Donald Trump as admitted that when prices go up, it is just about impossible to bring them down. Given that he campaigned on a promise to do just that, will it hurt his popularity?
My guess is no, not really. Last time around he campaigned on bringing back all those good-paying manufacturing jobs that went overseas. He did not, in fact, bring back all those good paying manufacturing jobs, and that didn't hurt him in the least with the party faithful
My guess is that what is happening here is that people are taking Trump "seriously, but not literally." Or, stated otherwise, they are judging him by his affect, rather than his effect. In other words, voters may very well understand that the good-paying manufacturing jobs are not coming back, that when prices go up they are probably not coming down and, in general, that Trump is promising a lot of things that he cannot deliver on. His supporters do not really blame him for these things because they know that at least he shares their aspirations.
After years and years of hearing Republicans saying that anyone who does not at least aspire to own a business is a moocher and loser, and Democrats urging everyone to get a good education so they don't get stuck in a dead-end blue collar job, it must be good to hear someone who understands that you don't want to own a business, or to have a degree and desk job, you just want a job that pays a good wage and that is perfectly fine. Even if Trump could not realistically bring back all those good-paying blue collar jobs, it must be good to hear a politician says that there is nothing wrong with your aspirations, and that you do not need either to own a business or to have a degree to be a valuable member of society.
The same applies this time to inflation. When you are angry about increased prices, the last thing you want is someone to explain why it really is not as bad as it seems. You want a leader who is also angry about increased prices. Even if there is nothing that can realistically be done to lower prices, you still want a leader who shares your anger.
So does this mean that nothing can dent Trump's popularity? No, I don't think that at all. I do think that it won't hurt his popularity if nothing really gets better because things are actually pretty good as they are. What will hurt his popularity is if things get worse. Such as if high tariffs, large-scale deportations, or budget busting tax cuts cause inflation to go back up again.
Remember when it seemed possible that Republicans were abandoningeconomic royalism? Remember when they made the discovery that actually corporations can do wrong and can oppress. Not by selling unsafe products, of course, or by having unsafe work conditions or ruining the environment, of course, but maybe Bud Lite seeking endorsement of a trans influencer. Of course, Republican deviation from economic royalism was not a serious deviation, just an expression of anger at "woke capital." An ideology of corporations can do no wrong was simply giving way to an ideology of corporations can do no wrong -- unless they say something "woke."
Fast forward to today when, probably unsurprisingly, Donald Trump appears to be going all-out economic royalist and is turning his administration into an open plutocracy. He has cut a deal with big money interests -- cut the wokeness, and I will give you everything else you want. They are eagerly taking him up on it. Trump his stocking his administration with billionaires and letting oil companies set energy policy in exchange for campaign contributions. And don't be so foolish as to think this will hurt his populist street cred. Part of Trump's true stroke of genius is to turn economic royalism into a populist ideology.
I should add, just for the record, that this is entirely consistent with general Republican ideology for a long time. People on our side of the aisle have been complaining for a long time the Republicans dismiss knowledge, expertise, and meritocracy. Republicans, I would guess, would dispute this. Their formulation, instead is plutocracy = meritocracy. They simply see the true measure of people who know most in a field, not as degrees or credentials, or study, but as how much money one makes at it. Thus whoever makes the most money in any given field clearly knows the most about it and is best qualified to set policy. Letting oil companies set energy policy is popular in the assumption that oil companies want to maximize production, which will reduce prices.
And the same in any other field. The general assumption is that whatever maximizes corporate profits necessarily maximizes the public good. Government of the richest, by the richest, and for the richest is naturally government to the benefit of all. The whole idea that our plutocrats might have interests that differ from the broad general public (or, for that matter, from each other) is dismissed as Communism. Thus not only plutocracy = meritocracy, but plutocracy = the public good and therefore, ultimately, plutocracy = democracy.
And, following the same logic, since Elon Musk is the world's richest man, he must also be the smartest, most competent, and best qualified to run things. Musk likes saying, "Vox populi, vox Dei" (the voice of the people is the voice of God). Unstated in this assumption -- "Vox Musk, vox populi." And, after all, since Musk is the world's richest, and therefore worthiest, person, who would presume to disagree with him?
Still, with all that being said, it is not so clear to me whether plutocracy would be so popular if anyone other than Donald Trump were promoting it.
So, now that we have averted a government shutdown, what are we to make of the latest flap?
I would say, first and foremost, it appears that not even Trump can control the Freedom Caucus or, as Devin Nunes once called them, the lemmings with suicide vests caucus. Maybe they will become more compliant once he is actually sworn in, but as of right now, they remain lemmings with suicide vests.
Second and relatedly, although Donald Trump and Elon Musk are spinning this as a win, neither man actually got what he wanted. Musk called for a government shutdown and a halt to all legislation until Trump is inaugurated. Trump called for abolition, or at least suspension, of the debt ceiling. Neither of these happened. In fact, the final bill was not all that different from the one Musk scuttled, but they did scuttle the first bill, so both men are trying to spin this as a win.
Third, and intriguingly, this may be the first disagreement between Trump and Musk. At least, Musk called for a government shutdown. Trump did not. Trump called for an end to the debt ceiling. Musk did not. Maybe nothing will come of this. But it is interesting.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly in the long run, it confirms my suspicion about a second Trump Administration. My guess is that there actually will be grownups in the room during this administration. The bad news is that, instead of being mavens of the Deep State (see above) as in the first Trump Administration, this time they will be the plutocrats. Deep State mavens were primarily interested in keeping Trump from subverting the rule of law. The plutocrats are primarily interested in keeping Trump from blowing up the economy.
Clearly one or more of the plutocrats (we have no way of knowing which one(s)) have impressed on Trump just how disastrous a debt ceiling breach would be. Trump is therefore heavily invested in abolishing the debt ceiling, or at least kicking the can as far down the road as possible. And he is absolutely right about that. Stopped clock and all.
But this is also troubling. Let me be clear about my order of preferences. They are as follows:
Trump does not subvert the rule of law or blow up the economy.
Trump blows up the economy, but does not subvert the rule of law.
Trump both subverts the rule of law and blows up the economy.
Trump subverts the rule of law but does not blow up the economy.
The reason for this set of preferences is simple. Our country can recover from economic damage. It has done so many time. But it cannot survive as a true democratic republic if the rule of law is subverted.
Thus the importance of rule number one in any smart authoritarian's playbook. Don't do anything unpopular until after you have consolidated complete power into your hands. Taking unpopular actions before you consolidate power will generate pushback and risks thwarting the attempt. But if you truly manage to consolidate power, then you are free to take unpopular actions if you want because it will be too late to stop you. Hugo Chavez and Erdogan Recep and classic examples of smart authoritarians who followed this rule.
Trump, certainly, is not smart, but the grownups in the room just might turn out to be smart authoritarians who understand this rule.
Then again, the lemmings with suicide vests caucus just might thwart them.
So, speaking as one who follows a lot of anti-Trump accounts, a frequent comment is that Trump is totally incoherent.I don't agree. Yes, he tends to ramble. Trump has always tended to ramble, so that is nothing new. And it is a mistake to overstate Trump's incoherence. If you follow closely, it is not too difficult to discern what Trump is saying.
In fact, Trump opponents should keep the Biden debate in mind. Not only was it Biden who sounded completely incoherent in the debate, but Trump proved that he still has enough discipline to sound reasonably sane. That is a suggestion that is nutty rantings are largely an act put on for the Party faithful who like them, that he is able to turn off when they are not welcome.
The problem is not Trump's rambling style -- it is still possible to follow his train of thought. Nor his seeming nuttiness. He can turn that on and off as called for.
The real problem is the content of Trump's speeches. Namely he appears to sincerely believe things that have no basis in reality. We are in danger of electing a completely delusional President. Let's look at some examples.
Hannibal Lector
Yes, it is weird to keep talking about, "The late, great Hannibal Lector." However, his meaning is clear enough. When Trump raises Hannibal Lector, it is always in the context of illegal immigration. He says that other countries are emptying their prisons and mental institutions and insane asylums on the US. He then says that an insane asylum is a mental institution on steroids, the sort of place that held Hannibal Lector.* The point is clear enough. Trump is claiming that hoards of Hannibal Lectors are being unleashed on the US.
None of this has any basis whatever in reality. Yes, there are more people coming into this country than we can process and we really do need better border control. There is room to debate how many people we should admit in an orderly fashion, but then need to get control and make admission orderly is clear. But there is no evidence whatever that other countries are emptying their prisons and mental institutions on us, or that crime is reaching unprecedented heights in the US (it isn't) even as it falls everywhere else. And the suggestion that there are hoard and hoards of people as violent and dangerous as Hannibal Lector pouring across our border is just plain nuts.
Sharks and Electrocution
Go ahead and listen to his rant on sharks. Yes, it wanders some, but the point is clear enough. Trump is saying that government is forcing the replacement of gasoline boats with electric boats, and that electric boats are impractical because they will sink under the weight of the battery and the boat owner will have a choice between electrocution and being eaten by sharks!
Of course, this has no basis in fact. Gas boats are still being manufactured. Electric boats exist. They have actually been around since the 1880's.Serious comparisons exist between electric and gas boats. The general consensus -- electric boats are quieter, cleaner, and lower maintenance. Gas boats are more powerful. Most consumers opt for power. Nor is there much danger of electrocution unless you are between the terminals. In short, Trump's rant is rambling but comprehensible. It also has no basis in reality.
My suggestion -- electric boat owners should take Kamala for a cruise and Trump to join them. He will either have to accept and be shown up as a liar or decline and be shown up as a coward.
Child Care
Trump's opponents are having fun with his "jumbled' answer, but, again, the meaning is clear:
But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly – and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care. That – it’s going to take care – we’re going to have – I – I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country. Because I have to say with child care – I want to stay with child care – but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just – that I just told you about.
In other words, he thinks that his tariffs will generate so much revenue that they will easily pay for any childcare shortages. Once again, this is completely divorced from reality. First of all, Trump refuses to understand that a tariff is simply an import tax which raises the prices of imports and therefore pinches people's budgets. Nor are they the cash cow that Trump believes. Kevin Drum has an estimate that if Trump puts a 20% tax on all imports and imports to not shrink as a result net revenues would be about $600 billion -- a third of our current deficit.
Of course, the goal of these tariffs is to reduce imports. Trump appears to believe that if we reduce imports enough, it would spur enough growth to pay for everything and possibly even to create a post-scarcity economy. Needless to say, that is completely insane.
Look, the debate is coming up on Tuesday. Trump is pulling ahead. I hope Harris is able to show Trump up for just how seriously out of touch with reality he is. I hope his behavior drives the message home to voters just how dangerous he is.
But the fact is, Trump is a better debater than we like to think. There are advantages to a debater who is completely untethered by the facts.
____________________________________________ *Many Trump opponents have suggested that he is confusing political asylum with an insane asylum. I have no idea on that one.
A lot of people have mocked Michelle Obama for saying, "When they go low, we go high." This has been dismissed as hopelessly naive and utopian. Indeed, Michelle has been accused of not following her own advice at the Democratic Convention.
I am not convinced. There is another way of understanding the remark. Most people seem to assume that there are three possible responses to attack ads, all of them bad.
The first is to ignore the attack as beneath response. That has the disadvantage of looking like an admission that the accusation is true, or why are you letting it go unanswered.
The second is to deny the accusation. The problem, of course, is that that only serves to amplify it. That is the point behind the apocryphal story that Lyndon Johnson wanted to accuse his opponent of committing unspeakable acts with farm animals, just to force him to deny it.
The third alternative is to hit back, hard. This is the one usually seen as the most effective -- when they go low, we go lower. It is effective -- the reason there is so much attack advertising in politics is that it works. The result is the both campaigns compete to go lower and lower. The one who goes lowest usually wins, but the overall result is to make voters despise both candidates and reinforce cynicism about the whole process.
I think that what Michelle Obama is saying is that there is a fourth alternative, a sort of political jiujitsu that turns the attacker's attack back on himself. Ronald Reagan perfectly exemplified the technique when he responded to attempts to portray him as a dangerous extremist by chuckling and saying, "There you go again!" It proved highly effective.
Barrack Obama was also a master of the technique. He knew just how to drive his opponents crazy and then shake his head at their antics. If an opponent wallowed in the sewer and invited him to come down and fight, Obama would say, "Wow! It must really stink down there!"
A more recent example is Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock's famous ad. Rather than making any detailed attempt at refutation, it shows him walking an impossibly cute dog, while saying showing a whole serious of headlines finding that attacks to be false out out of context. "But I think Georgian's will see her ads for what they are," he says, throwing a bag of dog poop into the trash. "Don't you?" The dog barks agreement.
Seriously, though, there is a point her. My point is that Kamala Harris is working hard at the politics of inclusion and may be pulling it off.
Traditionally, Republicans have openly or subtly conveyed a message of exclusion. Yes, they take care to include Black and Hispanic speakers to show that all races are welcome, but the constant message of "authenticity" and "real America" cannot help but convey a message that some "technical citizens" are inauthentic and not "really" American. Who this refers to is somewhat intentionally left vague.
Democrats, by contrast, present a message of inclusion -- which nonetheless has a tendency to exclude. To some extent, this is the result of being a less cohesive coalition that the Republican base. Democrats necessarily have to give assurances to all members of their coalition that all are welcome. This can have the effect of telling people outside the coalition that they are not welcome. And, yes, Democrats have made their efforts to overcome this. Barrack Obama catapulted to national stature with his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention in which he said:
The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
And when he ran for President, Obama sought to reassure people outside the coalition by choosing Joe Biden, generally agreed to be an Authentic Real American, for Vice President. Somehow it never convinced skeptics that he was anything but an out of touch elitist -- or worse.
So Kamala Harris is making her own bid. She has chosen Mr. Super-Whitey from the Midwest for Vice President. Walz flaunts the persona to assure voters on the fence that if you are Mr. Super-Whitey from the Midwast who coaches football, served 24 years in the National Guard, thinks tacos are made from hamburger and seasoned with black pepper and a hot dish is made with mild green chilies, taco sauce, chili pepper and paprika, you are an authentic real American who is welcome in our party. And if you are the daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants from California who makes homemade fries seasoned with home grown rosemary and thyme -- well you are just as real American and just as welcome in our party.
Apparently, Kamala Harris's husband back in 2019 revealed her French fry recipe. Apparently it involves double-frying them in peanut oil and duck fat and seasoning them with home grown rosemary and sage.
"As if I needed another reason to do all I can to elect her," gushed one fan. "WE ARE NOT GOING BACK," proclaimed George Conway, showing a picture of McDonald's fries by comparison. Which is funny, because I can distinctly remember the day when any candidate would have gone to great lengths to conceal such a shameful secret. Harris also stopped by a high end spice shop to buy "Creamy Peppercorn Dressing Base, Fox Point Seasoning, Trinidad Lemon-Garlic Marinade, Turkish Seasoning, and Tuscan Sunset Salt Free Italian Seasoning," and the worst Fox News could find to say was that the chain where she shopped was overtly political in its opposition to Republicans.
You don't believe me? Seriously, look up Dijongate. The right wing worked itself into a tizzy when Barrack Obama ordered Dijon mustard on his hamburger. Obama did not do himself any favors by trying to conceal his preference. And a general uproar ensued over Obama's elitism in using fancy mustard. And now a Democratic candidate is making homemade fries, double fried in peanut oil and duck fat and seasoned with home grown rosemary and sage?!? To which I can only ask, does she put Dijon mustard on them?
