Press rights and gun rights -- are some rights better than others?

Press rights = gun rights

Are some rights better than others?

 

Gordon L. Weil

The president has just announced by executive order that any person not a U.S. citizen is prevented from possessing a gun.   This order applies immediately to any immigrant who has not yet been naturalized.  They must turn their guns over to an eligible person or to the police. 

The president believes that the Second Amendment extends only to citizens.  It refers to the need for guns by militias, and it is obvious that state militias were not meant to include aliens.  The president’s policy is consistent with their campaign position in favor of greater gun control.

Proponents of gun rights as established under the Second Amendment have launched furious opposition to the president’s order and have filed an appeal in the federal district court in Amarillo, Texas, which has been unfavorable historically to gun control.   They seek an immediate suspension of the order.

This move by the new president, acting right after Inauguration Day 2029, immediately brings to mind earlier actions by then-President Donald Trump.  In 2026, he blocked certain news correspondents from the White House, because he deemed their probing reporting as constituting “fake news,” which he wanted to counter.

Trump now believes that the First Amendment, expressly protecting freedom of the press from government action, does not apply to the White House.   “I don’t have to let them into my – into the people’s house,” he said. 

The president might not “have to let them in” if they constituted an immediate threat to public health and safety.  But he cited no such cause and, in fact, gave no specific reason for excluding three news organizations from the White House.  He alluded only to their reporting on him and the Trump Administration.

But his quote was telltale.  He regards the White House as his house, though the landlord – the American people – sets the rules of conduct through a lease called the Constitution.  It provides that the federal government cannot override freedoms of the press and of speech.

The proponents of the Second Amendment see it as providing an absolute right to be protected from government interference.  That’s why they would protest the hypothetical 2029 presidential order.  That should also be true for the application of the First Amendment in 2026.  Why would one right be more absolute than another?

But either Trump or his successor might rely on the Supreme Court for help in asserting their ability to limit a constitutional right.  Either would have been acting within their understanding of the scope of presidential powers.  In its decision in Trump v. U.S., the Court ruled that the president is subject only to impeachment if his official acts violate the law.

Of course, after months of review, the Court could find the president’s act unconstitutional.  It would then be up to the president to obey the law or not.  If the chief executive balked, they could only be sanctioned by impeachment and removal from office, impossible in light of an inevitable partisan defense. 

Having received an unfavorable lower court injunction, Trump can be expected to ask for a Supreme Court ruling.  Trump has tended to obey the Supreme Court.  

He exercises his personal presidency.  He believes that his 2024 election, while not the landslide he claims, gave him a mandate to make major changes in federal policy and federal government operations.  His action against the news media illustrates his view of the almost unlimited extent of his presidential powers.

Republican control of Congress has given him an unusual opportunity to assert his views of the presidency.  If he succeeds in at least some of his efforts to change how the government works, it could set precedents for a Republican president even if the party loses congressional control. 

These Trump moves reflect the agenda of his key aides, Stephen Miller and Russell Vought, the principal author of Project 2025, the White House policy manual.  They are building barriers to Democratic control if it were to win by relying on the non-white popular majority that the two seem to dread.

Attacking the supposed “fake news” carried by the leading national news organizations is also likely to become part of Trump’s rejection of the results of the midterm elections, if the GOP loses.  Trump Republicans would claim voter fraud in jurisdictions they expected to win, with elections taking place in an atmosphere poisoned by the press.

This short-sighted view is based on the belief that the Project 2025 changes will be impossible to dislodge.  Why would modifying them be more difficult than reversing governing norms has been for Trump?  They may be leaving a legacy for the Democrats to exploit to the GOP’s disadvantage.

The media is fighting against Trump’s attempt to limit the public’s access to a free press.  Its resistance may awaken people to the importance of protecting their right to make up their own minds.

 

Big men meet Murphy's Law, face unintended consequences

 

Big men meet Murphy’s Law

Unintended consequences are a theme

 

Gordon L. Weil

American aerospace engineer Edward A. Murphy, Jr. coined a saying that came to the world as Murphy’s Law:  "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong."

Because humans are imperfect, Murphy’s Law may merely state the obvious, though it’s often ignored.  For overly self-confident leaders, unwilling to listen to others’ advice, the Law is virtually certain to apply.

Major events in the world are determined these days by people, full of their own power and pride, acting while either ignoring advice or not even seeking it.  They may believe they have reached their exalted positions because they are superior and are thus less liable to error.

Their actions may involve risk, a recognition that they may fail to achieve their desired results.  The outcome could turn out worse than expected, but trying to achieve their goal is worth the risk.  Taking risks is an important part of life, but the cost of possibly negative outcomes must be considered.

People with inflated self-confidence believe they are virtually risk free.  They foresee positive results and believe that any minor negatives can be handled without undermining the achievement of their objective.  Still, they may find their actions have unexpected and high costs. 

In recent years, world events have been determined by men who undertook actions with excessive confidence and chose to ignore the possibility of unintended consequences.

Russian President Vladimir Putin deeply regretted the end of his country’s dominance through the Soviet Union and sought to restore it.   Resentful of Ukraine’s independence, in 2014 he seized Crimea.  Having encountered no resistance from the West, he was encouraged to continue.

In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in the expectation that it could quickly fall.  It would gain an added buffer between itself and NATO.  Given the defense organization’s internal weaknesses and Russia’s 2014 experience, he seemingly expected to restore at least some Russian influence in Eastern Europe.

Surprisingly, Ukraine effectively repelled the invaders.  Europe, experiencing a territorial invasion for the first time since 1940, reacted strongly, enjoying substantial U.S. backing.  The Baltic states were strengthened.  Choosing no longer to be a buffer, Finland joined NATO, as did Sweden. 

Putin’s plan failed, and Russia found itself engaged in a long war, suffering military losses, shortages and inflation.  Ukraine attacks key facilities.  Russia has lost vital oil revenues, becoming increasingly dependent on China.  What Putin saw as an easy victory over a weak neighbor, produced confrontation with NATO, not a buffer.

Putin’s Ukraine invasion had unintended consequences.

While negotiations with Iran were underway in February 2026, President Donald Trump decided to go to war against Iran, seeking several goals, most notably the end of its nuclear development program for peacetime or military purposes.  He mistakenly expected a quick war and complete victory.

Instead, Iran managed to block the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for the world’s oil trade, resulting in shortages and sharply increased prices for petroleum products and fertilizer.  Economies across the world were harmed, and consumer prices in the U.S. soared.  The sole American objective became the re-opening of the waterway, which its war had closed.

Trump’s Iran war has unintended consequences.

Xi Jinping, the Chinese Communist leader, has promised to make Taiwan, formerly a territory of his country, once again a part of it.  By increasing his navy’s presence and potential control over the China Sea, claiming it as China’s internal waters, he moved his army closer to being able to invade and reclaim Taiwan.

Japan is China’s biggest Asian rival.  Faced with Chinese ambitions, it has shifted its military policy from defense to deterrence, while greatly boosting its military spending.  The unexpected, new policy reflects its decision to provide an independent deterrent while remaining aligned with the U.S.   China now faces a constraint on its plans.

Xi’s expansionism has unintended consequences.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas, the terrorist group controlling Gaza, launched a brutal, surprise attack on Israel.  Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader, understood that Hamas was risking Israel’s retaliation, but believed its defenses had weakened.  Proportionate retaliation would be an acceptable price to pay for pressuring Israel to accommodate some Palestinian demands.

Sinwar faced a powerful Israeli response.  Ultimately, the Arab presence in Gaza was thrown into question and hope for the creation of an independent Palestinian state, accepted by Israel, evaporated.  Turmoil has grown in the Middle East.

Under Sinwar’s leadership, Hamas assumed a risk, but the extreme costs, including his own death, were unintended consequences. 

Despite these recent cases, powerful leaders continue to ignore the likelihood of unintended consequences. 

Warned about an AI doomsday by some of its developers, Trump asserts, "the only control or 'guardrails' that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!"

“Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.”

 

Putin, Trump threaten Europe

Putin, Trump threaten Europe

Its failure would be costly

Gordon L. Weil

 

The recent near-victory of Alternative for Germany (AfD), the right-wing party, in one of that country’s states, pushed speculation about the rise of extreme-right parties across Europe.  The similar party in Sweden also came close.

In these countries and elsewhere from the Netherlands to Italy, worries mount that the liberal democracies that followed the Second World War will give way to conservative, even authoritarian, regimes.  Some in the AfD call for their country to overcome its “culture of guilt.”  At least one of its leaders openly resents Berlin’s Holocaust memorial.

The unifying issue on the right in Europe, as in the U.S., is opposition of immigration and the presence of non-whites in the national population.  The right-wing in Sweden might even be willing to pay recent immigrants to go back to their countries of origin. 

The AfD is strongest in eastern Germany, an area that has a slim democratic tradition.  It went directly from Nazi rule to Soviet Communist domination.  After German reunification, many people there felt themselves to be the object of discrimination, despite the generous outpouring of economic support from West Germany.

Two world wars began in Europe when German leaders – Kaiser Wilhelm and then Adolph Hitler – believed that their country had been cheated out of its rightful role.  Because Europe was the center of world politics, their aggression led to wars involving nations from distant continents.

Germany was defeated and, after World War II, the victors decided to prevent yet another recurrence by binding it into an integrated community of nations, making impossible any new extreme claims arising from German nationalism.  With U.S. economic and political backing, a new organization was created that grew into the European Union.

Nationalism was to be replaced by supranationalism.  Under the new regime, states would cede some of their powers to an international commission given the power to make binding decisions.  National economies would be interwoven to the point that no single country could act independently.  It worked.

The founders also planned for a unified military operation, but that plan faltered for fear of rearming Germany even to a limited extent.  The Europeans also realized they could benefit from allowing the U.S. to dominate their military policy, providing most of its defenses.

Because they did not create a common armed force, European nations forfeited the chance to develop political unity, especially in foreign affairs.  While some Europeans hoped for enhanced links, economic success and American protection allowed them the comfort to back away from closer integration. 

Europe began to understand that it could not launch a new world war.  The great powers were the U.S. and Russia, not Britain and Germany.  Europe could afford to give itself the luxury of nationalism, trading off its potential for a focus on developing its internal market, while giving up the role its merged economy might give in world affairs.

When it created a new unifying treaty, it gave each of its nations, from the largest to the smallest, a veto right.  Any hope for supranationalism beyond economic integration was abandoned.  The promise of a new, equal and democratic partner for the U.S. disappeared. 

Then came Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

Trump has conflicting expectations.  He correctly expected Europe to take greater responsibility for its own defense instead of being a free-rider on the U.S.  While American forces in Europe serve U.S. interests, they also have allowed European resources to be diverted to purposes other than their own self-defense.

Given Europe’s failure to emerge as a great power and its dependence on the U.S., Trump believed he could exploit their dependency rather than helping them overcome it.  He claimed Greenland, a territory of Denmark, only a small ally.  He could go to war against Iran without consulting Europe, which should simply fall in line.  Europe reacted negatively.

Putin drew the same conclusion as Trump.  Europe was weak, creating the opportunity for building more of a buffer between Russia and NATO by seizing control of Ukraine. He did not count on Ukraine’s ability to resist or Finland and Sweden acting to strengthen Europe’s defenses by joining NATO.  Yet, he keeps probing Europe’s defenses against more aggression.

Both the U.S. and Russia have revealed their limitations, offering Europe a renewed opportunity to assert a world role.  It has reacted, but its sacrifice of military resources for Ukraine’s defense has flowed more slowly than its rhetoric of resistance.  If Putin’s attack on Ukraine amounts to war on Europe, as its leaders say, its response lacks a tangible sense of urgency or crisis.

The world needs Europe.  But persistent nationalism keeps it from assuming a leading role.  It may now miss an historic opportunity, leaving it to be swept along by the waves generated by others.

Disclosure:  I studied at the leading institution training European leaders, the College of Europe in Belgium.  Long ago, I served as the only American on the EU staff.

 

  

The president who threatens his own country

 

The president who threatens his own country

Trump at war with his opponents

 

Gordon L. Weil

People should be either sad, angry or worried.  Or all three.

Recent news reveals far more than mere political disagreement.  It’s normal in a democracy for people to disagree and to argue that they know better than the opposition.  It’s the new normal to turn opposition into hatred and disagreement into unyielding conflict, threatening the country.

In his speech to the Republican rally that was called a convention, President Trump engaged in fear-mongering, repeatedly claiming that a Democratic congressional victory would bring Communist control.  This is not acceptable political talk nor can it be dismissed as campaign rhetoric; some people take it seriously because he says so. 

Rally participants shouted out for the killing of Democratic Senate candidates.  Sen. Ted Cruz was speaking at the time, but wanted to give the impression he had not heard, though many others did.  To ensure continued control by Trump Republicans, anything goes.  If Trump’s view prevails, no political opposition to his authoritarian government could survive.

Trump divides.  Upon taking office, the Trump administration abruptly fired the head of the armed forces, a Black man, and the head of the Navy, a white woman.    The actions implied that they got their jobs because of favoritism, not their experience and ability.  Without evidence, such prejudicial judgments can be understood as legitimizing racism and sexism.

He rejects affirmative action, but goes further to remove from office people he sees as taking the place of the historical ruling class.  He tries to rewrite or deny history.   Slavery cannot be erased as part of that history, yet that’s now being attempted in museums and national parks.

Beyond the federal government avoiding efforts promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), he withholds government funding to force non-governmental institutions, from universities to law firms, to follow his line.  Critical scientific research, through which America has led the world, will be severely crippled.

The president uses the augmented powers given to him by the Supreme Court to use the federal government for personal enrichment and retribution against his critics.  The DOJ brings spurious legal actions against critics and opponents, while openly admitting that the evidence of their supposed crimes must be found only after charges are brought.  That’s not how justice works.

These moves may intimidate their subjects into submission or retreat.  They certainly constitute harassment, aimed at making life more difficult and costly for his critics.  He never uses these tactics against supporters and, in fact, pardoned people who attacked the Capitol police in 2021.

He sues the news media and seeks regulatory penalties for those who simply question him.  Freedom of speech is a one-way street for his administration.  If successful, he could control or eliminate expressions of opposition to his actions.

He has terrorized his own political party and converted it into his personal property.  Anxious to hold onto their seats in Congress, Republicans temporize or keep quiet.  They follow him, because they’re scared of him.  The GOP, historically against more federal debt, now gives him all that he wants.  Their interest in survival exceeds their obligation to public service.

The Trump administration operates on the principle that the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world, militarily and economically, and can force others to do what it demands.  Tariffs and warships, not diplomacy, are the prime instruments of foreign policy.  Adding insult to injury by making wild claims against other countries is part of this policy.

He reduced military support for South Korea, an essential ally in restraining China’s ambitions, because it does not support his Iran war.  He openly disdains Europe, demanding its support without consulting it.  He covets Greenland.  He turns Israel, long supported by both parties, into a partisan issue.   All this is personal politics, not leadership.

Canada has long been a willing dependent of the U.S.  Trying to achieve its complete subservience to the U.S., Trump levied high tariffs and launched aggressive and extravagant insults.  In Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, he found a rare opponent who would not be intimidated and who knows that Trump’s America is forfeiting its global standing.

The world’s problem is not Donald Trump.  It’s that the American people elected him a second time after experiencing his first term.  It’s not that you cannot trust Trump; it’s that you cannot trust America.  Turning away from America is a painful but inevitable process.

The elections this year are a referendum on Trump.  If Trump Republicanism survives, then more of the same can be expected.  Increasingly, average people may see Trump policies threatening their standard of living, their rights and their opportunity.

The question is not about whether the divided Democrats can get out of their own way.  It is whether the American people pay enough attention to look out for their own good.

Disagree?  Please comment.

Independent politics are coming; Democrats drop out

 

Independent politics are coming

Democrats drop out

Gordon L. Weil

 

Conventional wisdom tells us that political parties are fading away.   

The Republican Party has morphed into Trump’s personal property.  He is the RINO, but he counts.

The Democrats are divided, as usual, this time between traditional New Dealers and progressives, including the Social Democrats.

The deep discord between the two parties has turned compromise into a dirty word and made name calling and falsehood the standard.  Core partisans exist on each side, though many voters supposedly want constructive cooperation to solve practical problems.

The media promotes this picture, helping make it seem true.  But that’s not quite right.

Traditional conservative Republicans survive, but they may detest Trump.  Democrats may find unity in their shared rejection of Trump.  The existence of a moderate middle may be more myth than reality.  With Trump having become the single issue, compromise is impossible. 

The partisan division is real.  The GOP developed effective party discipline, and the normally unruly Democrats have finally reacted and become more disciplined.  In Congress, each side almost always follows the directives of its leaders.

Each party’s supporters include strong backers and leaners.  Moderates exist among the leaners, but not independents.  Only a small share of voters doesn’t lean in either direction and includes true independents who may determine election outcomes.

The media has so significantly become engaged in covering the political split that its coverage and opinions regard independents as political deviants rather than proponents of alternatives to division.  That’s how the party leaders see it as well.  Still, there are true independents.

Few members of the House and Senate slip party discipline.  The five biggest House dissenters are four Democrats, including Maine’s Jared Goldin, from districts that Trump won, and one Republican from a district that Harris carried.  In the Senate, Susan Collins (R-ME) and John Fetterman (D-PA) represent states won by the other party’s presidential candidate.

Two GOP senators who are leaving the Senate, have become willing to oppose Trump.  One of them, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, and Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie, a libertarian dissenter, became Trump victims and lost their primaries.  That’s proof that Trump’s power has suppressed independence. 

Sometimes, senators march to their own tune.  Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul is a loyal libertarian. The two New Hampshire Democrats (one is not seeking reelection) sometimes are more responsive to their swing state more than to the party’s demands.  In 2010, the Alaska GOP dumped Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the leading Republican dissenter, but she won by write-ins. 

Some commentators suggest that the only way out of stalemate is the formation of a new party, a home for moderates from both sides.  Theoretically, Republican moderates opposed to Trump wouldn’t become Democrats, but could align with Democratic centrists.   Presumably, the GOP would melt away after Trump. 

While new parties have emerged and gained major party status, it’s rare, and there are no signs of it happening now.

Long ago in Maine, some Republicans in a then solidly red state decided to back Democrat Edmund Muskie for governor.  They did not become Democrats but chose to consider themselves as independents, and Muskie won.  That kind of choice may be happening in some of this year’s elections, and Democrats are trying to help it along. 

In Nebraska, independent Dan Osborn lost in 2024 after running a solid Senate race and is again opposing an incumbent Republican.  Democratic nominee Cindy Burbank has withdrawn from the race to improve his chances.

In South Dakota, independent Brian Bengs, formerly a Democrat, is running.  Democratic candidate Julian Beaudion dropped out.

In Idaho, independent Tod Achilles, a former Democrat, is running against an incumbent.  Democrat David Roth withdrew.

In Montana, independent Seth Bodnar is running with the support of Democratic leaders.  Alani Bankhead, the Democratic nominee, resisted pressure to withdraw, and she may help the GOP.

In Alaska, Democratic House candidate Matt Schultz dropped out in favor of independent Bill Hill.  Under the state’s unusual voting process, the top four open primary candidates for the Senate are on the ballot.  The fourth, a Democrat, dropped out, allowing a Republican to move up.  The result pits three Republicans against a single Democrat, already the frontrunner.

The Democrats’ tactic of strategic withdrawal is an answer to how to create a comfortable political space for Republicans who reject Trump’s takeover of their party without undergoing a political transformation.   It also reflects broad voter disappointment with both parties.

If the strategy works, it could give Democratic leaders heartburn just as Fetterman and Golden have done.  Independents may support Democratic leadership, but their party loyalty is not guaranteed.  If there are independent winners this year, they may not abandon their special status at the Capitol doorstep.

If the Democrats’ strategic withdrawal doesn’t work, it might not be taken as a failure, but rather as a first step. 

Campaign cash floods in, while gold moves out

 

Campaign cash floods in, while gold moves out

Gordon L. Weil

Political money mounts, funding falsehoods

The top tune of 2026 is the clink of campaign cash.  Billionaires and large corporations support candidates without limit so long as they are “independent” of the formal campaign.

The Supreme Court decided that spending money is free speech.  That means billionaires each get more speech than an average person.  It’s questionable if that’s what the First Amendment means.  The ruling transformed American politics, and each election sees new campaign contribution records.

Small contributions matter, but not much.   In Maine, Elon Musk’s money backs GOP Sen. Susan Collins, whose campaign funds top Democrat Troy Jackson’s.  In June, the Supreme Court allowed political parties to freely pour money into campaigns and has just cut their ad rates (!).  Trump’s PAC, after hoarding its cash, just committed to hundreds of millions for close races.

The obvious basis for political giving is that the candidate with more money is more likely to win.  That candidate has more to spend on television ads and direct mail, which make up the largest part of campaign spending.

Most voters likely form their opinions about candidates from the ads to which they are relentlessly exposed, not the debates watched by dedicated supporters.  Most ads these days consist of truncated truths or outright falsehoods about incumbents and challengers.  Money promotes myths that make winners.  Voters are victims.

But that’s not necessarily so, even if candidates keep asking for more.  In some campaigns, candidates win, though they are greatly outspent.  In other campaigns, contributors back safe candidates, ensuring their loyalty and giving them money to line up more backers.

Saturation may be the limiting factor.   Television time is fully committed.  Political mail readily becomes “junk mail.”  Lawn signs?    More money cannot be justified or it may even turn off some voters.  Money as speech may endure, but people may not like to be outshouted.

A message from the cellar

Deep beneath the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, gold bars are stored in bedrock vaults.  Most of this gold belongs to other countries, whose governments have long thought that the safest place for their gold, a part of their national currency reserves, was in the U.S.

The New York Fed does not control the gold; it only protects it.  Most nations with significant gold reserves, with the possible exception of the U.K., have kept some or all of their gold in the Fed’s vault.

But that is changing.  Germany keeps only about a third of its gold in the U.S.  France has taken its gold out of the Fed.  Last week, the Netherlands central bank announced it had moved its gold either back home or to London.  Other countries may be acting quietly.

Doubts grow about the U.S. as the world’s banker.  Trump attacks the independence of the Federal Reserve, the U.S. central bank, reducing respect for the dollar as a reserve currency.  This week, the Norway state fund, the world’s largest, announced it is sharply reducing its U.S. Treasury holdings.

Trump exceeds understandings about the limits of power, weakening confidence in the Fed.  He might suddenly seize other countries’ most precious financial asset in retaliation for their not supporting his Iran war.   It seems safer to take the bars out of the Fed’s cellar.

AI and its limits

In the previous column, I mentioned a Wall Street Journal column by investor Stanley Druckenmiller.  A report about it suggested that the writer may have had the help of AI.

This was one more sign that AI is penetrating American life, potentially affecting important communications.  In several cases, courts have found that lawyers let AI draft a brief, which included citations to phony cases.  College students are having AI write papers for them, and professors must use AI review programs to search for AI.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the head of the city’s schools have blocked the use of AI by elementary school students.  “Children need teachers and human connection in order to learn and grow. They need to develop skills alongside their peers, build relationships with educators and wrestle with tough problems on their own,” said the mayor.

School chancellor Kamar Samuels noted, “We’re putting guardrails in place to protect the human connection, curiosity and creativity that help children grow.”

AI can usefully supplement human research, but these challenges suggest it should not be allowed to replace HI – human intelligence.   If it does, the country will end up with a population that is less educated, articulate and literate.  The AI-based jobs that will displace rote tasks may go unfilled for the lack of educated personnel.  Automatons won’t do.

AI could get out of control.  Government has a role in protecting people, not simply promoting data centers.

For the record, this column is neither written by nor edited by AI.  Its defects are all mine.

 

 

Debt may doom the dollar

Debt may doom the dollar

Interest rates climb

Gordon L. Weil

Nine out of ten Americans are in debt.  The federal government, just having crossed $40 trillion in debt, owes more than all individuals together.

Interest rates are rising.  The more people or the government must pay on their debt, the less affordable is everything else.  The federal government allows itself to keep piling on more debt to be repaid sometime later.  The problem is getting bigger.

Republicans traditionally fought to control debt, while Democrats were seen as big spenders.  Compromises between them kept some limit on the federal debt.  But the GOP has changed; it openly supports increases in the federal debt by spending more and taxing less. 

Debt affects everybody and could be the major threat to the American way of life.  It affects all costs from mortgages to groceries.  The more businesses and farmers pay for the loans they need to operate, the higher the costs they must pass on to consumers.

President Trump wants lower interest rates.  Rate cuts are politically popular, and he believes lower rates will reduce the amount of huge government interest payments resulting from massive federal deficits.  He wants the Federal Reserve, the central bank which sets short-term interest rates, to be the driving force to lower the long-term cost of federal debt.

The Fed’s Open Market Committee sets interest rates, based on economic not political factors. Its goals are low inflation and full employment.  It has not cut rates to Trump’s satisfaction.  He attacks the Fed, but the Supreme Court has upheld its independent role.

Trump blames former Fed Chair Jerome Powell, his own appointee, for not cutting rates.  When Powell’s term as chair ended, Trump replaced him with Kevin Warsh, who might be more favorable to his goal.  At the outset, Warsh was walking a tightrope, and refused to discuss the possible future of rates, leaving rate decisions to the market.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent thought he could do better by trading government debt.  He apparently thought he could do the Fed’s job and cut rates.  His policy worked for a few hours, then it flopped, and interest rates went back up.  He could not control enough Treasury securities to sustain his policy in a trillion-dollar world.

Bessent and Warsh had worked under star investor Stanley Druckenmiller, who roundly rejected Bessent’s move.  Britain’s Financial Times headlined, “Bessent gets Drucked.”  Druckenmiller opposed the Treasury trying to take over the Fed’s job of setting monetary policy.   And market leaders said they wanted to know Fed thinking and disliked Warsh’s reticence.

Warsh got the message.   He admitted that persistent inflation could lead the Fed to increase interest rates.  As a responsible central banker, he eased market worries by recognizing reality.  Trump would not get the lower rates he demands, largely because the Iran war is pushing prices up.

Interest rates are soaring.  Competing borrowing demands by the AI sector force governments to pay higher rates to sell their debt.   Fighting the Iran war’s inflation requires central banks to raise rates to reduce borrowing and slow the economy.  Long-term interest rates are hitting highs, contrary to Trump’s intent.

He continues to wage war on the Fed, aiming to gain a majority of rate-setters beholden to him.  Winning has become an end in itself, detached from market reality.

The president still wants to harass Fed Governor Lisa Cook, a Black woman, off the Fed Board.    A Trump lackey argues that she cheated on two mortgage applications.  She proved that a clerical error was fixed and did not result in her receiving duplicate homeowner benefits.   Secretary Bessent also claimed two principal residences, but Trump has not sought his removal.

Cook has already spent about $1.3 million defending herself.  Trump has similarly gone after Powell, who protects himself from false charges by remaining on the Board.

This Fed foolishness is far less important than the huge and growing federal debt.  Annual debt payments exceed all U.S. military spending, and they keep increasing.  At some point, government outlays would have to be cut and taxes increased just to cover debt payments.  That’s not likely to be politically acceptable.

Then, the only way to pay for government to reduce the federal debt will be to make each dollar less valuable -- devaluation.  The U.S. did it in 1933 and 1971 by ending the dollar’s link to gold.  With devaluation, the dollar’s value would be cut relative to other currencies and gold.  The fixed dollars of the federal debt could be paid off with new dollars worth less. 

Devaluation is not painless.  While exports may be stimulated by cheaper dollars, people may have to struggle with inflation, as happened in the late 1970s.  And the devalued dollar could lose its place as the world’s reserve currency, the money other countries want to hold, drastically undermining American world power.

 

 

  

Blue Wave may be coming

 

Blue Wave: wholesale or retail elections

‘All politics is local’ no longer true

Gordon L. Weil

This year’s election may reveal the difference between retail and wholesale politics.

The Republicans and many pundits see the congressional elections as hundreds of individual contests.  For most of them, picking a winner is easy, because voting traditionally hews to a single party.  The balance of power in Congress can be determined by a few swing elections, where there’s usually only a small gap between the two major candidates.

The GOP is increasingly worried about becoming a minority party.  They would be endangered if Democrats could add to their blue-collar and Black support with more women and, thanks to immigration, Hispanic voters.  Republicans have made inroads among union members and other blue-collar workers, but they are not expected to equal the Democratic gains.

Republicans look for ways to suppress voting among those voters seen as likely to support Democrats.  Their arsenal includes difficult identification requirements, shorter voting periods, reduced mail ballots and House redistricting to maximize the chances for their candidates to win.

However spurious his claims might be, Donald Trump’s assertion that his 2020 election had been fraudulently stolen, is used as justification for most voter suppression, which claims to help eliminate fraud.  For added GOP security, he pushed for congressional redistricting years before it is required by the Constitution and laws.

The president’s party often loses seats in the midterm election, and premature redistricting is meant to nullify that shift.  Redistricting for political purposes was explicitly approved by the Supreme Court.  The Democrats tried to match the GOP slicing-and-dicing moves, but have come up short.

The object of all these moves is to retain Republican majorities, no matter how thin, in the House and Senate.  That would not only help Trump continue to adopt policies by executive order without congressional oversight, but also to protect him from what he sees as an inevitable third impeachment if the Democrats gain control of the House.

Taken together, all of these moves constitute a retail approach to the elections.  The goal is to win just enough states and districts to hold onto control of both houses.  Most analysts have bought this approach, because it’s familiar. 

“All politics is local,” said the late House Speaker Tip O’Neill.  If retail politics prevail this year, then O’Neill’s wisdom prevails.  But Donald Trump has radically changed American politics and, if he is becoming the predominant issue in any congressional race, then the old sage can be proven wrong.

All serious polls show that Trump’s rating on every major policy is solidly negative.  Despite having almost unchecked power, he hasn’t delivered on key promises.  Even worse, he continues to promise success, but many people are losing confidence.  For example, he repeatedly announces that the unpopular Iran war is nearing an end, but it isn’t.  Then, he escalates it.

He promised no long wars, instantly lower consumer prices, deporting unlawful immigrants with criminal records and ending any special breaks for women and minorities.  He delivered a prolonged Iran war, higher prices, deportation of long-term immigrants leading productive lives and open discrimination against women and minorities, especially in military leadership.

In his second term, Trump has adopted or approved policies harmful to African Americans, women, farmers, Hispanic people, science and education.  While his policies may not create new Democrats, some of their members could vote for them as alternatives to his Republican enablers or simply not vote.  A relative few could tip many balances.

Trump relies on personal loyalty and keeps his core support.  Voter suppression and expected massive fraud claims where GOP candidates lose could help him.  By making the Democrats appear dangerous, he would frighten voters away from them.

Will Trump’s falling approval translate into enough Democratic votes for them to take Congress?  When the campaign began, few gave the Democrats a chance of taking Senate control.   Now nine Senate seats are in question.  This shift suggests that the Trump Republicans’ congressional control of the Senate is now in question.  The Democrats have a good chance in the House.

But will the success of Democratic Socialists in some primaries scare enough voters nationally to allow a clear path for Republicans?  The media promotes a possibly exaggerated struggle between the party’s progressives and moderates, but they could appear united in their opposition to Trump.

The Democrats make Trump the issue (wholesale); the Republicans make individual Democrat’s shortcomings the issue (retail).  Trump’s impulsive moves create political opportunities.  The Democrats’ infighting and inability to create a unified agenda do the same.

If the Democrats succeed, the result would be the Blue Wave.  It would extend the usual midterm congressional losses into a major rejection of Trump’s presidency.  If the Iran war continues and prices remain high, chances for a Blue Wave increase.  Trump probably knows that and has about two months to complete his defenses.

 

 

 

 

Trump policies abd their unintended consequences: American boomerang

 

Trump policies: American boomerang

Unintended consequences always happen

Gordon L. Weil

 

Here’s the theory of Trump’s policy: I dispose of the power of the U.S., the greatest military and economic power in the world, and can use it to force others, weaker and dependent, to fall into line.

Here’s the reality: I dispose of the power of the U.S., but it is not enough to force others, who increasingly sense their independence, to fall into line, revealing limits on American power.

The policies Trump tries to impose on others turn on him.  The American symbol is less the screaming eagle than the boomerang, the Australian missile that comes back to its sender.  What goes around, comes around.

These days, boomerangs are flying.

Trade negotiations with Canada finally seemed to become focused.  Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney proposed “Fortress North America,” a free trade agreement between the two countries and a joint foreign trade policy.  That’s similar to what the two countries had been developing before Trump launched his tariff wars, when Canada was almost the 51st state.

Trump claims that Canada wants the benefits of American statehood at no cost.  But the U.S. wants to formally install the 51st state in all but name.  It sought to determine Canada’s trade policies, be authorized to freely nullify their new trade agreement, and let American exporters ignore Canadian language laws.  In return, the U.S. would lower some tariffs it had raised.

While Trump thought he was nearing a deal, Canada refused last-minute American demands.  Canada insisted on its status as a sovereign nation, despite the sneers of U.S. officials.  U.S. negotiators believed that Canada was ready to surrender, leaving them surprised when Canada quit the talks.  Boomerang.

In Iran, the U.S. went to war, while Iranians were ready for continued negotiations. But supposedly the threat of American power was so great that Iran should simply fold.  Why negotiate when a brief display of American power could settle matters?

The war turned out to be lengthy and made matters worse, as Iran managed to close the Strait of Hormuz, causing an increase in world oil prices. In the U.S., rising consumer prices and dislike of “forever wars” hampered Trump’s extended and costly attacks.  The president could not convince Americans that ending Iran’s nuclear potential was worth the cost.

Military pressure having fallen short, Trump reverted this week to increased economic sanctions.  Usually, countries apply maximum economic pressure before taking up arms.  It saves lives.  But this time, the U.S. did it backwards.  Boomerang.

As part of its desperate economic sanctions, the Trump administration also threatened other countries that trade with Iran.  Will that apply to Russia?  For all the bluster, the U.S. recognized its dependence on China and limited the sanctions.  China was not happy and remains a major customer for Iran’s oil.  Boomerang.

Trump’s tariff policy has been aimed at restoring American production thanks to increased tariff protection.  He has gradually learned that American consumers pay the price when importers pass on their increased costs.  He may punish some foreign producers, but he also punishes Americans at the gas pump or in the grocery aisle. 

The trade policy has failed.  Part of it was not legal, and the government must refund tariff revenues.  Tariffs have boosted prices faster than incomes, turning “affordability” from a bureaucratic term into a political banner.  Tariff policy went from being a MAGA basic to a GOP embarrassment.

This week, Trump cut beef import tariffs as hamburger prices soared.  The American cattle industry, beginning to recover with the tariffs, was furious.  When the tariff policy did not work at the supermarket, it was suddenly reversed.  That created a political reaction in cattle country, and congressional candidates immediately knew it.  Boomerang.

Even when Trump’s policy works, its excesses lead to unintended consequences.  He ran on keeping his promises and, in perhaps the key area, he has.  He took advantage of broad public sentiment in stopping the flow of illegal entrants across the southern border.  It worked.

But he has gone further, promising to expel illegal residents with criminal records.  That, too, received broad support.  But, to reduce the population of undocumented residents quickly, his administration focused more on people leading ordinary lives.  Those people are the easiest to catch and their arrests run up the number of expulsions.

Sectors like agriculture and health care have suffered for the lack of immigrant employment.  People may react negatively when their law-abiding, long-term neighbors are whisked away.  The most popular Trump policy has failed to produce popular results.  As with all other policy areas, immigration has become a net negative for Trump.  Boomerang.

All of these over-confident policies have been adopted without a good understanding of their implications.  They come back to Trump, making matters worse for him, others and the country.  It’s a classic boomerang.

 

 

Strangle the enemy, end freedom of the seas

 

Strangle the enemy – it’s better than nuclear

End of freedom of the seas

 

Gordon L. Weil

Fearing that Iran would develop a nuclear weapon that it could use to disrupt the Middle East, the U.S. attacked.   Then, Iran realized that it already had such a weapon immediately at hand.

It is not a super-destructive missile, but a narrow passage of water through which 30 percent of the world’s petroleum is transported and which Iran can control.   The Strait of Hormuz has become a weapon of war that need not cause widespread death and destruction while delivering a bomb-sized blow to the world, day after day.

Historically, the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow body of water between Iran and Oman, has been used as an international waterway.  Vessels of all nations could pass freely.  Traffic was mainly related to petroleum and fertilizer exports.  International law covering such usage is well-developed and detailed.

Iran understood that it could exert economic and political power by controlling maritime traffic.  Action in the open sea is less constrained than conflict on land.  Retaliating for the American-Israel attack in February, Iran found, even though it is a minor naval power, it could block the Strait.

The U.S. does not want to damage shore facilities that are essential for the petroleum trade, so must limit its range of action.  Its bellicose threats and attacks on mainland facilities have not yielded submission by a determined defender.  By causing a stoppage in oil deliveries to China, Japan and other Asian countries, it faced opposition to its Iran gambit.

Even the U.S. is affected.  When the world market price of crude oil rises, American producers raise their prices in the domestic market.  Their profits are boosted without any increase in their production costs.  Consumers pay at the pump.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of at least four international waterways where a bordering country threatens to gain control in pursuit of its political objectives.  Reducing passage is turning out to be more powerful than armaments.  The prime American goal of eliminating Iran’s nuclear potential has been replaced by efforts to open the strait.

Middle East oil access has two marine gateways.  One is Hormuz. The other is Bab-el-Mandeb, a strait at the southern end of the Red Sea.  Vessels using the Suez Canal, the gateway to Europe and the Americas, must transit this narrow passage. 

Bab-el-Mandeb can be made impassable by the Houthis, Iran’s southern arm that dominates much of Yemen.  They resist the armed might of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia and have recently picked up on Iran’s strait strategy.  They are less vulnerable that Iran’s proxies in Hamas or Hezbollah and do not depend on Iran.  They fight their own battles.

The Houthis have begun moving to cut off oil through that strait, which sees the transit of more than 9 percent of the world’s petroleum traffic.  Closures of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb raise consumer prices for gas and food throughout the world.  The fleeting pleasure of having knocked off Iran’s Supreme Leader seems unimportant in comparison.

The biggest marine chokepoint could turn out to be the South China Sea.  This waterway is not narrow, but forms a vital link for Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.  It is an international thoroughfare and an estimated one-third of all world trade passes through it. 

China claims it as its own territorial waters.  Its navy and air force patrol it, and it has created artificial islands in it.  It accosts foreign vessels and warns away U.S. naval aircraft and vessels.  It is the path to its takeover of Taiwan.

Freedom of the seas there depends on the U.S. Navy.  Two aircraft carriers, destroyers and air surveillance tame Chinese ambitions.  But the U.S. has stripped the fleet there to concentrate on attacks on Iran.  No carriers are on station.

The American-Israel war on Iran is helping China move toward domination of a vital international waterway.  It gains influence on Asian nations while displacing the U.S.  It increases its threat to Taiwan.  For the U.S., these are the unintended consequences of an unintended war.

The fourth marine closure is the Black Sea.  Ukraine and Russia can block each other’s free access to it.  Together, they supply about 30 percent of the world’s wheat.  One expert warns that the loss of most of this supply would cause “severe global food price shock.” Many people might be unable to pay for food.

The U.S. could play a key role by pressuring Russia’s Putin to negotiate and end his invasion of Ukraine.  Russia’s lost sales as the world’s largest wheat supplier will weaken it, though it could also be impacted by more sanctions coupled with greater American help for Ukraine.

President Trump seeks to enforce America’s will on the world.  He is not succeeding, because other countries can develop and use maritime leverage that is powerful enough to replace nuclear weapons.

 

Election key: Trump turnout

 

Election key: Trump turnout

War over ballots

Gordon L. Weil

A single factor may be the key to the outcome of the midterm elections – turnout.

President Trump gets it.  He gives signs of believing that it’s better for his Republicans if fewer people vote. 

In the 2020 presidential election, he lost by 7 million votes out of the 156 million between the two main candidates.  Four years later, he won by over 2 million votes out of about 153 million.  The Democrats shed over 6 million votes.

He asserts that he won in 2020 and could conclude that a lower turnout favors Republicans.  Because most Republicans vote at the polling places on Election Day, while most Democrats prefer early voting, often by mail, that might have led him to oppose mail voting.

Republicans want to tighten access to voting.  They say they are combating election fraud though there’s little demonstrated evidence of it.  But Trump claims his loss resulted from widespread fraud.  Massive efforts to prove that point totally failed, but the claims persist and accepting them is a required mark of loyalty to Trump.

Voter fraud is a myth. While there may be rare problems, they are so minor that they cannot influence the results.  But donning the cloak of protecting democracy, the GOP can seem to be the good guys while preventing many Democrats from participating.

The Republicans try to limit voting access and question vote tabulation (only when they lose).  Making voting access more difficult, the GOP expects to deter lower income workers and the poor from making what could be a big effort to register and vote in person.  They also try to influence how votes are counted, which aims at throwing out Democratic ballots.

Trump is currently thinking about declaring a national emergency giving him the power to reduce or eliminate mail voting and to impose strict identification rules to screen out lower income and less educated voters who won’t have time or transport necessary to collect needed paperwork.  Reducing mail voting could get some help from the Postal Service.

He has fought hard to secure passage of the SAVE act that could allow him to accomplish his goals, but Congress won’t pass his bill.  Declaring a national emergency would be a shortcut, though it would be challenged.

This year, increased turnouts for midterm primaries encourage uncertain expectations of a big November turnout.  In Texas, for example, the 2.3 million Democratic votes compared with 2.2 million Republicans ballots.  Both the turnouts and the Democratic showing were unusually high, but three-quarters of eligible voters did not participate.

In November, Republicans who are disappointed with Trump could stay away.  But if the Democrats are thought to be leftwing extremists, GOP voters are unlikely to swing to their side.  That’s why there’s so much handwringing by pundits when a Democratic Socialist wins a primary.

But, even merely by staying away, a lower GOP turnout could help the Democrats. And it’s possible that high prices caused by the Iran War and uneasiness about immigration enforcement could cause some to protest by voting for Democrats.  Turnout will depend heavily on whether the elections are a referendum on Trump.

In practice, the question is whether voter suppression will work and if so, whether it will have a partisan effect. The GOP may believe that educated, affluent people will vote and remain reliable Republicans.

But, despite the focus on the Democrats losing the blue-collar vote, they are making major inroads among what once was a solid GOP vote. If women, affluent, and better educated people continue moving toward the Democrats and show up at the polls, they could upset the GOP strategy.

If Trump aims to make it easier for those groups to dominate the electorate, he may have missed that they are moving away from the GOP.  If he believes less educated voters are increasingly Republican, he may have erred in making voting access more difficult for them.  Plus, their share of the electorate is declining, while the more affluent Republicans are defecting.

In both parties, campaigns could boil down to GOTV – get out the vote.

Rarely does an issue affect turnout to the point it can determine the election outcome.  But consumer price hikes could cause results that go well beyond partisanship.  Prices rose under Biden, and Trump won by promising to reverse them quickly.  The Iran war made the situation worse, but he tells voters that small gas price increases are worth it.

Whatever politicians claim, consumer price increases have not been small.  When gasoline shoots up more than one dollar a gallon, it can fuel the kind of turnout that flips the Congress. 

Talk of a Blue Wave, a massive Democratic win, has begun to pass the straight-face test. But it may take a Blue Wave to drown the voter suppression that Trump seeks.

 

 

 

 

Trump counterattacks Supreme Court

 

Trump counterattacks Supreme Court

PLUS Pundits’ mistakes

Gordon L. Weil

Trump fights the Supreme Court

Trump wants to limit birthright citizenship, mainly because he does not want the children of illegal foreigners to become citizens.  The Supreme Court has overruled Trump, finding that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to any person born in the country and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., (excluding children of foreign diplomats).

Justice Kavanaugh, voting with the majority, pointed out that Congress could define what is meant by being subject to American jurisdiction.  Because it had failed to do so, he agreed with the majority.  (The minority thought the Amendment applied only to Blacks and that the parents must be permanently domiciled in the U.S.)

The Kavanaugh opinion broadly hinted that the administration could have a chance to limit the scope of birthright citizenship, if it induced Congress to define “subject to the jurisdiction.”  It could draft a bill and send it to Congress, either creating a good campaign issue or getting it passed.

But that is the kind of legislative work Trump avoids.  He dislikes the time it takes and the need for dealmaking with members of Congress.

Instead, he issued new executive orders with his own definitions of who could be excluded under the jurisdiction provision.  Besides the undocumented, he wanted to exclude person who came to the U.S. for vacation childbirths (who are already denied visas).  His orders will go through a new and lengthy judicial process and will likely be suspended until a final decision is made.

Trump is launching his boldest remaining ideas and moves before he runs the risk of facing a hostile Congress.  He avoids exposing himself to the possibility of congressional rejection now, but might again use immigration to influence voters.  His support on reversing illegal immigration and expelling people has been falling, so he needs a boost.

Pushing back on the Supreme Court ruling also enables him to express his growing and openly hostile attitude toward the Court.  He believes its conservative majority betrays him, when justices he appointed fail to faithfully support his policies.  He wants to put the Court in its place, joining Congress in accepting or approving his policies. 

He expects other branches of government to support his presidency.  For him, the unitary executive should extend to other branches by dominating or ignoring them.

Pundits mislead, use anecdotes to support their prefab analyses

The November elections are either a national test of movements the MAGA and Democratic Socialist movements or a collection of the usual midterm challenges to the president.

The results could be a validation of Trump, a Blue Wave or the continuation of extremely narrow majorities in Congress.

The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats are engaged in a national struggle between DS and moderates.  They could blow their chances if it prevails.  The pundits view the facts influenced by this thinking.

The main directions of analysis are that (1) the election will depend on a few swing races and will be close, (2) the Democrats are throwing away their chances and (3) prices at the pump may turn Trump supporters away from voting for Republicans.

The underlying belief is that Trump’s Iran war is making GOP candidates vulnerable, but that Democrats are failing to take advantage of the opportunity it provides.  And what’s true in Michigan is also true in Maine, because politics have been nationalized.

To support that belief, news people spread out across the country to produce anecdotal reports based on a few interviews.  Their reports are tailored to conform to the national narrative.

I won’t hazard my analysis, because, like the pundits, I don’t know enough.

But here are some questions that I think should be explored before leaping to conclusions based on a short visit.

1. What is the local media saying about state or district politics differing from national analyses?

2. What is the price at the pump in the state compared with pre-Iran?

3. What are in-state industry and commercial groups telling their members?

4. How does the state behave politically compared with national elections and why?

5. Are candidate age and demographic change relevant?

6. What are the recent indicators of conservative or liberal leanings among voters?

I don’t see questions like these addressed in the New York Times or Washington Post.

In Maine, the national media sees Troy Jackson, the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, as evidence of the risky, progressive takeover of the Democratic Party.  What’s the risk in a state where Democrats favored Bernie Sanders in 2016 and which was one of only three states to approve same-sex marriage though a referendum?

The bottom line is that you are your own best pundit.  What do you think?  What about people you know?  Whatever you conclude, don’t rely on the national media to tell you about yourself.