Trump as Colossus of America

 

Gordon L. Weil

Millenia ago, the Greek city of Rhodes built a huge statue, bestriding its harbor to commemorate a military victory and honor its patron god.  This Colossus of Rhodes, was classed as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

Donald Trump seemingly seeks to become the New Colossus of America.  He aims at such impressive achievements that the country will add his likeness to Mount Rushmore, and the world will crown him with the Nobel Peace Prize.

President Trump is a member of the American nobility, a status acquired by becoming a celebrity.  For them, fame is all that matters, and people give them their adulation.  “The Apprentice” made Trump a celebrity; the presidency could make him a colossus.

Celebrities understand the importance of creating illusions.  What you do is less important than what you seem to do.  For Trump, appearance, if not everything, matters more than anything else.  Unembarrassed, he continually touts his supposed achievements.

He dislikes the report of the economy softening, published by the nonpartisan Bureau of Labor Statistics.  The report has modified downward its initial estimates, as it frequently does, based on newly received data.  The agency is struggling to perform well after its budget was cut by DOGE and Trump.

But Trump sees the revision as a message that his tariff policy is not working.  That doesn’t look good, so he fires the agency chief, claiming she was out to get him.  If the new BLS boss produces questionable reports to his liking, he’ll face protests from business and academia.   Trump’s core backers know better; he is simply wiping out the deep state.

Or take the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  The accomplished four-star Air Force general holding the job was quickly fired.  He is Black, and his mere existence made him a symbol of what Trump regards as the dreaded result of diversity-equity-inclusion policies.  His ability and experience didn’t count.

Trump promptly picked a retired, three-star Marine general for the job, skipping over many qualified officers.  He liked the man’s macho nickname, Dan “Razin” Caine.  And he also liked his looks, right out of “central casting”.  So far, Caine, a thoughtful man, may have been something of a disappointment to Trump, but he sure does look good.

During his first term, Trump joined a long line of foreign chiefs of state to have been invited to watch the French Bastille Day parade.  He was impressed, and wanted the same kind of military review in Washington and got it. 

But the Army was celebrating its 250th anniversary and produced more of an historical pageant than a show of strutting soldiers.  Trump encountered the quiet resistance against making the American military march with the grandeur seen in Paris or London. He gained few image-building points.

He is redecorating the White House with lavish and garish splashes of gold paint.  He may have seen similar ostentation in a European royal palace, but that’s not the American style.  Nixon also tried European style, but it quickly flopped.  But that’s not enough; Trump wants to build a big ballroom in the historic house the people let him use.

By using tariffs as a weapon, he seeks to be the person who reshaped the world economy.  Perhaps he’ll succeed, but he will gain little glory.  His reputation and America’s are suffering.  His successors will have to pick up the pieces of the shattered U.S. influence in the world.  Trump’s “beggar thy neighbor” trade policy is a good way to alienate friends.

Some deals he has proudly announced probably won’t produce the promised foreign investment in the U.S.   Japan was forced to agree to a seemingly huge amount to be placed under his control.  The details remain to be quietly worked out, but it’s likely investment will be a trickle, not a flood.  Meanwhile, he has undercut a country whose support the U.S. needs.

Similarly, he has sought to add territory – Greenland, Panama, Canada – to the U.S., which would make him the greatest president since James K. Polk, the champion of America’s largest  territorial expansion.  And we all remember him.

Then, there’s Epstein, whose files are a major threat to his image.  Having promised to reveal them, without knowing if they existed, he catered to his core.  When screeners found nothing more to reveal, the core attacked him for his self-made cover-up.  Do the suppressed files contain information harmful to him?  More than any other issue, this one threatens his valued image.

Trump is the best self-promoter the White House has ever seen.  But it is not working to provide him with historic acclaim.  Still, it should provide him with historic profits, thanks to his having exploited the presidency for personal gain more than any of his predecessors.

A lesson from history awaits.  The Colossus of Rhodes collapsed.

Social Security war looms

 

Gordon L. Weil

The war over Social Security is on the verge of breaking out.  It will run short of funds to pay for promised benefits in less than 10 years.

Many American leaders intentionally ignore the issue, which may be the most important economic and political challenge before them. They dodge the problem because there are only two solutions – raising taxes or cutting benefits, and both are politically dangerous.  Facing only downsides, politicians push the problem off, making it worse.

Either payroll taxes will have to be raised or retirement and disability payments will have to be cut – or both – to keep the program solvent.  The aging population does not include enough people paying payroll taxes to cover the costs of benefits for current beneficiaries.  Expenses rise, but income either does not rise as fast or might decline.

The Republican textbook answer is that revenues could be increased if Social Security reserves could be invested in the stock market instead of lower interest Treasury debt.  Over time, the financial markets have grown, though during recessions and other economic setbacks, they have faltered.  This proposal has not been endorsed by Congress, but it lives on.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said a provision of the One Big Beautiful Bill, known as Trump accounts, “is a backdoor for privatizing Social Security.”  Trump accounts give newborns an account of $1,000 with gains used to supplement their education spending when they are 18. 

After he set off immediate alarms, Bessent retreated, claiming that privatization would supplement Social Security, not replace it. Two funds, the original and the add-on, would co-exist.

Trump accounts will come at a cost to taxpayers, and so would a parallel investment fund.  Does Bessent propose taking part of the payroll tax revenues for private investment, thus reducing the reserve for paying benefits that would otherwise flow from the original Social Security?  Would for-profit investment firms handle the add-on funds?

Though not an exact parallel, this proposal sounds like a variation on Medicare Advantage, run by insurers, instead of using original Medicare, operated by the government.  Recent reports suggest that the insurers put profits over health care, and retirees may suffer both physically and financially.

Two senators have proposed creating a separate fund from the Social Security Trust.  Revenues from that new fund would be used to close the gap between traditional benefits and the money available from the Trust.  The new fund could invest in the stock market rather than only in U.S. Treasury debt, as does Social Security.  After 75 years, it would repay its balance to the Trust.

This proposal would require an initial investment to get the new fund into operation so that it could produce enough income to cover the benefit shortfall and to maintain its assets, enabling it to survive for 75 years.  The senators estimate that it would take $1.5 trillion to create the fund, right from the start.  What would be the source of that seed money?

Social Security was originally intended as a retirement supplement to other income and, based on the life expectancy at the time, it was not planned for payments stretching over decades, as they now do.  For many people, it has become their main or entire source of retirement income. In effect, it may have come to be widely, if not openly, considered a national retirement plan.

In the U.S, there is a belief, virtually the Eleventh Commandment, stating: “Thou shall not raise taxes.”  If Social Security must abide by that rule, the only realistic option is to reduce benefits.  That’s what many pre-retirement people accept as inevitable, though they themselves may have failed to save for their later years.

Bessent and others seem to believe that investing in the market will increase returns enough to ensure Social Security will never have a shortfall.  Retirement payments would be hostage to the performance of those making the investments – amounting to an act of blind faith.

Congress has been approving changes that reduce the shortfall by boosting the age to receive full benefits, raising the cap on how much income is subject to the payroll tax and making most of the benefits for higher income people subject to income taxes.  These are all helpful, but not enough to close the gap.

A wide array of other options is available, and it is possible to estimate the effect of each of them on reducing the Social Security shortfall.  You can be the policy maker by using this questionnaire.  Go to the Revenues (or the other tabs) tab and make your choices, and you will see their relative effect. 

Note that diversifying Social Security investments, the Bessent idea, only solves 6% of the problem.  It’s not the solution.

Have fun with the questionnaire.   Members of Congress ought to give it a try.

 

China aims toi pass U.S. as top superpower

 

Gordon L. Weil

The magician waves his wand in the air and all eyes in the audience follow.  They don’t pay attention to what’s in his other hand or where he is walking.  He fools them.

China is today’s conjuror.  The wand is its threat to Taiwan.  Its real aim is to be the world’s only superpower, filling a gap left by Trump’s retreat to “America First.”

This sleight-of-hand has a precedent in Nazi Germany.  Its wand was insisting on absorbing ethnic Germans living in other countries.  Its aim was to control Europe and North Africa, while isolating the U.S.  The fools were in the U.K. (Chamberlain cedes Czechoslovakia to Hitler), and the U.S. (Charles Lindbergh’s first “America First”).

China would not normally be expected to seek influence over the political and military situation in Europe.   But the U.S. is turning away from Europe to face what it sees as an Asian menace.  That helps China to become a military factor there, using Russia as its agent.

Russia, the home of practical Communism, inspired the Chinese Communist Party.  But it has lost influence, while China has extended its reach.  The Ukraine war has made Russia increasingly dependent on its much larger ally.  In effect, it is becoming a satellite of China.

Here, too, history offers a precedent.  Hitler’s political thinking was influenced by the success of Italian Fascism under Mussolini.  Germany and Italy drew closer.   As World War II progressed, Italy failed to defend itself and became a German satellite with much of the country under Nazi occupation.

Russia has become dependent on China, which allows it to continue the Ukraine war into its fourth year.  Despite its initial statements about remaining neutral, China provides drones, a key element of the Russian offensive.

Even more important, it has become the leading market for Russian raw materials, especially oil.  The Russian economy depends heavily on foreign oil and natural gas sales, which form the core of its economy.  China replaces its lost European markets and pays bargain prices.  It sells manufactured goods to Russia.

China also is the leading customer for Russian coal and, soon, natural gas. It can rely on Russia for fuel by creating a tight and long-lasting tie.  The smaller, weaker country comes more closely under the control of its neighbor.  Total trade between the two countries is estimated at $240 billion. (This compares with $762 billion in U.S.-Canada trade.)

But, Chinese support for Russia’s continuing war against Ukraine comes at a price.  The EU has said that it will not replace its faltering relationship with the U.S. with China while it backs Russia.  Like Canada, this could force Europe into new trade relationships elsewhere.  They may also assume some of the American world role, as the champions of liberal democracy.

The Trump administration has encouraged these developments, perhaps unintentionally.  By rationing its support for Ukraine, it reduced risks for China in forging close ties with the Russian aggressor.  At the same time, the U.S. has struggled to come up with a workable, reformed trade relationship with Beijing.

Trump’s “America First” policy continues to appear isolationist to other countries. He seeks to gain advantages over other countries while weakening his cooperation and support for them. Whether he really would abide by NATO’s Article 5 requiring mutual self-defense remains a matter of lingering doubt.

Taiwan may be used as a distraction, but China remains intent on invading it.  The American policy of strategic ambiguity (does it favor one China or support Taiwan independence?) is increasingly difficult to sustain.  It is expected to support the island if it is attacked, though there are limits on how much American power can be deployed.

The U.S. Navy is patrolling the South China Sea, refuting China’s wild claims that the international waterway is part of its territorial waters.  Hostile warnings from Chinese vessels have been sounded, leading South Korea, Japan and the Philippines to draw closer to the U.S.

It is widely believed that China supports Russia in Ukraine for its own direct purposes.  If Russia can succeed in extending its influence there despite European opposition, then China could be encouraged to make a similar move on Taiwan despite American opposition.

Trump signals that he will strengthen sanctions on Russia, which could implicate China.   He could deploy secondary sanctions – economic penalties on countries that continue to do business with Russia thus financing its war effort.  Europe, Canada and others could sign on to this policy.

China also continues to aggressively push its role in Africa and Latin America, often through its investments.  Its obvious goal is to extend its influence by creating economic dependence and gaining naval bases.  China needs these regions to achieve its goal as the world’s leading superpower.  Quite like the pre-Trump U.S., it might not be liked, but it would have to respected,

American 'secret police' is real: it happens now

Gordon L. Weil

I recently noted that ICE agents are wearing masks and unmarked clothing to disguise their identity as law enforcement personnel.  They seize people off the street who cannot be sure if they are being accosted by the police or a thug. 

The masks are supposed to protect the identity of professional immigration law enforcers from retaliation by people linked with those they take into custody.   Individuals, often unarmed and unsuspecting civilians, are forcefully detained, even if they don’t resist.  Anonymity is allowed to replace discipline in exercising police power.

Part of becoming a soldier or police officer, naturally dangerous professions, is accepting that the jobs come with risks.   Early retirement, often after 20 years, may be partially compensated them for those risks and enable to purse another career.

Somewhat kiddingly, I replied to some comments that the solution to the issue would be to ban everyone from wearing masks, except for law enforcement officers.  That way, the police could be clearly identified when they carried out their official duties, while their exact identities would remain unknown.  

This proposal was meant to illustrate now inappropriate it is to keep the identity or even the role of law enforcement personnel secret from the public.  It might discourage them from treating immigration subjects as if they had been proven guilty and should be promptly expelled.

Wearing masks and showing no identification may be the answer used by some law enforcement agencies to counteract the growing use of police body cameras or video recordings by the general public.  Police accountability is lost.

Nassau County, New York, has come close to doing just that.  In the Long Island county with a population greater than many states, the general public is banned from wearing masks.  But local police working on immigration cases may wear masks.  Thus, if worked as designed, a person wearing a mask would obviously be law enforcement.

The new county rule could expose law enforcement agents to being singled out, the very danger that wearing masks had been designed to reduce.  

The Nassau practice is based on the idea that police are more likely to be targeted by people reacting to threat of deportation than by people associated with other accused criminals.  No evidence has been offered to back up that distinction about relative risk.  If they haven’t needed masks previously, why now?

Is there a risk that law enforcement personnel will begin wearing masks all the time, while average people may not?  Sounds like something out of a dystopian movie.

One possible explanation is that ICE personnel who are nabbing people are not law enforcement officers at all.  They may be contract employees hired to meet quotas in finding people supposedly breaking immigration laws.  They don’t wear badges, because they don’t have them, and they are not subject to police discipline.

In Los Angeles, it has happened, and ICE was sued by the ACLU and others.  It agreed not to use contractors in L.A. and San Francisco area jails and prisons.

It should be obvious that violence solves nothing, and law enforcement personnel should not be targeted.  Such attacks should not be tolerated and penalties should be severe. 

But allowing cops to be mistaken for criminals, while avoiding public accountability, is a questionable alternative, and it could encourage undisciplined policing or worse.  The system is defective if it can lead to American citizens or anyone else, for that matter, being seized like convicted criminals without the enforcers being held accountable.

  

Trump attacks Fed's Powell

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump wants lower interest rates. He sees Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell as standing in the way.

He wants Powell to resign, but the Fed Chair won’t go.  Trump resorts to childlike name-calling, as if the misplaced ridicule will drive Powell to quit. That doesn’t work.

This is not the first time a president tried to get the Fed to support his policy.  Before the 1972 election, President Nixon wanted Fed Chair Arthur Burns to lower interest rates.  Using a wide array of tactics and threats, he induced Burns and the Fed to lower rates.  The long-term result was wild inflation, forcing the Fed later to impose extremely high rates.

Trump would like to fire Powell, just as he has dismissed members of regulatory bodies.  He has been almost completely successful in those moves because the Supreme Court has backed his concept of an all-powerful president.  But only “almost.”

In a May decision endorsing Trump dismissals, the Court responded to the departing regulators’ argument that its position could threaten the independent Fed: “We disagree. The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”

The Court thus went out of its way to insulate the Federal Reserve from the powers it confirmed that Trump enjoys to remove members of supposedly independent regulatory bodies.  He was left only with the power to remove Fed officials “for cause.”

A person could be fired for cause if they had acted illegally, misused their office or had become incompetent.  Trump claims that Powell mismanaged the renovation of the Fed’s headquarters, enough for him to be fired for cause.  His actions on Fed interest rate policy are not a cause to fire him, though that’s obviously Trump’s intent.

Powell would likely resist any such dismissal and the matter would go to court.  Unless it changes course, the Supreme Court would protect Powell and the Fed’s intended independence from the politics of the day.  He could argue that he’s not responsible for building management and that no federal money is involved with costs being paid by banks.

An even more compelling reason for Trump not to try to remove Powell is the worldwide economic reaction.  The U.S. dollar plays a unique reserve currency role, and one major task of the Fed is to protect its value.  If a president could undermine that role for short-term political purposes, the world economy would be affected.

If the dollar’s status, reflecting international confidence in it, is threatened, then everything everywhere in the world will become more expensive.

Trump’s vacillating trade policy has led to domestic and international concern about American economic reliability. The doubt created by that concern translates to higher interest rates.  Attacking the Fed, Trump would make matters worse.

Surprisingly, a well-known economist urges Powell to resign, saying that continuing attacks on him will weaken Fed independence.   He ignores the certainty that Trump would replace with an ally who would follow the president’s policies rather than exercising the necessary independent judgment.  Economic expertise obviously does not produce political insight.

Powell does not set rates by himself.  The 12-member Open Market Committee decides.  For his removal to meet Trump’s demands, the rest of the members would have to be meek followers of whoever is the chair.  They aren’t.  Right now, some of them are reported to oppose any cut, while Powell foresees one or two this year.

Trump wants lower rates to encourage more borrowing for economic growth.  While they might somewhat offset the inflationary effect of his tariff policy, they could overheat the economy.  He also wants to keep up with other countries that have lower rates.  The Fed looks at the economy from a different and more long-term perspective than the president.

Trump’s concern may not be helping the economy as much as helping himself get past a recent huge increase in the national debt.   It may be the main point behind Trump’s position, though it is rarely stated. 

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill will increase the national debt by more than $3 trillion.  The federal government will have to pay off that debt and the interest on it that continually accrues. If the Fed lowers interest rates, those rates apply to federal debt and could lower the payments that must be made on the new debt.

By cutting interest rates, it could cut the cost of the OBBB.  That matters because the cost of servicing the national debt, even before OBBB, was greater than all defense spending.   Saving on debt service cushions somewhat the growing cost of chronic deficit spending.

Helping Trump meet this goal is not the Fed’s prime responsibility.  It is supposed to keep inflation down and employment up.  The inherent conflict between them and Trump’s urgent need to reduce the debt are at the core of Trump’s hostility toward Powell.  But it is not working.

Facing widespread insistence on the Fed’s independence, Trump seems to be backing down.  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent asserts that the Fed engages in “persistent mandate creep into areas beyond its core mission.”  His conclusion: “What we need to do is examine the entire Federal Reserve institution and whether they have been successful.”

Fair enough.  Maybe whoever does that ought also to examine the entire Trump economic policy and whether it has been successful.  To many, he looks like the maestro of mandate creep.

 

Canada defies U.S., its unity growing

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump’s threatening and vacillating trade policy has produced a burst of Canadian national unity that would have been unimaginable earlier this year.  His disdain for Canada, which he has treated as nothing more than a weak satellite, led him to claim that it should simply give up and become the 51st American state.

His threats, both economic and territorial, produced a stunning election upset.  The Conservatives, led by a Trump fan, had been set to sweep national elections, after the Liberals dumped Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  His replacement was Mark Carney, a man who had held major offices in Canada and the U.K. and headed a major international firm. 

Carney and the Liberals won.  His competence was obvious and appealing in the crisis.  Despite Canada’s historic dependence on the U.S., Trump’s persistent desire to absorb Canada gave Carney the opportunity to be defiant. 

Prime Minister Carney promptly proved himself an unconventional Liberal, abandoning partisan politics in favor of seeking practical solutions.  He is producing results in pushing for a more integrated domestic market for Canadian production and building access to trade relationships with Europe and Asia to supplement and somewhat replace the U.S.

Under Carney’s leadership, Canada now works toward being an energy superpower and having the fastest growing economy in the G-7.  The world, possibly including Trump, had not recognized that its economy has edged past Russia’s.  It has the natural resources, particularly hydrocarbons, and the productive capacity to keep growing, reducing dependence on the U.S.

It is unified and moving quickly.  The Council of the Federation groups the heads of the ten provinces and three territories.  Its meeting this week with Carney was the most unified that its members said they could recall. 

Trump has succeeded in bringing Canada together behind Carney.  Doug Ford, the Conservative premier of Ontario, the country’s most populous province, aligned with Trump until this year. Now, he almost gushes in his praise for Carney and worries about the lack of U.S. reliability.

For Canada’s leaders, no deal with the U.S. would be better than a bad deal.  The deadline, set by Trump and Carney, is August 1.  Will this be a case of TACO – Trump Always Chickens Out, with U.S. accepting a deal on a few key items, or the outbreak of economic hostilities?  Canadians may be willing to pay more for Canadian-made products rather than to give in.

In rejecting a loyal friend, the U.S. has succeeded in making Canadians more aware of their country.  There is no turning back; Canada will never be the same.  Neither will the U.S., which will never again be fully trusted in a country that had believed it was America’s closest ally.

But this is not the first time that strains in the U.S.-Canada relationship have resulted in a stronger Canada.   At least twice previously, it has been challenged and has responded as a nation.

During World War II, the U.S. built airbases in Newfoundland and Labrador, then a British colonial possession.  These major airbases developed new areas and created thousands of jobs.  The U.S. became the major economic force in the territory.

Newfoundland was mostly self-governing, though Britain provided significant financial support and could control its government.  After the war, Britain had little interest in continuing to finance Newfoundland.  The territory was given three choices: independence, joining Canada or an economic union with the U.S.

Canadian Prime Minister W.L. McKenzie King opposed a U.S. takeover, favored by many  Newfoundlanders, fearing it would lead to the U.S. gaining control of Canada.  The American government, not seeking new territory, did not pursue the alternatives to Canada.  By a narrow margin, Newfoundland and Labrador voted to join Canada, and it became its tenth province. 

The U.S. had built bases there during World War II because of its proximity to Europe.  Its strategic importance later declined, but the new Russian threat and technology’s effect in shortening distances may renew its role.

Immediately east of Labrador is Greenland, a Danish territory technically on the North American continent.  Trump sees it providing the U.S. the kind of security and control that might have come with Newfoundland and Labrador. 

McKenzie King had dealt with an earlier American challenge.  Early in 1942, the U.S. built the Alcan Highway, providing a road link across British Columbia and the Yukon to Alaska.  The unpaved highway could allow supplies and troops to flow north when the Japanese attacked Alaska.

McKenzie King was warned that the U.S. could easily take over western Canada.  U.S. Army road builders greatly outnumbered the few Mounties on patrol there.  McKenzie King reacted, appointing a Canadian regional official to protect against U.S. overstepping its authority.  He quickly created a national park to keep Americans out. Late in 1942, the Americans were gone.

Trump’s desire to absorb Canada picks up from past missed opportunities.  But Canada has moved on.

Politics of trying to kill pubici media

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Trump rescissions bill killed federal funding for NPR, PBS and local stations.  The $1.1 billion cut is small for the federal budget, but big for Republicans who think NPR/PBS tilt to the liberals and give little coverage to GOP conservatives. 

NPR/PBS maintain they do straight reporting.   Their response recalls the retort of President Truman to a voter who yelled, “Give ‘em Hell, Harry.”  He replied, “I just tell the truth about them, and they think it’s Hell.”

If enough voters agree with that view, it could make Trump regret having satisfied longstanding GOP grumbling.

The unusual bill, to claw back funds already appropriated and in the pipeline, passed on an almost purely partisan basis.  Some Republicans regretted having the congressional power of the purse transferred to the president, but they went along with Trump’s request.

In the Senate, two GOP senators broke with their party.   Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski did not influence the outcome, but they voted “no” in their states’ interests.  Alaska and Maine are the two states most heavily affected by the cuts, well beyond any other states.

One argument against the cut was that it would impact rural states that depend on the public media for news, emergency warnings and entertainment.   

Maine is the state with the highest share of its population living in rural areas, which make up more than 98 percent of its land area.   Alaska is almost entirely rural.  Still, Murkowski’s fellow Alaska senator voted with the president.  Collins, the only GOP member of Congress from New England, faces re-election next year and depends heavily on the most rural parts of the state.

In the House, two Republicans broke ranks.  Neither comes from a seriously affected area, though one represents a swing district in Pennsylvania.  For all other Republicans, partisanship prevailed.

If two more senators and two more representatives had voted against recission, the bill would have been defeated.  In the House, the vote was 216 to 213; the Senate vote was 51-48.

In the 2024 elections, two Democratic House incumbents and two sitting senate Democrats lost their re-election bids by narrow margins. The popular vote winning margin for the two House seats was 11,938 out of a total of 145 million votes cast in House elections.   With the Democrats, the result would have been 214-215.

In the Senate, the two losing Democrats had missed re-election by a combined margin of 58,492 out of 110 million cast in Senate elections. With them, the Senate vote would have been 49-50.

Trump would not have been able to prevail on cutting NPR/PBS and foreign aid, if two seats in either the House or Senate had not flipped.  As much as the Trump spokespersons emphasize his mandate and his almost monolithic GOP congressional support, his dominance might have been undermined if 12,000 more people had voted for the Democrats.

Clearly, the Democrats will try to take Senate seats now held by Republicans.  Among likely targets, reflecting somewhat the impact of the recissions vote are North Carolina, Nebraska, Montana and Alaska.

In the House, they will surely try to recover the two seats they lost last year.  But they also see GOP legislative loyalty to Trump as potentially creating political liabilities for the Republicans. Trump is writing the Democrats’ platform by giving them issues to run on.  That’s worth more than vague references to restoring democracy or Trump’s dangerous way of governing.

That makes the public media vote interesting.  It is estimated that about 100 million people, plus those streaming, view PBS at least once a month.  The demographics of viewership fit with the emerging picture of the Democrats’ natural constituency – educated, middle income or higher, female.

The educated, affluent voters who watch PBS are likely to vote more than the general population.  They follow the news, so they may be aware of the rescissions bill.  In some areas, stations are heavily viewed by key constituencies like Blacks or Hispanics.  Kids who talk to their parents about their viewing and their caregivers who are viewers both matter. 

PBS now receives much support from the private sector.  Though it does not carry commercials, it allows major donors to present their product or service.  Supporting companies may benefit from the “halo effect” of being associated with the public media.  Maybe there’s a different of halo effect, one based on the loyalty of PBS viewers. 

By itself, it may be questionable if the loss of government support of the public media will have much of an electoral effect.  But joining in showing loyalty to PBS is easier than arguing about issues that create divisions in the Democratic Party.  Can the Democrat’s turn support for PBS/NPR into a feel-good cause that’s beyond politics?