I do see the point going in – a military man is sincere but disciplined. He has great knowledge but perfect discretion. He’ll wait politely for you to finish your thought and will always put his ideas after yours. If he sees any signs of disloyalty he will act with great furor. He will set the perfect example.
He has reached the level where he believes his orders must be followed to the letter.
He looks down upon other employees because they lack his experience – no matter if it is completely unrelated to the task at hand.
He thinks the Commander in Chief fails to set a proper military style example and so is undeserving of his loyalty and obedience.
He has become completely fixed in his views of how certain problems should be solved.
The Prussians had so many wins in the 19th century that they started to buy into the notion that rule by military government was the best political solution. Then the Japanese bought in for the same reasons. We had a crippled President who would never believe in or successfully sell such an approach to managing his own government, even during a war. (LBJ learned nothing from this.) The chaos worked beautifully.
Our democratic system depends on open debate with some unsolved issues. It’s perfectly OK if some cabinet members are on different sides of an issue as long as they don’t spend their time undermining each other in public. Can you think of a public policy issue that has only one (reasonable) side? Trump has tried to run a purified cult with a unified view on every issue – that is impossible, so imposing it from above by choosing generals as ruling members brings anger and indiscipline.
These are battles without guns that Kelly had no idea how to win.
Okay – the election is over and the Dems get the House back so they are ready to rumble. What’s on their top 10 list? – Why, illegal immigration of course. I’m sure Nancy is dying to cry foul. She’d like to put all these caravan people up at the Trump hotel. Does Nancy have a fully developed policy in hand?
We don’t know how to process all these Hondurans.
We don’t know how to separate immigrants from asylum seekers.
We have never shown the capacity to deport them back to their country of origin. Once done – how do we keep them there?
Are we to blame for their economic morass?
What do we do with children?
The problem goes much deeper than the logistics of handling new immigrants. As general Mattis sends in some troops we need to think how badly Bill Clinton screwed this up. Back in the 90’s Central (and South) Americans were set up by US trade agreements to produce and sell us textiles. Then Clinton decided to give away special trade status to every Asian country. Most developing world trade aid is just a form of welfare since we know they’ll never buy anything we make – they’re too poor) so this was his idea of being charitable.
In 1997 Central American production (Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador) produced 19%% of our needs. Asia (China, Vietnam and Bangladesh) also produced 19%.
In 2001 it was 22 to 17 (so far so good).
In 2006 it was 14 to 29
In 2107 it is 12 to 54%!
Quite simply we have allowed Asia to destroy countries that have far more political significance to us. Without work, their economies and societies melt down and their desperate people come here. Who we trade with should be a strategic political decision. We must be particular about who we buy our stuff from so we get the most bang for our buck.
All this reminds me of the Arab Spring where an ocean of overeducated Egyptians and Algerians wondered about with nothing to do but apply to graduate school and for government jobs. Choice #2 for these young people was ISIS. What are all those 20 somethings doing in Italy, Spain, and Greece – same problem. China has all the capacity in the world to replace every laborer on the planet – at a lower cost. Even subSaharn Africans didn’t expect this.
“Free” traders have set policy that essentially forces us to take in Mexican and Central Americans as immigrants whose jobs “we” shipped to China/Asia. Mexico would be doing the same thing if it weren’t for cars and the corruption of NAFTA.
This is just another example of what happens when people use trade policy like they’re Santa with no consideration of immigration and factor price equalization.
Robert Reich should be the man that Trump sends to confront these desperate people.
We sometimes feel like the failure of new terrorists or even their success are so stunningly evil that it will deter other nuts and copycats since they must watch all the negative media coverage. Wouldn’t they presume that they too would be pilloried for any such similar act? All those thoughts and prayers verses a smattering of applause from inside the alt-right and neo-Nazi websites.
Malcolm Gladwell espouses what is called a diffusion index of terrorism. It says the opposite. The more people who do this, the greater the nerve of those others who have thought about it. Maybe they think they can do it better or they actually want to be like that guy who they just saw on TV. Either way, more attacks are bad without exception.
What if Trump and his band of Soros haters realized how weaponized their words are. Does Lou Dobbs have it in him to recant or recognize the link made between Anti-Semites and George Soros, Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg? Does Trump have the will or weight to pull all this rhetoric in the opposite direction – no chance. If he did, the wackos would probably just wink back. (Besides Dobbs wants the ratings!)
I don’t think Gladwell expected the terrorist theme to switch to domestic political villainy and its appropriate punishment. Teenage, incel angst has far fewer sympathizers (I presume). The significant expansion of new sample cases in just one week should leave Gladwell and the rest of us very discomfited. All the negative imagery of bombs and arraignments are food for other Lou Dobbs fans. The genie has been let out and suddenly advocating tough measures” against Jews and political enemies looks a lot more like “inciting to violence”- something we should be prosecuting, even if it does seem too late to Malcolm.
Do you ever get the impression that we have gone as far as we can go in many respects?
We have overproduced digital phone apps.
We have too many ways to make a (real) phone call and only prisoners seem to make them.
We have too many poverty-stricken people in the world with no economic purpose.
We have too many academics and too many academic bureaucrats.
We have overproduced music so much that the most popular kinds have no melody.
We have so much (video) entertainment on our phones that there is no time to read and reflect. (Do people read books on subjects other than food?)
There seem to be a ton of people headed off to do jobs that aren’t that necessary? (like SEO managers) Aren’t there way too many car and truck drivers?
Didn’t social media advertising become saturated about 5 years ago? Do we really need to spend more $ on Google ads? What is the ROI?
It seems like years ago we really needed more reliable cars and better-sounding stereos – right away. We needed cheaper clothes, more reliable cars with better gas mileage, and more media options. We needed more than (plain) penicillin. We needed to get to the moon! (Do we really need to get to Mars?)
When we asked for new stuff, it usually came below par – we could see obvious areas for improvement. That meant more work for designers and manufacturers. Apple seems to have no clue how to make their phones better – and neither do I. If someone asked me for a features wish list in Excel in 1998 I’d have some ideas. I don’t know what would be on the list now.
Am I saturated in the world of consumer goods? Apparently – I never go into Best Buy … do I need a bigger TV? My laptop is 3 years old and if I replaced it, the new one would look just like it. Do you enviously study the latest iPhone features? My Christmas list consists of replacement clothing items.
It’s not just that I’m old, though that’s a big part of it. My 20-year old children have terrible wish lists too. It leaves them saving for housing, transport, food, and vacation – the normal big four from history. (Borrrring)
Wasn’t it so much more exciting when there were other new things coming up all the time that seemed both necessary, and stimulating? We needed to get those people on the subway to work – there was a lot to be done.
I always guessed that our version of a new Republican authoritarian would be a Colin Powell type – plenty of medals, perfect posture, and low volume. Military people are usually sheltered by handlers so we wouldn’t hear a lot of (bad) history about stupid/uninformed comments.
I should have seen my mistake. We got a legitimate corporate contender in the 90’s. Instead of a smooth, buttoned up Jamie Diamond we got a paranoid dwarf -Ross Perot. Independent candidates are a varied lot. They often come unpackaged.
So now it’s come to this:
The backdrops are no longer long escalators (plus trophy wife). They are nodding pre-programmed idol worshipers, looking for camera exposure.
My sense is that his failure to choreograph the message is already a drag on the enthusiasm of the true believers. Just as with Bush Jr. they continued to side with their guy but their conviction faded. Trump needed tangible results in a few simple areas (for his simple followers) – there’s no wall, no Muslim ban, no change to NAFTA, no jobs coming back from China. Political corruption in his administration is worse than we’ve ever seen. He needs style to offset all these failures. (Does his Saudi defense help him in the heartland?)
He does best with a target- an adversary. The Dems would do best to hide in the trenches. (sorry Elizabeth) Without one he is adrift and so needs to go back to style. This, he has failed to do. Is there is too much baggage to be manageable?
The racists will be there, but the (economically) disenfranchised and the authoritarians will sit it out. If the Repubs lose the House then the malaise will continue into 2020 and he could be really challenged to get the nomination again. Toilet paper (moments) may have written the next act of the play.
Trump needed Hillary – without her he is flailing.
Please stop comparing historical “creative destruction” with our current problems. I can retrain a horse and buggy driver to be a cab driver (circa 1910) in about a day. I can’t teach a sales clerk at Macy’s how to write Python code.
Israel’s plan of loving all thing’s Sunni and hating all things Shiite is and always was a self-serving policy that will fail spectacularly. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Didn’t we all finally learn this during the 2nd Gulf war? How about this? – The fiend of my friend (Israel) isn’t necessarily my friend.
No, China has no idea how to transition from a small TIGER like , export-driven, economy to a fully diversified first world economic state. We fed it a few import tariffs and the wheels are almost coming off the entire corrupt state. It’s a dirt cheap offshore polluting, parasite fed by our purchases. Let us never forget that.
Renaming NAFTA is not an achievement. Neither is your assertion that you saved pre-existing exemptions for new buyers of health insurance – because you failed to get it passed.
So far our giant corporate tax cut has given us exactly what we expected – soaring budget deficits, giant stock buybacks, no wage gains, no acceleration in hiring or training. Even the Repubs are too embarrassed to bring it up.
The stock market has been fed by two energy sources over the past twenty years:
Outsourcing and automation that raises the ROR on labor … They are both going away (for now) but we have fabulous stock buybacks to help transition us into a rather dull sideways or down market. No reason for panic if you’re long but no reason for optimism either.
How will people handle a 10% increase on all Chinese goods (initially just $200 bn of them)? Will they run screaming from Walmart crying for armed rebellion? … or maybe they won’t notice that a shirt at TJ Max went up from $13.50 to $14.75?
Catherine Rampell (WashPo Oped writer) thinks this is a travesty as though we (Trump et al) have sinned against the one true American creed – consumerism. Why is it so hard to accept the idea that paying a higher price for some things can be in the national interest? It makes sense to have tariffs against trade criminals and to protect jobs even if it’s at the expense of the consumer.
My guess is that this 10% price increase will be a giant non-event. Economists may whine but people won’t get too exercised. The question is -will this experiment in domestic preference sustain itself through the next administration. It seems clear to me that since Trump raised the issue of Chinese trade crime many non-Trumpsters have recognized the validity of the case. Now they must deal with one of the appropriate ways to counteract it. If you’re against their subsidization of exports and IP theft then what would you recommend? You no longer get to whine about the inefficiency of tariffs without proposing an alternative.
We could set up a rebate for the poor or increase food stamps. We could/should exclude non-essential consumer items that will never be made in the US no matter how much of a tariff we apply – Haloween masks and cheap plastic toys. I’m after things like LCD screens for airplanes and antibiotics. I’d like to know that such things were procurable in the US in case our giant parasite gets testy.
In the long run, production adjustments will happen; prices will do their job but if the market thinks this is just a temporary Trump-only policy then nothing will be achieved. It’s true – a rollback will come along with a smug proclamation of how tariffs never work but If the reaction to the tariffs is diminimus then it makes it easier to leave them intact. It would also help if the tariffs came with a guarantee that the revenue was used to pay down the national debt and increase food stamps.
I understand that an elite athlete looks to gain any advantage they can by getting very hyped up during a game. They talk trash to an opponent or yell at themselves after an unforced error. They scream with enthusiasm after a massive dunk or spectacular touchdown catch. We often celebrate with them.
After the game is over, during a break or even during the game the athlete has to manage his edginess. If he doesn’t he could get penalized for dirty play, excessive celebration, profanity towards the crowd, or smashing his racquet to bits. Muhammed Ali never stopped his antics. Outside the ring, he was as insulting as Donald Trump. It was good for ratings just like it is for Trump but is that really how we like our athletes (or politicians)? Do you like Richard Sherman’s arrogance, Nick Kyrgios’ profanity, Dez Bryant’s self-promotion, or DeMarcus Cousins court antics?
If an athlete is at the top of their sport we expect even more. LeBron James doesn’t act like a petulant child off the court. He doesn’t spend his time anonymously tweeting insults to other players or twitter trolls. He feels some responsibility for the reputation of his sport, as does Roger Federer, Tom Brady, and Sydney Crosby.
Which brings us to Serena Williams. In a US Open final, I expect a lot, decorum wise, from the greatest female player of all time. I expect her to be the example, not the 20-year-old she’s playing against. I don’t care about whataboutismslike “men do it”. Did you see Raphael Nadal or Roger Federer ever act like that in a major tournament? Is John McEnroe who you really want to be compared to? No excuses. Step away from stupid discrimination claims and umpire unfairness.
The first reason why this is not true is simply because there is no such thing as Trumpism. There is no plan, no ideology, A man without knowledge of anything cannot be given credit for a strategy or a phenomenon. The Poles and Hungarians might prefer autocracy. Australians and Italians might want to reduce immigration. None of the people in these countries are voting for these changes because they are watching Trump on TV.
The entire first world suffers from three common problems:
The maldistribution of income,
Anemic growth of lower and middle incomes.
Poor participation rates and/or high youth unemployment.
Italy’s economy over the last 20 years has not grown at all! The Spanish youth unemployment rate is 33.8%. 29% of 15-year-olds in the UK come from new immigrant families and one out of three babies are born to foreign-born residents (2/3 in the city of London). Australia is in the middle of the longest period of low wage growth since its last recession in the early 1990s.
There are only two possible reasons for this global mess – automation and China. Automation reduces worker demand and outsourcing to China sets a global price for labor. It tells every manager – 1st world workers are not worth any more than Chinese peasants. In the midst of this, liberal politicians decided to do the right thing and let in foreign immigrants. America let in an ocean of Hispanic people. Europe let in Muslims. When you’re feeling economically oppressed you’re not going to be generous to new arrivals unless they look and sound exactly like you.
Our common global parasite ensures a common 1st world condition. How could politicians become so out of touch with basic human psychology? We’ve decided to label this – populism, as though it’s a new socio-economic phenomenon. Isn’t it logical to want to curtail immigration when wages are stagnating and the foreign-born population is at a 70 year high? None of this is local or national – it’s global. This isn’t about white supremacy – it’s about supply and demand.
This should be a battle between economists and open border liberals but the economists are hiding in the bushes. Maybe they’re outnumbered by the efficiency lovers who can never get enough cheap labor. Their absence has been filled in by the likes of Steve Bannon, Viktor Orban, and Jimmie Akesson. These are not necessarily nice guys but stupid open border fanatics who have never taken a course in economics have facilitated their rise. If we expect economically oppressed people to open their hearts to economically oppressed foreigners we are asking way too much. I doubt they would be open to a new flood of Canadians fleeing a natural disaster. We are too quick to judge our grandparents who closed our borders during the depression.
They were bad humanitarians but good (labor) economists.
This may sound a little obscure but it needs to be addressed since it keeps coming up. As political rhetoric gets more heated it has become popular to say that extreme right-wing thinking will lead to another holocaust. Jordan Peterson is desperately claiming that naive millennial Marxists must take responsibility for all of Stalin’s and Mao’s crimes. This confuses me:
Leftists detest income inequality. They may even propose a swing toward a Centrally Planned Economy (Marxism) as a solution. It can be shown that this is a terrible idea. It cannot be said though that a democracy run by industrial workers (“All Power to the Soviets”) has anything to do with starving farmers in Ukraine or working millions to death in Siberian Gulags. Mao starved his people in order to hoard grain to sell to Russia to pay for nuclear bombs. Where is that in Das Capital?
Fascism is a tough thing to define but it isn’t necessarily the logical extension of extreme conservative thinking. Even if it were we have a variety of 20th-century fascist examples – Spain and Italy. They never engaged in genocide. Neither deported their Jewish populations to Polish death camps. Mussolini and Franco were not nice to their enemies but as dictators, we kind of figured they wouldn’t be. The problem is that Hume and Burke never said dictators were the way to go. What has any of this got to do with conservatism?
Analogously we often hear religious people say that Stalin’s and Hitler’s atheism drove them to murder. I guess there’s a sort of Guidebook for Nonbelievers that says they have no beliefs except that murder is OK. In the name of believing in nothing, they condemn their citizenry to death(?)… or if they had followed Jesus they would be pacificists like Gandhi. Not even close.
Find me one conservative thinker who is in favor of ethnic cleansing. Then find me a Marxist who wants to set up a new government and murder all the capitalists. Can we stop this nonsense of using 20th-century similes when they make no sense? We need to take the good parts from both sides – that’s impossible if we associate either ideology with genocide. Let’s just agree that totalitarianism is a bad idea and leave it there.
If Trump starts to act like a dictator or seems to be unwilling to leave the oval office then bring on the 20th-century parallels!