Roughly speaking, there are three institutions that can investigate a president:
- The press
- The opposition party in Congress
- The FBI and the Justice Department
Donald Trump has declared war on all three. Coincidence?
Roughly speaking, there are three institutions that can investigate a president:
Donald Trump has declared war on all three. Coincidence?
There’s a new NPR/Marist poll out today titled “Picture of Work in the United States.” It’s got a zillion questions about various aspects of work that I mostly didn’t find especially enlightening,¹ but there was one question that caught my eye. They asked respondents whether they feel their employer values their work. Here are the results for various demographic pairs:
This is just one small data point and I don’t want to make too much of it. That said, feeling valued is a strong component of job satisfaction and therefore of satisfaction with the economy in general. As you can see, it approaches 90 percent for nearly everyone. In particular, Trump voters don’t feel any less valued than anyone else. Neither do millennials or men or conservatives. In fact, the only groups that feel substantially less valued than average are the poor and working class (income < $50,000) and nonwhites. But both of those are generally Democratic constituencies, not Trump supporters. Even among the white working class, 89 percent say they feel valued at work, right in line with the average.
By itself, this poll question doesn’t mean too much. But if you combine it with other survey results about job satisfaction, personal financial stress, and so forth, it’s one more small bit of evidence that economic anxiety is not really all that widespread.
¹It’s not that the questions themselves were uninteresting. The problem is that a big pile of one-time data doesn’t tell us very much about the changing workplace. What we really want to know is how things have evolved over time, and this poll just doesn’t do that. This is true of the “value your work” question too, but comparing different demographic groups does tell us something about a political question.
From Hawaii Governor David Ige, explaining why it took him so long to tell everyone that the missile alert a couple of weeks ago was a mistake:
I have to confess that I don’t know my Twitter account log-ons and the passwords, so certainly that’s one of the changes that I’ve made.
I suppose that’s not as bad as nearly starting a nuclear war over a flock of geese, but it’s in the same category, just updated for our brave new social media era. A million years from now, when some future historian writes about the demise of the first human civilization, I expect they’ll conclude from archeological evidence that it was due to some 13-year old posting a joke on Facebook.
Over at National Review, Peter Spiliakos writes that Sen. Tom Cotton’s sterling hardline performance in the immigration standoff has strengthened his chance of being president someday:
He was the most effective Trump surrogate and has earned the “fighter” reputation that Cruz wanted so desperately. He needs a broader populist economic policy to go along with his support for transitioning to a system of high-skill immigration. He should work with Senator Mike Lee on pro-parent tax policy and with James Capretta on health care. A populism that is only about immigration isn’t populist.
This is a real question, not snark: what “populist” economic policies could a Republican nominee for president possibly support? “Pro-parent” tax policy is mostly just handwaving: usually a modest increase in the child tax credit and elimination of the marriage penalty. It’s peanuts. And no Republican has ever proposed anything in the same zip code as populist health care policy. Spiliakos mentions James Capretta, but Capretta is a standard issue conservative who champions “market-based” reforms like forcing consumers to pay a bigger share of their health care expenses; premium support for Medicare; high-risk pools; and killing off Medicaid in all but name. This may be conservative health care policy, but it would be wildly unpopular. There’s nothing remotely populist about it.
What else? Taxing the rich? That’s out. Support for labor unions. Please. Higher taxes on capital income. Not gonna happen. Government regulation to rein in the cost of pharmaceuticals? Nah. Free college for everyone? Nope. A higher minimum wage? Not a chance. Wage subsidies (the “thinking man’s minimum wage”)? That costs money, so it’s out of the question.
It’s popular these days on the right to simply declare policies they like to be populist, but that doesn’t actually make them populist. Anything truly populist is almost by definition something that corporations and the rich oppose, and that means Republicans will never be economic populists. Donald Trump sure isn’t, no matter how much he blusters about his love for the common man.
The Republican obsession with FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe is too bizarre to bother trying to explain. The nickel version is that he’s literally done nothing wrong, but details are here if you really want to torture yourself. The end result of this jihad, however, has been an increasing drumbeat to fire McCabe even though he’s already set to retire in a few months. Axios reports that FBI Director Christopher Wray finally got tired of this crap:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions — at the public urging of President Donald Trump — has been pressuring FBI Director Christopher Wray to fire Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, but Wray threatened to resign if McCabe was removed, according to three sources with direct knowledge. Wray’s resignation under those circumstances would have created a media firestorm. The White House — understandably gun-shy after the Comey debacle — didn’t want that scene, so McCabe remains.
Good for Wray. The insane war against the FBI by Republicans desperate to derail the Russia probe needs to get more of a spotlight. If it doesn’t stop, Wray should start calling it out publicly.
The Trump administration announced Monday that it would impose hefty tariffs on the cheap, imported panels that have driven the rapid expansion of solar power in the United States, a move that industry groups warned would slow the spread of renewable energy and cost thousands of jobs….Companies that install solar panels will probably trim their workforces, industry analysts warned, as the tariff — which starts at 30% on the imported panels and gradually declines each year — threatens to substantially raise the price of solar power in the United States.
There are a couple of ways this could play out:
Behind Door #1, consumers have to pay 30 percent more for solar panels. Behind Door #2, the whole thing has no effect at all. So this policy might be bad for America or neutral for America, but there’s not much chance it will be good for America.
On the bright side, these tariffs basically act as a subsidy for fossil fuels, so Trump can pretend that it’s good for coal miners. And that’s what matters, amirite?
Having spent the weekend arguing about whose “fault” the government shutdown was, we have moved on. The government is back up and running and we’re now obsessed with who “won.”
So who did win? Beats me. On the one hand, Democrats caved by agreeing to yet another continuing resolution that doesn’t restore DACA. On the other hand, Democrats got CHIP funding out of the deal, as well as a promise from Mitch McConnell—admittedly a bit nebulous—to allow a vote on DACA restoration in the Senate. Is that a win? On the one hand, Democrats got CHIP. On the other hand, they would’ve gotten CHIP eventually anyway. On the third hand, getting CHIP now means that kids won’t start losing health care as the current funding slowly disappears state by state.
OK, but what other evidence is there? Well, there’s the fact that Mitch McConnell seems to be really happy today. Does that mean he’s pretty sure he put one over on the Democrats? Probably—but then again, McConnell is no immigration hardliner, and he hates the Bannon/Miller wing of the GOP. So maybe he thinks he put one over on them. Besides, if McConnell was really so sure that Republicans were winning this showdown, why didn’t he just let it continue to play out?
But wait. A bunch of Democrats voted against the deal and are unhappy about it. Is that evidence that Democrats are admitting that McConnell beat them, as Aaron Blake suggests in the Washington Post? Maybe. But let’s not be too naive here. Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein? They’re both from California, where a hard line against Republicans plays well. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren? They’re the leaders of the resistance. Kirsten Gillibrand? She’s running for president. They all have good reasons to insist that they’d never betray the Dreamers like this.
And anyway, if there’s no deal in the next three weeks, the government will shut down and Democrats will have a fresh chance to show how dedicated they are to DACA. So maybe this doesn’t even really matter.
To summarize, then, I have no idea who won. But I do know this: the fact that we’re so obsessed with this is just a bit of fresh evidence that H. sapiens as a species is little more than a modestly souped up version of P. troglodytes. For chimps, knowing precisely who won and who surrendered in every encounter—and therefore who outranks you—is vitally important and has been bred into the species by millions of years of evolution. A few hundred thousands generations later, it still controls human society. The only difference between chimps and humans is that they do it with screeching and feces flinging, while we do it with Twitter and cable news. I think their way is probably more dignified.
The Women’s March in Los Angeles on Saturday was huge. I don’t think the crowds were quite as big as Hizzoner Garcetti claimed, but the most reliable estimates still put it at 300-400,000, about as big as last year. I spent several hours there, but my train was late so I went straight to City Hall and didn’t see any of the crowds at Pershing Square, where the march started. However, Spring St., Broadway, and Hill St. were all jammed for the entire mile between Pershing Square and City Hall, as was much of First St. And Grand Park in front of City Hall was thronged too.
The mood was loud and vibrant, and the theme of the marchers seemed to be at least as much anti-Trump as it was pro-feminism. In fact, if I had been a Martian who parachuted into the scene, I probably would have guessed it was an anti-Trump rally with a few other social issues tossed in. Here’s a small gallery of photos from the march.
A view of the crowd looking south on Spring St.
Faces in the crowd.
A protester at the corner of First and Spring St.
The main stage seen through a sea of pussy hats.
Another view of the crowd looking south on Broadway.
A little girl on Broadway near City Hall. She and her mother were having a ball.
Signs of the time.
“Respect my existence or expect my resistance.”
Over at Vox, Alissa Wilkinson gives a glowing review to Sorry to Bother You, “the loony directorial debut from rapper Boots Riley….a commentary on race, labor, and American capitalism that veers in so many directions that itâ€™s best to just strap in and let it take you where it wants you to go.” One of the central conceits of the movie is an exploitive company called WorryFree:
[WorryFree] encourages people facing financial difficulty to sign a lifetime labor contract in which theyâ€™ll work for the company for the rest of their lives. In turn, they can stop worrying about things like rent and car payments; the company guarantees bunk-style housing and lousy-looking meals that WorryFree customers insist are delicious. In other words, itâ€™s modern-day indentured labor.
….WorryFree also evokes some familiar practices â€” labor in for-profit prisons and the endless cycle of debt that keeps people in poverty â€” that may feel ripped from a dystopian novel, but are just one tick away from plausible.
I’m not trying to pick on anyone here, but this is a trope that bugs me. Modern-day indentured servitudeâ€”though it sounds like Boots Riley actually means for us to think of WorryFree being in the slavery businessâ€”is not “one tick” away from being plausible. Neither is The Handmaid’s Tale, which frequently gets the same treatment as an “all too possible” look into the near future.
I don’t quite get why so many people feel like they have to say things like this. On the evangelical right it’s practically the stuff of day-to-day conversation. They really and truly seem to believe that gay marriage and access to abortion are signs that America’s moral decay has gone so far that the country will be literally beyond saving within a few years. There’s nothing quite like that on the left,Â¹ but there is a weird tendency to believe that America is just a hair’s breadth away from 1984 or The Hunger Games whenever a Republican is president. This is despite the fact that on social issues related to race, feminism, gay rights, trans right, and so forth, the country has done nothing but get steadily more liberal for the past 50 years. Nor has that slowed down recently. Here’s a sampling of Gallup poll numbers on the evolution of opinion on various moral issues since 2001:
I’m sure there are a few social issues that poll more conservative today than they did in 2001, but I’m not sure what they are. I think the evangelical obsession with the decay of America is crackpot stuff, but at least they’re responding to genuine losses. All that stuff in the chart above is bad news for them. But for liberals? It’s just one good thing after another.
POSTSCRIPT: I forgot about immigration! There’s no long-term data for stuff like DACA and the wall, which are fairly recent developments, but here are a couple of things that Gallup has tracked since 2002:
The number of people who worry about illegal immigration has stayed steady for the past 15 yearsâ€”including 2016 and 2017, when it was a mainstay of Donald Trump’s campaign. The number of people who want to cut back on immigration (both legal and illegal) has declined by 20 percentage points. At the same time, DACA is extremely popular and the wall isn’t. Despite the loudness of the voice on the far right, most of the evidence suggests that Americans have generally gotten more liberal on immigration issues since the turn of the century.
Â¹I wouldn’t count climate change alarmism here, since climate change is objectively real and might genuinely lead to disaster if we don’t do something about it.
Ramesh Ponnuru wants to get rid of government shutdowns:
The U.S. has had four partial shutdowns of the federal government in the last 25 years. Each time we have one, we debate who’s responsible: which party is the formal cause of it, which is being less reasonable in budget negotiations. Maybe it’s time instead to debate doing away with the possibility of shutdowns.
There’s no law of nature that requires the federal government to run at partial capacity when Congress and the president can’t agree on a budget bill. Long ago Congress could have passed, and a president could have signed, a law stipulating how the government would operate in case of such a disagreement.
This sounds appealing, and I’d certainly be in favor of eliminating debt ceiling standoffs, which truly are pointless and dangerous. But getting rid of budget-driven government shutdowns would be sort of like banning strikes by labor unions. Sure, strikes are annoying for everyone, but without them there’s no leverage to force a deal to be made. Human nature being what it is, both sides sometimes need the spur of looming catastrophe to force them toward an agreement.
If the government were put on automatic autopilot in the absence of a budget agreement, the incentive to pass a budget would shrivel even further than it already has. Sometimes this might favor Democrats and sometimes Republicans, so there’s no real partisan valence here. But I’d be very careful about “recognizing reality” and doing something like this. Half a century ago Mike Mansfield recognized the reality of filibusters and decided to change the Senate rules so that no one actually had to talk and the Senate could go about its business while simply acknowledging that a filibuster was taking place. Later the rules were changed so that nobody even had to be present in the Senate to keep a filibuster going. But guess what? When the price of a filibuster went down to nearly zero, the number of filibusters skyrocketed and we ended up with the 60-vote Senate we have today. That’s not something Mansfield or anyone else ever expected.
So what happens when the price of a budget deadlock goes down nearly to zero? My guess is that we’d have a lot more budget deadlocks. Contra Ponnuru, then, I might propose something 180 degrees different: pass a law that bans continuing resolutions and shuts down the government on October 1 if there’s no budget. Passing a budget is the prime purpose of Congress, but in recent years both Democrats and Republicans have all but abdicated this responsibility. Maybe they need some incentive to start considering the budget their top priority, not a bit of trivia to be ignored while they fight base-pleasing battles over ideological hot buttons.