone who takes home paper clips from the office generally isn't robbing banks or embezzling company funds. 

No one expects politicians to be perfect, to be completely free of any flaws. We generally put up with minor peccadillos. Donald Trump is in a whole 'nother category.

While we elect people primarily to enact policies with which we agree, it's also true that they are elected to represent all the people in their constituency, not label those who didn't vote for them as enemies to be rolled over like a conquering army. We should expect a certain level of respect from our elected officials. Trump, rather than treating our citizens with even a minimal level of respect, treats anyone who is not actively kissing his ass with utter contempt. He reacts to legitimate questions as a personal attack, responding with childish name calling and vicious rhetoric. How can we trust someone with such a hair trigger temper and an immature response to any challenge to make reasonable, rational decisions affecting the security and prosperity of our nation? How did we get to the point where treating people like garbage has become normal and acceptable?

One thing about the presidency that we have long understood, if only on a subconscious level, is the president, in addition to being an administrator and executive, is also the face of the whole nation. In the previous paragraph I addressed "representing" in the sense that he carries out the will of the people. But he also represents us in the same way a nation's flag, national anthem, or any other symbol represents us as a people. The president is what citizens of other nations see when they envision "America". Most voters have barely a surface understanding of policy, if that. They vote based on the image that their candidate portrays. The president is a distillation of American-ness to the electorate. What does the fact that we have twice elected Trump say?

It's not like Trump's horrible character was a secret. It was well known that he was a dishonest businessman, often looking for ways to avoid paying contractors and defaulting on bank loans. His family business was credibly accused of racial discrimination. He cheated his siblings out of their share of his father's business. He bankrupted casinos. The NY Times ran several articles detailing his shady business and tax avoidance practices. He sexually assaulted women and was recorded bragging about it. He boasted on Howard Stern's radio show of walking in on contestants in a beauty pageant while they were in various states of undress because, according to him he "was the owner, and therefore inspecting it". His presidential campaign was a full of bigotry, misogyny, and other assorted hatred. 

It says much that around half of the electorate, for the last three elections, believes that a misogynistic, bigoted, hate-filled man who brags about sexual assault, cheats on his taxes and screws over small owners represents them. Many of these same voters were horrified...horrified! that Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, yet had no problem with Trump, who cheated on his first wife, married his girlfriend, then cheated on her with the one who would be his third wife, then cheated on her with a porn actress, paying her off so she wouldn't tell anyone. 

There were reports this week that Trumpers, after hearing his hate-filled diatribe about the murdered Rob Reiner, had finally had enough. I don't believe it. The core MAGA voter has laughed at similar statements for the last ten years with no indication that character matters to them. There's been barely a peep over the childish and disrespectful "Presidential Walk Of Fame", or whatever he's calling it, outside the Oval Office, where a photo of an autopen sets in place of President Biden's portrait, and ugly, partisan accusations fill the plaques describing the presidencies of Joe Biden and Barack Obama.  

Our fellow Americans, quite a few of them, believe that this is who we are. 

Trump's War-Ending Scorecard

Trump's continuing to claim that he ended eight wars, here's an update. 

Trump has claimed that he has ended eight wars, part of his pathetic grasping for a Nobel Peace Prize. But has he?

1. Israel-Gaza:

I wrote about this recently. In this article I showed how the supposed "New Dawn of Peace in the Middle East" was virtually identical to the cease fire that was in place when he took office in January which was over in March. This one has already been violated multiple times. Hamas has not agreed to several of the terms, in fact they were not consulted and had the "agreement" imposed upon them.

Update: ceasefire violations are continuing on a daily basis. None of the other items in the "20 Point Peace Plan" have been started

2. Pakistan-India:

It wasn't a war, just another in the many border scuffles that these two countries have engaged in since their existence. India says that Trump has nothing to do with the cessation of hostilities which were negotiated directly between India and Pakistan.

Update: ceasefire has held

3. Rwanda-Democratic Republic of The Congo:

These two countries have had on again-off again periods of border fighting for years. As well as cease fires and "peace agreements" that are regularly violated. Peace talks are ongoing, as are the violations of the cease fire. 

Update: The so-called peace agreement was signed with great fanfare at the "United States Institute Of Peace", recently named "Donald J. Trump Institute Of Peace" on Thursday December 4th, but fighting has not stopped

4. Thailand-Cambodia:

After a week of cross-border fighting, Malaysia brokered a ceasefire. The only involvement by Trump was a threat to leave high tariffs in place. 

Update: fighting has broken out again

5. Armenia-Azerbaijan:

These two former Soviet Republics have been fighting over where the border should be since they achieved independence. The biggest disagreement has been over Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan effectively ejected all Armenians from the enclave, making the settlement of the conflict moot. 

Update: No active fighting, but core issues have not been addressed, let alone solved

6. Egypt-Ethiopia:

Not even fighting, let alone a war. They're arguing over water use. 

Update: there never was a war, not even border skirmishes. Still none. 

7. Serbia-Kosovo:

Also no fighting. Trump is claiming that he stopped a war before it started.

Update: there never was a war, not even border skirmishes. Still none. 

8. Israel-Iran:

Israel had been conducting preemptive strikes against Iran and it's regional non-state allies like Hezbollah in tandem with its war against Hamas. Israel and Iran traded missile strikes for 12 days, ending after Trump had our military drop a bomb on Iran's nuclear facility. Iran declined to escalate. There is no peace agreement, but their is a cessation of hostilities. 

Update: There's been no resumption of hostilities

So here's the score:

• Diplomatic disagreements that involved no fighting whatsoever and therefore there was nothing to end: 2
• Fighting that stopped after we dropped a huge bomb on one side: 1
• Peace plan with a cease fire that is currently being violated: 3
• Conflicts that involved decades-long border fighting that will likely continue, but the ceasefire is currently holding: 2
• Actual lasting peace: 0

Meanwhile, the one war that we were involved in, Afghanistan, which he campaigned on ending in his first term, was not ended in his first term. And of course, the Russia-Ukraine war, which claimed he could end "in 24 hours, even before he was inaugurated" is still going on. 

Update: The Navy is blowing up boats of alleged drug smugglers near Venezuela, and threatening to invade the country and depose its president. He has impounded a Venezuelan oil tanker and has "surrounded" the country with an "armada". 

Wannabe Dictator, Autocrat, Authoritarian, King...It's All Semantics - Part VIII - Attempts to Control Information & News Media

The New York Times recently published an article Are We Losing Our Democracy? where they looked at various signs of dictatorship or autocracy and whether we had crossed that line. (I also provided the text in a Facebook post for those without NY Times access). I am going to look at each segment in turn and provide my own thoughts. 

#8 - Attempts to Control Information and News Media

Democratic governments prize accurate information as a guide to decision-making. Authoritarians seek to suppress inconvenient truths.

While this overlaps somewhat with Part I - Stifling Dissent and Free Speech, it goes much farther than that. Trump, going back to his first term, has been working overtime to undermine faith and confidence in a free press. Whatever you think about the major, mainstream, news organizations, however biased you believe they are, however beholden to corporate interests, they have resources and access that we, as ordinary citizens, do not. Trump, with his dismissal of any reporting that he doesn't like as "fake news" has convinced half of the voting public that anything negative about him is a lie. He has painted most of the media as "the enemy of the people"—a choice of words any dictator would love. 

Not satisfied with killing their reputation, Trump has weaponized the courts, filing lawsuits against ABS, Paramount (owner of CBS), Meta (owner of Facebook), YouTube—all which have settled for millions of dollars. Lawsuits against the New York Times and Wall Street Journal are underway. He has pressured Congress to defund NPR and to eliminate the Corporation For Public Broadcasting. News organization that cross him are barred from covering the White House; those who report on the Pentagon, other than a handful of right wing pseudo-journalists, have been banned for refusing to sign a restrictive agreement to only report pre-approved information. 

He has used his so-called Department of Government Efficiency to shut down departments that compile statistics critical for informed governmental decisions. He fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after the agency reported disappointing job growth this summer. He shut down federal data collection efforts related to climate change, presumably because the information might encourage people to take action.

In place of an independent and free press, Mr. Trump evidently hopes to create a shadow ecosystem willing to promote his interests and talking points.

Part I - Stifling Dissent and Free Speech

Part II - Persecution of Political Opponents

Part III - Bypassing the Legislature

Part IV - Using The Military For Domestic & Political Purposes

Part V - Defies The Courts

Part VI - Declares National Emergencies Under False Pretenses

Part VII - Vilifies Marginalized Groups

The Daisies in the Dell Will Give Off a Different Smell

This is an update of an article I wrote in July 2024

If Donald Trump were to drop dead of a heart attack today, this country would be a better place. 

In the days after the murder of Charlie Kirk, anyone pointing out how the world was a better place without him, or how he himself said that gun violence was a fair price to be paid for the Second Amendment, was accused of "celebrating" his death. I would imagine that the death of Donald Trump would inspire celebrating that would require no interpretation. 

No, I am not suggesting that political assassination is a good thing nor am I wishing that the bullet had struck a fraction of an inch to the right. I didn't make jokes about the attempt on Trump's life; nor was I sharing "clever" memes. It's not funny. Even as bad as things are now, that's not how to do things. (Although I have to wonder whether the assassination attempt was a false flag where the bystander was collateral damage)

But do I think Trump dying (of natural causes) is a good thing? Absolutely. 

Politics is, and always has been, a dirty business. Idealistic people of all political persuasions run for office but get caught up in the system and often are corrupted to greater or lesser degree. They spend so much time and effort raising money and campaigning for the next election that it's amazing that anything ever gets done. Members of the House of Representatives are up for re-election every two years! But Trump is an entirely different political animal. Policy is beside the point with him and his legions of followers are loyal to him no matter what he does and says. He is upfront about wanting to tear down any semblance of democratic institutions—the danger that he poses is well known and documented in detail. 

But what about Project 2025 and the many Trump supporters who have been taking over the Republican party? Wouldn't they still be a threat? Of course. The anti-abortion movement didn't suddenly spring up in 2017; Mitch McConnell was stealing Supreme Court seats during Obama's time in the White House. But the grass roots support, voters who will turn out for their guy, just wouldn't be there to the same extent without Trump. I was in a cult and have seen first hand what happens to a cult when their charismatic leader dies. And make no mistake about it, Trumpism, "MAGA" if you will, is a cult. Can you see anyone in MAGA-land who can energize the crowds like Trump does? Anyone who can, without fail, cause millions of people to believe their every lie? 

That person does not exist.

The reason that Project 2025 is such a threat is that its authors counted on Trump getting elected. They counted on Trump appointing 2025-friendly cabinet members and staff. Since the Republicans have a majority in both the House and Senate they are counting on Trump bullying members into supporting the program. If the Democrats had won one or both Houses of Congress they would have been counting on Trump using executive orders or novel constitutional interpretations to achieve their goals. It all falls apart without Trump. All the local MAGA election officials, school board members, county board members, they all lose interest and fade away without Trump. Even with Trump, Trumpism isn't the overwhelming choice of the electorate. Trump received more votes than Harris in the last election, but it was a statistical dead heat with Trump receiving slightly less than a majority of votes cast. 

As long as he is alive Trump is a threat. Even if he had lost we'd have seen a repeat of "Stop the Steal". It wouldn't have been Confederate Wannabes and Sentient Oakleys beating up cops with flagpoles, or Rudy Giuliani's hair dye running down his forehead, it would have been real lawyers flooding the zone with lawsuits and challenges just inside the boundaries of legality. Without Trump, no one cares. And you don't have the MAGA cult leader telling them to care. 

Trump isn't the brains behind MAGA. He is the figurehead. He was never anything but ignorant of how anything worked, and incompetent at getting anything done. When he really pushes an idea, like his tariffs, they fail spectacularly. Reducing the size of government may have been a long standing conservative dream, but Trump's DOGE was a chaotic mess. Trump has never been a particularly articulate speaker. He'd play his greatest hits at his rallies (Build The Wall, Locker Her Up) and people would cheer, but listen to him with an objective ear—he was usually borderline incoherent, and now, in 2025, it's not even borderline. 

Listening to him these days and it's impossible to come to any conclusion other than that he's driving on Dementia Road. He forgets things that he sometimes just said, lashes out with little provocation, and rambles on with only a tenuous connection to reality. It's clear that the day-to-day running of the government is being directed by his subordinates. But once he's gone, his influence over the MAGA cult goes with him, and those subordinates have to rebuild that mindless loyalty. 

Will Project 2025 still exist, still embedded in the government? Will there still be Republicans intent upon dismantling our institutions? Will many rural Americans still be convinced that the Democrats are a bunch of baby-killing, gun grabbing communists? Yes, yes, and yes. But does anyone think that J.D. Vance (or whatever his name is) has the charisma to mesmerize the MAGA cult the way Trump does? In the religious cult that I was in, when the founder died, his top lieutenants fought among themselves and the cult splintered in many small groups, all claiming to be carrying on the legacy of the founder. That's what will happen to the MAGA cult. Vance will claim the MAGA banner, one of the Trump family will do the same; various Republicans will all shout from the rooftops that they are the true heirs of the orange buffoon. 

Trump can't live forever, and the poison that he has spread will take a while to dissipate, but there is no doubt that the country will be a better place without him in it. 

And the daisies in the dell will give off a different smell 'cause Donnie is underneath the ground. *

* Apologies to Rogers and Hammerstein

Wannabe Dictator, Autocrat, Authoritarian, King...It's All Semantics - Part VII - Vilifies Marginalized Groups

The New York Times recently published an article Are We Losing Our Democracy? where they looked at various signs of dictatorship or autocracy and whether we had crossed that line. (I also provided the text in a Facebook post for those without NY Times access). I am going to look at each segment in turn and provide my own thoughts. 

#7 - Vilifies Marginalized Groups

Authoritarians tend to demean minority groups, trying to turn them into a perceived threat that provides a justification for a leader to amass power. Mr. Trump has repeatedly suggested that marginalized groups are responsible for the nation’s problems.

Trump has had, from the day he announced his candidacy in 2015, a hatred for immigrants. Not just criminal immigrants, not just those here illegally, but all immigrants. This goes beyond the arguably legitimate desire to secure the borders and to properly vet anyone wanting to come here. He has characterized immigrants as "poisoning the blood" of the nation; called them animals; referred to some nations as "shithole countries"; he framed previous surges as "an invasion"; he has recently focussed on Somalis, saying "their country stinks" and called them "garbage". The crackdown by ICE seems to be designed to not only carry out the law, but to humiliate and dehumanize those who are caught in its net.

One of his executive orders issued on Inauguration Day was an attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship, a right enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  If the Supreme Court agrees with him, children born in the United States will effectively be stateless, creating a permanent class of people with no right to be here, and no home to go to. 

He has vilified transgender Americans and barred them from military service. He has fired women and people of color from leadership posts and ended programs that promote workplace diversity. His administration has attempted to erase aspects of Black history, including by removing books on slavery and segregation from military libraries and pressuring Smithsonian museums to minimize those subjects. At the same time, he has suggested that white people and Christians are victims, which echoes the autocratic habit of claiming that majority groups are in fact oppressed.

His focus on eliminating anything related to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives, and erasing anything that he labels as "woke", rolls back decades of civil rights advances. 

By attacking powerless populations and erasing the historical record of depredations against them, by turning them into a bogeyman responsible for all the nations problems, he is creating a scapegoat to distract from his own shortcomings. 

Part I - Stifling Dissent and Free Speech

Part II - Persecution of Political Opponents

Part III - Bypassing the Legislature

Part IV - Using The Military For Domestic & Political Purposes

Part V - Defies The Courts

Part VI - Declares National Emergencies Under False Pretenses

Wannabe Dictator, Autocrat, Authoritarian, King...It's All Semantics - Part VI - Declares National Emergencies On False Pretenses

he New York Times recently published an article Are We Losing Our Democracy? where they looked at various signs of dictatorship or autocracy and whether we had crossed that line. (I also provided the text in a Facebook post for those without NY Times access). I am going to look at each segment in turn and provide my own thoughts. 

#6 - Declares National Emergencies On False Pretenses

Authoritarians often curtail democracy by declaring an emergency and arguing that the threat requires them to exercise unusual degrees of power.

There are legal guidelines that describe a president's emergency powers. The National Emergencies Act of 1986 was passed to create a standardized and formal process for declaring emergencies. This law replaced over 450 statutes that granted emergency powers in a variety of circumstances that were inconsistent regrading their use, or most importantly, the emergency's termination. 

From The Legal Clarity.org website:

A declaration of a national emergency does not grant the President a blank check; instead, it unlocks more than 130 specific statutory powers that Congress has previously passed into law. The specific authorities available depend on the nature of the emergency and the laws cited in the President’s proclamation.

Unlocked powers include the ability to control or shut down communications facilities, including radio stations, telephone services, and internet traffic. The President can also gain the authority to redirect funds that Congress has appropriated for military construction projects, allowing for the rapid building of facilities deemed necessary for the emergency response. Other statutes permit the seizure of private property, though legal processes and compensation requirements typically still apply.

In situations involving international crises, a national emergency declaration can activate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This act allows the President to impose economic sanctions, freeze the assets of foreign governments or individuals, and regulate or prohibit foreign exchange transactions. These financial powers are among the most frequently used, forming the basis for many of the over 40 national emergencies that currently remain in effect, with the longest-running active emergency dating back to 1979.

The courts can hear challenges to an emergency declaration, and the courts or Congress can end the national emergency, which in any case ends after one year if no other action is taken. They can be renewed indefinitely. 

Previous presidents have used their ability to declare emergencies, sometimes questionably. The reason there is an emergency powers statute is that sometimes the situation calls for quick action. Trump, like so many other things, has abused this authority in order to bypass Congress. 

He has used manufactured emergencies to sidestep Congress and impose tariffs, deregulate the energy industry, intensify immigration enforcement and send the National Guard into Washington. Chillingly, he has claimed that a Venezuelan gang invaded the United States to justify the killing of foreign civilians in international waters, in defiance of U.S. and international law.

The most egregious use of emergency powers has been to declare various groups as terrorists, or even an invading army. He has designated some immigrant groups this way in order to facilitate deportations. He has designated opposition groups as domestic terrorists in order to quell dissent. He has labeled Venezuelan nationals, piloting small boats that may be carrying drugs that might eventually end up in the United States, as a national security threat, justifying murder on the high seas. 

He is sidestepping constitutional order and making everything an emergency to allow him to rule without guardrails.

Part I - Stifling Dissent and Free Speech

Part II - Persecution of Political Opponents

Part III - Bypassing the Legislature

Part IV - Using The Military For Domestic & Political Purposes

Part V - Defies The Courts