Trump’s solution to the debt

The New Neo Posted on by

For those of you who say that there’s no way Donald Trump could be a worse president than Hillary Clinton, I put before you this story:

Asked whether the United States needed to pay its debts in full, or whether he could negotiate a partial repayment, Mr. Trump told the cable network CNBC, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

He added, “And if the economy was good, it was good. So, therefore, you can’t lose.”

Such remarks by a major presidential candidate have no modern precedent. The United States government is able to borrow money at very low interest rates because Treasury securities are regarded as a safe investment, and any cracks in investor confidence have a long history of costing American taxpayers a lot of money.

Experts also described Mr. Trump’s vaguely sketched proposal as fanciful, saying there was no reason to think America’s creditors would accept anything less than 100 cents on the dollar, regardless of Mr. Trump’s deal-making prowess…

Pressed to elaborate on his remarks, Mr. Trump did appear to step back. He said that he was not suggesting a default, but instead that the government could seek to repurchase debt for less than the face value of the securities. The government, in other words, would seek to repay less money than it borrowed.

Such a process can apparently can work that way for businesses. But the United States is not a business:

The United States simply cannot pursue a similar strategy. The government runs an annual deficit, so it must borrow to retire existing debt. Any measures that would reduce the value of the existing debt, making it cheaper to repurchase, would increase the cost of issuing new debt. Such a threat also could undermine the stability of global financial markets.

Trump’s business acumen is often touted as being good preparation for the presidency. But I have never thought that argument makes much sense, particularly if the candidate’s experience is limited to business. Business requires a different skill set and a different knowledge base, as well as being a different context with different rules and different forms of power . But far far more importantly and specifically, Trump appears to lack even the humility to understand what knowledge he lacks, and narcissists are not known for hiring knowledgeable people to take up the slack, or for taking their advice (example: Barack Obama).

I find statements like that one from Trump frightening, and it was supposedly in his field of expertise.

Here’s another take on Trump’s statements. Not good.

Right now I observe two types of Trump supporters. The first group wanted him to be the nominee from the start, or at the very least jumped on board before he became the only man standing. I would call them the enthusiasts. Then there are the reluctant ones who are willing to vote for him since he appears to be the nominee, but plan to vote with one hand holding their noses closed and/or with barf bags at the ready. Their main goal is to stop Hillary Clinton. I particularly sympathize with that second group, because it’s possible that one day I might join their numbers.

But I ask both groups whether stories such as the one above give them pause. It certainly gives me pause. Trump’s response seems to be an error of such magnitude that it’s hard to excuse or explain. Nor is this sort of thing the only time he’s said something that shows a similar lack of judgment. Add to this Trump’s character problems and you get a man who could do a great deal of damage, perhaps even more than his opponent.

A while back quite a few people were arguing that there’s no need to worry, because if Trump gets really dangerous then we can count on Congress to impeach him, because Democrats and Republicans would join in. I have to say that what I’ve seen so far doesn’t persuade me that that’s so. What I see a great deal of among politicians on the right is a failure of courage and a refusal to stand up for principles, an aligning with power for power’s sake as well as a fear of being a target of Trump’s lying, accusatory invective. I don’t have much faith in the presence of enough profiles in courage in Congress to make a difference.

[NOTE: The Weekly Standard is trying to drum up enthusiasm for an as-yet-unnamed third party candidate, much like a player to be named later. It’s something I’ve never even considered in any previous election. But I wonder whether the special circumstances of 2016—when both candidates are heartily and widely disliked, even in their own parties—could favor such a third-party run.

I’ll add that I have no independent way of evaluating whether Trump’s proposal as described above is as bad as they say, because my grasp of the economics of it is shaky. But I find the arguments that it could be disastrous pretty persuasive. If you disagree, I’d be curious to hear why.]

The future of Schengen

The New Neo Posted on by

“Schengen” is the elimination of traditional border-crossing rules in Europe, a development that has been hailed and welcomed for years but which is increasingly threatened by Europe’s Muslim refugee crisis. If you’re interested (and I certainly am) in the topic, take a look at this article about the state of the Schengen policy:

What makes the allegiance to Schengen so strong among Europeans? We found that in 13 countries, protecting the principle of free movement is the most important issue regarding how member states feel about the future of Schengen. Second on the list were two tied results, the economic benefit of the Schengen zone, and the ability of Schengen to help manage migration flows.

So there’s a principle involved, one that’s attractive to many Europeans and their view of Europe and what it should be. People like the idea of how far they’ve progressed since the bad old days of conflict. The other attraction is practical: money. These two reasons make Europe loathe to give up its Schengen, even in the face of the very real problems they face:

..[T]he idea that terrorism is a European threat which is best tackled together…underlines the sense that although border controls have been reinstalled over the past few months, there is a fundamental belief that these are temporary, not permanent changes, even if the route back to the old Schengen is difficult to see at the moment.

So the principle—the ideal of togetherness and cooperation—is being applied to a possible solution for the refugee problem, at least in people’s minds if not in the practical sense. In the practical sense, Schengen has been very advantageous—so far, anyway:

It is clear that the economic effects of a suspension to the Schengen system are destructive for countries that have built their markets on the assumption of free trade and movement. Time is money, and border controls make commuting and cross-border transport a significant cost factor.

Competing with all of this is the fear that many citizens of European countries have that, unless immigration/migration is checked, Europe will be in trouble both demographically (and therefore culturally) and economically. This has led to an increase in support for nationalist and anti-immigration parties in many countries across Europe. The tension between the borderless EU dream and what people perceive as the results of the vast influx of “migrants” is inescapable and likely to continue.

Trump, Clinton, and pathological lying vs. strategic lying

The New Neo Posted on by

Pathological and/or compulsive lying is not the same as ordinary lying. Ordinary lying is strategic and episodic, and the person doing it usually realizes he/she is lying. There is a reason for the lying, a reason an objective observer can easily understand. The lie can be about the liar him/herself, another person or persons, a group, or something that occurred.

Pathological and compulsive liars certainly exercise that sort of lying. But sometime they just lie for the sheer fun of it, or to pile it on, or even for no discernible reason. And they tend to be the most convincing liars because they either don’t have a conscience to begin with, or they have lost all sight of truth and falsehood and think anything they say is okay because they said it.

Sometimes they even justify to themselves what they do because they have a basic assumption that everybody lies in exactly that way—that no one should be trusted, ever. So they think they’re just doing what all people (except perhaps the most naive of patsies/marks) do.

Politicians are often strategic liars to one degree or another—some to a great degree and some to a much lesser degree. In addition, some are pathological/compulsive liars, but this is much more rare. Continue reading →

The potato and societal development

The New Neo Posted on by

Some people eat potatoes on a daily basis. They feel that a meal without a potato is like a day without sunshine

I’m not one of them, although I like potatoes and eat them about once a week. I especially like a mideastern potato salad I sometimes make, with a dressing of olive oil, lemon juice, cumin, and dried mint instead of the conventional mayo. And I particularly enjoy those small potatoes coated in a little olive oil, sprinkled with salt and pepper and a smidge of oregano, and roasted in the oven to just the right degree of brown and crispy.

But all of that is just an introduction to this article about how potato cultivation—and grain vs. root cultivation in general—has affected societies, and been affected by them as well.

Trump: it’s all mutable

The New Neo Posted on by

Do you like Donald Trump’s policy papers?

That’s nice, but they don’t mean much:

Trump’s abrupt dismissal of his own tax plan, which he regularly cited on the campaign trail, came a day after he signaled a willingness to raise the federal minimum wage, which would be a major reversal from his stance in the primaries.

Remember the idea that Obama could take the gloves off during his second term and do what he really wanted to do, especially after the 2014 midyear elections, because he no longer had to answer to the electorate?

Remember how a lot of people have criticized politicians for pandering to the base in the primary and then tacking to the middle for the general?

Well, Trump is doing some combination of the two. He no longer has to please the GOP base, who can do little or nothing to stop him now. So now he’s appealing to Democrats and even the Sanders wing.

Unlike Trump, most candidates have a track record in political office to which to compare their campaign rhetoric. So we can at least try to judge or estimate what their real positions are, the ones they are most likely to carry out or try to carry out if elected. With Trump, since he has no such political track record, we have to rely on the evidence of his life, which is that he will do whatever he judges to be best for Trump, and that everything he says is up for grabs except as it relates to that one guiding principle.

I never gave a hoot what his website policy papers said, and I can’t understand why anyone would. It’s just window-dressing. Some say well, let’s roll the dice. But sometimes it feels more like playing Russian roulette with more than one loaded chamber.

[NOTE: I don’t watch Joe Scarborough, but I’ve read over and over that he’s been a big Trump booster. Well, today Scarborough criticized Trump for one of the few policy points about which Trump has been consistent:

“And I gotta say I was surprised and disappointed … that yesterday, he stuck by the Muslim ban. That’s a loser. It’s a loser with the majority of Americans. And you’ve got Republicans like me. I just, I’m not going to vote for a guy” like that, Scarborough said…

Surprised? Why? Disappointed? Why? Not going to vote for him? Then why did you support him all this time?]

The history of the US primary system

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Nick” wrote:

…[R]emember, the reason that the parties got rid of the back rooms was Nixon. The Republicans chose him for the ticket five times. Unlikable and corrupt. The system had to be scrapped after that.

After I read that, I thought about the primary system and how it came to be. Although I realized I didn’t remember exactly, it seemed to me that it was not in reaction to Nixon.

And that turns out to have been the case. I think a refresher course in what actually happened is in order:

In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary, which requires delegates to the National Convention to support the winner of the primary at the convention. By 1912, twelve states either selected delegates in primaries, used a preferential primary, or both. By 1920 there were 20 states with primaries, but some went back, and from 1936 to 1968, 12 states used them.

At that point, most primaries were non-binding. They were indications to the leadership of what the people preferred, but in many states the leaders could ignore that.

Seeking to boost voter turnout, New Hampshire simplified its ballot access laws in 1949…The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary has since become a widely-observed test of candidates’ viability.

The impetus for national adoption of the binding primary election was the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention. Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the nomination despite not winning a single primary under his own name. After this, a Democratic National Committee-commissioned panel led by Senator George McGovern ”“ the McGovern”“Fraser Commission ”“ recommended that states adopt new rules to assure wider participation. A large number of states, faced with the need to conform to more detailed rules for the selection of national delegates, chose a presidential primary as an easier way to come into compliance with the new national Democratic Party rules. The result was that many more future delegates would be selected by a state presidential primary. The Republicans also adopted many more state presidential primaries.

See more here:

[1901-1906] is the time period in which many states started experimenting with or implementing the new primary system…By 1912, almost all states had some mix of laws that would allow for a preferential primary and/or a direct election of delegates to the convention…

The article goes on to explain that it was the McCarthy/Humphrey convention, and criticism by McCarthy, that propelled the process that led to the modern primary system, and it occurred in the Democratic primary.

The Republicans followed, but more slowly and more piecemeal, and the process doesn’t seem to have been a reaction to Nixon:

After a heated 1964 GOP National Convention, the republicans realized that they needed to take a more critical look at their own process…The GOP would then go on to form three committees to review their own procedures, but with interestingly different goals than the Democrats.

Read the whole thing—at least the part about the history of both parties with the primary system. To me, the primary system seems to have been a long time coming, and part and parcel of the slow evolution (devolution?) from a republic to a democracy.

One difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

Republican Senator Ben Sasse has written an open letter to America. I agree with a great deal of it, but I wanted to take issue with something.

Here’s an excerpt:

In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate. This year, we have two. In fact, we now have the two most unpopular candidates ever ”“ Hillary by a little, and Trump by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women ”“ who vote more and influence more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two “leaders.”

With Clinton and Trump, the fix is in. Heads, they win; tails, you lose. Why are we confined to these two terrible options? This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them and go bigger. That’s what we do.

Remember: our Founders didn’t want entrenched political parties. So why should we accept this terrible choice?

Sasse goes on to suggest a non-Trump non-Hillary candidate (not himself, by the way), but he doesn’t say who that person would be.

I like the idea, but not naming such a person is one of the problems. If one such person existed—if there was that much consensus between/among the factions in America today—that person would probably be running for president already, and succeeding. But the war between the parties, and the abominable choices we face, represent factions of Americans (not just parties) that are in ideological war with each other. The people’s elected representatives in Congress are reflections of a very real impasse, and it’s not just between two groups, it’s among many. Compromise? Compromise has been shunned and rejected by the voters, too, as representatives who are too moderate are driven from office.

I’m not saying it’s good or bad, I’m just pointing out that I don’t see a moderate electorate right now.

The other thing I want to point out is that Trump and Clinton have differing amounts of support from their respective party movers and shakers. Imagine, if you will, those smoke-filled rooms of yesteryear, composed of party leaders choosing their standard bearers with little or no input from voter primaries. Does anyone for a single moment believe that Donald Trump would have been the GOP choice under such conditions? I thought not. But Hillary Clinton would almost certainly have been the choice of the Democrats.

In other words, Clinton expresses her party’s wishes, and Trump (who may not even really be “of” his party) does not.

What’s more—although I’m having trouble finding exact figures on this—Hillary Clinton also represents the choice of the majority of Democratic voters who have bothered to vote in the primaries, and Donald Trump does not represent the same for GOP voters. Even if the support for Hillary among Democrats is lukewarm, she is more liked by more of her party’s voters than Trump is by his (although his actual supporters are often very excited about him and quite fervent in their support).

In sum, whoever Hillary is and whatever she is proposing to do is more in line with the wishes and principles of her own party than Donald Trump is in line with his. He is the protest candidate, the hostile-takeover candidate, and he is leading in spite of the party leadership—or, rather, in reaction to their perceived failings—rather than because the party leaders would choose him as their nominee.

That is their dilemma. If they fall in with him and get on board, they are committing a form of suicide. And if they oppose him they’re doing the same thing (at least in the short term). This is most definitely not the dilemma the Democratic leaders face. And that’s a big, big difference.

[ADDENDUM: I see that a similar point of view to mine has been expressed by streiff at RedState.]

Henry James ♥ George Eliot

The New Neo Posted on by

George Eliot was the pen name of Mary Ann Evans, the 19th Century English novelist who lived for years with the married critic George Henry Lewes and wrote seven novels, including the highly-praised Middlemarch.

I’ve never read it. In fact, I’m not sure whether I’ve ever read any of her books, although I have such a strong memory of Silas Marner that I might indeed have read it.

Or maybe it was just the classic comic, because that was my introduction to many of the classics, and my memory of Silas Marner is mostly pictorial:

silasmarner

There’s no way to say this nicely, but George Eliot was an exceedingly homely woman. However, it didn’t seem to have set her back much, if at all; she seems to have had a rich full emotional, sexual, and intellectual life. Over the years, I’ve sometimes wondered how she managed that feat, and yesterday I happened across this quote from Henry James about meeting Eliot/Evans. It offered a strong clue:

She had a low forehead, a dull grey eye, a vast pendulous nose, a huge mouth full of uneven teeth and a chin and jawbone ‘qui n’en finissent pas’… Now in this vast ugliness resides a most powerful beauty which, in a very few minutes, steals forth and charms the mind, so that you end, as I ended, in falling in love with her. Yes, behold me in love with this great horse-faced bluestocking.

Eliot/Evans was by all accounts very happy in her scandalous yet stable liaison with Lewes (a complicated legal situation precluded him from divorcing his wife). After his death, she married a man 20 years her junior when she was 60, although she died just a few months later.

So here’s my question: have you read Middlemarch, and is there any point in trying to wade through it? It’s got 880 pages in the paperback edition. Whew!

So, can Trump win the whole thing?

The New Neo Posted on by

I think it’s safe to say that we will be likely to revisit this topic many, many times again, and that the answer may vary over time as events shape up in this crazy, crazy, crazy (mad mad mad mad) campaign season.

But my short answer is: of course he can. Never say never.

I think it highly unlikely, though, for the very simple reason that too many people cannot stand him. Some find his policies abominable, some his character, and some both. Fact is, though, that a lot of people hate Hillary, too (and I mean that literally: a lot of people hate both of them). The real question is who is more hated and whose presidency would be more feared, as well as whose supporters (and they each have a considerable number of those, too) are most devoted and especially most numerous. This is a campaign when the phrase “the lesser of two evils” seems literally true, but it’s more difficult than in most cases to decide who really would be the lesser.

People who say that Hillary Clinton doesn’t have devoted supporters are living in a bubble that doesn’t interface with the territory I inhabit. In other words, I know people who’ve been wearing Hillary buttons since last spring. And there’s no one who hasn’t lived in a cave for thirty years who would be so dumb as to say there aren’t Trump supporters and that many are extremely devoted.

The MSM has hardly begun to carry Hillary’s water the way it undoubtedly will. The Democrats have not unleashed more than a small percentage of their ammunition against him. Nor has Trump started the major attacks on Hillary of which he’s fully capable. I predict we are in for a campaign season so dirty that we’ll end up like Lady Macbeth doubting if all the water in the ocean can wash us clean. And the interesting thing is that this time, to dig up dirt, one doesn’t have to look far or even to lie, although these mendacious candidates almost undoubtedly will each lie often and eagerly.

As for me and who I’ll vote for, I have no idea. It won’t be Hillary, but can I bring myself to vote for Trump? I’ve answered previously that I’ll probably wait till it’s extremely close to the election to decide, and that I think my final decision might even happen in the voting booth. I still feel that way.

John Kasich, we hardly knew ye

The New Neo Posted on by

And what we did know, we didn’t like.

Reports are that John Kasich is about to drop out of the race. Only about six months too late.

From the very start of this fabulous primary season, Kasich seemed extraneous. Why is he here? was the question that bounced continuously around the blogosphere, along with Why isn’t he leaving? Well, now we need ask no more; he’s going, his work (whatever it may have been) fulfilled.

Now we can graduate to why was he there, and why didn’t he leave earlier? He was consistently obnoxious and egotistical in the debates, off-putting and repetitive. And yet just enough people kept voting for him to gum up the works, and that became more and more true as time went on and the field narrowed.

I have no idea what would have happened if he’d dropped out earlier. Would it have benefited Cruz, as many suppose? I never saw polling that convinced me of that, and I think it’s likely that at least a third or so of his voters would have gone to Trump and helped put him over the top. An earlier dropout might have benefited Rubio, but that’s all moot now.

The theories about Kasich’s campaign longevity abound. Pure ego. Or, he was there as a stalking horse for the GOPe, and once they saw putting him in there was impossible, he could depart. Or, he still might be Trump’s VP. Or, all of the above. Or, none of the above. If you care to, you can advance some Kasich theories of your own.

For what it’s worth, nearly every time I typed his name I wrongly added an “h” after the “s” and had to correct myself. It was some sort of bad habit I couldn’t break, just another reason that John Kasich annoyed me. But at least this one wasn’t his fault.