Easy fixes sometimes are anything but

Posted on September 25, 2024 by Joe Weber

Contrasting the Trump and Harris economic planS

Politicians like easy-sounding solutions to complex problems, particularly on the economic front. Their fixes often are aimed at pleasing voters who know little or nothing of economics. At times, their efforts smack of pandering and might even be harmless.

But, at other times, they can be quite dangerous — as seems likely with the plans of Donald J. Trump. Just mull over what 16 Nobel laureate economists have to say:

“The outcome of this election will have economic repercussions for years, and possibly decades, to come,” warns a letter signed by Columbia Prof. Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank; Harvard Prof. Claudia Goldin, former director of the Development of the American Economy program at the prestigious National Bureau of Economic Research, and 14 other Nobelists. “We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.”

They caution that Trump’s plans, including his goal to impose tariffs of 10 percent to 20 percent on foreign goods and 60 percent on Chinese-made products, will do exactly the opposite of what he’s been promising as he has attacked the Biden-Harris administration for inflation. Just as inflation rates are coming down, those duties would kickstart a price-spiral anew.

“Many Americans are concerned about inflation, which has come down remarkably fast,” the economists argue. “There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite this inflation, with his fiscally irresponsible budgets. Nonpartisan researchers, including at Evercore, Allianz, Oxford Economics, and the Peterson Institute, predict that if Donald Trump successfully enacts his agenda, it will increase inflation.”

And listen to some of those folks, who’ve crunched the numbers on Trump’s plans:

“The Peterson Institute for International Economics think-tank in Washington calculates that 20 per cent across-the-board tariffs combined with a 60 per cent tariff on China would trigger a rise of up to $2,600 a year in what the average household spends on goods,” reports the Financial Times. “They say that the tariffs would disproportionately hit the low-income households that Trump claims his economic policies help protect.”

And the Peterson Institute is hardly alone. The Tax Policy Center, concurs, albeit with slightly different figures because Trump has floated both 20 percent and 10 percent global tariffs.

“A worldwide 10 percent tariff and a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods proposed by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump would lower average after-tax incomes of US households in 2025 by about $1,800, or 1.8 percent,” writes center senior fellow Howard Gleckman, a former BusinessWeek colleague. “They’d reduce imports into the US by about $5.5 trillion, or 15 percent, from 2025–2034.”

The consensus among the experts is that Trump’s plan would hit consumers hard. The effect would show up not only in finished goods made overseas, but in anything manufactured in the U.S. with foreign-made components, as the higher costs would filter through the system. Thus, there would be no escaping the higher prices.

Beyond just ratcheting up inflation, Trump’s plans could drive down gross domestic product and employment.

“Candidate Trump has proposed significant tariff hikes as part of his presidential campaign; we estimate that if imposed, his proposed tariff increases would hike taxes by another $524 billion annually and shrink GDP by at least 0.8 percent, the capital stock by 0.7 percent, and employment by 684,000 full-time equivalent jobs,” says another nonpartisan group, the Tax Foundation.

The kick in the teeth that Trump could deliver to the nation may also come at a tough time, as the economy slows under the Federal Reserve’s so-called “soft-landing” approach. The Fed, the independent group that has the job of reining in inflation, recently lowered interest rates by a substantial half-point in the federal funds rate. That’s because its leaders believe that inflation is moving toward a sustainable 2 percent annual rate, the Fed’s target, without driving unemployment up to unacceptable levels.

The Federal Reserve, source: Investopedia

As the Fed tries to balance employment and inflation, it is no doubt mindful that the national jobless rate recently rose to 4.2 percent after dipping as low as 3.4 percent, a 54-year-low, earlier in the year. The Fed is following classic economic theory: when the jobless rate is too low, higher wages kick up inflation; when unemployment is too high, of course, that’s a red light for the economy.

In time, the lower interest rates that the Fed has engineered should deliver an upward jolt to the economy. That will set the stage for the next president – whoever that is – to bask in the glow of sustainably low unemployment with reasonable inflation. But that president’s policies, if they are inflationary, could tip the balance.

As the experts see it, the outlook under a Trump presidency is hardly cheerful, particularly if his tariffs trigger an all-out global trade war. “The last time we were in a trade war under Trump, the global manufacturing cycle went into a recession,” Julia Coronado, a former Fed economist who now runs the MacroPolicy Perspectives consultancy, told the Financial Times.

Recall that, during Trump’s term, the economy slipped into recession from February to April 2020, a few months before his tour in the White House ended. Covid drove that downturn, which was marked by a jobless rate of 14.8 percent in April of 2020. When Trump left office, the jobless rate had fallen to 6.4 percent and it fell substantially after that, in part thanks to the infrastructure-spending policies of President Joe Biden.

Contrast Trump’s plan with Harris’s blueprint for stimulating housing construction, particularly for the middle class. She wants to boost housing supply by expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, providing incentives for state and local investment in housing and creating a $40 billion tax credit to make affordable projects feasible for builders. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s, and Jim Parrott, a housing adviser under the Obama administration, estimate that America has a shortfall of three million homes right now, and Harris aims to close that gap. The two are advising her campaign on these plans.

Ben Harris of the Brookings Institution, a former chief economist of the U.S. Treasury, concurs that the plan is sound. “Critics assail the high cost of subsidies to developers, but they are the best tool the federal government has to incentivize homebuilding,” he writes. “We desperately need more affordable homes in America – millions of them – and the only practical way to boost supply quickly and meaningfully is to offer financial incentives to local governments to expand zoning for affordable housing and to developers to build it. The vice president proposes to do both.”

To be sure, Harris’s plan to provide $25,000 to first-time homebuyers is drawing less praise.

Calling that “a really bad idea,” Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, says: “The ultimate beneficiary of that credit is not going to be first-time home buyers. It’s going to be people selling homes.” Economics writer Peter Coy of The New York Times echoes that, saying the plan would do nothing to boost housing stock, but only demand. “Sellers surely would take advantage of the increased demand by raising their prices,” Coy writes. “So a big portion of the taxpayer money that was intended for home buyers would wind up in the pockets of sellers.”

But it’s far from clear how the construction stimulation efforts and the aid to homebuyers would offset one another. A rush of homebuilding in theory should lead to lower prices, and the numbers of people likely to be involved in her $25,000 support effort seem relatively small.

Moody’s estimates that Harris’s down-payment plan would help some 11.7 million more first-time homebuyers, including 2.75 million first-time Black and Latino homeowners. This is just 3.2 million more first-time homebuyers and 1 million more Black and Latino first-time homebuyers than would take place without her plan.

For her part, Harris is doing some pandering by proposing to attack alleged price-gouging, particularly in grocery costs. Quoting a campaign statement, The Washington Post reported that Harris wants to implement “the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries — setting clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries.”

The details were not clear, the Post reported. But it said Harris would aim to enact the ban within her first 100 days, in part by directing the Federal Trade Commission to impose harsh penalties on firms that break new limits on so-called gouging. The statement did not define gouging or excessive profits.

As Alexander Henke, an economics professor at Howard University, told the school newspaper, Harris’s “vague” plan appears to be more like a political economy move than an economic one, tapping into popular sentiment against price gouging by delivering poll-tested messaging. And Harris should know better — she studied economics at Howard and her father, Donald, is a retired Stanford University economics professor.

What’s more, this horse long ago left the barn. Most of the inflation is now behind us, suggesting that the economy is resolving the inflation on its own and there would be few prosecutions.

Just look at the numbers. Prices for food overall rose 9.9 percent in 2022, faster than in any year since 1979, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The hike was especially sharp in so-called food-at-home prices, up 11.4 percent. But the rises have slowed since then, climbing last year by 5.8 percent overall and by 5 percent for food-at-home. This year, the department expects prices for all food to increase 2.3 percent, with food-at-home prices rising just 1.2 percent.

What drove up prices in prior years? Were greedy corporations taking advantage of consumers? Were nefarious or misguided Biden-Harris policies driving up the price of eggs (something VP nominee JD Vance embarrassingly got wrong in a Pennsylvania grocery store photo-op)?

Not according to experts at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. They point to post-Covid volatility in global commodity prices and a sharp rise in wages for grocery-store workers (likely related to a shortage of such workers). When such “input” costs rise, everyone in the production and retail chain tries to sustain their profit margins. As it happened, foodmakers showed no margin gain in recent years, while retailers showed only a modest uptick in already-thin margins.

Other key elements of the plans of both candidates suggest far different approaches — Trump would take a largely top-down tack while Harris, as she puts it, aims to build the economy from the middle class out. She hit hard on this theme in a Sept. 25 address on the economy and her idea are spelled out on her website.

Harris would boost the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent and she has promised not to raise taxes on people making less than $400,000 per year. She wants to restore and expand the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, including a $6,000 child tax credit for the first year of a newborn’s life. She would also increase the tax deduction for start-up businesses from $5,000 to $50,000, a move she argues would stimulate innovation among all-important small businesses.

By contrast, Trump wants to reduce the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 15 percent for companies that make their products in the U.S. He already cut the rate from 35 percent during his 2017-2021 presidency. It’s long been known that such moves deplete government revenues. Trump also said he would end taxes on overtime pay and on tips (the tips idea is one Harris also suggests). And Trump also aims to exempt Social Security income from taxes, unmindful apparently of how the Social Security system, even under the current system, will likely be insolvent by 2035 unless policymakers impose a fix.

Trump also wants to extend individual tax cuts he pushed through Congress in 2017, including for the wealthiest Americans. Experts estimate that would reduce revenue over a decade by about $3.3 trillion to $4 trillion.

Harris has also proposed hiking taxes on high-income earners. Americans earning below about $100,000 annually would continue to pay no taxes on long-term capital gains and higher-income families earning up to $1 million would continue paying up to a maximum rate of 20 percent. But those who earn $1 million a year or more would see a rise in the tax rate on their long-term capital gains to 28 percent.

Whether soaking the rich a bit, as Harris proposes, is good or bad economically, it may sell politically. And, if nothing else, it’s likely to do far less harm than Trump’s tariffs would.

“Shining city on the hill” or “a nation in decline”?

Posted on September 15, 2024 by Joe Weber

The facts don’t bear out Trump’s doomsaying — at least in economic terms

In a memorable election debate with President Jimmy Carter on Oct. 28, 1980, GOP nominee Ronald Reagan asked Americans: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

Amid the stagflation and rising unemployment of the time, many were not. So Reagan went on to turn Carter into a one-term president. Reagan even won the popular vote (unlike Donald J. Trump in 2016). And he went on to serve two terms.

That “better-off” question is rising again, of course (as it often has in presidential races). As one might expect, Fox News has bruited it, citing a poll the outlet took last spring that suggested 52% of voters felt worse off. Still, in a poll a bit later by The New York Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer and Siena College, the outlook was similar, as more than half of registered voters in six battleground states rated the economy as “poor.” Many Americans even wrongly think we’re in recession.

Like many of those voters, some of my relatives are answering “No” to the “better-off” question, saying they felt richer during the Trump years than they have during the Biden-Harris term. And a libertarian friend argued the same point, contending that the reasons many Americans back Trump are not based in racism or sexism, but rather on economics. They just don’t think Democratic policies have helped them, he said.

But are we, in fact, better off? Do the data substantiate or undercut the often-partisan feelings, deeply felt as they may be?

Without seeing their tax returns, of course, we can’t know whether certain individuals have fared better or not since January 2021. We don’t know how their businesses have done or how they have coped if they are on fixed incomes (though Social Security boosts for costs of living of 8.7% in 2023 and 3.2% this year may have helped).

But we can explore the so-called national “vibecession” to see if it is based in facts or is just a matter of hazy memories. And recall that some of those memories have been demagogically reinforced by Trump’s inaccurate bravado about overseeing the greatest economy in world history.

“Nostalgia’s rosy glow makes almost all presidents more popular after they leave office,” Los Angeles Times journalist David Lauter writes. “[T]hat effect may have been especially sharp this time because the steep inflation of 2021 and 2022 caused voters to fondly recall the good economy of Trump’s first three years in office; and younger voters may have only vague memories of Trump controversies that took place in their teenage years.”

Certainly, we must concede that inflation has been a bear, especially for lower-income folks:

Indeed, because higher prices are baked in, it may not help former Vice President Kamala Harris that inflation has moderated substantially this year. As the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Sept. 11, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers rose just 0.2% on a seasonally adjusted basis in August, the same increase as in July. Over the last 12 months, the all-items index increased just 2.5% before seasonal adjustment.

It also may make little difference to voters that presidents don’t control inflation and can only modestly influence it. Reining in price hikes is the province of the independent Federal Reserve, which is poised to lower interest rates for the first time in four years because of recent progress on the price front. The rollback could make housing and other things more affordable for many, though not for a while yet.

Despite that, of course, Trump has trumpeted inflation as a reason Americans should elect him. He knows all too well that a price spiral has cost incumbent presidents — notably Carter and Gerald Ford — the White House. It helped Reagan to get in, too, so Trump understandably figures it could be a winning issue for him.

What’s more, real incomes haven’t been growing much. As polls expert Nate Silver writes, real disposable personal income, basically how much money people have left after taxes and inflation, is historically one of the best predictors of election outcomes. And it’s been flat during Biden’s tenure: people’s incomes aren’t growing much. Part of that, he notes, was due to spikes caused by COVID stimulus spending — but even over the past year, it’s barely kept up with population growth:

But to maintain that things haven’t been getting better economically — overall — is simply false. If one looks at gross domestic product, for instance, the trend line has been markedly up:

And unemployment rates reflect gains, too. Recall that Trump’s term was marked by a Covid-induced recession that lasted from February to April 2020 (hardly the sort of thing one can look back on fondly). After Trump left the Biden-Harris team a jobless rate of 6.4% in January 2021, the climb back economically challenged the Democrats. It took the labor market a bit less than two years to recover to pre-recession levels. Now, we’re just above historic lows in joblessness, with a 4.2% national rate.

Moreover, one’s feeling of well-being has a lot to do with housing costs and prices. And for homeowners, times could scarcely be better, at least insofar as their wealth is tied to the value of their homes (the story is different, of course, for renters and would-be home buyers):

To point to just one example, the home of my relatives in suburban Jackson, New Jersey, is now worth $570,000, a good bit more than the $120,000 they paid in 1990 (and that $120K equals $296,500 today, so they’ve had dramatic inflation-adjusted gains), according to Redfin. By that measure alone, they are much better off than in the past.

But much of that data above is backward looking. At the moment, it seems, many consumers are hardly feeling impoverished, and some are beginning to believe Harris would be a better choice than Trump on the economic front.

“Consumer sentiment was essentially unchanged for the fourth consecutive month, inching up 1.4 index points,” the director of the much-watched University of Michigan consumer survey reported in an early assessment of August survey results. “With election developments dominating headlines … sentiment for Democrats climbed 6% in the wake of Harris replacing Biden as the Democratic nominee for president. For Republicans, sentiment moved in the opposite direction, falling 5% … Sentiment of Independents, who remain in the middle, rose 3%.”

“The survey shows that 41% of consumers believe that Harris is the better candidate for the economy, while 38% chose Trump,” survey director Joanne Hsu writes. “Overall, expectations strengthened for both personal finances and the five-year economic outlook, which reached its highest reading in four months….”

Of course, big-picture facts may matter little to folks who are convinced the past was better. Indeed, with its Make America Great Again theme, the Trump candidacy is based on a rosy view of the past, one that under scrutiny seems beyond saccharine and, for many Americans, is just inaccurate. His negativism, with comments such as “we are a nation in decline,” play well with some, but will they with most?

To be sure, there is plenty of reason to be concerned about various social pathologies in the United States — school shootings come to mind first and foremost. Despite my libertarian friend’s view that racism and sexism are well back in the country’s rear-view mirror, moreover, many Americans are concerned about such ingrained traits in our national psyche — even if we have had progress there.

“Voters overall have mixed views of the impact of Harris’ gender and race and ethnicity on her candidacy,” a recent report by the Pew Research Center finds. “More say the fact that Harris is a woman and that she is Black and Asian will help her than hurt her with voters this fall. Somewhat more voters see Harris’ gender as a potential negative (30%) than see her race and ethnicity this way (19%).”

“Harris supporters are far more likely than Trump supporters to say the vice president’s gender and race will be a liability,” the report continues. “More than twice as many Harris supporters (42%) as Trump supporters (16%) say the fact that Harris is a woman will hurt her with voters. Fewer Harris supporters think her race and ethnicity will be a hindrance (31%), but just 8% of Trump supporters say the same.”

With comments such as “she happened to turn Black,” Trump is doing his best to rouse the racists among his devotees while trying to undercut Harris’s support among Blacks. Certainly, Trump doesn’t seem to be succeeding in the latter regard, with some 82% of Black voters “definitely” or “probably” in her corner, according to a Washington Post-Ipsos poll.

In the end, to the extent that Harris can get people to focus on facts, she may even persuade some that things have been getting better, Trump’s incessant focus on the negative notwithstanding. And there’s a decent shot things will get even better going forward. Focusing on a sunny future — America as a “shining city on the hill” — helped Reagan. Might that work for Harris, too?

The sacred and the profane

Posted on September 1, 2024 by Joe Weber

Donald Trump doesn’t seem to know the differencE

For 24 hours a day, seven days a week, soldiers from the 3^rd U.S. Infantry Regiment stand guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery. Every hour or every half hour, depending on the season, the guard is changed in an elaborate ceremony.

Along with the reverential hush that marks the resting places at Arlington of more than 400,000 veterans and their dependents, this is one of the ways America acknowledges an unpayable debt to those lost in every war the country has fought. Each Memorial Day, presidents lay wreaths at the unknown soldiers’s tomb as members of the military stand watch.

The watchwords in this hallowed place are somber, reflective and sober.

So, how is it that Donald J. Trump could show up at the cemetery, grinning and sporting a thumbs-up sign over a grave with rows of graves behind him? How is that he could release a campaign TikTok video of his visit, exploiting the tragedy of American military deaths in Afghanistan in a bid to embarrass Kamala Harris?

It is, of course, illegal for candidates to use this cemetery as a campaign prop. A staffer made that clear to the Trump team, only to be shoved aside and later to have her mental health questioned. The U.S. Army quickly defended the staffer, reminding everyone in an unusual rebuke to Trump that “federal laws, Army regulations and DOD policies … clearly prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds.”

The Army added that the cemetery “is a national shrine to the honored dead of the Armed Forces, and its dedicated staff will continue to ensure public ceremonies are conducted with the dignity and respect the nation’s fallen deserve,”

But, even if it weren’t illegal, wouldn’t simple civility, a sense of decorum and respect for the dead keep a former president from behaving so badly, even if he is desperate to halt his slide in the polls. Wouldn’t a modest amount of good taste prevent him from marketing himself on the graves of the fallen?

Really, how low can the man and his team sink?

Indeed, not only are Trump and his team plumbing new depths, but they do so ignorantly. A top campaign adviser, criticizing the staffer who was pushed aside by a pair of Trump staff bullies, didn’t even grasp the difference between “hollowed” and “hallowed” in a statement he issued.

“For a despicable individual to physically prevent President Trump’s team from accompanying him to this solemn event is a disgrace and does not deserve to represent the hollowed grounds of Arlington National Cemetery,” the adviser said in a written statement provided to The Associated Press, as reported by the Military Times. He insisted that the ex-president and his team “conducted themselves with the utmost respect and dignity.”

Really, are grinning and offering a thumbs-up over a soldier’s grave dignifying and respectful? Perhaps in Trump World, but in any other realm?

Digging in, a top Trump campaign aide later attacked the Army for its rebuke of Trump. He wrote on X: “Reposting this hoping to trigger the hacks at @SecArmy.” He tagged the account used by Army Secretary Christine E. Wormuth in what The Washington Post called an apparent bid to escalate the Trump campaign’s feud with the Pentagon.

Not surprisingly, Trump appears to have made few friends among veterans with his action. “What kind of creep uses a national military cemetery to film a political hit ad?,” the group Veterans for Responsible Leadership asked. It said he violated both the “sanctity of Arlington” as well as the “code of conduct for national military cemeteries.”

“Trump only cares about the fallen when he can exploit their sacrifice for his own gain,” the progressive organization VoteVets said, as reported by the Daily Beast and yahoo!news. “To him, they’re just ‘suckers and losers.’ He’s proven time and again that respect and honor mean nothing to him.”

The reference to “suckers” and “losers,” of course, is to terms Trump, as president, used in referring to American soldiers killed in combat, as The New York Times reported. Last year, John F. Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff and a former Marine Corps general, confirmed reporting that Trump had used the words.

The context is noteworthy. On a trip to France in 2018, Trump declined a scheduled visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, where more than 2,200 U.S. service members are buried, as noted by a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq, Brandon Friedman. “Why should I go to that cemetery?” Trump asked staff members. “It’s filled with losers.” It was in another conversation on the same trip that Trump called Marines who died at Belleau Wood, a major WWI battle site, “suckers” for getting killed.

Denying the reporting at the time, Trump also lashed out at Kelly, calling him “one of the dumbest people” he’d ever met. Of course, that hadn’t prevented him from having Kelly serve as his staff chief for 17 months and earlier as his Secretary of Homeland Security. Before that, Kelly was commander of the U.S. Southern Command. Kelly’s son, Robert, was killed in Afghanistan in 2010 and is buried at Arlington.

Others panned Trump’s vulgar grandstanding, as well.

Former Rep. Max Rose (D-NY), who serves as an adviser for the VoteVets group, condemned the events as “sick and tragic.” And Retired Maj. General Paul Eaton, another VoteVets adviser, told USA Today he “truly cannot think of something more repugnant than starting a political fracas on land where Gold Star families mourn. Someone who would do that should never be Commander in Chief.”

But Trump is consistent. He has a long history of demeaning military people. He belittled the parents of a slain Muslim soldier who had spoken at the Democratic National Convention in 2016, as the Times reported. The next year, he told the widow of a soldier killed in Niger that her husband “knew what he signed up for.” In 2020, he speculated that veterans and their families visiting the White House had infected him with the coronavirus.

Early in his 2016 campaign, Trump suggested that a critic, former GOP presidential candidate John McCain, was not a war hero because he had been shot down over Vietnam and had become a prisoner of war. (“I like people who weren’t captured,” Trump said.) Trump received five draft deferments during the Vietnam War — one for a diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels that led to a medical exemption, as the paper reported.

Trump also labeled as a “moron” retired U.S. Army General Mark A. Milley, a Princeton graduate and the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This came after Milley said in an address at a military base: “We don’t take an oath a king or queen or a tyrant or dictator. We don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We don’t take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the Constitution.”

Milley had told The Atlantic that when he invited a wounded, wheelchair-bound soldier to sing “God Bless America” at his 2019 welcoming ceremony as the Joint Chiefs chairman, Trump admonished him. “Why do you bring people like that here?” Trump asked, as noted by the former Army infantry officer, Friedman. “No one wants to see that, the wounded.”

More recently, Trump said that the Medal of Freedom, a civilian award he’d given to a Republican donor, was “much better” than the military Medal of Honor. Trump said that’s because Medal of Honor recipients are “either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets or they are dead.”

As Friedman argued in a commentary for MSNBC: “These are not one-off statements by a rhetorically reckless buffoon. This man harbors deep resentment toward the military and those who’ve sacrificed in service. Even when he poses with a family — as he did at Arlington this week — he only does so to enhance his campaign or his political prospects. Trump’s use for the military and our dead extends only as far as it suits him.”

The former president is, of course, chiefly a marketer, a real-estate huckster, and he has previously not shrunk from using sacred symbols to sell himself. In mid-2020, he posed holding a Bible in front of a Washington church, displaying it for the cameras (including holding it upside-down at times). Known as the Church of the Presidents because many have attended there, the church had been damaged in demonstrations against police brutality and had been boarded up. Trump’s photo-op was designed to counter the protestors.

Perhaps as a result of decades of manipulating the press, Trump may be relishing the attention the Arlington visit has garnered. He may believe, as P.T. Barnum is often reported as saying, that any publicity is good publicity. Indeed, he’s certainly not backing away from his campaign’s use of the cemetery as a prop and has touted supportive comments by members of deceased soldiers’s families.

Now, will most Americans see his stunt for the self-aggrandizing shameful display it was? Trump is exceptionally skilled at bending reality in ways his diehard backers seem to enjoy. Will even some of them blanch at this episode, though? If many don’t, that may be a sorry statement not only about Trump, but about how low some Americans have slipped in the Trump era.

Who is to blame?

Posted on August 22, 2024 by Joe Weber

A Trumper in the family points the finger at Biden and Harris

Political leaders campaign in poetry, govern in prose, the late New York Gov. Mario Cuomo famously said. After Kamala Harris’s uplifting and extraordinary speech, perhaps a close, hard look at a few things is in order.

A sister of mine who supports Donald J. Trump argued that the Biden-Harris administration is responsible for major problems in recent years. So, she asked that I share information with her on a few biggies.

Since this space, I hope, is one for some clarity, sharing the word more broadly might be useful. For now, let’s look at just three of her issues: border security, taxes and inflation.

1) Biden is to blame, she says, for OPEN BORDERS

Let’s start with an emergency proclamation of last June, when Biden blocked many crossings on the southern border. Homeland Security officials reported that over the following six weeks, the number of border patrol encounters with migrants had plunged by more than 50% thanks to the measure, cutting the seven-day average to below 1,900 a day. DHS also removed and returned more than 50,000 individuals to more than 100 countries.

“Crossings dropped sharply this spring and summer after the Biden administration tightened border controls and closed off migrants’ access to the asylum system,” The Washington Post reported. “Still, apprehensions exceeded 1.3 million during the first nine months of the 2024 fiscal year.”

Biden issued that proclamation because a few months earlier, in February, Republicans in Washington killed a border security bill that would have gone far toward solving the problems. The bill, backed by Biden, was crafted over many months by one of the most conservative GOP officials in Washington, Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, by Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and by independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, a place very much affected by crossings.

As Lankford described it, the bill would have provided funds to build a wall, increase technology at the border, and add more detention beds, more agents, and more deportation flights. It would have ended what Lankford called the abuse of a system that waived in over a million people. And he said it would have dramatically changed ambiguous asylum laws by conducting fast screenings at a higher standard of evidence, limited appeals, and fast deportation.

For its part, the American Immigration Council called the measure “the most sweeping immigration bill of the twenty-first century.” It would have overhauled the asylum-seeking process—and imposed an ‘emergency authority’ that would leave asylum fully out of reach for those crossing between ports of entry for much of the next three years, according to the group. It would have attempted to address issues like work permits and years-long waits for asylum-seekers, and also raised the initial standard a person must pass to access our asylum system.

So, in other words, it would have done most of what GOP leaders wanted done. “I honestly believe that exact bill would have passed in December, but by the time it got into February, it became immediately the major focus in the election, because, as you recall, the Republican primary suddenly got resolved,” Lankford said. “It looked very obvious that President Trump was going to be there, and everything collapsed at that point. If that bill would have gone in December, I think it would have passed.”

What happened? Trump weighed in and told his allies in the Senate and the House to kill the bill. Why? He felt more chaos at the border would help him win reelection.

“I think the border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it is … really appalling,” said GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah. “But the reality is that, that we have a crisis at the border, the American people are suffering as a result of what’s happening at the border. And someone running for president not to try and get the problem solved. as opposed to saying, ‘hey, save that problem. Don’t solve it. Let me take credit for solving it later.’”

Trump’s backers in Washington, fearing his wrath and punishment by his followers, did his bidding. They gave him an issue on which he has pounded the Biden-Harris administration ever since, one that could have been largely resolved without his interference.

Now, with the help of a BBC summary and other sources, let’s look back a bit to see how the illegal crossings rose to top 2 million in 2022, more than double that of some prior years. Did Biden, in fact, do nothing while the chaos reigned?

First, from Biden’s first days in office in January 2021 until May 2023, the administration expelled more than two million migrants under a public health measure, Title 42. Trump had first used the law beginning in March 2020 to expel nearly 400,000 in this Covid-inspired action.

Immigration detainees, source; NPR, 2018

Earlier, Trump had also imposed a “zero-tolerance” policy of separating children from their parents and deporting the adults. Between 3,900 and more than 5,000 children were separated from their parents between 2017 and 2021, an effort that perhaps only the most callous Trump supporter could accept. Recall the cages?

When Biden came in, he sought to fix that inhumane policy. However, undoing the cruel damage has proved problematic because of sloppy record-keeping by the Trump administration. Some children have remained stranded. As of the latest accounting, in April 2024, nearly 1,400 children were still waiting.

So there’s no question that border crossings climbed during Biden’s time in office. Still, while he tried to work with GOP officials, he was stymied. For his part, did Trump eliminate crossings, even as he caged children to accomplish that? Nope.

But did Biden and allies in the Congress make efforts to curtail the crossings? Yup. But the biggest of those moves was shot down by Trump in an extraordinarily self-serving election-manipulating way.

Now, might we expect Harris to make efforts similar to Biden’s on the border? As she said in her acceptance speech, Harris promises to bring the Lankford-Murphy-Sinema bill back. Certainly, if Trump loses and his hold on the GOP slips, such a bill could be a slam-dunk.

2) Our current president RAISES TAXES, my sib says, suggesting Harris would, too

As he sought to boost some spending for needed measures like the $108 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill, Biden has needed revenue. But he pledged to avoid hiking taxes on any families making less than $400,000 a year. Harris is sticking with that approach, even as she — like Biden — tries to implement some changes. She wants to significantly raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and large corporations, as The New York Times reported.

The most recent White House budget, a Biden plan that Harris supported, includes proposals to raise taxes on large corporations. Chief among them is raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21%.

For wealthy individuals, Harris would set the top marginal income rate at 39.6%, up from 37%. On top of that, she would also increase the rate on two parallel Medicare surtaxes to 5% from 3.8% for Americans making more than $400,000 and expand the income subject to one of them. Together, the Medicare and income proposals would create a top marginal rate as high as 44.6%

Moreover, the wealthy would see changes in how gains on investments in stocks, bonds, real estate and other assets are taxed, the Times reported. For Americans making more than $1 million a year, investment earnings would be taxed at the same rate as regular income, instead of at the lower rates for capital gains.

On the benefit side, Harris is also suggesting giving tax incentives to builders to make starter homes that would be sold to first-time buyers. As Times economics writer Peter Coy describes them, these would boost the supply of housing. So, too, would her proposed $40 billion innovation fund to “empower local governments to fund local solutions to build housing.”

More homes are badly needed after years of insufficient construction, Coy writes. He quotes Orphe Divounguy, a senior economist at Zillow, who stated in June: “The simple fact is there are not enough homes in this country, and that’s pushing homeownership out of reach for too many families,”

Coy is less keen on Harris’s plan to help first-time buyers to become homeowners by giving them up to $25,000 each toward a down payment. “Sellers surely would take advantage of the increased demand by raising their prices,” the writer suggests. “So a big portion of the taxpayer money that was intended for home buyers would wind up in the pockets of sellers.”

For my part, I’m reminded of the G.I. Bill, the postwar measure that veterans used to buy houses. Between 1944 and 1955, veterans used the bill to take out 4.3 million federally guaranteed low-interest home loans with a total face value of $33 billion. They were responsible for 20% of all new homes built in that period, including massive developments such as the Levittowns. Perhaps that would be a more sensible approach.

Still, Coy is even less enthused about Trump’s plans. “The Harris-Walz agenda for the economy is much better than Donald Trump’s,” he writes. “Trump wants to extend all of the tax cuts in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including those benefiting the wealthiest Americans. For years he called for repealing the Affordable Care Act, although lately he has said he’ll keep it unless he can come up with something better and less expensive. His plan for across-the-board tariffs would raise prices for all kinds of imported goods.”

Source: Getty Images North America via NPR

3) Biden caused INFLATION, she suggests

My sib blames Biden for the inflation that has wracked our economy, echoing a common refrain from Trump. There’s no doubt that there has been a lot of it, even though the rate of price hikes has been coming down. The 7% annual rate in 2021 slipped to 6.5% in 2022, to 3.4% in 2023 and to an annualized 2.9% so far in 2024. And that compares to rates of between 1.4% and 2.3% during the Trump years.

But is Biden to blame? Does Trump share culpability?

First, the surge in prices began in the wake of the Covid epidemic, when economies shook off their recessions. Higher demand for all sorts of goods drove up prices — a far more potent effect than any presidential effort could have.

Earlier, Trump in 2020 engineered the Cares Act and Biden in the following year pushed the American Rescue Plan – both of which were designed to keep recession at bay and to keep Americans working and spending. The measures, together with others, pumped some $5 trillion into the economy. The influx was, at worst, a contributing part.

“These programs contributed to strong consumer and business demand, which tightened labor markets (between mid-2021 and early 2022 the ratio of job vacancies to unemployed workers doubled), putting upward pressure on wages and prices,” economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research reported.

Yes, together with the post-Covid global economic resurgence, such actions abetted inflation. But they also kept a recession, which lasted from February until April 2020, from becoming a depression. And they also helped lower unemployment from its Trump-term high of 14.8% in April 2020 to the current 4.3% (after it dipped to a record 3.4% in January and April 2023.

So, could Biden have done more to combat inflation? Probably not.

In fact, presidents don’t control inflation. That job falls to the independent Federal Reserve, which controls interest rates and thus tries to cap inflation. The Fed tries to balance employment and other markers of economic health with the price increases that normally come from a hot economy – if we have too much employment, for instance, we get more inflation; if we have too little employment, we have recession.

As experts have long observed, presidents get way too much credit for good economies and too much blame for bad ones. But they can do a lot of harm. Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on foreign goods, for instance, is sure to stoke inflation, as would his suggested efforts at pressuring the Fed to reduce interest rates.

I hope my sister finds some of the information here helpful. Other issues that she raised — some spoken to by Harris — will be worth a look in the future, too. So, stay tuned.

A leap of faith

Posted on August 13, 2024 by Joe Weber

What does religion have to do with a presidential election? A lot, for some.

Trump in 2020: source: The Washington Post

Religion and politics make for a combustible mix. Just as the Bible can be invoked to support almost any side of an argument, so can partisans – especially Christian evangelicals – use religion as they see fit to make their political cases.

Just ask journalist McKay Coppins of The Atlantic. He attended scores of rallies for Donald J. Trump and analyzed the prayers people offered at them. His conclusion: many evangelicals see America as a chosen land that has fallen into sin and they see Trump as the country’s divinely anointed redeemer.

“Trump’s supporters attribute America’s fall from grace to a variety of national sins old and new—prayer bans in public schools, illegal immigration, pro-transgender policies, the purported rigging of a certain recent election,” Coppins writes. “Whatever the specifics, the picture of America they paint is almost universally—biblically—bleak.”

Opening a Trump gathering last winter in Durham, New Hampshire, for instance, one minister invoked both the former president and the Divine: “We know what he did for us and how he strove to lead us in honorable ways during his term as our president—in ways that brought your blessings to us, rather than your reproach and judgment …. We know the hour is late. We know that time grows shorter for us to be saved and revived.”

At another rally, a woman offered the following prayer shortly before New Hampshire’s Republican primary: “Lord, you have a servant in Donald J. Trump, who can lead our nation … Help us to overcome any obstacles tomorrow so that we may deliver victory to your warrior.”

And in Iowa, at yet another gathering of the faithful, a minister waxed passionate. “Be afraid,” he told the crowd. “For rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. And when Donald Trump becomes the 47th president of the United States, there will be retribution against all those who have promoted evil in this country.”

Trump in 2015, source: Getty Images via NPR

To such folks, American voters will not just hire an executive to oversee affairs of state for the next four years. No, Europeans and other foreigners may do that prosaic sort of thing. But Americans, instead, will choose a sword wielder in a pitched battle of good versus evil, a person who can carry forward the divinely appointed role the U.S. occupies in the world.

The notion that the U.S. has a blessed mission may seem bizarre to many – certainly to those living in other perfectly fine and, in some ways, more civilized countries. But the idea of a supernatural connection is baked into our national consciousness.

Think about how we begin many sporting and other public events by singing “God Bless America,” that patriotic plea Irving Berlin wrote in wartime 1918 and revised in prewar 1938. Consider how the motto “Annuit Coeptis” (‘He favors our undertakings’) is carved into the wall above a doorway in the U.S. Senate chamber and how “In God We Trust” appears above the Speaker’s rostrum in the U.S. Capitol’s House chamber, as well as on U.S. currency. Mull over the 1954 addition to the Pledge of Allegiance of the phrase “under God.”

That idea of a divine connection even puts a halo of sorts around the nation’s founding. “Faith in America,” a 2022 survey by the Deseret News and the Marist Poll, reported that 55% of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution was inspired by G-d. The figure rises to 65% among Christians and to 70% among those who practice some religion. But even 45% of those who do not practice a religion believe the Constitution was divinely inspired.

And, as perhaps has been reflected by the embattled Louisiana law mandating displays of The Ten Commandments in publicly funded K-12 and university classrooms, nearly half of Americans (49%) say the Christian Bible should have “a great deal” of or “some” influence on U.S. laws. That’s according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. This is so, even though 49% of U.S. adults say that religion is losing influence and that this is a bad thing, Pew reported.

While the fervor Trump generates among Christian evangelicals gets a lot of attention – and while some of his religious backers see Kamala Harris and the Democrats as nothing short of demonic – Harris hasn’t been deserted by people of faith. Emerging groups such as “Evangelicals for Harris” urge Christians to back Harris, extolling her religious commitment.

“Her faith journey started when she was a little girl, singing in the children’s choir at the 23rd Avenue Church of God in Oakland, California, where she was born and raised,” the pro-Harris group says in describing “Kamala’s Faith Story.” “This was where she learned to have a living faith, one that expresses itself through one’s life, especially through service to others, particularly the vulnerable and powerless.”

In a nod to the varied religious influences on her, the site’s writers add: “While a deeply committed and faithful Christian, Vice President Harris has great respect for other faith traditions. Her mother Shyamala Gopalan and relatives in India took her to Hindu temples. She joins her husband, Doug Emhoff, in Jewish traditions and celebrations.”

And some religious figures are waxing passionate in condemning Trump. North Carolina minister John Pavlovitz, for instance, offers his critiques on sites such as The Good Men Project. “Donald Trump is not Christian and never has been,” the minister writes. “He is cruel, immoral, vile, racist, misogynistic, narcissistic, vulgar, criminal, hateful.”

Making it clear what audience he is addressing on that site, Pavlovitz headlines his note: “White Christian, It’s Time to Embrace Jesus’ Love and Reject Donald Trump’s Hatred Once and for All.” And he opens it with “Dear White Christian.”

Of course, Black religious leaders have also rallied around Harris. By the thousands, they have joined in Zoom calls and otherwise gathered to organize their support for her. Black women, in particular, have rushed to back her.

And some leaders have joined hands behind Harris. Pavlovitz has allied with Black singer and activist Malynda Hale to raise money for Harris. Together, they operate a site, “Christians for Kamala: Love, for the Win,” that so far has raised more than $155,000.

“We proudly support Vice President Kamala Harris as she champions true Christian values embodied in the teachings of Jesus,” the site’s authors say. “Now more than ever, we need to bring our personal spiritual convictions to bear and to speak with our voices, our time, our resources, and our votes.”

The Harris backers, however, may have a tall Calvary-like hill to climb in some quarters of America’s religious community. As NPR reported, about 8 in 10 white evangelical Christians supported Trump in the past two presidential elections. And longtime conservative activist Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition says many remain grateful to Trump for efforts such as overturning Roe v. Wade. Democrats, he says, lag far behind Republicans reaching out to faith-based voters.

Certainly, the partisan divide is as wide as the separation between Heaven and Earth. According to the Deseret News/Marist polling, 81% of Republicans believe the U.S. Constitution was inspired by G-d, while only 36% of Democrats agree (though 55% of independents do). As Pew reported, though, most Americans want a president who lives a moral and ethical life:

And, in terms of Trump, Pew found that most Republicans and people in religious groups that tend to favor the GOP think he stands up at least to some extent for people with their religious beliefs. Two-thirds of Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP (67%) say Trump stands up for people with their religious beliefs “a great deal,” “quite a bit” or “some.” About the same share of white evangelical Protestants (69%) say this about Trump.

Interestingly, though, many Americans in both parties are skeptical of Trump’s attempts to portray himself as a religious person. Some 6% of Republicans and GOP leaners say Trump is very religious, while 44% say he is “somewhat” religious, according to Pew. Nearly half (48%) say he is “not too” or “not at all” religious. Overall, just 4% say Trump is very religious.

Some may see it as pandering on Trump’s part when, after the July 13 assassination attempt on him, he wrote on social media: “It was God alone who prevented the unthinkable from happening. We will fear not, but instead remain resilient in our faith and defiant in the face of wickedness.”

But, as reported by NPR, Republican politician and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy said of the shooting, which killed one person and wounded two others: “I personally believe that God intervened today, not just on behalf of President Trump but on behalf of our country.” And Texas Governor Greg Abbott, also a Republican, said: “Trump is truly blessed by the hand of God — being able to evade being assassinated.”

Whether Trump has truly had a “come to Jesus” moment as a result of his lucky turn of the head then is impossible to know. Will we continue to hear phrases such as that he used about President Joe Biden last September, when he said “let’s indict the motherf_____”? Such language would not serve him well among religious folks, of course.

Just what his religious backers believe is difficult to pin down. Journalist Coppins points to a confounding change in tone that has happened over the last few years among evangelicals backing Trump. Where in 2016 many of them saw Trump as an “unlikely vessel” — a nonreligious person who could be a “blunt, utilitarian tool in God’s hand” – more recently, they have recast him as a “person of faith.” Some 64% of Republicans now see him that way, according to a recent Deseret News poll by HarrisX.

To be sure, seeing a thrice-married philandering felon with a history as a sexual abuser and dishonesty in business as a religious person might take a big jump. Perhaps a great leap of faith. Apparently, that’s a hurdle at least some Americans — maybe an aging and shrinking minority — are willing to make.

Getting the sharp end

Posted on August 9, 2024 by Joe Weber

Cartoonists make their points about Trump et al.

For many of us, words are everything. We delight in them, we excoriate with them, we lavish praise with them. We struggle to find just the right ones.

But for cartoonists, the challenge is tougher. In a small space their images can — and must — speak volumes. Even as they may hit a few targets at a time, they must make a single, sharp point. They carry an extraordinary burden.

Consider Donald J. Trump’s propensity for lying. By the count of The Washington Post, during his tenure as president, he logged 30,573 false or misleading claims. Each requires many words to debunk, an exhausting task that, too often, is ignored by Trump’s followers.

At his Thursday press conference in Florida, for instance, Trump told some whoppers.

“As is typical for the former president, his remarks were littered with falsehoods,” wrote The New York Times. “He falsely accused Democrats of violating the constitution by replacing Mr. Biden on the ticket. He said nobody was killed on the Jan. 6 siege on the Capitol, when in fact several people died, including one Trump supporter, who was shot dead by the Capitol Police.”

As reported by The Associated Press, Trump insisted there had been a “peaceful transfer of power” in 2021. He argued, too, that the results of the 2022 ruling that overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision pleased Democrats, Republicans and “everybody.” To quote the news service, “He also falsely claimed he drew more people to his speech at a ‘Stop the Steal’ speech before the riot than the famous March on Washington in 1963, the iconic event at which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech.”

Note that journalists routinely include the word “falsely” in their reports. Sad.

Explaining his falsehoods, though, can take a lot. Indeed, a long page on Wikipedia is devoted to his lies. Scholars have written papers and journalists have opined at length about them. “Jeremy Adam Smith wrote that ‘lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump’s campaign and presidency’. Thomas B. Edsall wrote ‘Donald Trump can lay claim to the title of most prodigious liar in the history of the presidency.” George C. Edwards III wrote: “Donald Trump tells more untruths than any previous president. There is no one that is a close second.”

So many words. But Dan Piraro’s cartoon above gets to the point far more simply. Plato thought there were universal truths. For Trump, by contrast, the truth seems to be whatever notion he can conjure up that serves him at the moment. Even for folks who know little of Plato (perhaps like Trump), the cartoon works.

A cartoon, ideally, can endure even as it nails feelings of the moment. Piraro’s work above is eight years old, yet it still is fresh. So, too, is a memorable bit of Mike Lukovich’s work from 2016, an Olympic year like 2024. This image is circulating with new life on the Net:

Trump, of course, earlier this spring suggested he may not accept this fall’s election results, as he repeated his claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him. “If everything’s honest, I’ll gladly accept the results. I don’t change on that,” he said. “If it’s not, you have to fight for the right of the country.”

The Olympics have offered fertile ground for other cartoonists, too. New York Daily News artist Bill Bramhall saw the July 28 election in Venezuela as a chance to pillory Trump. Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro lied about his hefty defeat at the polls and, so far, has clung to power. In an image drawn from a great collection of cartoons by U.S. News and World Report, Bramhall also invoked the infamous shirtless images of Russia’s Vladimir Putin to cast Trump as a third-rate would-be dictator:

Bramhall also is very much in the moment with an image that reflects the recent stock market turmoil and the trouble that Trump got into with his infamous suggestion that Vice President Kamala Harris only recently decided she was Black.

Trump’s incendiary commentary about Harris also inspired Chris Britt, a longtime editorial cartoonist for several newspapers who also works as an author and illustrator:

Lukovich, too, generates powerful cartoons that speak to the moment. As vice presidential hopeful Tim Walz has made “weird” the operative word for Trump and his peculiar running mate, JD Vance, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution cartoonist leapt into the fray. He used Trump’s frequent references to a 1988 movie cannibal, Hannibal Lecter, and Vance’s memorable cat ladies line to underscore the pair’s oddness:

A few cartoonists have plumbed The Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a conservative administration to great effect. Despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary, Trump has maintained he knows nothing of Project 2025 and has sought to distance himself from it. So Chris Britt saw the topic this way:

Pulitzer Prize winner Walt Handelsman of The Advocate, and formerly of the Times-Picayune, took on the topic, too:

The boldest cartoonists are willing to push their themes to the edge of acceptability and sometimes beyond. Lukovich was irked by Trump’s use of the term “Black job.” Trump’s usage has been widely ridiculed, of course, including recently by Olympic gold medalist Simone Biles, who said she loved her Black job. Here was Lukovich’s take, which managed to both salute Harris and criticize Trump:

Race and gender were useful themes for Dave Whamond when Harris jumped into the race:

And gender, in particular, touched a nerve with Ed Wexler:

When Harris tapped Walz, she inspired several folks. Consider the riff The Plain Dealer’s Jeff Darcy took on JD Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy,” tapping into Walz’s Nebraska origins:

Handelsman also had an interesting take on Walz joining the ticket:

So, too, did Clay Jones:

For better or worse, this election will surely provide lots more fodder for these talented artists. As they poke, needle and ridicule, they may especially get under the humorless Trump’s thin skin.

Outsiders Shine a Light on America

Posted on March 29, 2023 by Joe Weber

As far back as the 1830s, it was clear that an outsider could look at America in a fresh, independent and novel way. Back then, the keen observer of American culture was Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political scientist, historian and politician whose four-volume “Democracy in America” praised much about the burgeoning country, but also noted its flaws.

Tocqueville pointed to equality as the great idea of his era, and he thought that the United States offered the most advanced example of equality in action, as the History website summarized his work. “He admired American individualism but warned that a society of individuals can easily become atomized and paradoxically uniform when ‘every citizen, being assimilated to all the rest, is lost in the crowd.’” Trenchantly, Tocqueville also took note of the irony of the freedom-loving nation’s mistreatment of Native Americans and its embrace of slavery.

Now comes Helen Lewis, a British staff writer for The Atlantic and former deputy editor of England’s New Statesman magazine. She reports on the abundant irony, as well, in just one state, Florida. While exploring various aspects of the state’s odd culture, she casts that irony in timely political terms in a piece headlined “How did America’s Weirdest, Most Freedom-Obsessed State Fall for an Authoritarian Governor?: A journey through Ron DeSantis’s magic kingdom.”

To Lewis, Florida is “America’s pulsing id, a vision of life without the necessary restriction of shame. Chroniclers talk about its seasonless strangeness; the public meltdowns of its oddest residents; how retired CIA operatives, Mafia informants, and Jair Bolsonaro can be reborn there.” To her, the state is “the Australia of America: The wildlife is trying to kill you, the weather is trying to kill you, and the people retain a pioneer spirit, even when their roughest expedition is to the 18th hole.”

And she notes that it’s no surprise that the two top contenders for the GOP presidential nomination, Gov. DeSantis and former President Trump, both call the state home. They fit in smoothly in a place that she says “has come to embody an emotional new strain of conservatism.” She quotes Miami-based author Michael Grunwald saying: “The general Republican mindset now is about grievances against condescending elites, and it fits with the sense that ‘we’re Florida Man; everyone makes fun of us.’ ” Lewis adds that criticism doesn’t faze Florida men, but just emboldens them.

Lewis’s observations struck me as spot on because I’ve recently spent time in two corners of the place, Sarasota and Orlando. In the former, I visited relatives of my wife who live in a gated community that is a haven for retirees – one of many such guarded places in the state. It boasts palm trees, lovely ponds sometimes frequented by alligators, a couple pools and lots of paddle ball-playing oldsters who like the mix of independence and security, as well as the chances to hang out with mostly white middle class folks that such a homogenous place can offer. As for Orlando, I spent several days with grandkids at the Walt Disney World Resort, a place Lewis says “flatters its customers the way Florida flatters the rich, by hiding the machinery needed to support decadence. You absolutely never see Cinderella smoking a joint behind her castle, or Mickey Mouse losing it with a group of irritating 9-year-olds.”

Disney World, Lewis writes, “only underlines how the state is one giant theme park. She quotes Grunwald saying: “This is not a place that makes anything, and it’s not really a place that does anything, other than bring in more people.” She adds, “Having brought in those people, what Florida never tells them is no, nor does the state ask them to play nicely with the other children.” She quotes Grunwald again: “We’re not going to make you wear a mask or take a vaccine or pay your taxes or care about the schools.” (Indeed, I came down with COVID-19 in Florida and had a devil of a time persuading a doctor to give me the new drug Paxlovid. Masks were rare.)

Lewis points out various contradictions about Floridians, noting how they value freedom but call for government help when reality intrudes. “In Florida, no one wants to hear about the costs or the consequences,” she writes. “Why else would people keep rebuilding fragile beachfront homes in a hurricane zone—and expect the government to offer them insurance?”

The central irony in Lewis’s work is that this state so eagerly embraces two GOP politicians who would do more to take power and rights away from individuals – or businesses — than any Democrat would dare to. Both Trump and DeSantis would much like to restrict voting and would curb abortion rights, for instance. Both slam “woke” culture, attacking diversity efforts in academia and business. Indeed, DeSantis recently one-upped Trump by stripping away the independence of state-funded New College of Florida, in Sarasota, as he installed cronies and right wingers such as Christopher Rufo (an out-of-stater famous for attacking critical race theory) on its board.

More than anything, though, DeSantis’s headline grabbing action at Disney World has defined him for a national audience. The governor drove legislation that ended the autonomy that Disney has long exercised over its 39-square mile tract of land near Orlando. He took control of the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which governs the theme parks, hotels and other amenities in the area, appointing a board to oversee municipal services. He did this to punish the Disney Co. CEO at the time for criticizing the “Don’t Say Gay” law of March 2022 that limited what public school teachers could teach.

As the Orlando Sentinel recently editorialized: “…the governor’s ego had been bruised, by tepid criticism from Disney’s then-CEO Bob Chapek, aimed at DeSantis’ hateful attacks on LGBTQ+ people. And though DeSantis loves to chant ‘freedom,’ he’s clearly established that freedom only covers himself and those who follow the same track. For everyone else, retribution is as swift as a whip crack.”

And, as Atlantic writer Lewis put it: “DeSantis is a politician who preaches freedom while suspending elected officials who offend him, banning classroom discussions he doesn’t like, carrying out hostile takeovers of state universities, and obstructing the release of public records whenever he can.”

As I wandered about the Disney resort parks along with thousands of others in this spring-break month, I was struck by how un-Republican DeSantis is. Disney brings in millions of visitors, employs 77,000 “cast members” in its parks, and is responsible for countless other jobs in and around Orlando. It is an economic machine without parallel. So why would any politician, much less a Republican, want to tamper with that?

Beating up on gay and transgender people and on the “woke” culture that encourages toleration seems to be a common trope for right wing politicians these days, though. DeSantis seems to be calculating that railing against Disney and other “woke” companies, as well as political stunts such as busing migrants to more liberal states will garner attention for him in the culture wars. Economics and old-fashioned GOP ideology be damned; it’s all about winning the votes of conservative straight white people who feel threatened by folks of different sexual orientations (and by diversity in all senses).

Firing back at DeSantis, Disney announced that in September it will host a conference promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in the workplace. Run by the Out & Equal organization, the event is expected to draw some 5,000 people, according to the Miami Herald. The paper reported that the meeting will include dozens of corporate sponsors such as Apple, McDonald’s, Uber, Walmart, Hilton, Amazon, Boeing, Cracker Barrel and John Deere, and several government agencies, including the State Department and the CIA, which will have booths at the conference.

Disney World has committed to host a second annual meeting of the group in 2024, possibly just as DeSantis makes his bid for the White House. Slamming Disney yet again at that point could play well for him with the culturally conservative folks he needs to steal away from Trump. And, certainly, his attacks would grab more headlines. But will that tune play well for most American voters, the ones who have accepted gay marriage? The ones who voted for Obama and, more recently, for Biden? The ones who still flock to Disney World? The contest will be fascinating.

Language is Powerful

Posted on March 17, 2023 by Joe Weber

Language is central to journalism, of course. That’s true whether we work with the printed word or the spoken one. So, a couple very different recent pieces showcase the power – and perversion – of words. They are worth pondering as a host of new terms worm their way into the public prints and airwaves — or are likely to do so.

Both pieces are exceptional. George Packer, making “The Moral Case Against Equity Language” in The Atlantic, inveighs against the diminishment of words in so-called equity-language guides. These publications take what used to be called political correctness to new depths as they counsel myriad ways to avoid offending. “Enslaved persons” replaces “slave,” for example. And “people with limited resources” replaces “the poor.”

And, in The Washington Post’s “Much of the 2024 GOP field focuses on dark, apocalyptic themes,” Ashley Parker and some colleagues enumerate the dire warnings that some Republican candidates hope will sweep them into the White House. While reminiscent of Trump’s “American carnage,” the phrases are new and improved, as the contenders excoriate “the woke mob” and attack President Biden’s “blueprint to ruin America.”

Tackling Packer’s theme first, there’s no question that offensive terms deserve to be junked. Does anyone use “gypped” or “jewed” anymore? But language guides such as “A Progressive’s Style Guide” and the Racial Equity Tools glossary seem like parodies, as does the guidance of groups such as the Sierra Club. Did you know that “urban,” “vibrant,” “hardworking” and “brown bag” are all subtly racist? And, in San Francisco, some officials no longer refer to “felons,” but rather to “justice-involved persons.” Elsewhere, “stand” is barred for fear of offending those who can’t do so. (We should “protect our rights,” but never “stand up” for them, we’re told.)

Will such tortured or simply bland phrases slip into common parlance? It’s very likely they will, perhaps through universities where folks keenly jump on the latest linguistic trends. Many of my colleagues in the academy now routinely end their emails with counsel on which pronouns – he, she, they, ze — they prefer for themselves. And how long will it be before The Associated Press Stylebook embraces the new lingo, just as it grew to love “they” instead of “he or she?” Going even further, NPR nowadays seems to refer to every individual as “they,” even when he or she is named and his or her distinctly gendered voice is aired (I keep waiting for the second voice to chime in).

Certainly, language must evolve. And dehumanizing or pejorative terms are best sent the way of Shakespeare’s obsolete phrases. AP, for instance, is correct to ban “illegals” and “illegal immigrant,” preferring the wordy but more precise “immigrants lacking permanent legal status.” And the outfit wisely and sensitively favors “people with disabilities” or “disabled people” over “the disabled.” In a recent class, one of my talented students educated me when she said the term “the Blacks” or “Blacks” made her skin crawl; “Black people,” she held, makes it clear we are dealing with people, not objects. That seems like something always worth remembering, whatever group we deal with. For that matter, if someone wants to be called “they,” instead of “he” or “she,” that seems fine – just don’t mandate such vagueness for everyone.

For his part, Packer offers trenchant insights into the motivations and troubling effects of the latest language distortion. “The rationale for equity-language guides is hard to fault,” he writes. “They seek a world without oppression and injustice…. Avoiding slurs, calling attention to inadvertent insults, and speaking to people with dignity are essential things in any decent society.” But the risk is that soft or absurdly complex terms serve to mask the truth. As he writes, prison is no less brutal for “a person experiencing the criminal-justice system.” And obesity isn’t any healthier for people with “high weight.”

As for the political distortions that Parker et al. point out, it was shocking to many when Trump’s belittlement of his opponents and his bemoaning of America’s state under President Obama helped him win in 2016. Denigration in the coarse terms he used was uncommon among serious candidates in recent political history (though not in the earliest days of the Republic, of course). Nowadays, ridiculing and labeling one’s competitors is as common as Congress members indecorously (and inaccurately) shouting “liar” at a president in a national speech. Trump was said, by his supporters, merely to be telling it like it is, but was referring to Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas” just telling it more like racists would have it?

Parker’s report, describing how GOP aspirants are busy alerting us all to how Democrats plan to “ruin” and “destroy” America, offers a distinctly post-2016 take. Nikki Haley recently warned that “the Democrats are destroying our people’s patriotism and swapping it out for dangerous self-loathing.” Ron DeSantis exalted his state, Florida, as an alternative to a Democratic “dystopia, where people’s rights were curtailed and their livelihoods were destroyed.” And Trump menacingly asserted that he would be “your warrior” and “your justice,” vowing: “And to those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.” It was only he who could “fix it” in the nation’s last presidential election, of course.

Yes, some Democrats are indulging in strong language, too, but does much of that not seem more rooted in reality? With the anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection still top of mind, Biden recently intoned: “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” Hyperbole? Perhaps not, in light of the aims of those who invaded the Capitol dressed in military garb and wielding staves and pepper-spray as they called for the execution of the Vice President.

What’s unsettling about the GOP rhetoric, in addition to its heat, is that it seems untethered to facts or events. Jobless rates remain at historic lows. Patriotism remains in vogue in both parties. Rights – to such things as voting and abortion – would not be curtailed by Democrats, in fact, but very much would be limited by Republicans. And as for Trump’s seeming intention to be everyone’s “justice,” is he not really just hoping to wreak vengeance on those he believes have wronged him?

In the past, heated political language could be easily dismissed, especially when read critically in print or avoided by national TV networks. Nowadays, in our conflict-driven cable TV world, it gets lots of airplay. The more vile the crack, the more attention it gets, stoking the anger of the apparently very many angry folks out there. Such language helped get an otherwise undistinguished New York developer and political naif elected once already. For better or worse, it may help him – or an imitator of his — get to the White House once again.

The job of the media, however, is to point out when such language goes over the top. When it’s baseless, that needs to be illuminated. And, as they do so, the media need, too, to shun euphemism and vagueness (indeed, Packer’s piece is titled “The Moral Case Against Euphemism” in the print magazine, but the editors were likely mindful of search engines in retitling it online). Clarity and plainspokenness do not mean coarseness and, indeed, they are the stock-in-trade of good journalism.

The Big Picture

Tag Archives: politics