Trump's tariffs: both good and bad

Gordon L. Weil

Many years ago, I found myself in the middle of an international war.

As tough as each side was, I was fortunate that the ammunition was not bullets.  It was chickens.

The U.S. was the major supplier of chickens to Europe, but the organization now called the EU or European Union wanted to promote its own production, mainly in Germany.  So, it increased its tariff on imported chickens.  American producers protested, and the government retaliated by raising U.S. tariffs on several products.  The result was the “Chicken War.”

The most important U.S. tariff was placed on trucks with the aim of cutting imports of VW vans.  But trucks from all over the world were affected.  Eventually, tariffs on other items, including chickens, were either dropped or lost importance.  But the tariff on trucks remains, decades later, though some foreign producers learned how to dodge it.

As the sole American on the EU staff, my role was to improve understanding between the U.S. and Europe and help defuse the conflict.  Eventually, EU President Walter Hallstein met with President Lyndon Johnson.  Acting on behalf of the Europeans, I had the unusual opportunity of negotiating with the State Department the joint statement of the two presidents.

The moral of the story is that tariff wars have consequences.  Trucks are probably more expensive in the U.S. today thanks to the surviving tariff and because American producers could raise their prices when faced with less competition from abroad.   The Chicken War was hardly just chicken feed.

President-elect Trump likes tariffs.  He sees them as both a threat and a promise.  He seems reluctant to accept that they drive up prices and are likely to bring retaliation that will reduce U.S. exports.  Because other countries can sometimes sell Americans essential products or have lower costs of production, he claims the U.S. is subsidizing them.

Beyond economics, Trump clearly would use tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy.  If he wants a country to halt the flow of immigrants or drugs or even to increase its own military spending, he uses the tariff threat to force change.  Trump’s surprising style, untethered to tradition, can cause others to take his threats seriously. 

Aside from the impact on exports and imports and on consumer prices, the liberal use of tariffs may bring political and economic change.  Trading partners will look for alternatives and not merely submit.

He threatens both Canada and Mexico with higher tariffs unless they stop illegal immigration.  As a result, they may take action even before he takes office.  But the U.S. depends heavily on Canadian crude oil.  If a 25 percent tariff were added, U.S. refineries and their customers would pay more.  And Canada can redirect some sales to Asia.

Trump may do a lot to boost European unification.  Europe is equal to the U.S. as a market, so it could absorb much of its production that can’t enter the U.S.  Higher world prices created by the Trump tariffs would be an incentive for the Europeans to step up their own production to displace American imports.

The aspect of tariffs that holds promise for Trump is that new federal revenues would be collected at the border.  His assumption must be that imports will not be slowed by higher tariffs, so they could create the income necessary to finance the federal government, which meanwhile would be cutting income taxes.

For the moment, that’s pure theory.  Tariffs drive up prices unless foreign suppliers swallow them.  In practice, imports decline when imported goods cost more. Lower imports may produce lower tariff revenues. The revenue effect is greater when the tariff increase is greater. So, tariffs may not be quite as magical as Trump seems to believe.

Yet good reasons exist for raising some tariffs.  That happens when Americans are willing to pay more for goods through a tax disguised as a tariff to achieve national policy goals. 

If the U.S. is concerned about excessive dependence on imports of essential goods, aiding domestic producers or ensuring worldwide environmental standards, greater tariff protection may make sense.  Labor unions oppose trade deals because jobs may be shipped abroad.  But helping workers comes at a price.

China profits from exploiting its own labor and using its polluting coal to produce low-cost goods for American merchants.  Its gains pay for increased Chinese military spending used to expand its influence, threaten Taiwan and to menace the U.S. and its allies on the seas. 

It makes sense to cut China’s sales to the U.S. to level the playing field and reduce its funds for military expansion.  Customers may willingly be taxed for this effort.

Trump’s tariff threats may sometimes work, but their effect goes well beyond raising consumer prices.  Higher tariffs have both economic and political effects, sometimes long-term and often not obvious.  

Trump's trifecta: Congress, states help

Gordon L. Weil

Trifectas are not only for racetracks. 

At the track, you win a trifecta bet by picking the first three finishers in order.  The pay-off is usually big.

In politics, trifectas also exist.  That’s when one party controls the executive and both branches of the legislature.  President-elect Trump will have one.  That could give him a big payoff in presidential powers.

The scope of Trump’s victory cannot be measured solely by his big margin in the electoral vote or his narrow margin in the popular vote.  The voters did not split their tickets and gave him a Republican Congress free from any Democratic check on him. What made Trump’s win so large was his undisputed win and having a potentially compliant Congress.

A trifecta-plus occurs when a majority of the highest court sides with a trifecta party in power.  Given the conservative, sometimes openly partisan, majority on the Supreme Court, Trump could enjoy that kind of government.  Its decision on allowing considerable presidential immunity gives him broad discretion to skip applying the law or to rule by executive orders.

Political trifectas often exist at the state level.  Next year, 23 states will have Republican trifectas, 15 will be Democratic and 12 states will have divided governments.  In terms of population, 42 percent of the people live in Democratic states and 41 percent in GOP states.  Maine is a trifecta state, and the Democrats frequently dominate, as they will again in 2025.

While there will be some defectors, most Republican trifecta states can be expected to follow Trump’s lead, adding to his power. When he seeks their involvement in enforcing his immigration policies, they are likely to provide help in finding and expelling illegal immigrants.  These states could multiply the effect of his federal actions on other issues as well.

During Trump’s first term, Democratic states managed to avoid action on some federal government demands.  That administration had moved too quickly to put Trump’s platform into effect.  Its hasty work was sufficiently sloppy that Democratic state administrations could find and exploit loopholes.

The new Trump term promises to be somewhat more professional and based on more than loyalty alone.  His appointees should pursue his goals, but may be able to develop their own methods.  If he micromanages or impatiently demands immediate action, he may not avoid the same kind of errors he previously made.

One federal law may somewhat slow Trump’s progress.  The Administrative Procedure Act may sound dry, but it can be an effective way of slowing sweeping change.  Government agencies may add or drop a rule only if they can justify their plans and allow for public comment.  The APA process takes time.

The president, no matter his mandate, must follow the law.  Some states will inevitably challenge Trump’s moves in federal court.  Washington State often brought actions during the first Trump term, winning 55 separate cases.  Such proceedings can serve to slow changes. 

Ultimately, the conflict between the Trump administration and Democratic states is likely to boil down to a dispute about one of the key parts of the Constitution.  It’s called the Supremacy Clause.

While the original states believed they were delegating only some of their sovereign powers to the federal government, that clause has given Washington great powers over the states.  It says that laws enacted under the Constitution are “the supreme law of the land.”  Such laws may simply overrule state laws.

In practice, the federal government has moved into areas that the Framers may not have thought would be taken from the states.  That opens the question of whether a state is blocked from all independent action on a matter or if it shares authority with Washington. 

Can a state accept the federal rule, but go beyond it by being even more strict?  The question is whether the supremacy clause can preempt any state power or allows states to exercise sovereignty alongside the federal government.  Cases are likely to be decided one issue at a time.

If all of this sounds like the making of a legal mess, it is.  It surely could slow federal action, though the Supreme Court has been quickly issuing procedural orders that could be favorable to Trump, even while its final decisions may take many more months. 

In the end, conflicts between Trump and the Democratic trifecta states may be settled by the Supreme Court.  The Court decides what the Constitution means. It seems likely that, given the current Court’s pro-Trump leaning, its decisions in supremacy clause disputes would result in judgments favorable to the president.

The Supreme Court could allow Trump to force Democratic states to follow his agencies’ orders. American politics could be arriving at government under a federal-state, trifecta-plus regime.    With that kind of wall-to-wall control, Trump would hold the winning trifecta ticket. 

Signals from the 2024 elections

 

Gordon L. Weil

The pollsters have gone into hiding to lick their well-deserved wounds.

The pundits are desperately assigning blame for the Democratic defeat, while admitting that Trump was a better candidate than they thought.

Beyond the false forecasts and short-time wisdom, a variety of signals emerge from the elections. 

First, my “told you so” statement.  Last December, I wrote that the election would not be between Biden and Trump.  I then wrote that the election would not be close. And I wrote repeatedly that polling results were false, conjured up by pollsters, and not a good measure of opinion.  All true.

Now, down to business.  Here are signals from the elections.

Whatever you think about his message, Trump came across as telling you what he really thought.  He declared that he would say what he wanted, no matter the advice of his strategists.  He generated an aura of sincerity that is almost extinct among political candidates.  In my experience, the early Ed Muskie was like that, and that could be one reason he succeeded.

Money in politics matters, but not without limit.  People will take just so much repetitive advertising or endless pleas for contributions.  To no avail, the Harris campaign amassed more than Trump, despite his big backers.  There is a point of saturation, which comes when people have heard enough.  Billionaire backers and huge war chests can overkill. 

One reason why polling falters is that the relatively few people who agree to talk often lie.  Pollsters reported that in 2016, people fibbed about their support, because they did not want to admit they backed Trump.  That may have been true this year as well and explain why his victory was unforeseen.

Members of politically identified groups, everyone from Poles in Pennsylvania to Muslims in Michigan, may not necessarily see themselves as members of narrow constituencies, but more like average Americans.  If bread is too expensive for middle-class Americans, it is also expensive for target populations.  Apparently, a lot of people agreed on that.

Campaigns often focus on Latinos, who are assumed to see discrimination against Latin American immigrants as their overriding issue. The same may be true for other ethnic groups. Assuming that minorities would back Democrats, simply because they are minorities, may miss the innate conservatism of many such people.  Too much political slicing and dicing, perhaps.

The parties may be fading.  Lawn signs omit party affiliation, formerly a sign of loyal support.  Elections may be more about persons than parties.  Once, the national party chairs were the prime “slash and burn” campaign representatives, allowing the candidate to remain more elevated.  They are almost unknown these days.  Trump’s daughter-in-law co-chairs the GOP.

Trump will be strongest in 2025.  Presidents usually enjoy the greatest deference in their first year, so next year could be the best time for him to try to push his policies, especially while enjoying strong congressional support.  

The following year is another election year, the mid-term when an incumbent president usually loses some congressional support.  Re-election campaigns may reflect the influence and effects of Trump’s policies.  The Democrats could see a chance to retake one or both houses as the best way to control some of his moves.  Expect to see presidential-level campaign spending.

JD Vance may be more in focus than the usual vice president.  As he ages, Trump might find Vance’s visibility helpful, especially in 2026.  And he may bear closer than usual scrutiny, as the possibility of his having to step into the Oval Office increases.

Trump may test the extent of the extreme political powers that the Supreme Court has given him.  Will he be the “day-one dictator” or will he perceive political risks in going too far?  While the Democrats may push back, the real question will be whether Congress reasserts itself.  Congressional renewal, desperately needed, could be a bi-partisan concern.

The role of Congress will depend heavily on the Republican leaders.  House Speaker Mike Johnson has clearly aligned himself with Trump. The Senate GOP will soon select a new Majority Leader who could influence the president or simply fall in line.  This impending selection may provide some hints about the Trump-Congress relationship.

Leadership is the big challenge for the Democrats, which have no obvious national chief.  A new image is needed, possibly to lead the 2026 campaign effort.  The Democratic National Committee may have to stage an informal version of the presidential primary the party never had. It could gain from having a spokesperson who acts as leader of the opposition from outside of Congress.

This list suggests the election has left much American voters do not know about their political future.  It is likely to differ from recent political tradition.   Trump is defining the GOP message.  The Democrats need a new message of their own.

 

 

Trump win confirms America’s political change

 

Gordon L. Weil

American political history has reached a turning point.

So, too, has the country’s moral sense, at least about politics.

But that did not happen this week.  It happened eight years ago, when Donald Trump was first elected president.  Any doubt was erased by his victory and the powerful vote for Republicans across the country this week.  Except for the coasts, that win was national.

Just as in 1933, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal changed the country, so have Trump and his intent to “Make America Great Again.”  For FDR, the emphasis was on a “new” start while for Trump the emphasis has been on greatness “again.” 

Before FDR, the nation had been essentially conservative.  The private economy dominated and the role of government and individual rights were limited.  The economic crisis of the Great Depression and World War II forced change. The New Deal era and American post-war world dominance transformed people’s thinking.

By 2016, Trump had absorbed and embodied the increasing public sense that the country had gone too far beyond its conservative origins.  Whether he exploited that sentiment or truly believed it did not matter.  He came to be the flag around which the people yearning for the political norms of the past could rally.

That realization was more than the supporters of the politics and institutions of the New Deal era could readily accept.  Government was the main tool by which Americans took care of one another, and it was difficult for them to believe that cutting its cost would assume a higher priority than increasing or even maintaining its services.

The political aberration may not have been the 2016 election, but the 2020 election when the old guard barely clung to office.  Looking back, it becomes less difficult to understand how bitter it was for Trump and his backers to accept Joe Biden and company who stood as obstacles on their path to changing the country.

This year, Democrats believed they could snuff out Trump’s movement, because of their appeal to growing segments of the electorate and on the abortion issue.  The rushed selection of their candidate, made necessary by a president who ignored his own failings, left them running on the hope that the people would inevitably recognize Trump as a mistake.

They ignored the scope of the belief that the government had gone too far, too fast.   Social change, focused mostly on the sexual identity of some people, was not yet acceptable to many.  The lack of control of the border, seen by some as the government’s intent, created national uneasiness.   Democratic progressives, buoyed by a few election upsets, overreached.

American politics have fundamentally changed, and Trump has been able to take advantage of it.  Originally, Congress was supposed to be the dominant power of the federal government, not the president who had replaced the British king.  Parties were not expected to matter as much as the balanced institutions with their built-in checks.

In 1992, Newt Gingrich, the House Republican leader, set out to change the system.  GOP members of Congress would commit to acting like a bloc and would loyally back the leader of their party.  In effect, the U.S. would adopt the parliamentary system.  It has worked and congressional Republicans, whatever they may think of Trump, are totally loyal to him.

This year, the power of the president was further boosted by the decision of the Supreme Court that the chief executive could exercise almost unchecked power.  The appointed Court, confirmed by the president’s party, became a prime driver of presidential dominance.

Underlying the changes that are taking place is a reversal of what had come to be accepted political morality.  It has been a version of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

In practice, that meant there were certain unwritten understandings about political behavior.  The Constitution could not describe every possible form of government conduct, but the early leaders believed that certain customs would be observed.  They could not suspect that acceptable behavior would change as much as it has.

Trump was clearly behind the assault on the Capitol.  He radically denies undeniable facts.  He savagely attacks those who oppose him and shows no respect for many people who have earned respect, even if they disagree.  The way he denigrated John McCain, an American hero of unlimited courage, went beyond civilized bounds.

If not dead, the constitutional culture is seriously wounded.  Unwritten understandings are readily repealed. The Trump goal is nothing less than the transformation of government.

Voters may be ready to believe that Trump does not mean what he says when he lashes out or that he cannot carry out his threats, but they may find his claim is true: he will be a president unlike any other. 

'Deep state'over shadows election; it's about presidential power

Gordon L. Weil

The “deep state” is neither deep nor a state.

Let’s “drain the swamp” to wash the mythical “deep state” down some cosmic hole.

If you succeed, what’s left?  Probably a smaller swamp.  And a one-person government operating openly to serve the purposes of that one person.

That’s what people mean when they warn about Donald Trump being a threat to democracy.  The American form of democracy is really a myth in his view, and the country is controlled by a hidden alliance between anonymous government officials and outside interests pursuing their own agendas. 

The “deep state” conspiracy lacks evidence and is designed to stir what a renegade journalist once called “fear and loathing on the campaign trail.”  This column now reveals the people behind the deep state: two U.S. presidents.  Ever hear of Chester Arthur?  Or Grover Cleveland?

In 1871, President Arthur, a Republican, took on the so-called “spoils system,” derived from the saying, “to the victor go the spoils” – if you win the election, you can shape the government to your will.  Too bad for people who don’t agree with you; they lose the protection of a government meant to serve all.  It was a form of legal corruption.

Arthur launched the civil service, a continuing corps of officials who maintain basic standards and operate essential programs, regardless of who is president.  The civil service, composed of government professionals rather than political loyalists, would allegedly become the in-house half of the deep state. 

A few years later, President Cleveland, a Democrat, approved the first independent federal agency, designed to regulate interstate railroads.  Independent agencies, run by expert panels with both parties represented, came to control complex matters beyond the ability of Congress to monitor successfully.  These experts cannot be removed for purely political reasons.

Trump doesn’t like the civil service or independent agencies. 

He seems to believe that the supposedly neutral civil service harbors people who oppose his policies and work to undermine his efforts.  His suspicion of barely hidden partisanship may be fueled by the heavily Democratic vote in D.C. 

The simple solution would be to strip people of civil service protection and replace them with loyal followers of White House policy rather than congressional intent.  That would expand presidential power.  Each election could result in sweeping changes in government with little consistency or reliability over the years.

As for independent agencies, a president might be able to overrule or influence their decisions.  Presidential power would come to dominate independent agencies, which in reality exercise delegated legislative power.  The shift of power from Congress to the president would continue.

But, even more significant, is the assault on independent agencies by a conservative Supreme Court, dominated by Trump’s appointees.  The Court is now severely weakening independent bodies, and this term will consider a case that could result in ending their regulatory authority.

Previously, the Court had allowed expert agencies to interpret the details of the laws under which Congress assigned them regulatory responsibilities.  The Court has now decided that the agencies should not have such powers.   Who can determine the meaning of the regulatory laws?  Why, it’s the courts.

The problem is that the courts lack expertise. In a recent majority decision, one Supreme Court justice mistook nitrous oxide for nitrogen oxide, substituting laughing gas for a dangerous chemical.

Aside from overruling the expertise of independent agencies, whose knowledge is beyond the abilities of the courts, the Supreme Court will now consider whether their ability to punish violators is beyond what the Constitution allows.  It could decide that such authority rests only with the president and the courts.

These attacks on neutral and independent components of the federal government are an attempt to strip Congress of the lawmaking power given to it by the Constitution.  The assault has been made possible by Congress itself shedding its authority, dodging major decisions and leaving them to others.

The elections will give people the chance to decide if they want a smaller government that offers them less protection and less regulation or the current system, as imperfect as it is.  Whatever the outcome, popular disapproval of Congress sends the message that the system needs reform.

The most obvious improvement would be for the unpopular Congress to begin doing its job. Many judgments now left to civil servants (those dreaded “bureaucrats”) and independent agencies could be eliminated by more simple and direct legislation, denying the special interests’ deals by not allowing for exceptions or special situations.

That could help ensure that the unseen parts of the deep state – corporate lobbyists working over regulators outside of the public view – would leave them only the public proceedings of Congress to press their demands.

An effective Congress, passing no-loophole laws, would be better than the personal rule of any president abusing their powers. 

Peacekeeping nearly dead

 

Gordon L. Weil

Peace came close to a fatal failure this week.

The global effort against war suffered a possibly mortal blow when Israel, a member of the United Nations, supposedly the world’s peacekeeper, attacked U.N. outposts and tried to drive them away.  

Just as Russia had unimaginably launched a European ground war against Ukraine, Israel flagrantly attacked the multinational U.N. mission monitoring its boundary with Lebanon.

In the fleeting glow of their World War II victory over Nazism, Fascism and imperialism, the winners set out to create international organizations with real power to step in to prevent conflict and provide a forum for negotiated solutions.

The U.N. was the most ambitious, and it eventually came to include almost all sovereign countries.  Its Security Council, dominated by the war’s leading powers, could mandate joint peacekeeping measures.

But Security Council decisions could be vetoed by any one of the five countries – China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States.  China was soon taken over by the Communists and the Soviet Union, later replaced by Russia, wasted no time in reneging on its commitments and became the American rival.  A flood of vetoes came.

The U.N. could perform some useful functions even as peacekeeping efforts faltered.  It has tried to dodge the Security Council deadlock and use the General Assembly, including all members, to pass non-binding resolutions.  Groups of willing members could back peacekeeping measures proposed in General Assembly resolutions. 

Some peacekeeping operations have worked, because the U.N.’s thin blue line was respected.  Others have struggled, including one in southern Lebanon, begun under a Security Council order.  It has now come under the most serious attack ever by a U.N. member.  Contributors to the U.N. force insist they won’t budge, but Israel may not be held accountable.

Regional groups also developed.  In Europe, a new international organization was formed, designed to interconnect nations so that Germany and France could never again launch a world war.   It grew into the European Union.  It was openly based on supranationalism, authorizing EU agencies to overrule national sovereignty.

The effort was successful in creating a single trade area with a single market.  It was poised to make Europe a major world power alongside the U.S.   Then the demands of national sovereignty overwhelmed the promise of supranationalism.

Unlike a truly federal nation like the U.S., the EU required the unanimous vote of its then 28 members on many major issues.  Hungary, a small country, has tried to block decisions.  The U.K., preferring its sovereignty, Brexited from the EU.  No common foreign or defense policy could be agreed upon.   European unity was half done, leaving it far short of its original promise.

The U.N. and the EU, both common efforts to build working relations among nations and reduce the chances for renewed warfare, did not accomplish their purposes.  Instead, the world relies on military alliances whose strength might deter others from aggression and war.

NATO is the prime example.  Equipped with a unified military command and responsive above all to the U.S., its most powerful member, it served as a deterrent.  But it grew weaker as it became more successful.  Only after Russian aggression proved that NATO had let its guard down, did it renew itself.

In the Pacific region, China’s increasingly hostile moves have led to new military cooperation.  AUKUS joins Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. in a cooperative agreement. The Quad includes Australia, India, Japan and the U.S. in developing defenses against China. The U.S. also has defense agreements with Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand.  

As peacemaking gave way to deterrence, Donald Trump’s administration was striking because it accepted neither.  He quit three U.N. agencies and the Paris agreement on the environment, threatened NATO and killed the deal slowing Iran’s nuclear weapons development.  His “America First” policy alienated potential allies.

This isolationism was accompanied by his fawning over authoritarian leaders.   Did he appease such leaders in hopes that he could trade concessions to them for a period of peace?  Did he see agreeing with them as “the art of the deal,” recalling his days developing real estate?  Or did he merely enjoy being in a club with leaders who answer to nobody?

Whatever the reason, he clearly believes his superior personal ability to deal with Russia’s Putin, China’s Xi, North Korea’s Kim, Hungary’s Orban and even Israel’s Netanyahu is all that is required for a successful policy.  He now claims that he could solve major conflicts with such autocrats in a single day, though inevitably that would mean accepting their demands.

Trump’s policy is neither deterrence nor peacemaking.  It is disengagement, even in the face of aggressive actions by adversaries.  Pursuing this high-wire personal policy with any success would depend on the fading skills of an aging man.

Trumpism after Trump

 

Gordon L. Weil

We just got a look at what American politics could look like after Donald Trump.

Trump won’t always be at the center of the national debate.  He could lose the election, leaving him to focus on meeting his many legal challenges.  Or he could win, serve his term in office, and depart.  Or, given his age, death or disability could overtake him, allowing Vance to assume power.  But he will go.

Whatever his future, his role over the last nine years raises questions about the future of Trumpism without Trump. Will his policies survive?  Will the Republican Party be dominated by his partisans or will the traditional members he labeled RINOs – Republicans in Name Only – be able to restore their “compassionate conservatism.”

The performance of Ohio Sen. JD Vance in the vice-presidential debate provided useful hints about the post-Trump future, at least for the Republicans and likely for the political world.  Vance’s answers, while displaying the required loyalty to Trump, were notable for smoother packaging. They were important for what they omitted.

On the issues, immigration stood out.  The key issue for Trump when he first ran in 2016, it remains at the center of GOP politics.  Vance repeatedly resorted to unrestricted immigration to explain most of the economic and social problems facing the country.  His answer was not only a sign of Trump loyalty, but his silver bullet solution to winning the election.

Trump had torpedoed a bipartisan bill to begin dealing with the issue, often raised by the Democrats, but that means less to voters than the problem itself.  Underlying opposition to immigrants and immigration is anguish about the coming end of a white majority in America.  Making America “great again” is about stopping, slowing or even denying the inevitable change.

Immigration is sure to be Trump’s legacy.  Difficult to solve, it can become a perennial political focus.  Vance stuck with it, but dodged backing deportation of more than criminal aliens.  Trump is far more sweeping. Vance also avoided racial undertones to his position.  But here as elsewhere, he went along with Trump’s unfounded assertions.

For the Democrats, the personal freedom of women over their own bodies – the abortion issue – remains the keystone of the campaign.  Here, Vance was seemingly contrite. He admitted that his own restrictive position has been rejected by his state’s voters.   He said that his party would have to do better in building trust on the issue.

Contrast his remarks with Trump’s.  The former president keeps shifting his position, trying to lessen the impact of his efforts to topple Roe v. Wade, but he makes ludicrous charges about how Democrats want to kill babies.  Vance looked more reasonable, retreating after the debate to veer right again.  Like Trump, he seeks an impossible position aimed at satisfying both sides.

Media attention has highlighted the civil and coherent debate between Vance and Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic nominee.  They listened to one another and occasionally claimed to find some common ground.  There were no personal attacks or use of degrading nicknames or huge lies, characteristic of Trumpian discourse.  But Vance hewed to his leader’s lines.

Walz entirely boxed him in once. He asked if Vance believed that the 2020 election was stolen, and the senator evaded answering.  In effect, he had to remain loyal to his leader, but managed to refrain from openly supporting him.  Vance obviously shares a Trump-like political vanity. Looking to his own future career, Vance showed himself as more deft than dangerous.

The American government has been almost paralyzed by an unwillingness to compromise between dominant elements within both parties.  Agreement on federal spending has become almost impossible.  In the GOP-dominated House, it’s a matter of “my way or the highway,” sending the American people down that road by an unpopular Congress.

This state of affairs cannot last.  Either the system will be mortally wounded, making authoritarian government quite likely, or traditional majority rule with a role for the minority view must be restored.

This election could be the turning point.  If Trump were to lose and the Democrats gain control of Congress, it could happen now.  Kamala Harris would need to work with responsible Republican leaders.  When the intimidation from Trump possible retaliation fades, senators like Vance might work with the Democrats to achieve workable compromises.

If Trump loses, but the GOP controls Congress, it would be up to Harris and Vance, as a GOP leader, to find a path to compromise.  If Trump wins, congressional Republicans could foresee his influence waning, though they would support his policies.  Of course, it’s possible that an aging Trump might have to give way to Vance at some point.

Whenever Trump leaves the scene, restoring compromise is essential.  Vance may have tried to make it look possible.

 

Polls: An additional note.

I wrote about the adjustments being made and not made to survey data.  Then, The New York Times wrote: “Ms. Harris has since shored up her support among older voters and has begun making inroads among Republicans: 9 percent said they planned to support her, up slightly from 5 percent last month.”

Slightly! An 80 percent increase?   The four percent as a share of the total Trump vote in 2020 is about 2.8 million voters.  That many voters or even a half of them could swing states or put some leaners into doubt.

Trump, the would-be autocrat, gets Supreme Court backing

 

Gordon L. Weil

What does Donald Trump want to do with the presidency?

He makes his intentions clear, though less clear is whether he can turn his plans into reality.  Kamala Harris describes him as “unserious,” but cautions that voters ought to consider as “serious” the risks of his presidency.

Trump favors a strong presidency, enjoying powers he can exercise with little or no control by Congress and with the expected support of his Supreme Court majority.  His next term, if he gets it, could look a lot like authoritarian government.

One indicator is his obvious affinity for leaders who bear the title of president, but who exercise strong or total control of their national governments.  He almost fraternally refers to Russia’s Putin, China’s Xi and North Korea’s Kim.  In fact, he likes their style and their complete freedom of action.

The presidential system of government places elected presidents, serving fixed terms, at the head of the executive branch alongside legislative bodies that cannot readily remove them, but can limit their powers.  In parliamentary systems, the legislative bodies control and can remove the top executive, usually the prime minister.  

In the U.S. system, the checks on a president are a key element of democracy.  The contrast between democratic balance and the authoritarian rule of false presidents is obvious. 

Independent ranking systems are surely not absolutely correct, but they offer strong signals that prove the point. Britain’s Economist Intelligence Unit ranks countries by their degree of democracy.  Among the counties ranked as being “full democracy,” almost all in this category have parliamentary systems.

The U.S. presidential system is rated in the “flawed democracy” group, which also includes India, Poland and Hungary.  America gets a high rating for “electoral process,” but a weak rating for “functioning of government.”  There’s also an “authoritarian” group, which includes Russia, China and North Korea, operating as one-party states.

Trump plans to use his governmental powers to pursue the political enemies he calls “vermin,” expel millions of migrants, and deploy the military to carry out his policies.  Sounds like an autocrat.

His extreme departure from national norms leads conservative Republicans, who may like his policies on the economy and immigration, to endorse Harris with whom they may disagree on the issues.  She is simply safer.

In the White House, Trump would be likely to do whatever pleases the right-wing constituency that put him in office.  Although he honestly reports that he has not read the 887-page Project 2025 blueprint, he is likely to follow its right-wing manifesto.  He has little of his own policy, but depends heavily on outside, conservative advocates.

Under its terms, the Justice Department and the FBI would be bought firmly under his control.  The Education Department would be abolished, and the Federal Reserve brought under  greater political control.  No agency would be missed.

Trump would be able to take control of the government.  Though the president is supposed to be constrained by Congress, it has failed to do its job.  It delegates much of its power to executive agencies.  The Senate is often unable to act, thanks to its rules allowing decisions to be blocked by a minority of senators.

The Supreme Court’s July decision, aptly named Trump v. United States, gave the president almost complete immunity from legal scrutiny for all but his most personal actions. And who gets to decide if his actions are presidential or personal?  The Supreme Court, now dominated by his allies.

This decision does more for placing the presidency above Congress and the states than any other event in American history.  It could easily mean that limits no longer exist on a president using the military for domestic, political purposes.

Congress, because it is ineffective except in doling out benefits and increasing the debt, and the Court, because it has become so obviously partisan, have become quite unpopular.  The unfavorable rating of Congress has reached 76 percent, and it is 51 percent for the Supreme Court. 

The remaining option for controlling presidential excess is impeachment and conviction.  But impeachment has become mere political routine, and conviction continues to be impossible and ineffective. 

Trump covets unlimited power, which no president of either party is meant to have.  The pathway to unchecked presidential power has been paved by the Supreme Court’s decision.  The evidence is that it intended to achieve this result before the election.  That leaves the decision to the voters.

The Court’s Roe v. Wade decision on abortion established policy in the absence of congressional action.   Trump v. U.S. did so as well.  As Roe shows, Court decisions can be reversed.  Congress can remove the Court’s jurisdiction, but seldom does.  Presidents can reshape the Court by their appointments.

A political movement pushed the reversal of Roe v. Wade.  A similar effort should now demand the reversal of Trump v. U.S.

 

 

Harris' biggest campaign event; Trump's 'best'?

 

Gordon L. Weil

The debate revealed a split between the presidential candidates going beyond their differences on the issues.

At several points, Kamala Harris directly addressed viewers, reaching beyond the limits of the ABC debate set.  Donald Trump, expected to be on offense but finding himself mostly on defense, never left the limits of the debate.

After the war of words, Trump told the media, “It was the best debate I’ve ever had.”  That may be a case of wishful thinking or an attempt at campaign spin. But that statement amounted to his giving himself a grade on his performance.  He was telling the voters that this was him at his best.

The presidential election is held in each state for its electoral votes.   Trump played to his core backers in the belief that he had locked up safe states and could raise doubts about Harris in the swing states.  Of course, Harris has her own safe states, but she was reaching for voters in both swing states and on Trump’s own turf.

It’s all about electoral math. Just below the surface of the presidential election lies a politically deadly force that could pick the winner despite the will of the people.

This forecast is not merely a possibility; it is a certainty.   When the votes are counted on and after November 5, the outmoded Electoral College will determine the winner, no matter the popular vote.

The practical effect of the Electoral College is that the Democratic candidate for president must win by much more than a slim majority in the national popular vote.  If Harris leads by one or two percent in the polls, that’s probably not enough.  She needs more than a national squeaker to be assured of enough support across enough states to prevail.

The reverse is true for the Republican candidate.  They may win less than a majority of the vote nationally, but still be elected.  This seems to be an iron law: every time since 1824 when there has been a minority winner, the victor was a Republican.  Trump can win with less than a popular majority, as he did in 2016.

While a narrow national margin either way may mean a Trump victory, Harris can win by carrying swing states, and she can win big by taking one or two safe Trump states.  If she trails in swing states, even while winning the national popular majority, Trump’s electoral vote could overrule her majority.

So, Harris had to accept the electoral math and tried to turn the debate to her national advantage.  For her, it was not so much a debate as a way to talk directly with swing voters all across the country.  For Trump, it was a matter of reinforcing his hold on his MAGA core and raising doubts about Harris with other Republicans and possibly with independents. 

She stuck to her case and often avoided answering some moderators’ questions.  She needled him. He boldly asserted untruths, knowing there was not enough time to refute them all.  He was so intent on his false claims, some of them wild, that he failed to successfully link her to President Biden.

Whatever the points the candidates thought they scored in the debate format, Harris sought to use it as her only national campaign stop.  In what was clearly the best answer given by either candidate, she forcefully laid out the case for reproductive freedom for women.  This was an attempt to reach voters in all states.  If successful, she could overcome the electoral math.

The effect of the Electoral College can only be defeated in one way – turnout.  Motivated voters showing up to vote can undermine the implicit assumptions about the way states will decide. 

When voter turnout is unexpectedly high, it can upset what polling forecasts.  A surge in support for a candidate might overturn the expected outcome, flipping the electoral math.  This might occur in both the swing states and in supposedly safe states.  Momentum can make swings happen anywhere.

The debate was Harris’s chance to recover her momentum and Trump’s chance to block it.  If she rekindled enthusiasm for her candidacy, the debate could have helped her in swing states, but also to reach into Trump’s supposedly safe states.  It seems less likely that Trump could have loosened her hold on her safe states.

If one party invades the other party’s safe states, then a voter anywhere can make a difference.  That’s possible this year, because Trump may have peaked, leaving Harris nowhere to go but up.

Growing enthusiasm helps boost momentum.  Watch the number of small contributions; they reflect that enthusiasm.  Also, the surge in voter registration may be a positive sign for either candidate.

Will there be another debate?  It could help either candidate, but in hugely different ways. 

 

Harris’ policies versus Trump’s

 

Gordon L. Weil

During the Democratic National Convention, news analysts repeatedly say that Kamala Harris had better hurry up and define her policies before Trump does it for her, putting her on the defensive.

They start from a false premise.  She has stated these major policy positions:

Reproductive choice (formerly known as abortion rights).  She is outspoken on this key issue and wants a federal guarantee of this right.  By contrast, Trump varies between banning it nationally and state action.

Economy.  She has proposed traditional Democratic pump-priming measures to stimulate housing and jobs.   She wants anti-gouging laws as some states, like Texas, already have. She favors an independent Federal Reserve.  By contrast, Trump favors wealth accumulation, which should be an incentive to striving workers. This is even less than trickle-down.  He would end Fed independence.

Immigration.  She supports bi-partisan legislation, which Trump instructed the GOP to block, so he could later get the credit for it.  She also supports Biden’s immigration controls which are working with Mexican help. Trump wants to deport millions of long-term residents, that would undermine the economy.  Plus, the wall.

Labor unions.  She supports them and their greater role.  Trump would fire people who seek to organize.

Israel-Palestine.  She supports immediate cease-fire, but cannot depart from Biden policy on arms sales.  The country can have only one foreign policy at a time.  Trump supports Netanyahu, so could not broker peace.  This is a loose end for Harris, but you cannot negotiate independently from Biden or by showing your hand publicly.

In a short campaign, the candidates can focus on a few of the most major issues.  They have done so and have contrasting positions.  The pundits should back off. 

Finally, Trump sees America as failing; Harris sees it rising.  It’s the “vision thing.”

Election puts image over issues

Gordon L. Weil

Political campaigns look for motivational catch phrases. 

One of the most famous was posted in Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign headquarters.  It simply read: “The economy, stupid.”  Workers were to focus on this single issue as a key to winning.

This year, the key may just be emerging to voters distracted by daily polls.  It could be: “It’s about image.”

Pollsters ask voters about the issues most important to them.  Or they may ask about whether a voter views a candidate favorably or unfavorably.  If you have ever voted for a candidate you disagreed with on a major issue or just plain disliked, you might doubt the value of such opinion surveys.

Polls don’t ask if the personality and character of a candidate influences a voter more than their position on major issues.  This year, it’s possible that the image reflecting each candidate’s character may matter more than their positions on issues.

Of course, this effect focuses mostly on swing voters.  The great majority of voters decide based on party affiliation or their personal loyalty to a specific candidate.   Relatively few such people are moved by campaigns. Some issues, like immigration or abortion, may promote voting swings, but how much is not clear.

The contest between former President Trump and Vice President Harris appears to turn largely on who they are more than on any single issue.

Donald Trump provides simple answers to difficult questions. His intentionally inflammatory statements appeal to some people unhappy with the government, especially when they believe others benefit at their expense.  He is negative about the country, and his recourse to America’s “great” past may signal an attempt to slow the changing national ethnic mix.

Yet, Trump’s simple answers may turn out to be simplistic, turning off some voters.  He does not hesitate to lie about objectively verifiable facts.  Recently, he has boldly asserted that there were no crowds at Harris rallies, when thousands could directly testify to having been there. 

He makes claims about his past successes and unfounded charges against the Democrats, but the risk is that the media’s fact-checking can sound like sour grapes.  He is harshly negative about the state of the nation.  His self-confidence may stifle reporters, who struggle to avoid showing any bias against him.

He is more attached to power than the substance of policies, many adopted from hard-right advocates.  He has successfully attached himself to extreme Republican conservatism, which he found ready for strong leadership.

Trump has always been ambitious.  His political career seems more driven by self-gratification than public service.  As with some other past political leaders, the old mantra may apply: “Deep down, he’s shallow.” 

Perhaps above all else, the undeniable fact is that he is now by far the oldest candidate, which could bring him under closer scrutiny.  He now seeks debates, both because he may see himself as the underdog and to demonstrate that age has not taken the same toll on him as it has on Biden.

Trump is well-known, but Kamala Harris has to become known in a short period of time.  Her undeniable facts are that she is middle-aged, far younger than Trump, and a woman.  The challenge for her is to demonstrate that matters politically.

She is trying to show herself as highly active and able to maintain a level of campaigning that is beyond Trump’s ability.  She implicitly makes age an issue and makes frequent campaign stops so that voters and the media can form fresh opinions about her.  She is upbeat.

The test of her political skill comes in having to remain loyal to Biden, who gave her the path to the presidency, while showing she has a mind of her own and can open some space with the administration in which she still serves.  Israel-Palestine may be a bigger challenge to showing if she can lead than immigration or the economy.

Pundits have focused on the Democrats ceding blue collar voters to the GOP, implying that these losses cannot be fully made up by their gains among educated women voters. Harris obviously ties her image to support for abortion choice, an issue resonating with women voters, and the numbers may be in her favor.

The number of women over age 25 with post-high school educational attainment far exceeds the number of men whose schooling ended at high school or earlier.   Here Harris’ persona could matter.

As for running mates, they likely can hurt a ticket more than help it.  JD Vance, like Trump who chose him, runs based on his celebrity.  He is intensely loyal.  Harris’ Tim Walz, a Minnesotan, comes across as a Midwesterner in the tradition of his state’s long-ago Veep, Hubert Humphrey, called “the happy warrior.”

Voters may decide based on candidates’ images, more than on the issues.  Maybe they always have. 

 

As Trump advances, could a GOP Congress follow?

Gordon L. Weil

Conventional wisdom is dead.

No pundit’s opinion on the election could foresee the assassination attempt on Donald Trump or the debate debacle of Joe Biden.  Both events changed everything, especially for the Democrats.

Even before these developments, Biden struggled to stay even with Trump in the polls. This is not a good position for an incumbent president, even when running against a former president.  Now, Biden and the Democrats are in even greater risk of losing.

First, whatever the poor historical record on presidential assassinations, the attempt on Trump merits the strongest condemnation, no matter one’s politics.  There’s too much loose talk about violent solutions to political disputes, and it may make a potential assassin feel justified.  They aren’t and never should be.

The attempt impels us to look at the person who is president and their meaning to us.

When the Constitution created the office of President of the United States, the title described the person who was the formal chief of state and head of the federal government.  The much-revered George Washington could be succeeded by lesser leaders, because their role was restricted to heading a limited government.

By the time of the Civil War epoch, that changed.  The President of the United States became the leader of the American people.  Beyond overseeing the faithful execution of the federal laws, the president came to embody the political, moral and economic leadership of the nation.

Whatever his policies and practices, Trump comes across as a personality inspiring loyalty and respect from a large part of the population. The assassination attempt and his defiant clenched fist reply elevated his status even further. Brimming with confidence, he picked Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, sure to be absolutely loyal to him, as his running mate.

Whatever his policies and practices, President Biden comes across as a modest and goals-oriented president.  If you don’t want Trump, he represents himself as the solution. But he does not come as close as Trump to having the charisma and the aura of self-confidence needed by the nation’s leader.

While backing Biden and his policies, many Democrats seek his withdrawal from the race for the presidency.  His age has taken its toll.  While he might be right that he could competently serve, it is doubtful that he could provide the inspirational leadership that the country expects from a president.  Good enough is not enough.

If they have a chance of defeating Trump, it comes down to two possibilities.  Trump might commit an error that discredits him, but the assassination attempt has given him a lot of cushion. Or the Democrats could come up with a younger, compelling candidate who would provide Trump some real competition.

The current situation leaves the Democrats with problems in all three elections this year – for president, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate.

The presidential winner sometimes has “coattails” on which House and Senate candidates ride to office.  This year, however, the Democrats must hope to win enough congressional control to block some of Trump’s moves, should he win.  Their success was already in doubt before the Trump assassination attempt.  If he has gained, his coattails may have grown larger.

A Democratic candidate who makes a strong showing even if they fall short, could help encourage the balance that would come between Trump and a Democratic Congress.  If the Democrats fail, they may be forced to spend years in the political wilderness.

Biden has seemingly been convinced that his path to victory would come from more closely aligning himself with Bernie Sander’s progressive policies. That may have the effect of leaving behind centrist voters who seek more practical policies and fewer partisan red lines.

Though not an exact parallel, look at the reelection of Maine Gov. Janet Mills, who defeated Paul LePage, her one-term predecessor and a Trump loyalist.  She occupied the middle ground, occasionally leaning to the right.  And she benefited from the abortion wars and her recognition that progressive Democrats had nowhere else to go.

The Democrats could readily select a Biden replacement who could follow the same pattern, especially if they were to pick a dynamic, centrist woman.  It would also help if they adopt a simple message and talk less about abstract “democracy,” when what they mean is simply obeying the law.

Trump’s message, “Make America Great Again,” is feared by many as a return to the bad, old days – more polluted, more unjust, more economically unbalanced.

The Democrats could also send a similarly simple message that might resonate.  A suggestion: “Democrats – the American Way.” That slogan could imply that MAGA, Sander’s “socialism” and economic and ethnic injustice are all inconsistent with the nation’s traditional aspirations.

The Democrats need a message about how they will solve practical problems and a strong candidate to deliver it.