Then candidate Trump spent a great deal of time focusing on the Rust Belt, and much of his message involved bringing back the jobs which have left over the last number of decades. Trump focused on killing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, renegotiating or killing NAFTA, and his supposed ability to bully companies into bringing jobs back to the USA (or, even, keeping them here).
I've written about this already (click here if you missed it), and this conversation comes up often when discussing now President Trump, his promises, and what his supporters hope he will deliver on. Trump knows this; that's why he trumpets things like Carrier and Ford keeping jobs here, even as he glosses over how terrible the Carrier deal is for Indiana's citizens, or how Ford made the decision based on the market for small cars, rather than anything related to Trump.
The reality is this: people in the Rust Belt fantasize about returning to a time when the USA was the dominant manufacturing power in the world. Makes sense, right? These people have heard of (or, in some cases, even lived in) a time when the money was good, the benefits were insanely good, and the unions were so powerful that their bosses couldn't mess with them. What these people fail to realize is two things. First, the economic conditions that made that possible were almost entirely because of World War II, and the fact that the USA came out as the most unscathed world power, by far. Those conditions are not in existence anymore, making their fantasy impossible to make reality. Anyone telling them otherwise (including our President) is simply selling fool's gold.
The second point is even more important: if we bring all these jobs back, which will necessitate cutting taxes on these companies to the point where they aren't paying anything, it is simply temporary anyways. The fast majority of these jobs will be automated in the coming years to decades, so this is putting a band-aid on a gushing wound. Need more evidence? Read this article, on the future of artificial intelligence, or this one on the importance of automation.
Simply put, Trump is selling a false reality to people who are the most vulnerable to fantasy. If we go too far down this road it not only won't help, but it likely sets us up to be passed by other economies which focus on the future, rather than the past. The future is scary; if you have a skill set that is rapidly becoming unneeded you clearly should have a lot of angst. But moving forward is the only way to secure a prosperous future for our children and their children. Doing what President Trump has promised to do not only won't help the people who voted for him in the Rust Belt in the near term, but in the long term it will prove to be disastrous.
Monday, February 27, 2017
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Trump's Presidency After A Month - Some Quick Hit Thoughts
Reality is a tough thing, and here is reality: I cannot possibly keep up with everything that this Administration is putting down. Not in my life, and certainly not if I attempt to write about all of it. For every one take I post there are at least half a dozen that fall by the wayside. This, of course, is part of the Trump strategy, both throughout the campaign and now into his Administration. Keep the ball constantly moving and don't let anyone (voters, Democrats, Republicans, the media) focus in on any one thing. This also benefits President Trump, as it did candidate Trump, by allowing so much noise that any misstep is quickly forgotten by the next.
And so, today, I introduce the "Quick Hits" post. This is intended to throw you, the reader, some links to articles I've read as I try to keep up with the political cyclone encompassing our country right now. I'll give you some brief analysis for each, but encourage you, as always, to read yourself and determine how what I present fits with your own analysis and worldview.
And so, today, I introduce the "Quick Hits" post. This is intended to throw you, the reader, some links to articles I've read as I try to keep up with the political cyclone encompassing our country right now. I'll give you some brief analysis for each, but encourage you, as always, to read yourself and determine how what I present fits with your own analysis and worldview.
- First things first: Trump and his 2/16/17 press conference. To say that there's been nothing like this in presidential history is an understatement. Trump ranted, went on tangents, and continued to bring up non-sequitur arguments with shocking frequency. His fascination with ratings, approval, and meaningless factoids (many of which are not facts, but falsehoods) would be entertaining if it wasn't coming from the Chief Executive of our Government and Commander in Chief of our Military.
- The story of Michael Flynn's (likely) illegal pre-inauguration activities, coupled with him lying to the Vice-President, coupled with the Administration knowing about the lies for weeks, not telling the Vice-President about the lies for weeks ... can you see what I mean about this Administration and how hard it is to stay on top of it? This story is still in the news, but has fallen off far quicker than it would have in any other previous Administration. That the Administration seemingly was not going to fire Flynn until it became public knowledge should raise major concerns about the ethical competency of this President and his Administration. Let's just say that there is a ton to unpack in this story, and many good reasons to want to do so. I hope that this is the thing that forces the GOP to stand up, starting with a thorough investigation of this situation, no matter where it may lead.
- While President Trump may be saying, to the press, that his Administration is running like a "fine tuned machine," plenty of other information indicates otherwise. With stories that President Trump is looking actively for fall persons within his Administration, and that much of that pressure is falling on Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, it is probably worth noting that Steve Bannon's Alt-Right opinion outlet, Breitbart, is pushing heavily for Priebus to be fired. It doesn't appear that everything is paradise within the West Wing after all, but given Trump's stated goal of creating conflict within his team by pitting people against each other this can't be much of a surprise.
- I would encourage you to read this series, from Nate Silver at 538, about the 2016 election. I haven't found a better retrospective/autopsy of what happened in 2016 and what it means moving forward. Recently, Silver talked about the Electoral College blind spot.
- Finally, a perspective on how ineffectual Trump and his Presidency might prove to be.
Monday, February 20, 2017
Checks and Balances
Then candidate Trump made a big deal throughout the presidential campaign about how he was not a politician. He said this with pride, talking about how he would "drain the swamp" and how he knew how to "get things done." Central to his entire campaign, then, was the promise that he would simultaneously not be a part of the Washington establishment while knowing how to do the job from day one.
Of course, where else do we see this type of marketing of oneself for a job? I couldn't walk into the prestigious Mayo Clinic and argue that I deserved a job as a surgeon because I was good at my current job and was not a surgical insider. Setting aside for a moment the legitimate questions regarding just how good Donald Trump was at his "job" before winning the Presidency, think back to this point: Trump said he was the right person for the job because he had no experience for the job.
Now imagine that the Mayo Clinic hires me as a surgeon. I come in, I scrub up, I go into the operating room. And then it hits me: it doesn't matter how good I was or wasn't in my old job, nor does it matter how good I was at selling the Mayo hiring team on me. Now I actually need to know how to do this. In other words, I'm probably in big trouble in this situation.
Name one profession besides politician in which there is such a fascination with putting inexperienced outsiders into key roles? There is typically a reason that people stay in politics beyond the self-serving, power hungry ones: they become good at what they do, and they like doing it, so they stay. That is not all together different than why I stay in my current career. But Trump did something that hasn't been done in our nation's history. It wasn't that he sold the outsider story managed to win the whole thing; Andrew Jackson did that back in the 1800s.
No, what Trump did was manage to actually be a functional outsider, in as much as he had no experience with politics or the political process. He then doubled down, putting an inexperienced administration around him in key positions, including much of his cabinet. So it can't really be that much of a surprise that Trump would roll out an Executive Order at some point that would be challenged successfully in the courts. What made the order that accomplished this so special is that, in many ways, the scope of what Trump was trying to do had been established as constitutional in the past. But a poor roll out, due to not preparing anyone in his Administration for the order, led to a hold in court. What happened next was particularly stunning to the system, if not at all surprising to those who have paid attention to Donald Trump throughout his career: President Trump attacked the Judiciary with reckless abandon.
Trump's actions almost assuredly helped to nudge the 9th circuit to unanimously decide against his Administration's appeal. Trump then vowed to fight on, in all CAPS, but predictably this was little more than hot air. At present it seems likely that his Administration will regroup, tail between their legs, and try to issue a more well thought out Executive Order on immigration next week. Of course, they will try to sell this not as a regrouping or retreat of any measure, and will instead try to spin this in some way attacking the "enemy." In this case, the court, as Trump has continued to do, most recently in his 80 minute marathon press conference on February 16th.
The upshot of this approach, however, is that it will only serve to further irritate the Courts at every level of this country. If the Trump Administration had played it cool it is possible that they might have won a stay, or at least a full appeal, at the 9th circuit. Furthermore, it was likely that the Supreme Court would have ruled in his Administration's favor, once Neil Gorsuch is confirmed (news flash: that's happening barring a huge surprise). I suspect strongly, however, that Trump's actions will have influenced Anthony Kennedy strongly, leading the "swing" vote on the court to be more likely to view the Trump Administration critically. Even beyond that, it is possible that the same thing has happened to John Roberts, the Chief Justice. If that is the case it is possible that even with Gorsuch, the Trump Administration may only have two other "safe" votes on their side: Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.
If that's the case, then the Trump Administration may be in for a rude awakening in the coming years, particularly if they continue to push a far right agenda rather than trying to trend towards the center. The more Trump complains about one third of our government structure the more likely it is that he will have conflict. And, thus far, President Trump seems no less likely to bash someone who upsets him than candidate Trump was. His attempts to discredit key American institutions, such as free press and the Courts, should be disconcerting to say the least to anyone invested in this country. For anyone who wants to see this country's democracy continue on, at least the way it was intended, the checks and balances are going to be more crucial than ever moving forward. The press, presenting information to the general public, and the Courts, evaluating the Administration's agenda, will be two critical aspects of this. President Trump and his Administration may have lost their first run in with the judicial system; smart money says it will not be his last.
Of course, where else do we see this type of marketing of oneself for a job? I couldn't walk into the prestigious Mayo Clinic and argue that I deserved a job as a surgeon because I was good at my current job and was not a surgical insider. Setting aside for a moment the legitimate questions regarding just how good Donald Trump was at his "job" before winning the Presidency, think back to this point: Trump said he was the right person for the job because he had no experience for the job.
Now imagine that the Mayo Clinic hires me as a surgeon. I come in, I scrub up, I go into the operating room. And then it hits me: it doesn't matter how good I was or wasn't in my old job, nor does it matter how good I was at selling the Mayo hiring team on me. Now I actually need to know how to do this. In other words, I'm probably in big trouble in this situation.
Name one profession besides politician in which there is such a fascination with putting inexperienced outsiders into key roles? There is typically a reason that people stay in politics beyond the self-serving, power hungry ones: they become good at what they do, and they like doing it, so they stay. That is not all together different than why I stay in my current career. But Trump did something that hasn't been done in our nation's history. It wasn't that he sold the outsider story managed to win the whole thing; Andrew Jackson did that back in the 1800s.
No, what Trump did was manage to actually be a functional outsider, in as much as he had no experience with politics or the political process. He then doubled down, putting an inexperienced administration around him in key positions, including much of his cabinet. So it can't really be that much of a surprise that Trump would roll out an Executive Order at some point that would be challenged successfully in the courts. What made the order that accomplished this so special is that, in many ways, the scope of what Trump was trying to do had been established as constitutional in the past. But a poor roll out, due to not preparing anyone in his Administration for the order, led to a hold in court. What happened next was particularly stunning to the system, if not at all surprising to those who have paid attention to Donald Trump throughout his career: President Trump attacked the Judiciary with reckless abandon.
Trump's actions almost assuredly helped to nudge the 9th circuit to unanimously decide against his Administration's appeal. Trump then vowed to fight on, in all CAPS, but predictably this was little more than hot air. At present it seems likely that his Administration will regroup, tail between their legs, and try to issue a more well thought out Executive Order on immigration next week. Of course, they will try to sell this not as a regrouping or retreat of any measure, and will instead try to spin this in some way attacking the "enemy." In this case, the court, as Trump has continued to do, most recently in his 80 minute marathon press conference on February 16th.
The upshot of this approach, however, is that it will only serve to further irritate the Courts at every level of this country. If the Trump Administration had played it cool it is possible that they might have won a stay, or at least a full appeal, at the 9th circuit. Furthermore, it was likely that the Supreme Court would have ruled in his Administration's favor, once Neil Gorsuch is confirmed (news flash: that's happening barring a huge surprise). I suspect strongly, however, that Trump's actions will have influenced Anthony Kennedy strongly, leading the "swing" vote on the court to be more likely to view the Trump Administration critically. Even beyond that, it is possible that the same thing has happened to John Roberts, the Chief Justice. If that is the case it is possible that even with Gorsuch, the Trump Administration may only have two other "safe" votes on their side: Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.
If that's the case, then the Trump Administration may be in for a rude awakening in the coming years, particularly if they continue to push a far right agenda rather than trying to trend towards the center. The more Trump complains about one third of our government structure the more likely it is that he will have conflict. And, thus far, President Trump seems no less likely to bash someone who upsets him than candidate Trump was. His attempts to discredit key American institutions, such as free press and the Courts, should be disconcerting to say the least to anyone invested in this country. For anyone who wants to see this country's democracy continue on, at least the way it was intended, the checks and balances are going to be more crucial than ever moving forward. The press, presenting information to the general public, and the Courts, evaluating the Administration's agenda, will be two critical aspects of this. President Trump and his Administration may have lost their first run in with the judicial system; smart money says it will not be his last.
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Playing Poker With The G.O.P.
Let's start here: the Republicans who have been in Washington DC for the last number of years are better poker players than we are. They certainly are better poker players than their Democratic counter parts. You can see that through the maneuvers that everyone bemoans as too high risk, only they haven't blown up in their face. Stare down the debt ceiling? Threaten to shut down the government? Come on, that's child's play to the GOP. They are better at this than the Democrats, and until the Democrats start to get better at it they are in real trouble.
Doyle Brunson is one of the most legendary poker players of all time. Brunson is famous for many things, including being a multi-time winner of the prestigious World Series of Poker. One quote from Brunson regarding how to play no-limit Texas Hold'em is particularly prescient as it relates to the GOP's strategy in Washington. Brunson says that "the key to no limit ... is to put a man to a decision for all his chips." In layman's terms, what Brunson is saying here is that the aggressor has the edge, because the other person is always reacting, rather than acting. It takes away their ability to play their own hand, and makes them play your hand. Of course, even the best really don't know with certainty what you have in your hand. That's why it works. And that's what the GOP has been doing to the Democrats for many years. The Democrats respond to the GOP, and they have no idea if they are bluffing or not.
In this recent article, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell states that the Democrats must give recent Trump Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch "an up and down vote," and that failure to do so would be only "to hurt Trump." He accuses the Democrats of playing politics, and essentially says they need to get over losing the election. But here's the beauty of McConnell's statement: he is accusing Democrats of hypothetically doing the very heinous, undemocratic thing ... that McConnell and his Republican counter parts did for almost all of 2016. Remember Merrick Garland? President Obama nominated him last March, and almost instantaneously the Republican Senators stated that they would not even acknowledge his nomination. Here's the kicker, for me at least. McConnell specifically states that many of his Democratic counter parts have said nice things about Gorsuch, and have voted for him in the past. That, of course, is identical to what many Republican Senators had said and done regarding Garland. But McConnell's message is clear, if hypocritical: do as we say, not as we did.
You can expect a similar level of condescension from McConnell, Paul Ryan, and President Trump's administration as well for any other tactics that the Democrats try to pull. The GOP has the advantage because they've been there, done that. They put the Democrats to a decision for all their chips, the Democrats misplayed their hand badly, and now the GOP is in a power position. The Republicans have the ability to claim, with a seemingly straight face, that the Democrats filibustering Gorsuch would be unprecedented, even as they did even less to acknowledge Garland's nomination. The gridlock in Washington D.C. is shameful, and both parties are to blame for it, but the GOP's ability to say things like McConnell did here with a straight face is really far beyond the skill set of the Democrats. You get the impression he even might believe himself.
The Democrats hurt themselves, three years ago, by using the so called "nuclear option" to eliminate the filibuster in most situations. Accordingly, it is feasible that the Senate Republicans may do the same if the Democrats actually do muster the strength to filibuster Gorsuch's nomination. The Republicans don't have a super majority, so eliminating the filibuster is one way to get Gorsuch through. A second way, however, if far more in line with their Machiavellian political skill set. If the Democrats try to play their hand via filibuster, I suspect that the GOP will respond with a targeted effort to systematically use the Democrats actions against them in the 2018 Senate races. I think the Republicans are silently hoping that the Trump Administration can stay out of its' own way long enough to allow for a vibrant 2018 calendar to come to fruition for the GOP, particularly in the Senate. But make no mistake: The Supreme Court is high enough stakes by itself that the GOP would use the remaining nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster on nominees to the high court. I just think that is less likely, given where the party is at today.
At the end of the day, high stakes brinkmanship has become the standard operating procedure for Washington D.C. The Democrats are left pretty helpless, with their only option being to go more extreme than the GOP has in the last number of years. That is scary enough, but particularly if they keep being so bad at guessing where and when to make their moves. Can the Democrats switch the current dynamic and be on the offensive? Are they capable of taking the GOP playbook and making it work for them in a way that doesn't seem disingenuous at best, and which plays into the long term Republican plan at worst? Only time will tell, but one thing is for sure: McConnell is a better poker player than anyone the Democrats have at the present time.
Monday, February 13, 2017
Fear For The Future - Sharing A Must Read Article by David Frum
There have been a number of apocalyptic takes on where things are headed in this country both before and after Donald Trump won the election and, later, took the Oath of Office. Trump is, in some ways, the ultimate outsider, at least so far as he has no prior political experience. He quickly moved to nominate a series of candidates to various posts who would have been scorned as "unqualified" in any other era. And then, after coming into office, he pushed the most incoherently aggressive agenda in memory, taking on things like a de facto religious test for entering this country, pursuing an expensive agenda on our southern border, and pushing to weaken health care for millions of Americans. None of these things were surprising, at least not if you paid attention to how he campaigned.
This article, in particular, lays out the very real dangers facing this country as it moves forward. The goal of this blog being to represent a moderate viewpoint, I will point out that many of these fears could have been said of any President in modern times, certainly since FDR. But the convergence of all of these risk factors is something somewhat unique to President Trump, particularly coupled with the reality of the world of media coverage and 24/7 news and opinion saturation courtesy of the internet. Simply put, I am not saying that what is forecast in this article will happen, but I am saying that you are pretty ignorant if you can't see that it is plausible that it could happen.
As is often the case, I don't have the time to write out all my thoughts, nor do you have the time to want to read them all. I could go 10,000 words on this very topic without hitting the bottom, but that wouldn't serve much of a point. I'd encourage you to click on the above article and read it in as many sittings as necessary; it is quite long, but quite good. It is written by David Frum, who served in the Bush 43 Administration as a speech writer from 2001-2002. So he is not exactly a "bleeding liberal"; quite the opposite, he would have been considered a relatively mainstream conservative merely a few years ago. Now, in writing this article, he should lend at least some credence to the validity of the fears contained within, although I will leave it up to you, the individual reader, to determine how much you agree or disagree with the premise.
What we all have to do is think critically about each and every thing we see the Trump Administration do, and take articles like this into our mind to allow them to add to the consideration we give to what we see. People in Germany in the 1920s didn't foresee the rise of Hitler, but that happened. A modern decimation of democracy, however, is unlikely to occur in a similar way to the 1920s and 1930s, a point that Frum makes strongly in his article. It is far more likely that the rise will come, as Natalie Portman's character in Star Wars Episode III says, "with thunderous applause." Frum's article will give you a vision as to how that could occur.
On my end, I will pull out one thought from the article and my other observations from the last few weeks, and I will share it with you. The press is, undoubtedly, in a tough place right now with the Trump Administration. I grew up on the Gingrich-Clinton-Limbaugh dynamic, I have been an observer to the rise of Fox "News," and the emphatic radicalizing of that outlet, and I have watched as the internet gave great power to anyone who could access it to have all information at their finger tips, if only they were smart enough to decipher the difference between real and fake information. And in all that time, the last twenty (plus) years of increasingly polarized discourse, I've never seen anything like what we've just witnessed over the last few weeks between the Trump Administration and the very journalists who are crucial to our country's ability to determine if this Administration is actually doing the people's work, or simply seeking to further their own agendas.
There are a number of news outlets that I turn to regularly: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal (when I can get behind their pay wall), The Economist, CNN, Politico, and The Atlantic, to name a few. I read from a number of different sources, liberal and conservative editorial boards, domestic and international viewpoints, to try to pull together a coherent middle ground. There are a few journalists in the TV world that I have a decent amount of respect for. Chuck Todd, at Meet The Press, is one. While he is not that close to Tim Russert (no one is), he is generally well researched and able to present a balanced, yet firm, view.
He has struggled with this trait (presenting a balanced view) in the first two weeks since Trump took the Oath of Office. He has been much more combative with Trump Representatives (Kellyanne Conway and Reince Priebus) than he has been with the Democrat guests on his show (Chuck Schumer and Tim Kaine). Now, there may be very good reason for this; Conway dropped the "alternative facts" bomb on MTP, while Priebus blatantly and arrogantly refused to answer Todd's questions. But, regardless of the potential validity of Todd's approach, the optics are far from good. Just the feel of his questioning, interrupting the Trump representatives more, being more firm in tone with them, opens him up to being blasted by the Trump Administration as being "fake news" and a part of the "liberal media."
President Trump and his underlings have proven to be the masters of misdirection to avoid coverage or substantive discussion regarding actual news which would really draw him in to trouble. He quickly pivots from real stories (like his laundry list of conflicts of interest or the blatant nepotism in employing his son-in-law in the West Wing), creating drama somewhere else to take people's eyes off the ball. Todd plays into this "skill" of the Trump team when he attacks, as it allows them to cry foul and state that he was attacking them. But perhaps this is a lose/lose situation. Either Todd looks like a "bleeding liberal" by insisting on following the unanswered question (thereby allowing Trump's lackeys to position him as "fake news" and a part of the "liberal mainstream media), or he follows the misdirection and allows them to control the dialogue (thereby allowing them to skirt the question anyways, but vibrantly failing to really attempt to hold them accountable or to get the public real information.). Perhaps, in fact, the position that Todd and his media family are in is the epitome of a lose/lose situation.
Ultimately, the journalistic establishment is the best check we have at the present time against unimpeded deterioration of our democracy at the hands of this Administration. If we know what is going on we are all more likely to call our Representatives and Senators, to go out and vote at local elections, then in the mid-terms, and to be prepared in 2020 to take the country in a different direction, if that is what is necessary at that time. This is such a small slice of the pie that Frum presents in his article, so I again implore you to read it. Print it out if you must and read it like a magazine article, bit by bit. But take the time to read it, share it, and allow it to enter your thought processes and schema as you work through the next four years. The future of our country very easily could depend on it.
This article, in particular, lays out the very real dangers facing this country as it moves forward. The goal of this blog being to represent a moderate viewpoint, I will point out that many of these fears could have been said of any President in modern times, certainly since FDR. But the convergence of all of these risk factors is something somewhat unique to President Trump, particularly coupled with the reality of the world of media coverage and 24/7 news and opinion saturation courtesy of the internet. Simply put, I am not saying that what is forecast in this article will happen, but I am saying that you are pretty ignorant if you can't see that it is plausible that it could happen.
As is often the case, I don't have the time to write out all my thoughts, nor do you have the time to want to read them all. I could go 10,000 words on this very topic without hitting the bottom, but that wouldn't serve much of a point. I'd encourage you to click on the above article and read it in as many sittings as necessary; it is quite long, but quite good. It is written by David Frum, who served in the Bush 43 Administration as a speech writer from 2001-2002. So he is not exactly a "bleeding liberal"; quite the opposite, he would have been considered a relatively mainstream conservative merely a few years ago. Now, in writing this article, he should lend at least some credence to the validity of the fears contained within, although I will leave it up to you, the individual reader, to determine how much you agree or disagree with the premise.
What we all have to do is think critically about each and every thing we see the Trump Administration do, and take articles like this into our mind to allow them to add to the consideration we give to what we see. People in Germany in the 1920s didn't foresee the rise of Hitler, but that happened. A modern decimation of democracy, however, is unlikely to occur in a similar way to the 1920s and 1930s, a point that Frum makes strongly in his article. It is far more likely that the rise will come, as Natalie Portman's character in Star Wars Episode III says, "with thunderous applause." Frum's article will give you a vision as to how that could occur.
On my end, I will pull out one thought from the article and my other observations from the last few weeks, and I will share it with you. The press is, undoubtedly, in a tough place right now with the Trump Administration. I grew up on the Gingrich-Clinton-Limbaugh dynamic, I have been an observer to the rise of Fox "News," and the emphatic radicalizing of that outlet, and I have watched as the internet gave great power to anyone who could access it to have all information at their finger tips, if only they were smart enough to decipher the difference between real and fake information. And in all that time, the last twenty (plus) years of increasingly polarized discourse, I've never seen anything like what we've just witnessed over the last few weeks between the Trump Administration and the very journalists who are crucial to our country's ability to determine if this Administration is actually doing the people's work, or simply seeking to further their own agendas.
There are a number of news outlets that I turn to regularly: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal (when I can get behind their pay wall), The Economist, CNN, Politico, and The Atlantic, to name a few. I read from a number of different sources, liberal and conservative editorial boards, domestic and international viewpoints, to try to pull together a coherent middle ground. There are a few journalists in the TV world that I have a decent amount of respect for. Chuck Todd, at Meet The Press, is one. While he is not that close to Tim Russert (no one is), he is generally well researched and able to present a balanced, yet firm, view.
He has struggled with this trait (presenting a balanced view) in the first two weeks since Trump took the Oath of Office. He has been much more combative with Trump Representatives (Kellyanne Conway and Reince Priebus) than he has been with the Democrat guests on his show (Chuck Schumer and Tim Kaine). Now, there may be very good reason for this; Conway dropped the "alternative facts" bomb on MTP, while Priebus blatantly and arrogantly refused to answer Todd's questions. But, regardless of the potential validity of Todd's approach, the optics are far from good. Just the feel of his questioning, interrupting the Trump representatives more, being more firm in tone with them, opens him up to being blasted by the Trump Administration as being "fake news" and a part of the "liberal media."
President Trump and his underlings have proven to be the masters of misdirection to avoid coverage or substantive discussion regarding actual news which would really draw him in to trouble. He quickly pivots from real stories (like his laundry list of conflicts of interest or the blatant nepotism in employing his son-in-law in the West Wing), creating drama somewhere else to take people's eyes off the ball. Todd plays into this "skill" of the Trump team when he attacks, as it allows them to cry foul and state that he was attacking them. But perhaps this is a lose/lose situation. Either Todd looks like a "bleeding liberal" by insisting on following the unanswered question (thereby allowing Trump's lackeys to position him as "fake news" and a part of the "liberal mainstream media), or he follows the misdirection and allows them to control the dialogue (thereby allowing them to skirt the question anyways, but vibrantly failing to really attempt to hold them accountable or to get the public real information.). Perhaps, in fact, the position that Todd and his media family are in is the epitome of a lose/lose situation.
Ultimately, the journalistic establishment is the best check we have at the present time against unimpeded deterioration of our democracy at the hands of this Administration. If we know what is going on we are all more likely to call our Representatives and Senators, to go out and vote at local elections, then in the mid-terms, and to be prepared in 2020 to take the country in a different direction, if that is what is necessary at that time. This is such a small slice of the pie that Frum presents in his article, so I again implore you to read it. Print it out if you must and read it like a magazine article, bit by bit. But take the time to read it, share it, and allow it to enter your thought processes and schema as you work through the next four years. The future of our country very easily could depend on it.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
On NAFTA, The Border, and Trade Wars
One of then candidate Trump's biggest pledges was to take on Mexico on many fronts, and for many purposes. Within his first two weeks in office he has put the wheels in motion to do just that, and in a number of ways. Trump has floated the idea of a 20% tax on imported goods, is pushing to "build that wall" even though it looks like it will amount to a huge bill for the American tax payers to pick up, and has done more to damage diplomatic relations with our southern neighbor than at any time since we were actively trying to take over their territory.
As Mark Cuban says here, much of the Trump Administration's apparent "strategy" would amount to high costs being passed on to the American consumer. Furthermore, team Trump is blatantly moving forward with an aggressive agenda centered on tax cuts and spending increases, a plan which is poised to make the budget deficits of the Bush 43 and Obama years look like child's play at best. While the short term ramifications of that approach would almost assuredly lead to increased jobs, wages, and buying power, the long term outcomes would be higher inflation, higher national debt, and more economic weakness within the country.
At a time when the Trump team is silencing the executive branch from speaking outwardly, and when prominent GOP Senators are reporting they are unable to get answers themselves, citizens who are trying to stay informed are more and more realizing that they are having to read the tea leaves. For all of the seemingly positive movement of the Dow going up, and of Carrier and Ford keeping jobs here, there has been little substantive good news on the business front in the first two plus weeks of this Administration. In fact, the more controversial of Trump's moves have led to backlash from business leaders. While some analysis can show a bit of logic to what Trump's team is trying, it is hard to see a clear picture at this time.
For example, consider what might happen if Trump rips up NAFTA, puts a border tariff in place, and starts building the wall which would be pointless in many areas. We know that companies have pulled planned factories from Mexico already; it is easy to imagine that other factories which are already operating south of the border would board up relatively quickly in this scenario. Those businesses would either A) cease to exist, or B) come back to the US. Great, right? Well, take the future of small cars if all car manufacturing comes back to the US. It's highly unlikely that Ford would invest in plants in the US to build the Ford Focus, given the limited profit margins in that product. Cheap labor makes it possible; expensive labor makes it less attractive or even feasible.
From there it isn't hard to see additional fall out: less selection on the market makes cars more expensive. More cars are big gas guzzlers, which have much larger profit margins, making our dependence on oil greater. Prices very well could go up there as well. More oil usage impacts the environment negatively. It makes US involvement in war in the Middle East much more likely moving forward. But let's say it goes the other way and the car industry determines that we still need those small cars. What is more likely is that they will invest heavily in technology infrastructure to eliminate the reliance on cheap labor by replacing it with robots and computers. That also doesn't help create jobs, at least not the blue collar jobs that Trump promises.
Then there is the impact on our friends to the south in Mexico. Who cares, right? Well, consider the impact that losing those jobs might have. People need to have money, and without jobs they are left with two real options: join cartels and gangs to get money illegally, or illegally get into the USA to work off the books at a lower wage. One option increases the drug flow and violence, the other increases illegal immigration. So we have to fight increases in those things, which leads to even further increased government spending on DEA agents, border agents, and maintenance work to repair and maintain whatever border defenses you have (which are, inevitably, damaged with frequency). And all of this is to say nothing of the increased issues in human rights, quality of life, and other moral and ethical things that could happen in Mexico in this scenario.
All of this is to say that it is highly unlikely that President Trump's stated fantasy of pulling out of NAFTA, implementing a draconian tariff, and building a wall will lead to increased jobs, wages, and security in the USA. Quite the opposite, his concoction of isolationism, xenophobia, and pre-World War II economic policies would likely contribute to raising inflation, wage stagnation, and a functional loss in jobs. I didn't even get into the damage to the Texas economy if NAFTA is killed, among a myriad of other issues if this course of action is taken. The overarching danger, of course, is that in the short term some of his policies could lead to increased wages, increased jobs, and so people won't think of the long term ramifications of the policy. Accordingly, it is very crucial that we pay close attention to the policy as well as the short and long term outcomes which are probable. After all, if President Trump truly wanted to hit the Mexican cartels where it hurts, as he's claimed before, he might give greater consideration to legalizing marijuana.
As Mark Cuban says here, much of the Trump Administration's apparent "strategy" would amount to high costs being passed on to the American consumer. Furthermore, team Trump is blatantly moving forward with an aggressive agenda centered on tax cuts and spending increases, a plan which is poised to make the budget deficits of the Bush 43 and Obama years look like child's play at best. While the short term ramifications of that approach would almost assuredly lead to increased jobs, wages, and buying power, the long term outcomes would be higher inflation, higher national debt, and more economic weakness within the country.
At a time when the Trump team is silencing the executive branch from speaking outwardly, and when prominent GOP Senators are reporting they are unable to get answers themselves, citizens who are trying to stay informed are more and more realizing that they are having to read the tea leaves. For all of the seemingly positive movement of the Dow going up, and of Carrier and Ford keeping jobs here, there has been little substantive good news on the business front in the first two plus weeks of this Administration. In fact, the more controversial of Trump's moves have led to backlash from business leaders. While some analysis can show a bit of logic to what Trump's team is trying, it is hard to see a clear picture at this time.
For example, consider what might happen if Trump rips up NAFTA, puts a border tariff in place, and starts building the wall which would be pointless in many areas. We know that companies have pulled planned factories from Mexico already; it is easy to imagine that other factories which are already operating south of the border would board up relatively quickly in this scenario. Those businesses would either A) cease to exist, or B) come back to the US. Great, right? Well, take the future of small cars if all car manufacturing comes back to the US. It's highly unlikely that Ford would invest in plants in the US to build the Ford Focus, given the limited profit margins in that product. Cheap labor makes it possible; expensive labor makes it less attractive or even feasible.
From there it isn't hard to see additional fall out: less selection on the market makes cars more expensive. More cars are big gas guzzlers, which have much larger profit margins, making our dependence on oil greater. Prices very well could go up there as well. More oil usage impacts the environment negatively. It makes US involvement in war in the Middle East much more likely moving forward. But let's say it goes the other way and the car industry determines that we still need those small cars. What is more likely is that they will invest heavily in technology infrastructure to eliminate the reliance on cheap labor by replacing it with robots and computers. That also doesn't help create jobs, at least not the blue collar jobs that Trump promises.
Then there is the impact on our friends to the south in Mexico. Who cares, right? Well, consider the impact that losing those jobs might have. People need to have money, and without jobs they are left with two real options: join cartels and gangs to get money illegally, or illegally get into the USA to work off the books at a lower wage. One option increases the drug flow and violence, the other increases illegal immigration. So we have to fight increases in those things, which leads to even further increased government spending on DEA agents, border agents, and maintenance work to repair and maintain whatever border defenses you have (which are, inevitably, damaged with frequency). And all of this is to say nothing of the increased issues in human rights, quality of life, and other moral and ethical things that could happen in Mexico in this scenario.
All of this is to say that it is highly unlikely that President Trump's stated fantasy of pulling out of NAFTA, implementing a draconian tariff, and building a wall will lead to increased jobs, wages, and security in the USA. Quite the opposite, his concoction of isolationism, xenophobia, and pre-World War II economic policies would likely contribute to raising inflation, wage stagnation, and a functional loss in jobs. I didn't even get into the damage to the Texas economy if NAFTA is killed, among a myriad of other issues if this course of action is taken. The overarching danger, of course, is that in the short term some of his policies could lead to increased wages, increased jobs, and so people won't think of the long term ramifications of the policy. Accordingly, it is very crucial that we pay close attention to the policy as well as the short and long term outcomes which are probable. After all, if President Trump truly wanted to hit the Mexican cartels where it hurts, as he's claimed before, he might give greater consideration to legalizing marijuana.
Monday, February 6, 2017
Don't Look Back In Anger, I Heard You Say...
So this article caught my eye a few weeks ago. The title of the article is "Hillary Clinton Plots Her Next Move." Of course I had to read it, because I was thinking to myself "what next move?" It seems obvious to me that Clinton's "next move" is to write a book, fade to the background, and perhaps be reestablished at some later date as an elder voice in the party once the pain of the loss and the humiliation of losing to Trump (to say nothing of dragging the party down with her) fades. Make no mistake: Clinton was a uniquely qualified candidate in terms of her potential to lose to an opponent like Trump. She had unlikable numbers nearly as high as his, she had an overwhelming persona that made the general public feel that she couldn't be trusted, and, unfortunately, she was a status quo candidate in an unabashed change election.
If even one of those things wasn't as strongly true it is quite possible she would be in the midst of her first full week as our first female President. Unfortunately for the Clinton political machine, Democrats everywhere, and the Obama legacy, all of those things were not only true, but were dramatically reinforced at every turn by the FBI, Wikileaks, the FBI again, and the rhetoric spewed out by Donald Trump and his team. Say what you want about the man, but for someone who can't stay on topic, he sure is able to stay on topic when it comes to small catch phrases like "crooked Hillary." He can drive those points home.
And so, as I read the article, I was first astonished that the Clintons were reported to be "better understand the forces behind her shocking November defeat." "Can't they just give up?" might have crossed my mind. Then it made some sense, in terms of who Secretary and President Clinton are: they are political animals, driven by politics, and consumed by their passion and drive. So it can't be really surprising that they are delving deep into the county by county returns, and looking for an answer to how they lost an election that they should have won, against an opponent who had (seemingly) done everything wrong. This is who they are, and who they have been. Why should they change now? It is, after all, their life's work.
But that is what drives so much of this country crazy, and what gives credence to the message that helped to carry Trump to the White House. This idea that the political class is obsessed with power, and being in power, to the point that they would do anything for it. That they can't disengage from it. That they pursue it like Gollum pursues the one ring. Politics is a zero sum game, and when a real politician loses I imagine it is hard to just walk away. More pessimistically, absolute power corrupts absolutely. In that sense, I suppose that what Clinton is doing is perfectly normal, and to be expected. I'm sure that she looks back to 2008 and wonders a similar thing: who did I lose to that inexperienced nobody from Illinois. Perhaps that upset loss, which history will validate as an all time upset, should have warned her off from trying again. Perhaps it should have warned the party off, and Obama himself off, from talking Joe Biden out of it. Perhaps she is just star crossed in that sense, and it was never meant to be for her. But I wonder how much she looks back and thinks "if only."
Politics moves on, and somethings don't change. It's the GOP in control of everything now, but already things are feeling eerily similar. The Senators like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are falling in line behind Trump's nominees, after previously indicating that the same things that those nominees have said would be disqualifying for their votes. Trump is nominating a plethora of bankers to nearly every top position he can; he spent the campaign slamming Hillary Clinton for a speech given to Goldman Sachs, while he has all but incorporated Goldman Sachs into the federal government with how much influence he has given their alumni. The Republican Congress is tying their future to Trump because Trump is in power; all the "Never Trump" people are falling quickly, and as quietly as they can in line. And Trump is giving power and influence to the very people he vowed not to: the elite and the bankers, all along side the most extreme voices in the Republican Party.
But the people, particularly in the Rust Belt, seem to dislike the Clinton narrative even more (that's if they are even paying attention to what Trump is actually doing, rather than saying). And that's where stories like this, which paint the "Clinton Machine," as revving up to try to determine their next steps, can only hurt the Democrats in the short term. Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate who was upset, improbably, twice. As hard as it is for her, it's probably time for her to go away. And, as Oasis said, "don't look back in anger." The remainder of her life will help to write history's ultimate review on her. Stepping away will only serve to improve her standing, most likely, and may give birth to a more positive narrative. It is, at least, the best chance she's got now, because clinging to the illusion of influence will likely only serve to further split her party, and to reinforce Trumps narrative of misdirection.
If even one of those things wasn't as strongly true it is quite possible she would be in the midst of her first full week as our first female President. Unfortunately for the Clinton political machine, Democrats everywhere, and the Obama legacy, all of those things were not only true, but were dramatically reinforced at every turn by the FBI, Wikileaks, the FBI again, and the rhetoric spewed out by Donald Trump and his team. Say what you want about the man, but for someone who can't stay on topic, he sure is able to stay on topic when it comes to small catch phrases like "crooked Hillary." He can drive those points home.
And so, as I read the article, I was first astonished that the Clintons were reported to be "better understand the forces behind her shocking November defeat." "Can't they just give up?" might have crossed my mind. Then it made some sense, in terms of who Secretary and President Clinton are: they are political animals, driven by politics, and consumed by their passion and drive. So it can't be really surprising that they are delving deep into the county by county returns, and looking for an answer to how they lost an election that they should have won, against an opponent who had (seemingly) done everything wrong. This is who they are, and who they have been. Why should they change now? It is, after all, their life's work.
But that is what drives so much of this country crazy, and what gives credence to the message that helped to carry Trump to the White House. This idea that the political class is obsessed with power, and being in power, to the point that they would do anything for it. That they can't disengage from it. That they pursue it like Gollum pursues the one ring. Politics is a zero sum game, and when a real politician loses I imagine it is hard to just walk away. More pessimistically, absolute power corrupts absolutely. In that sense, I suppose that what Clinton is doing is perfectly normal, and to be expected. I'm sure that she looks back to 2008 and wonders a similar thing: who did I lose to that inexperienced nobody from Illinois. Perhaps that upset loss, which history will validate as an all time upset, should have warned her off from trying again. Perhaps it should have warned the party off, and Obama himself off, from talking Joe Biden out of it. Perhaps she is just star crossed in that sense, and it was never meant to be for her. But I wonder how much she looks back and thinks "if only."
Politics moves on, and somethings don't change. It's the GOP in control of everything now, but already things are feeling eerily similar. The Senators like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are falling in line behind Trump's nominees, after previously indicating that the same things that those nominees have said would be disqualifying for their votes. Trump is nominating a plethora of bankers to nearly every top position he can; he spent the campaign slamming Hillary Clinton for a speech given to Goldman Sachs, while he has all but incorporated Goldman Sachs into the federal government with how much influence he has given their alumni. The Republican Congress is tying their future to Trump because Trump is in power; all the "Never Trump" people are falling quickly, and as quietly as they can in line. And Trump is giving power and influence to the very people he vowed not to: the elite and the bankers, all along side the most extreme voices in the Republican Party.
But the people, particularly in the Rust Belt, seem to dislike the Clinton narrative even more (that's if they are even paying attention to what Trump is actually doing, rather than saying). And that's where stories like this, which paint the "Clinton Machine," as revving up to try to determine their next steps, can only hurt the Democrats in the short term. Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate who was upset, improbably, twice. As hard as it is for her, it's probably time for her to go away. And, as Oasis said, "don't look back in anger." The remainder of her life will help to write history's ultimate review on her. Stepping away will only serve to improve her standing, most likely, and may give birth to a more positive narrative. It is, at least, the best chance she's got now, because clinging to the illusion of influence will likely only serve to further split her party, and to reinforce Trumps narrative of misdirection.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
The Wall as a Metaphor? or Can I have Buyers Remorse for $2,000?
I would imagine that most people know someone, even numerous someones, who supported Donald Trump through the last election. While his victory was one of the smallest in modern Presidential history, he did have a lot of people who showed up to vote for him. One of my favorite discussions leading up to the election with these individuals was to ask them their opinions on the handful of positions he had actually articulated. "The Wall" along our southern border being one of his earliest and most consistent talking points, I would often come back to asking them about immigration and, frequently, the wall itself.
What surprised me was this: many, many of the Trump supporters I know resorted to defending him by saying that he didn't mean what he was saying. These individuals would literally say "he won't do that," or "he didn't mean that," or, my favorite, "he didn't say that" (even when there was evidence that either Mr. Trump said it, or a robot built to look exactly like him said it). My favorite defense of Trump's campaign rhetoric, however, was delivered by my brother in law, who told my wife about the aforementioned southern border wall "it's a metaphor ... he doesn't really mean building a wall, he means heightening security." I'd like to say he was the only one, but rationalizations like this were very common among Trump supporters I knew prior to the election.
Of course, within his first ten days in office now President Trump has ordered the construction of the aforementioned wall. It certainly seems less like a metaphor now, as do many other things (special thanks to Rudy Giuliani for deciphering the meaning of the recent immigration related executive order; it's a (probably) legal attempt to get a (mostly) Muslim ban! Can't do it if it isn't constitutional, am I right Rudy?). Trump has, by and large, governed in his first days in office the way he said he was going to govern all along. The fantasy of the "pivot" from campaign Trump to moderate, rational President Trump has, thus far, been as realistic as the fantasy the Never Trumpers had that they would stop him at the convention ... or at the Electoral College ... or any number of other times.
All of this leads me to this article by Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com. Mr. Silver notes that "Trump is doing what he said he'd do," and then asks a simple question: "is that what his voters wanted?" I encourage you to read the whole article for the full context, but I think that this is a question of singular importance for both the Republicans and the Democrats. I haven't heard a lot personally from Trump supporters since the election, let alone the inauguration. One can imagine that they are somewhat holding their breath hoping that this works out as well as they fantasized. But this question will drive the midterm elections in 2018, as well as the nominating contest for President on both sides of the aisle in 2020.
President Trump will be 73 going on 74 throughout the 2020 primary process. If his policies have not been popular I can all but guarantee you that he will have to take on numerous challenges throughout the Republican primary season. If his policies, and their resultant outcomes, have been less than popular heading into the 2018 midterms, leading to Democrats holding on or even gaining in the Senate (it's a bad map for the Democrats in 2018, so holding on would be a huge victory), as well as gaining or taking over in the House, it is all but certain that he will face at least some measure of a challenge to be the party's nominee. The last time a serious challenge was mounted against an incumbent was 1980, and let's just say it didn't end too well for the incumbent, President Carter.
To Mr. Silver's point, I do wonder how much buyer's remorse there is going around with people who voted for Trump. There is assuredly a strong portion of those who voted for him who are not only celebrating these executive orders, but are probably bemoaning that they do not go far enough. I have to believe, however, that the totality of those individuals represent little more the the far fringe of the alt-right echo chamber championed by President Trump's "Chief Strategist," Mr. Breitbart himself, Steve Bannon*. The rest of those who voted for Mr. Trump have to be wishing that more of what he said was a metaphor. Even if they are nowhere near ready to admit it yet. But if they are having some buyer's remorse, President Trump and his team would be wise to head their voices, because avoiding becoming a marginalized President, let alone winning re-election, will be difficult if his fairly small coalition begins to splinter.
*As an aside, the uproar over Mr. Bannon joining the National Security Counsel while Mr. Trump functionally demoted the Director of National Intelligence and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should get even more attention. Mr. Bannon has done nothing in his personal or professional life that indicates that he is worthy of his current post, let alone this level of influence in the intelligence world. I hope that this continues to be a flash point for the GOP's more foreign policy minded individuals like Senator McCain and Senator Graham. I could also write for thousands of words on Mr. Bannon's involvement alone ... or the less than qualified individuals that President Trump nominated to the various cabinet positions (DeVos, Price and Perry to name three). I could seriously quit my job and do NOTHING but write about all of this and not have enough hours in the day to truly lay out all the intricacies of what's going on. But let me simply say this: it doesn't matter whether you are liberal or conservative, identify as a Democrat or Republican or anywhere in between: Steve Bannon being this involved in our government should terrify you more than almost anything that is going on right now. He makes Karl Rove look like a saint by comparison.
What surprised me was this: many, many of the Trump supporters I know resorted to defending him by saying that he didn't mean what he was saying. These individuals would literally say "he won't do that," or "he didn't mean that," or, my favorite, "he didn't say that" (even when there was evidence that either Mr. Trump said it, or a robot built to look exactly like him said it). My favorite defense of Trump's campaign rhetoric, however, was delivered by my brother in law, who told my wife about the aforementioned southern border wall "it's a metaphor ... he doesn't really mean building a wall, he means heightening security." I'd like to say he was the only one, but rationalizations like this were very common among Trump supporters I knew prior to the election.
Of course, within his first ten days in office now President Trump has ordered the construction of the aforementioned wall. It certainly seems less like a metaphor now, as do many other things (special thanks to Rudy Giuliani for deciphering the meaning of the recent immigration related executive order; it's a (probably) legal attempt to get a (mostly) Muslim ban! Can't do it if it isn't constitutional, am I right Rudy?). Trump has, by and large, governed in his first days in office the way he said he was going to govern all along. The fantasy of the "pivot" from campaign Trump to moderate, rational President Trump has, thus far, been as realistic as the fantasy the Never Trumpers had that they would stop him at the convention ... or at the Electoral College ... or any number of other times.
All of this leads me to this article by Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com. Mr. Silver notes that "Trump is doing what he said he'd do," and then asks a simple question: "is that what his voters wanted?" I encourage you to read the whole article for the full context, but I think that this is a question of singular importance for both the Republicans and the Democrats. I haven't heard a lot personally from Trump supporters since the election, let alone the inauguration. One can imagine that they are somewhat holding their breath hoping that this works out as well as they fantasized. But this question will drive the midterm elections in 2018, as well as the nominating contest for President on both sides of the aisle in 2020.
President Trump will be 73 going on 74 throughout the 2020 primary process. If his policies have not been popular I can all but guarantee you that he will have to take on numerous challenges throughout the Republican primary season. If his policies, and their resultant outcomes, have been less than popular heading into the 2018 midterms, leading to Democrats holding on or even gaining in the Senate (it's a bad map for the Democrats in 2018, so holding on would be a huge victory), as well as gaining or taking over in the House, it is all but certain that he will face at least some measure of a challenge to be the party's nominee. The last time a serious challenge was mounted against an incumbent was 1980, and let's just say it didn't end too well for the incumbent, President Carter.
To Mr. Silver's point, I do wonder how much buyer's remorse there is going around with people who voted for Trump. There is assuredly a strong portion of those who voted for him who are not only celebrating these executive orders, but are probably bemoaning that they do not go far enough. I have to believe, however, that the totality of those individuals represent little more the the far fringe of the alt-right echo chamber championed by President Trump's "Chief Strategist," Mr. Breitbart himself, Steve Bannon*. The rest of those who voted for Mr. Trump have to be wishing that more of what he said was a metaphor. Even if they are nowhere near ready to admit it yet. But if they are having some buyer's remorse, President Trump and his team would be wise to head their voices, because avoiding becoming a marginalized President, let alone winning re-election, will be difficult if his fairly small coalition begins to splinter.
*As an aside, the uproar over Mr. Bannon joining the National Security Counsel while Mr. Trump functionally demoted the Director of National Intelligence and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should get even more attention. Mr. Bannon has done nothing in his personal or professional life that indicates that he is worthy of his current post, let alone this level of influence in the intelligence world. I hope that this continues to be a flash point for the GOP's more foreign policy minded individuals like Senator McCain and Senator Graham. I could also write for thousands of words on Mr. Bannon's involvement alone ... or the less than qualified individuals that President Trump nominated to the various cabinet positions (DeVos, Price and Perry to name three). I could seriously quit my job and do NOTHING but write about all of this and not have enough hours in the day to truly lay out all the intricacies of what's going on. But let me simply say this: it doesn't matter whether you are liberal or conservative, identify as a Democrat or Republican or anywhere in between: Steve Bannon being this involved in our government should terrify you more than almost anything that is going on right now. He makes Karl Rove look like a saint by comparison.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)