Hail Caesar!
For 7 years, I’ve listened to Republicans complain about President Obama’s abuses of power. The way he issues executive orders when he cannot get the (GOP) Congress to enact his preferred legislation. Of course this shift of power to the executive has been going on for decades. I don’t know how to quantify it, and hence don’t know how much different Obama is from other recent presidents.
I actually share the GOP’s outrage, with the exception that my outrage is sincere whereas the GOP outrage was mostly fake. They were not upset about an imperial presidency; they were upset that they didn’t have their own imperial president going after the people on the other side. We see this as the GOP leaders fall all over themselves trying to embrace this guy:
Matt Yglesias points out that Trump already has an enemies list, and he hasn’t even taken office yet:
Obviously, if Donald Trump had started talking about a proposal to change antitrust law in a way that would be bad for Amazon, and then suddenly a legion of Washington Post reporters showed up covering Trump, that would be suspicious.
But the actual sequence of events has been backward. The Post, located as it is in the nation’s capital, has long been deeply invested in covering American politics. It is staffing up to cover Trump because Trump just locked up the nomination of a major American political party. It’s only in response to critical coverage in the Post that Trump has started talking about using antitrust policy against Amazon, and he’s doing so in a totally nonspecific way with no reference to what aspect of antitrust policy he wants to change.
Before Trump, presidents usually tried to hide their vindictiveness. Trump proudly tells us whom he’s going to go after.
There’s a (probably apocryphal) statement attributed to FDR, describing Nicaragua’s President for Life:
Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.
For the “small government” GOP, it’s becoming apparent that their view is that, “Trump may be a tyrant, but he’s our tyrant.”
This article suggests that most Republicans don’t care at all about ides:
Most Republican politicians have fallen in line behind Donald Trump. Paul Ryan just moved in that direction but still hasn’t endorsed him. Why not? The most important reason is simple. Ryan cares about policies and ideas more than most politicians do. There’s a pattern to opposition to Trump within the GOP. It’s strongest among those motivated by the policies and ideas that characterize the modern conservative movement: limited government, low taxes and free markets.
I’ve noticed the same. The ideas people hate Trump, whereas the tribalists love him. Most Republicans are tribal. In Trump they’ve found a guy who (they think) will fight for their tribe. “If he’s against political correctness he must be on my side.” I’m actually not at all convinced that that’s true; I think Trump will fight for what’s in the best interest of Trump. But the perception is that he will fight for their tribe. And that’s why controlling the borders is such an important issue. It’s the one issue that is affects the size of their tribe, relative to the other tribes.
Commenters have told me that they understand that Trump is not sincere on most issues, such as economic policy, but they insist that he’s sincere on immigration. Actually he’s not even sincere on immigration, which should be obvious to anyone who spent 5 minutes checking his record:
(TRUMP) . . . these (illegal aliens) can be some great people– but, you either have laws or you don’t have laws. I would get them back, I would get them back where they are, and I would try to work out a process where they can come in legally. But, they have to come in legally, it’s about laws, it’s about borders. If we don’t have a border, we don’t have a country. So, I get them out, and if they were really outstanding, because some of these people have been here for a long period of time, I’d let them back legally. They have to come through a legal system, and I’d make that system much faster, much quicker. I want people to come into the country. I love the fact that people come into the country, but they have to come in legally. Not only them, other people. We welcome people, I mean, my parents and my grandparents, they came from different parts of the world, too. We all sort of did when you get right down to it. . . .
I would expedite [the process], because some of these people (illegal aliens) are fantastic people. I’ve been to the border, I was there a few days ago. I met some people, these are fantastic people and they have great reputations within the community. So what I’d do is that I would expedite it. You have to have laws. If you don’t have laws, you don’t have a country. I would get them out, and I would try, the good ones — the bad ones, they’re gone, they never come back. They’ll never get back into this country. But, the good ones, of which there are many, I want to expedite it so they can come back in legally.
Like Obama, Trump wants to expel the bad ones and keep the good ones.
But humans have an innate urge to project their hopes and fears onto a powerful leader. They want to believe that Trump is being straight with them, all evidence to the contrary.
PS. Please don’t tell me that so and so is just as bad as Trump. That’s off topic, and in any case they aren’t as bad. This post is about GOP hypocrisy, nothing else.
PPS. Here’s how to tell is a Trump hater is intellectually honest. Check out their position on releasing tax returns. I strongly support Trump’s refusal to release his taxes, because the income tax system is an immoral monstrosity, and demanding the release of tax forms implicitly legitimizes that system. In contrast, Trump people would support him on this point, but would be outraged if he released his tax returns and Hillary refused to. With Trumpistas, it’s all tribal.
Tags:
14. May 2016 at 07:53
I was hoping for a review of the latest Coen brothers film.
14. May 2016 at 08:02
Trump is being hypocritical on tax returns. He lambasted Romney when Mitt was delaying the release of his own returns. Yet another Trump flip flop based on “what is best for Trump”, not principle.
14. May 2016 at 08:20
“I don’t know how to quantify it”
-Number of executive orders?
“Ryan cares about policies and ideas more than most politicians do.”
-Only as long as it’s his policies and ideas. Ryan is not a sincere conservative. He’s a compromiser.
Kicking out all the illegals and allowing some good ones in is a much better policy than legalizing all the illegals and kicking out some bad ones. The former is Trump’s policy. The latter is Crooked Clinton’s.
Mississippi voted 97.03% for Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936. It then voted 87.14% for Barry Goldwater in 1964. The two could not have been more different when it comes to economic and foreign policy. Tribalism is powerful.
14. May 2016 at 08:21
BTW, Clinton has already released enough tax returns. I expect Trump to release his when he’s done being audited.
14. May 2016 at 08:43
Kevin, Not one of their best.
Bill, Yup, Trumpistas are hypocrites.
Harding, Agree about Mississippi.
14. May 2016 at 08:45
BTW, Trump’s Numbers USA rating is an A-:
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/elections/races/presidential/2016-presidential-hopefuls.html
14. May 2016 at 09:08
“demanding the release of tax forms implicitly legitimizes that system”
No it doesn’t. It provides information regarding income and deductions. Every nominee for president and VP over the past few decades have released their tax returns, other than Trump.
BTW, there’s no reason he can’t release a return that’s being audited and certainly no reason he can’t release his latest return not under audit. The betting is there’s something really bad, such as information that he’s not a billionaire as claimed. If it wasn’t really bad, why take the heat for not releasing?
14. May 2016 at 09:33
It doesn’t matter whether your interested in tribalism. Tribalism is interested in you. Ignoring this fact isn’t high minded, its naive and likely to result in disaster.
I agree that I worry about Trump not being serious on immigration. However, the chance he would do something is greater then 0%. We know the chance of anyone else doing anything is 0%. Even if he does nothing, his mere victory breaks the Overton window on the issue and provides a roadmap for someone that is serious about saving America from demographic apocalypse.
So then it comes down to a simple question. How much does immigration/demographics matter? In the long run, I think its the most important thing. Nothing of value survives third world demographics. I don’t see how your going to achieve your ideals in a majority non-white future.
Anyway, I’ll drag in my reply to your snarky comments since its relevant.
asdf: “You guys have been saying Hispanics were natural conservatives for year.”
scott: Who are “you guys”? Where did I say that? If not, why do you claim I said that?
asdf reply: Just above in the post your claiming the that GOP is losing elections because they aren’t supporting immigrants and thus losing the Hispanic vote. You recommended they support immigration to win elections. I pointed out that Hispanics have never voted >50% for the GOP so increasing their share of the electorate is a losing proposition.
If you actually want to implement libertarian policy, someone has to write that policy, which means you need people to win elections.
asdf: “Nobody dependent on welfare is going to vote to abolish their own welfare. How are you planning to win Hispanics with the libertarian platform?”
scott: So Hispanics are dependent on welfare? That’s funny, I thought most of them worked? Who does all the jobs that Americans won’t do?
asdf reply: Hispanics have a poverty rate of 26.6%. They have higher unemployment, higher use of Medicaid, higher subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges, etc. Like blacks, their property taxes don’t pay the budgets of their own schools and services, so their schools are usually subsidized by the state (income taxes of white people).
Hispanics are impoverished net tax liabilities. Many don’t work. Those that do don’t make enough to support themselves and have to rely on state subsidy to make up the difference between their wages and first world living standards. The kind of low skill work they can do isn’t in demand in this technological environment, so I’m not sure why we needed to increase this kind of labor supply. This holds even after they’ve been here for generations, because its genetic in nature.
By flooding the country with these people you’ve collapsed wages at the bottom and strained government budgets. Far from leading to a collapse of government this has just meant taxing white middle class people more to pay for it all. After all, what the hell are they going to do about it, the government has the guns and the votes.
asdf: “How are you planning to win Hispanics with the libertarian platform?”
scott: Libertarians can’t get more than 1% of the white vote, so why would you think they’d win Hispanics. In any case, I don’t plan to run for office, so I’m not trying to “win” anyone.
asdf reply: If your political platform can’t win any political struggles, its useless. When someone else takes power do you think they are going to give a fuck about your libertarian ideals? Or are they going to run roughshod over them because what the fuck are you going to do about it.
White people managed to built countries that worked mostly well most of the time. They even incorporated many meaningful libertarian principles into them.
You’re going to throw all that away for a dystopian future where none of those ideals survive so your can jack off to your own failed ideology in the corner by yourself.
asdf: “Is the Rio Grande some baptismal where people come out on the other side quoting Thomas Jefferson?”
scott: Jefferson was a slaveowner, not a “libertarian”.
asdf reply: And now we reach full on parody.
If libertarian means, “doesn’t actually care about reality or the results of my actions” then its a worthless ideology. It’s not a realistic program to achieve actual objectives, its a mastabratory fantasy cult to justify amoral striving for autistic nerds.
The America of tomorrow that you’ve created isn’t going to give a fuck about what you think you believe in. It’s going farm you and your family as raw material, or consume you outright to sate its own power lust. The tribes your bringing into power aren’t going to give a fuck what your stance on tribalism is.
14. May 2016 at 09:53
Also, regarding your Econlog post, Georgia was hardly the center of the housing boom and bust -it had a fair deal of subprime mortgage origination, but not much of a housing price spike or housing bust. And it’s not doing poorly now. Places that had real housing price spikes followed by massive busts were towns like San Bernardino. So it’s really interesting how many of the permanent banking losses were concentrated in places without much of a residential real estate boom or bust. Illinois and Georgia wouldn’t have been the first places I’d have looked for to establish the causes of the banking crisis, despite their apparent centrality to it.
Also, as Erdmann says, doesn’t America need more residential real estate development? So isn’t Trump just the right guy for encouraging it?
14. May 2016 at 09:56
Careful, asdf, swearing is banned here!
14. May 2016 at 10:09
The GOP is very hypocritical. The #NeverTrump faction is the most hypocritical. These guys had no such visceral opposition to Big Government Bush, Communist Sympathizer McCain, or Obamacare Creator Romney. So why are they against Trump? Because they hate America. Or, alternatively, they are completely deluded that Trump is a “New York liberal”, while Romney wasn’t a Massachusetts liberal.
14. May 2016 at 10:16
@Scott
What would you say is their best film? Just want to see if your taste is any good and if I should heed your assessment of the film.
Speaking of republican voters suddenly not really wanting small gov, reminds me of Napoleon during the 100 days. Whenever he was losing he’d send emissaries asking terms from his enemies. When he started winning again he’d tear up the terms he was offered and resume making war. They think they’re winning now, so they tear up the treaties and make war, failing to see the big picture that those treaties they’re tearing up are what they’ll be hiding behind when they’re losing again.
14. May 2016 at 10:20
foosion, When Trump said he was “really, really rich”, I immediately knew that he wasn’t really, really rich. So I don’t need to see his tax returns to know that.
The public has no right to know what’s in a candidate’s tax return.
asdf, That’s for confirming that you simply made up the claim that I viewed Hispanics as “natural conservatives.”
You said:
“You recommended they support immigration to win elections.”
No I didn’t, another lie. I’ve never recommended anyone do anything to win elections.
You said:
“If you actually want to implement libertarian policy, someone has to write that policy, which means you need people to win elections.”
That’s not how the system works. You get policy implemented by changing public opinion. Pot legalization is not occurring because of elections won. Clinton’s welfare reform of the 1990s didn’t occur because of winning elections, it’s about public opinion. Change that and policy will gradually change.
Harding, You said:
“Also, regarding your Econlog post, Georgia was hardly the center of the housing boom and bust -it had a fair deal of subprime mortgage origination, but not much of a housing price spike or housing bust.”
Bingo, which proves my point. Georgia and Illinois were the center of the banking crisis, without being the center of the subprime debacle. What does that tell you about the causes of the banking crisis?
14. May 2016 at 10:29
Mark, You said:
“What would you say is their best film? Just want to see if your taste is any good and if I should heed your assessment of the film.”
No, my taste in Coen brothers films is not very good. I’d have to see them again, it’s been so long. I tend to like their crime films, such as Fargo and Blood Simple. Also No Country for Old Men, and Miller’s Crossing. And of course in comedy the Big Lebowski. I don’t think Hail Caesar is a bad film, just not one of the best. I have not seen all of their films.
And you might want to google my Napoleon post on the 100 days.
14. May 2016 at 10:36
“foosion, When Trump said he was “really, really rich”, I immediately knew that he wasn’t really, really rich.”
-So if Trump, like Hillary, said he was really, really poor, then would that be evidence he wasn’t really, really poor?
“Clinton’s welfare reform of the 1990s didn’t occur because of winning elections”
-But it totally did. Remember the Republican Revolution?
“What does that tell you about the causes of the banking crisis?”
-A lot of it was caused by the broader recession, not the well-known residential housing bust.
14. May 2016 at 10:58
@ ssumner
Scott Sumner: “Bush actually did OK among Hispanics (albeit not a majority), it was when the GOP turned against immigrants (2006) that they started losing presidential elections.”
That’s the actual quote from you when I said that the GOP can’t win elections anymore because it imported too much diversity. You said they just needed to do what Bush did.
“That’s not how the system works. You get policy implemented by changing public opinion. Pot legalization is not occurring because of elections won. Clinton’s welfare reform of the 1990s didn’t occur because of winning elections, it’s about public opinion. Change that and policy will gradually change.”
Elections and public opinion are basically correlates. Politicians base their policy platforms on what will gets votes, and what will get votes is what is popular with the public. Clinton famously choose his mid-1990s policies based on polling, because he knew polls would inevitably reflect votes. He passed welfare reform to win elections.
So let’s look at the public opinions of Hispanics:
75% say they would rather have a bigger government providing more services rather then a smaller government providing fewer, only 19% believe the opposite. The numbers for Americans in general are 41% in favor of big, 48% in favor of small.
You can ask that question and other a lot of different ways, but the answer always comes back basically the same.
On most economic issues they Hispanics are to the left of the white electorate. They believe in bigger government, more welfare, and higher taxes. They also voted for it back in their home countries, so it isn’t theoretical. Does Latin America strike you as more libertarian then America? Does it strike you as less corrupt and dysfunctional?
How are you planning to move public opinion when your altering the demographics of the public in the wrong direction?
P.S. I’m glad you bring up pot legalization as the singular libertarian triumph. People have been saying that libertarians were a bunch of unserious pot-heads for a long time. When we’re living in an impoverished dysfunctional state we are going to need to get high an awful lot to dull the pain.
14. May 2016 at 11:02
Sumner wrote:
“Before Trump, presidents usually tried to hide their vindictiveness. Trump proudly tells us whom he’s going to go after.”
Is that because in Sumner’s moral view, deceit and two-facedness are virtues? That honesty is worse than lying?
Well that explains your own behavior on this blog.
14. May 2016 at 11:56
Scott
You say the public has no right to know trumps tax returns. I couldn’t disagree more. Trump has no government or political experience. He’s running on a platform of a great businessman who will being huuuge economic growth to our country. And yet he was given millions of dollars from daddy. Now if he turn those millions into billions then great maybe he is a good businessman which. But what if he’s only worth 250 million? Then would show he underperformed the s&p 500 and in reality he’s terrible at business. It would be a huge blow to h
is platform. It is our business to know.
14. May 2016 at 12:39
asdf:
If you want to understand why you’re wrong, read the history of proposition 187 in California. At a time when net immigration to Mexico is negative, Trump is pushing for the equivalent of a national Proposition 187.
I agree that it is disappointing that any group, let alone Hispanics, is pushing for bigger government, at a time when the government is already running trillions in debt. But, you won’t win the argument for liberty by turning to a nationalist.
14. May 2016 at 12:54
Scott, great post. We went through a period where ideas dominated the Republican party… particularly sweeping through the mid-90s before it started to wane. The democrats in the 90s started going tribal. It started with circling the wagons around the clintons, but really went shrill with the Bush v. Gore election nonsense. That seemed be the real point where it became acceptable to say anything, true, logical, or not if it helped your tribe.
Now we get people who proudly say things such as “racism is whatever the victims say it is”. Mitt was clueless. The tea party was round one (republicans learn to say anything too–Obama is not an american nonsense). Trump is round two. Tea party brand got tarred by the left. Trump had a brand. So we have new brand. Trump is your classic strongman politician–similar to Kirchner or Chavez. That is a problem for anyone with a libertarian mindset…
I suspect though, Trump likes immigrants. So did he shamelessly pander to build a tribe? No, I’m not sure I buy that. It’s just more say anything tarring by his opponents. Why? He says he wants a wall. People apply logical reasoning to conclude he must not like Mexicans. The error in that thinking is the assumption that his policy positions logically follow one to the next. I’m pretty sure they do not.
14. May 2016 at 13:16
I definitely hope to see Trump not release his returns at any point. The IRS should be viewed as illegitimate, and not releasing returns could actually do a lot to implicitly demonstrating that idea, even if inadvertent. I don’t think withholding returns will negatively affect Trump anyways.
While Trump’s base is tribalism, there appear to be a significant number of intellectuals who support him. I partly disagree with Scott in that I think it is possible that “good for Trump” means “good for how Trump’s administration is perceived.” I wouldn’t be surprised if President Trump were to follow Republican orthodoxy to a significant degree.
14. May 2016 at 13:18
To expound on that, I think Trump probably really does want to make the economy better. He probably would have a “whatever works” approach.
14. May 2016 at 13:21
@Carl
Prop 187 is a law that got overturned by the courts over fifteen years ago. It was based on the idea that you could allow immigration without giving them welfare, which never had a chance of holding true. If illegal immigrants were mad about being cut out of the welfare state, what makes you think they will support a party that wants to get rid of the welfare state for everyone?
It also deported zero Hispanics from California. Which is what you would actually do if you were serious about reducing the size of government.
Romney won 53% of the white vote in California. He won 470 electoral votes if you count only whites. California is blue because of immigration, period.
If you had deported these people it wouldn’t matter if they were angry, non-citizens can’t vote. Let them be angry…back in Mexico where it doesn’t matter.
Demographics already make it hard for anyone on the right to win, harder then even ten years ago.. The only shot though is the Sailer Strategy. Go big or go home on white people, especially working class white people in the swing states like Ohio and PA. Historic turn out and margins amongst this group was the only long shot the GOP ever had. It’s a heck of a lot more likely then swinging Hispanics by granting another amnesty even though that’s never worked (hint: Bush level highs amongst Hispanics aren’t enough to hit 270 anymore).
In the long run Hispanic immigration will turn Texas blue, and when that happens we are going to get corrupt Latin American kleptocracy/socialism in spades. The only way to prevent that is to change the demographic situation fundamentally, and that means mass deportation. If you aren’t in favor of this, then by default your in favor of the US being like Brazil or Puerto Rico today.
14. May 2016 at 13:26
@Carl
-As Murray Rothbard pointed out, Proposition 187 was a fantastic proposition passed despite the overwhelming opposition of the anti-white elite that was only struck down by the courts because judges are gay.
Trump, as he says, “loves Hispanics”. I think he genuinely opposes illegal immigration.
14. May 2016 at 13:36
“California is blue because of immigration, period.”
-If California’s non-Hispanic Whites voted a meager 53% for Reagan, California would have been, at best, a swing state then, too. California became blue partly because of immigration and partly because of a collapsing marriage rate.
“Bush level highs amongst Hispanics aren’t enough to hit 270 anymore”
-It’s true. Victories in New Mexico, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and (liberally) Virginia would have given Romney 268 electoral votes.
“Go big or go home on white people, especially working class white people in the swing states like Ohio and PA. Historic turn out and margins amongst this group was the only long shot the GOP ever had.”
-Yup.
14. May 2016 at 15:46
Trump’s commentary on immigration actually makes sense. We should be a nation of laws.
I suspect Trump will become just another Republican.
Tax cuts for the rich, huge military outlays and expeditions, extensive rural subsidies, endless hypocrisy in specific circumstances (Paul Ryan loves the Communist health care program called the VA) and blabber about abortion and guns.
The GOP establishment loves cheap immigrant labor; the GOP base may have figured this out.
The Donks are no better.
14. May 2016 at 16:24
Bernie is trying to hijack the Democratic brand. The Democrats have a less democratic nomination process, so Bernie does not have a good chance.
The Donald has hijacked the Republican brand (easier, because no Presidential incumbent and more democratic primary process). But the brand is now his, and all those Republicans elected on the brand (essentially all of them) are now stuck with deeply invidious choices.
Which goes back to the expansion of Presidential authority — the tribalists facilitate, or push it, when their guy is in. Tribalism undermines principle in all sorts of ways.
14. May 2016 at 16:32
Funny that no one here has mentioned that Israeli fifth columnist Sheldon Adelson has endorsed Trump.
14. May 2016 at 16:44
I would never vote for someone who doesn’t release tax records. Rumor has it Trump has mafia ties and that would be revealed. Well, we have a right to know. If Clinton doesn’t release hers I will stay home and not vote. Simple.
The problem with the white tribe is it doesn’t even know it is ruled by a smaller and more powerful tribe. And that tribe is now multiracial so unless someone like Biden tells you they are a Zionist, as he has, you don’t even know who is and who isn’t.
14. May 2016 at 17:27
Gary, Hillary has released 30 years of taxes. You know that right?
Bernie, has been very reluctant to release his taxes. But he’s not relevant anyway.
14. May 2016 at 17:30
asdf, You said:
“That’s the actual quote from you when I said that the GOP can’t win elections anymore because it imported too much diversity.”
Many of my commenters have trouble with reading comprehension. It appears that you are one of them. I stand by that quote, and I stand by my denial of the ideas you attributed to me.
Your anecdotes on voting don’t impress me. Blacks ands Hispanics saved us from Sanders the Socialist (preferred by whites) and will probably save us from Trump (preferred by whites.)
You said:
“Demographics already make it hard for anyone on the right to win, harder then even ten years ago..”
Said at a time when the GOP has its biggest House majority in many, many decades, plus lots of statehouses.
James, Business experience has no relevance to politics. It’s no different from saying he’s a good plumber or electrician. The public has 100 reasons to reject Trump out of hand. If they refuse to despite all the evidence, then tax returns aren’t going to change their minds.
Harding, You said:
“I think he genuinely opposes illegal immigration.”
You are entitled to believe in the Easter Bunny if you wish. Feel free to ignore Trump’s claim that he only wants to get rid of the bad guys, which is also Obama’s view.
14. May 2016 at 17:33
asdf, when you say most white people are libertarians, I think you are mixing up libertarians and Dixiecrats.
Dixiecrats believe in welfare as long as it’s just for white people. That was the George Wallace model and Trump is basically singing from the same song book
14. May 2016 at 18:08
“Feel free to ignore Trump’s claim that he only wants to get rid of the bad guys, which is also Obama’s view.”
-Again, Trump isn’t gonna legalize five million aliens like Obama wants and Clinton will certainly accomplish. Not gonna happen.
@Michael
-The George Wallace platform.
The 1948 Dixiecrat platform says nothing about welfare, but Strom Thurmond was a conservative Democrat for the time, and later became a conservative Republican. He wasn’t the biggest fan of the welfare state.
And, as 1964 proved, most White people aren’t Dixiecrats.
“Said at a time when the GOP has its biggest House majority in many, many decades, plus lots of statehouses.”
-That’s due to depressed turnout of low-information voters in midterms.
“The Democrats have a less democratic nomination process”
-Not really. Instead, their delegates are always allocated proportionately, whereas the Republican delegates are mostly, though not entirely, allocated by congressional district. The latter favors quick racking up of an obviously unbeatable delegate majority, while the former is much less favorable to this.
Gary, Clinton has already released a whole lot of tax returns.
“Funny that no one here has mentioned that Israeli fifth columnist Sheldon Adelson has endorsed Trump.”
-Funny that right after that endorsement, the National Review has shut up about Trump. Many Republicans are Likudnik-controlled. Thus, the power of an Adelson endorsement.
14. May 2016 at 18:15
Ted Cruz is looking better and better with each passing day. Sadly, even people who claim to be principled refused to endorse Cruz, preferring a contested convention.
Cruz shuns Trump, GOP unity; says ‘challenges’ may lie ahead
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-texas-republican-convention-20160514-story.html
Ted Cruz on Saturday used his first speech since dropping out of the presidential race not to endorse Donald Trump or urge Republican unity behind him, but to maintain that core conservatives can save America. Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, countered by deploying a top surrogate who did his best to woo skeptical Texas conservatives.
Addressing thousands of cheering delegates at the Texas Republican Convention, many of whom climbed to their feet and waved red-white-and-blue “Thank You Ted!” signs, Cruz repeated some of the same promises from his defunct White House campaign, like abolishing the IRS.
…
Cruz hasn’t endorsed Trump and didn’t mention him Saturday. Once friendly, the pair clashed bitterly just before the Texan suspended his campaign, with Cruz even calling the businessman a liar and serial philanderer.
After Cruz spoke, many delegates left the cavernous hall inside the Dallas convention center — failing to stay for Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who spoke on Trump’s behalf.
14. May 2016 at 18:40
Harding, 1964 was literally the last year the majority of whites voted for the Democrats. I wonder what changed between 1964 and 1968-could it be LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act?
But before that, whites had voted for FDR New Deal liberalism for years.
In many ways Trump is running on the promise to overturn civil rights. Like ASDF says, if only white votes counted you’d have Karl Rove’s permanent Republican majority.
Before the Voting Rights Act, we also had much stricter immigration laws especially coming from non white countries.
It’s the Pat Buchanan theory that Trump is trying to put into practice
Those with true libertarian principles are a minority ‘even among white people’
For example, why do they have a larger welfare state in most Western European countries? No POC.
14. May 2016 at 18:55
I should amend that to ‘few people of color in Western European countries’
14. May 2016 at 20:00
Sumner is accusing Trump of being a centralized power big government type. Before Trump didn’t stand for anything, he was just a manipulator playing both sides of every issue. I question if Trump really is for centralized power. He’s advocated devolution of power to the states on a several issues and also military isolationism. And yes, I know he’s flip flopped, and said counter things as well.
Secondly, it’s one thing to blame people for supporting Trump against other more serious GOP types in the primary, but now it’s strictly a Trump vs Hillary contest. Hillary is absolutely a centralized power big government type. Honestly Trump will probably be less committed to a centralized power regime than Hillary is. I don’t see how you can fault GOP types for siding against Hillary.
Sure, devolution of power is often the rallying cry of the loser eager to make compromise. But the voices still passionate about devolution of power are clearly on the right.
Lastly, for someone so horrified by Trump, (and I don’t fully understand why) I’d expect you to advocate for Hisrchman style exit over voice.
“Business experience has no relevance to politics”
Neither does peanut farming (Carter), acting (Reagan), or racial activism (Obama).
@Mike Sax,
“why do they have a larger welfare state in most Western European countries?”
You are right. FYI, the US was largely founded by whites who wanted to escape that type of welfare state.
14. May 2016 at 20:19
“I wonder what changed between 1964 and 1968-could it be LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act?”
-Nah; it was the 1968 convention and the Vietnam War. In the long run, yes, the Dems did decide to become the party of Black and Hispanics at the expense of their original southern White base, which is what led to Clinton losing Alabama and Mississippi.
“But before that, whites had voted for FDR New Deal liberalism for years.”
-That was only due to the Republicans being damaged as being the Party of Hoover.
“For example, why do they have a larger welfare state in most Western European countries? No POC.”
-Maybe. Germany’s gonna test that theory.
14. May 2016 at 20:26
@Sumner
“Many of my commenters have trouble with reading comprehension. It appears that you are one of them. I stand by that quote, and I stand by my denial of the ideas you attributed to me.”
That isn’t a reply at all, but lets move on.
Have you ever talked to an average minority voter? Examine their voting patterns or views on government?
Most black people are against “Sanders the Socialist” not because they don’t share his views (they do in spades, go look it up), but because he’s an ugly low-T white nerd from Vermont that they never heard of. By contrast their local preachers and patronage network is plugged into the Clintons. In addition, the Clintons are not a threat to either older welfare programs or newly minted ones of the Obama administration, such as Obamacare.
Of course the next generation of black people, who don’t vaguely remember Hillary as the wife of that dude that played the saxophone and got his dick wet, “feel the Bern”. They vote him in in greater numbers and also support a variety of radical activist programs. You can’t rely on vague nostalgia for the Clinton name to carry the field forever.
What happens when the Democratic Trump with the right skin collar decides to run in the Democratic primary. It’s obvious that these black voters choose Obama because he was the same skin collar as them, but let’s also remember that he also positioned himself to the left of Hillary during the campaign (hence why all those same white people that voted for Obama are voting for Sanders now). Blacks had no problem with Obama’s leftism then. No too-clever justification about how blacks were level headed and against socialism. And lo and behold Obama did pursue many leftist economic programs including Obamacare.
Somebody is going to notice that if some sad sack grandpa from nowhere could almost take down one of the most powerful political dynasties in America, its a really simple roadmap to follow. Do what Sanders does but at in a more charismatic candidate better at playing the identity politics game and possibly with some darker skin or some other hook.
Or maybe not. Maybe things do just putter along with corrupt but unambitious “centrists” like the Clintons winning election after election. The demographics get worse every year, which means the budget and general quality of life gets worse every year, until the whole system collapses at a future date you can easily calculate from our various existing government commitments. I guess that’s is the best case your hoping for.
@Michael Sax
I think few people of any race are libertarians, and I’m not surprised because libertarianism seems pretty autistic at times, but if you’ve ever been to a libertarian meeting you know its the philosophy of white men and that’s about it. My argument with Scott is less about the merits of libertarianism and more how its obvious open borders and libertarian objectives are incompatible.
I think that most people are in favor of “whatever works.” Libertarianism has had a lot to add to the “whatever works” category when its busy focusing on pragmatic empirical realities rather then being a kind of dogmatic religion. Lower taxes are generally a good thing. Liberty is generally a good thing. Etc.
Singapore is un-libertarian as Scott has pointed out, but man if they didn’t do a really good job at achieving good outcomes and using market principles as an important guide to that. In fact I remember idolizing it as a young man who considered myself a libertarian, long before I even knew about genetics. On a relative basis to the rest of the world, it seemed the most libertarian country I could think of which actually existed and was successful. Empirical examples of success rather then just theory were very important to me, I was a libertarian out of consequentialist beliefs.
If a particular policy works better then the libertarian alternative, I’m ready to support that policy. I’m trying to make life better for a specific people, not check box a list of dogmas.
I’m more afraid of bad demographics then I am of particular government policies. An all white country run like Scandinavia seems like a nice place to live. Libertarian Somalia does not. I’d like to avoid any kind of really catastrophic government type, but even if we got one we’d recover one day if we had the demographics. Bad demographics sink a people permanently.
The question I ask myself is, “what’s best for the people I love.” I care a lot about my family. I care about my neighbors. I care some for people simply because they are a part of my country, share a faith or history, etc. If a piece of dogmatic libertarianism is going to result in life getting worse for the people I love, why the heck would I support it?
I expect the same is true of groups I would consider my enemies. They aren’t going to support libertarianism if its bad for them. If NAMs are all on EBT cards, they aren’t going to vote to abolish EBT cards because they watched a Milton Friedman lecture on youtube.
The thing is though, we aren’t all the same. Certain aspects of libertarianism might work better for a society of people like me then they would for people not like me. White people have the genetics to produce things of value on the free market. They are also orderly and high trust, leading to efficient and high quality of life societies. Even the lower end of the bell curve behaves relatively well. They don’t play the “knockout game” two blocks away from my building and knock some poor women unconscious on the pavement for kicks. What white people are a problem are a small and manageable enough portion of the bell curve to deal with both compassionately and effectively. Supporting libertarianism, or at least many large blocks of it, can therefore be in the best interests of most whites, so that there is no conflict between many of libertarianism ideals and white interests. Hence why libertarians are overwhelmingly white, its not a coincidence.
However, NAMs game theory solution will always be to take from whites via government, because they don’t have the genetics to produce enough in the free market to justify a first world living standard, but they can vote it to themselves through welfare once they are here.
14. May 2016 at 20:36
The picture on this post with Trump on a horse is Sumner’s way of protesting that it isn’t Bernanke or Yellen.
14. May 2016 at 22:33
“I care some for people simply because they are a part of my country, share a faith or history, etc.”
Or being more honest, share his skin collor. Apparently, only part of his country is part of his country.
“If a piece of dogmatic libertarianism is going to result in life getting worse for the people I love, why the heck would I support it?”
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man love strangers who share his skin collor.”
15. May 2016 at 06:06
Harding, You said:
“-Again, Trump isn’t gonna legalize five million aliens like Obama wants and Clinton will certainly accomplish. Not gonna happen.”
He says he is going to legalize that portion of the 11 million illegals who are not bad guys. How many of the 11 million illegals do you think are not bad guys?
Mike, You said:
“Those with true libertarian principles are a minority ‘even among white people’”
All ideologies are a minority among white people.
Massimo, Hillary is not a mentally unstable buffoon. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
asdf, You said:
“Libertarian Somalia”
All we need to know what an idiot you are.
As far as all your racist rantings, how do you explain that whites are moving in droves to Texas, one of the few states where “minorities” are in the majority? There must be something they like there. And don’t say cheap houses—houses are cheap all through the center of the country. What do they like about a state where whites are in the minority?
They say that in 50 years America will look like Texas, demographically. Is that so bad?
15. May 2016 at 06:25
The GOP is very hypocritical. The #NeverTrump faction is the most hypocritical. These guys had no such visceral opposition to Big Government Bush, Communist Sympathizer McCain, or Obamacare Creator Romney. So why are they against Trump? Because they hate America. Or, alternatively, they are completely deluded that Trump is a “New York liberal”, while Romney wasn’t a Massachusetts liberal.
The #nevertrump person I’m best acquainted with is a local blogger in Syracuse. She’s a suburban woman with a husband, job, and two children. She does not ‘hate America’, nor was she a great enthusiast of Messrs. Romney or Bush. She just thinks Trump a vulgarian peddling short cons and long ones.
15. May 2016 at 07:45
E. Harding, read this quote by asdf:
“I’m more afraid of bad demographics then I am of particular government policies. An all white country run like Scandinavia seems like a nice place to live. Libertarian Somalia does not. I’d like to avoid any kind of really catastrophic government type, but even if we got one we’d recover one day if we had the demographics. Bad demographics sink a people permanently.”
This is my Exhibit One. asdf used to believe he was a libertarian and then came to embrace the fact that-he’s a Dixiecrat.
If you question what a Dixiecrat looks like, asdf is it.
15. May 2016 at 07:59
As a more liberal person, I came to a somewhat similar realization about Democrats when many of them (not all, of course) switched opinion about torture and spying on US citizens after Obama came to power.
In general, there seems to be a lot more blowback from being “soft on crime/terrorism/commies” than being, well, evil. I find this quite sad.
15. May 2016 at 10:06
“All we need to know what an idiot you are.”
This isn’t a reply. You turn to insults when your out of ideas.
Whites are moving out of California, which is more Latino then Texas and a total cluster fuck. Beside that migration patterns in the USA mostly appear to be from the rust belt to the sun belt.
Yes, I think its a combination of cheap houses and important economic opportunities in the energy sector amongst other things. You can get cheap houses in flyover country, but there are no jobs because the population is low and they were tied to a dying industry (manufacturing). You can get jobs in California, but you can’t afford to live there. Texas, and the top tier sun belt cities more generally, have combined cheap housing and abundant land with a critical mass of high end professional opportunities. It also helps that the weather it a lot better then places like Detroit.
The Texan white population is also far to the right (as is the case throughout the sun belt), so they have very low taxes. We will see how that holds up as the state turns purple. Right now Latinos only make up 28.1% of those currently eligible to vote in Texas and have a low turnout, but they make up 38.6% of the population. Most are too young to vote, but future electorates will be full of them.
Amongst children aged 0-4 they are a clear majority. Dallas is only 35.7% white. San Antonio 24.9%. Houston 27.5%. Let’s see what happens when this Hispanic kids come of age and whites are a minority of the electorate. I live in a majority black city, and I can tell you it won’t be pretty.
@John L.
Yes, I share a bond with people to whom I have genetic, cultural, historical, and political links to. That’s a normal thing, and it represents an expansion of human empathy.
Only giving a fuck about yourself is narcissistic and evil, which is the libertarian perspective. Scott doesn’t care what effect immigration will have on the country because he doesn’t give a fuck about the country. He doesn’t give a fuck about anyone.
The libertarian perspective is that America should work towards a country in which a vast tannish underclass lives in Favelas and subsists on beans. From Cowen:
Then there will be everyone else, crowding into states such as Texas with zones set aside for cheap living in makeshift structures, “similar to the better dwellings you might find in a Rio de Janeiro favela,” he writes. Poor Americans will have to “reshape their tastes” and adjust to living more like those in third world countries.
“We also would build some makeshift structures there, similar to the better dwellings you might find in a Rio de Janeiro Favela. The quality of the water and electrical infrastructure might be low by American standards, though we could supplement the neighborhood with free municipal wireless. [The future version of Marie Antoinette’s famous alleged phrase, “Let them watch Internet!”] Hulu and other web-based TV services would replace more expensive cable connections for those residents. Then we would allow people to move there if they desired. In essence, we would be recreating a Mexico-like or Brazil-like environment in part of the United States, although with some technological add-ons and most likely greater safety.”
“It will bring more wealthy people than ever before, but also more poor people, including people who do not always have access to basic public services. Rather than balancing our budget with higher taxes or lower benefits, we will allow the real wages of many workers to fall and thus we will allow the creation of a new underclass.”
His final chapter is called, “A New Social Contract?”
“The forces outlined in this book, especially for labor markets, will force a rewriting of the social contract, even if it is not explicitly recognized as such. We will move from a society based on the pretense that everyone is given an okay standard of living to a society in which people are expected to fend for themselves much more than they do now. I imagine a world where, say, 10 to 15 percent of the citizenry is extremely wealthy and has fantastically comfortable and stimulating lives, the equivalent of current-day millionaires, albeit with better health care.”
The end result is no different from the deliberate shantytowns already discussed.
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/DGGJ3H/children-of-an-indigenous-community-in-a-slum-in-mexico-city-ciudad-DGGJ3H.jpg
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/members-of-the-ada-gang-in-an-unspecified-area-of-villa-allianca-one-picture-id454695062
That’s what they want. And just so you know, they’ve got a plan in case all the people in these favelas get uppity. Besides trying to suspend democracy and send in swat teams, they are also convinced that we don’t need to listen to the middle class anymore anyway. The age of mass mobilization armies is over. We can just drone bomb them from the sky!
“The era of the mass army, one where countries have mobilized a substantial fraction of their citizens to fight, was dependent on a specific state of technological development. As the precision of weapons delivered from the air has increased, it has become unnecessary, and perhaps undesirable, to mobilize a mass army for conflict… Given the nature of enemies that a country like the United States, or other large industrial powers, are likely to face going forward, it seems even more unlikely that mass mobilization will take place. What does this imply about taxing the rich? The twentieth-century conditions that created powerful compensatory arguments for taxing the rich are unlikely to be repeated anytime soon. These conditions were far from accidental; they were driven by long-term trends involving international rivalries and military technology.”
You don’t have to accuse me of making anything up. Go read what libertarians are publishing in books in their name. They believe what they are doing will impoverish the American middle class and leave them living in disgusting third world conditions. They hope that through a combination of recreational drugs, mass media entertainment, conflict and chaos amongst the tannish underclass, and the application of violence where necessary, that they can rule over the former middle class.
15. May 2016 at 19:19
@Michael Sax
“Dixiecrats believe in welfare as long as it’s just for white people.”
You are suggesting that they believe in race as an organizing principle. That’s the norm for humanity. Japan, China, the Arabs, Sub-Saharans, the mestizos, all do that, as well as the whites. Somehow, the social and political taboo is completely exclusive to whites.
President Obama’s father as a politician in Kenya advocated using government to seize assets and wealth and desirable jobs from Europeans and Asians and give to racial Africans. You can’t hold President Obama responsible for the ideology of his father, but people organizing by race and caring more about the interests of their race is widespread across mankind.
15. May 2016 at 20:13
“With Trumpistas, it’s all tribal.”
I personally identify as a “Trumpkin” not a “Trumpista” but a minor point.
You like China, Scott. I wonder why you never comment on their tribalism. Trump is a pussy cat compared to your average Chinese.
15. May 2016 at 22:34
Trump is a faux-tribalist. The only thing real about his positions is whether they will help him. Ideology for him is just a tool. He’s on his side, not yours. The q is whether there is a way to turn that to the nation’s advantage.
16. May 2016 at 05:47
@Larry
Everyone knows that. Nobody likes of trusts Trump. They just feel desperate and backed into a corner by demographic apocalypse. Trumps probably the last chance we have before its impossible win elections due to demographics.
Let’s take Scott’s example of Texas. Texas is massively to the right. It’s white people vote 70% R. As a result its got no income tax and is the crown of the Sun Belt.
But it won’t last. Even if we take the GWB high for Hispanic share that’s just 40%. It’s simple math:
White + Hispanic + Black
Today:
(70% * 60%) + (28% * 40%) + (12% * 10%) = 54.4%
Your children/grandchildren:
(70% * 30%) + (58% * 40%) + (12% * 10%) = 45.4%
And that is in one of the reddest of red states. Most of the country doesn’t have white people voting 70% R.
If anything as lower class whites merge into the tannish underclass they will become D voters. Family instability is one of the #1 predictors of D voting. Non-married whites swing 15 points to the Ds versus their married counterparts. Divorce is rife among the working class, especially driven by money troubles. Exposure to diversity seems unlikely to aid cultural trends here, since NAMs have normalized single motherhood as the primary family unit.
So it seems unlikely Texas is going to be able to remain a low tax conservative Sun Belt state that has been the key to its success so far. Unless something is done. For better or worse, that something is Trump.
16. May 2016 at 07:04
“Trump is a faux-tribalist. The only thing real about his positions is whether they will help him. Ideology for him is just a tool. He’s on his side, not yours. The q is whether there is a way to turn that to the nation’s advantage.”
Larry, IMHO, that seems as good a bet as whether once the fox is in charge of the henhouse he will turn his skills to the hens’ advantage.
16. May 2016 at 07:41
Scott has touched on this but Megan McArdle lays it out well here.
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-11/the-u-s-doesn-t-need-a-ceo-in-chief
There’s no reason to think that a great businessman will be a great President.
There’s also no reason to believe that Trump is a great businessman. He could have made more money since his Dad gave him $40 million in 1974 by leaving it in a passive index fund.
He’s not a CEO at all-basically he owns a brand.
So what exactly are the skills Trump is going to put to such superlative use in the public interest?
16. May 2016 at 07:42
Basically Berlusconi is the model
16. May 2016 at 09:52
Steve,
I predict Cruz will eventually support Trump, for the same reason he failed to raise even the tiniest objection to him in the early months of the campaign. It’s political calculation. Just like Perry is now supporting what he called a “cancer” on conservatism, and even suggested he might make a good Trump VP.
16. May 2016 at 14:49
“The ideas people hate Trump, whereas the tribalists love him. Most Republicans are tribal. In Trump they’ve found a guy who (they think) will fight for their tribe.”
Tribalism is a form of emotionalism. It’s precisely when you have emotions about something that you should be maximally skeptical. Otherwise you put your reason in the service of your emotions, which almost always ends badly.
16. May 2016 at 16:39
Mike, The analogy here is when Michael Jordan tried to play baseball. The idea that business translates to government is dubious, except his record of bankrupting one company after another—that might carry over.
17. May 2016 at 08:25
I’m not sure it’s inconsistent for R’s to go this way. Georgetown Law School’s Randy Barnett has gotten some press the last couple weeks for his argument that Chief Justice Roberts’ Obamacare decision showed people that they were going to have an imperial presidency no matter what, so R’s rationally responded by finding “their guy.” I suspect many Trump supporters would prefer not to have an emperor, but faced with the fact that they will have an emperor whether they want one or not, they are looking out for themselves as best they know how.
Link to Barnett’s argument, with video: http://www.heritage.org/events/2016/05/our-republican-constitution
17. May 2016 at 13:08
I actually share the GOP’s outrage, with the exception that my outrage is sincere whereas the GOP outrage was mostly fake. They were not upset about an imperial presidency; they were upset that they didn’t have their own imperial president going after the people on the other side.
I don’t think that’s hypocrisy. That’s normal politics especially in a two-party system. I also don’t think it’s fair to generalize here. The GOP is clearly divided on Trump. It also not clear what Trump will actually do. Maybe he will be a divider, maybe not. You never know for sure beforehand.
But with Obama you can be sure. Obama was a hypocrite. He’s whole campaign was clearly based on the promise that the times of division, discord, ideology and unilateralism are now over and that he will do anything in his power to unite America and end the schism. But he did not do everything in his power. He did quite the opposite.
One result is now Trump. Another is result is that the bisection of the Western world grew. Another result is that the West is getting weaker and weaker. And a last result is that the enemies of the free world clearly grew stronger under Obama’s rule. See Putin for example. Of course Bush played his negative part, too. But you can’t acquit Obama here.
18. May 2016 at 11:27
The thing the HBD folks are ignoring is that the Democratic party would Bernie Sanders wacky without the minorities.
18. May 2016 at 14:34
“He could have made more money since his Dad gave him $40 million in 1974 by leaving it in a passive index fund.”
-First, that would have raised the stock price in 1974, thus making his return lower. Second, that would only be true if Trump lived like a pauper, which he clearly doesn’t.
Don’t use lazy arguments, Mike.
“the Democratic party would Bernie Sanders wacky without the minorities.”
-Bernie’s more authentic, so what’s wrong with making him the soul of the Democratic party?
19. May 2016 at 08:57
Floccina, I did a post on that a few weeks back.