I’m an anti-anti-anti-Trumper

Imagine a large rectangle, divided into two portions. On one side is written, “reduce interest rates”. On the other side is written “raise interest rates”. A turtle is placed right on the dividing line. Over time, it wanders into one of the two specified areas. If the turtle wandered into the area that expressed your personal views on monetary policy, would you say that the turtle in question is “right about monetary policy”?

I suppose you could make that claim, but in everyday use the phrase “being right about something” usually implies there’s been actual mental deliberation that led to a correct conclusion.

Trump is sort of like that turtle. He’s never actually considered what view on any issue is correct; rather he always considers which view is most beneficial to him. If you take 100 issues where there are binary choices, Trump may seem correct in about 50 cases. But that’s not really being “right” in any meaningful sense of the term.

Trump opposed low interest rates back in 2015, when we actually needed lower rates. Then he favored low interest rates after becoming President. That might have been correct in some sense (although the case for lower rates was weaker in 2018 than in 2015). But he was no more “right” in 2018 than the turtle that wandered into your preferred square.

Trump opposed more Covid testing because he thought it would make him look bad, and supported an accelerated push for a vaccine because he thought it would help him get re-elected. He was correct about the vaccine and incorrect about the testing. But let’s be honest, terms like ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ have no meaning when applied to Trump. Trump lies almost every day, and his statements on which policies he prefers are all about his personal interest. It makes no sense to even talk about whether Trump is “right” about what’s best for society as a whole. Trump’s never given the question any thought.

Here’s Matt Yglesias:

I have no problem with libertarians criticizing Nancy Pelosi on this issue. I have a big problem with libertarians taking an “anti-anti-Trump” stance, that is, libertarians claiming that anti-Trumpers are hysterically overreacting to the man. Hell no! Even anti-Trumpers like me are underreacting to the man.

Trump is so appallingly bad that his awfulness won’t actually be known until after he’s left office and we can start lifting up the rocks to find all the worms underneath. The only reason Trump is not a Nazi is that he doesn’t have enough power to impose Nazism. This is a man who encouraged Xi Jinping to put a million Muslims into concentration camps. He favors torture. He praises war criminals. I could name 100s of other examples. And there are many more that will be revealed once he’s lost power and it’s possible to investigate all his crimes, his abuse of power. (Crimes that he is currently covering up, often in violation of the law.) There’s no possible way any sane person could overdo their anti-Trump hysteria. Descriptions of his behavior by his own aides (off the record) read like something out of The Onion.

Some anti-anti-Trumpers make the fundamental mistake of looking at Trump as follows: “Hmmm, there are 347 issues where there are binary options. On how many of those issues do I agree with Trump?” You don’t agree with Trump on any other those issues, because Trump literally has no views on what’s best for the country.

In 2016 we were told by conservatives to focus on the “issues”, that Washington/Eisenhower-style competence and integrity only matter during a major crisis. Hmmm . . .

I predict that anti-anti-Trumpers will look just as discredited after Trump leaves office as Joe McCarthy supporters looked in the late 1950s. And that’s despite the fact that McCarthy was right that Soviet spies in the US were a problem. Don’t be lulled into thinking that just because Trump is “right” about this or that, he is anything other than the worst president in history.

BTW, just as McCarthy hurt the anti-communist cause, Trump will end up hurting the conservative cause.

PS. I’m not accusing all libertarians of being anti-anti-Trumpers. Many of those I’ve read agree with my overall view of Trump.

PPS. Despite being anti-Joe McCarthy, I’m actually an anti-anti-anti-communist. I’m no fan of anti-anti-communists like Noam Chomsky. The left has its own problems.


Tags:

 
 
 

51 Responses to “I’m an anti-anti-anti-Trumper”

  1. Gravatar of Garrett Garrett
    9. October 2020 at 14:58

    As someone who likes to think they have thoughtful views, I hate when Trump says things that I happen to agree with. People (rightfully) hate him so much that his support for ideas tends to discredit those ideas. So then when I say something similar to something Trump has said recently, it makes me look bad.

  2. Gravatar of Skeptical Skeptical
    9. October 2020 at 14:58

    The only reason Trump is not a Nazi is that he doesn’t have enough power to impose Nazism.

    This is patently ridiculous, Scott.

    He wants to recreate the Holocaust by building a Dachau in Minnesota? Gas 6 million Jews to death? Conquer Mexico for Lebensraum? Mass mobilize all of American society for world conquest and through purifying/redemptive violence create a new American man?

    This is a man who encouraged Xi Jinping to put a million Muslims into concentration camps. He favors torture. He praises war criminals.

    Yes it’s almost like everything he says is pure pandering, lies and posturing to look “tough”. Trump didn’t encourage Xi Jinping to put millions of Uighers in concentration camps, they were already there. What he did was express support for a moral abomination to beg Xi Jinping to buy American soybeans. Not any better really, but more groveling amoral fool and less goose-stepping.

  3. Gravatar of Garrett Garrett
    9. October 2020 at 15:03

    Put another way, I bet vegetarians hate that Hitler happened to be a vegetarian.

  4. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    9. October 2020 at 15:34

    Scott Sumner has TDS, but many parts of this analysis could be roughly correct.

    On the other hand, Kamala Harris is bragging the Bush jr. foreign-policy team has signed on to the Biden camp. The Clintonites too.

    More counterproductive yet fantastically expensive wars on tap? Capricious carnage? Enabling commercial relationships with Chinese Communist Party repression? Think Apple, BlackRock, Disney, NBA.

    John Cochrane talks about “re-education” programs associated with the Democratic Party. Mandatory at your employer soon?

    Vote for Pat Paulsen.

  5. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    9. October 2020 at 15:48

    https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/10/model-this-5.html

    Egads. Trump wants to rush a vaccine to market… and Nancy Pelosi wants to sandbag a vaccine…

  6. Gravatar of Mark Mark
    9. October 2020 at 15:48

    It was telling that many of the anti-Trump Republicans who were purged from the party like Flake and Amash were on the libertarian side, while Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters openly reject free markets. That told me all I needed to know about where libertarians should stand on Trump.

    Skeptical, obviously we don’t need to conquer lebensraum from Mexico since we already did it in the 1840s. The Nazi conquest of Eastern Europe was specifically modeled on US westward expansion. The Nazis also didn’t start with death camps. Most of their original 25-point platform (focusing on cutting immigration, repealing international treaties, strengthening the military, economic nationalism, and attacks on the press) would fit comfortably among the dominant “national conservative” wing of the Republican Party today; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program. However, I do have some hope that the dominant block of support for Trump is not the serious national conservatives so much as the QAnon conspiracists, who are much more ridiculous and therefore less dangerous.

  7. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    9. October 2020 at 16:26

    Well stated. Scott’s right, of course, about Trump. Trump would gladly have any number of millions of people killed if he thought it suited his interests and could make it happen. Just look at how he spreads this coronavirus, without a bit of concern for anyone around him. He shows zero concern for the welfare of others.

    And, of course, he’s a bigot, so it’s not as if he’d be an equal opportunity murderer. Muslims and hispanic immigrants would be first in line, along with political opponents.

  8. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    9. October 2020 at 16:41

    Michael Sandifer: You may by correct in your viewpoints.

    But if there is only a binary choice, Biden or Trump, do you think Biden is the better choice? See my comments above.

    I say keep a clear conscience, and vote for Pat Paulsen.

  9. Gravatar of Eliezer Yudkowsky Eliezer Yudkowsky
    9. October 2020 at 16:55

    Unfortunately this post runs afoul of the Law of Ultrafinite Recursion: In practice, all infinite recursions can be at most three layers deep. Since “Trump” is the base case, it is no longer possible for the human mind to track on an intuitive level what an anti-anti-anti-Trumper is.

    References:
    [1] https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154119438404228
    [2] https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10152430528894228

  10. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    9. October 2020 at 17:33

    Skeptical. No, of course Trump doesn’t want to put Jews in concentration camps, he wants to put Muslims into concentration camps.

    I didn’t say Trump was a Nazi, I said he would have been if given the opportunity, if given the circumstances of interwar Europe. That’s hardly a stretch, given that 35% of Germans voted for the Nazis in 1932. Or given that Trump used to enjoy reading a book of Hitler’s speeches. Or given that Trump believes the Germans are a superior race. Or given that Trump’s campaign speeches are full of comments about how he’d like to beat up the protesters who disagree with him.

    We obviously don’t live in a world where it’s possible for a serious American politician to be an actual Nazi, and Trump isn’t. But if given the chance? He’d be one in a heartbeat.

    I have a serious question for you. If Trump had lived in Germany in 1932, which party would he have voted for? The communists? The weak and ineffectual centrists? The Nazis? Your answer will help me to figure out whether I should take anything you say seriously.

    BTW, speaking of Lebensraum, recall when Trump made a play for Greenland? If he lived in a world where countries could still take land from others, would he have merely asked the Danes politely? What did Trump say when Russia stole part of the Ukraine? Wasn’t it the same sort of excuse Hitler used when taking the Sudetenland?

    Eliezer, I’m pretty sure your mind can go 4 deep. But yes, I had to double check when writing the post.

    It pains me to think that you are reading this silly blog. It almost makes me want to stop, just to divert your reading to more productive places. 🙂

  11. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    9. October 2020 at 17:34

    Benjamin Cole,

    I’ll let Lindsey Graham answer your question, who’s known Biden for decades, and has long been a political opponent, especially now.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLMYW8jFPHg&t=20s

  12. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    9. October 2020 at 17:51

    Michael Sandifer:

    Graham and Biden are on the same team, when it comes to foreign trade-military policy.

    They support a US military as a global guard service (at taxpayer expense) for multinationals, and a commercially-defined foreign policy.

    Do you notice that Biden-Harris, posing as Democrat-liberals, have not even hinted in hushed voices that there might be a bi-partisan study done, which might review and possibly suggest, for implementation in the distant future, minute reductions in military outlays?

    But then, in the “debates” no one even dares ask a question regarding a leaner, less tax-hungry military.

    The Democratic Party now regard George McGovern as a loser. You ever wonder why Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Hollywood are in the Biden camp?

    If you don’t want to vote for Pat Paulsen, then try Andy Kaufman.

  13. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    9. October 2020 at 18:13

    Benjamin Cole,

    While I’m sure we could get more value for the dollar from Pentagon spending than we’re getting, we’re only spending less than 3.4 cents of every dollar annually on the DOD. In return, we get to still be the only country in the world that can project significant power quickly in any region of the world. We play an indispensible role in maintaining power equilibria around the world, when we act wisely.

    All we’ve gotten for our defense expenditures since the end of the Second World War is the longest period of peace between great powers since modern great powers emerged. Too many Americans focus only on the costs of defense and the mistakes made, some of which were certainly tremendous, but are taking all of the benefits for granted.

    Also, Biden and Graham are very different on foreign policy and war. Graham is a war monger, while Biden is much more moderate.

  14. Gravatar of Philo Philo
    9. October 2020 at 18:42

    I think you exaggerate the difference between Trump and the average successful politician. When a politician loudly proclaims that X is or would be good for the country, you can be confident that the judgment motivating this statement is that the statement will be good for the speaker’s political prospects. The politician may also judge that X really would be good for the country, or he may judge that X would not be good for the country; or he may have made no judgment about the matter. But this is incidental and only mildly interesting.

    Fortunately there is a positive correlation between a proposal’s advancing the speaker’s career and its being good for the country, at least in the short run. Trump has not foreseen how bad some of his policies would be for the country (in the short run), and so his career is, deservedly, on the rocks.

  15. Gravatar of Daniel Brannon Daniel Brannon
    9. October 2020 at 19:38

    Great post Scott…thanks!

  16. Gravatar of Peter Peter
    9. October 2020 at 22:32

    One core thing about Trump that people should really know by now is that he does not care about policy! People keep discussing him as if the calculations he is making are the same calculations Obama or any other sane politician would make. They are not!

  17. Gravatar of Cartesian Theatrics Cartesian Theatrics
    9. October 2020 at 23:45

    As generally libertarian, I agree I’m worried about libertarians falling for Trump. I’m not so much those voting for him over Biden because I think the left today is also flirting with unhinged authoritarianism and has much more institutional power, but some libertarians seem to actually like him. I thought libertarians had done a pretty good job distancing themselves from Trumpism, but the more I hang out with them the I see the populist and anarchist cohort is starting to take over the party. Same for democrats–populism is taking over.

  18. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    10. October 2020 at 00:01

    Michael Sandifer:

    I won’t beat a dead horse, but when you calculate military outlays as percent of GDP, add up DoD, VA, DHS, black budget, and pro-rated interest on the national debt. About $1.3 trillion a year.

    As for Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the outlays were titanic, the carnage horrific, the results counterproductive. This is US foreign policy too.

    We are running up huge bills….

    “VA is requesting a total of $243.3 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2021 for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), a 10.2 percent increase above fiscal 2020 enacted levels.”

    —30—

    If you believe these bills will have to paid, then the US is entering a world of hurt.

    I am not sure the bills have to be paid through taxes. Nations such as the US, Japan and Switzerland seem to be able to conduct QE, and switch debt from private holders onto the central bank balance sheet. The central bank funnels interest back into the Treasury. Bad (bad!)in theory, but works in practice.

    Still, I would prefer a much smaller federal government, and much smaller military, and more resources left in the private sector.

    Again, Biden won’t do that, and Trump has not done that.

    Go forward with a clear conscience and vote for Andy Kaufman for President. Your hands will be clean of the debacle to follow.

  19. Gravatar of Postkey Postkey
    10. October 2020 at 00:15

    S.B.S. is {inadvertently?} a shill for the plutocrats and the M.I.C..

    He, {along with others?}, has ‘convinced’ himself that elections matter when the ‘true’ source of economic power is the plutocrats and the M.I.C..
    “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
    Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
    Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

    Of course, to admit this, is to put himself on the ‘wrong side of history’. No acknowledgement of his ‘work’ on NGDPLT?

  20. Gravatar of Ray Lopez Ray Lopez
    10. October 2020 at 00:26

    Logic is not our host’s strong point? “If the turtle wandered into the area that expressed your personal views on monetary policy, would you say that the turtle in question is “right about monetary policy”? ” – yes, that’s how English works colloquially. “This is a man who encouraged Xi Jinping to put a million Muslims into concentration camps.” – so did Andrew Jackson and his successors, they are called “Indian reservations”. “…because Trump literally has no views on what’s best for the country.” – that’s a feature not a bug. Libertarian ideology says paralysis in Congress and/or no government is best. A random number generator for president is thus not that bad. “…the worst president in history.” – Andrew Jackson, if you value “due process” like Sumner does, clearly was worse: he seized Indian lands unlawfully, executed two non-US citizen whites without due process, causing a diplomatic row with Spain, fought numerous duels and killed a man, and, from Sumner’s point of view, destroyed America’s first central bank unfairly (the Second Bank of the US).

    PS–Dr. Ben Cole is right: technically, though GW Bush started the wars, Obama spent more on the military than his predecessor did (Obama did not pull out).

  21. Gravatar of sty.silver sty.silver
    10. October 2020 at 02:04

    The point on recursion is literally true and pretty interesting (well, I find it interesting, anyway). When I stared at the phrase ‘anti-anti-anti-Trump’, since I know how multiplying by -1 works, I know that I can subtract two anti’s and preserve the direction of the meaning. However, this is a hack; I don’t really grasp the concept.

    If I want to really grasp the concept, there’s a way that’s only sort of a hack. Namely, I have to stare at the phrase ‘anti-anti Trump’ for a while, until I come up with an alternative description that feels non-recursive. Something like, ‘well those are the people who like to signal maturity by talking about how the guy isn’t so bad after all’. Once I have this non-recursive description, I can translate anti-anti-anti-Trump into anti-[that thing], which, only being two levels, can be represented explicitly.

    This also works for other examples, although it can cause a slight headache, especially if the case is more confusing than this one.

  22. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    10. October 2020 at 06:41

    Benjamin Cole,

    Even with your number, which is greatly inflated by including interest on the debt, is only around 6% of GDP. The number I’m seeing is still a bit below 5% of GDP.

    The US doesn’t have to run deficits most years.

    The problem is way, way overstated, though again, I acknowledge we could get better value for the dollar.

  23. Gravatar of Michael Rulle Michael Rulle
    10. October 2020 at 07:51

    I find it ——let me say what I really mean and not be polite, you can handle it—-completely stupid to imagine what one might have been had they been someone else. It is nonsense speak. It is worse than counterfactual——-it is meaningless to pretend to know what anyone would have been had they been born in a different time. And therefore would have been a completely different person.

    You have to be careful——you could sound like Sandifer if you keep it up.

    You have no idea if he is your turtle. And if 50% is your number on Trump, I think that is probably pretty good. Was Bush or Obama 50% right? Do we need to do standard errors and seek advice from Bayesian an anti p-hackers?

    And what the hell are the 3 “anti” s about. Even Ray, who is my go to guy on logical thinking, does not get it. Either do I. If I am anti anti trump, it means I am against the people who criticize Trump. If I am anti Trump I am against Trump. So that I get. So, if you are anti both of those, perhaps it means you think all the critics are foolish. But that does not feel right—-to linear. Maybe it is what you mean.

    Then comes the turtle ——-you have done this before with a different analogy. Repeating yourself.

    I find it interesting that you seem unaware that you engage in magical thinking. You assert things which cannot be known.

    This post is dumb. But, I still enjoyed it.

  24. Gravatar of David S David S
    10. October 2020 at 11:00

    I’ll bet a dollar with regular readers of this blog* that regardless of what happens in November that one of the Trump children will run for public office within the next 6 years. This bet is a test of whether or not “Trumpism” is a durable political brand. That Trump occasionally says something right–like a drunk turtle wandering across Scott’s patio–is less important than the possibility that the GOP has gone down some strange, dark path that leads to more Trumpist candidates.

    *I want to keep my liability limited to around seven dollars.

  25. Gravatar of AMT AMT
    10. October 2020 at 11:31

    Good post that I strongly agree with. I think this is 100% correct:
    “He’s never actually considered what view on any issue is correct; rather he always considers which view is most beneficial to him.”

  26. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    10. October 2020 at 12:22

    Philo, You said:

    “I think you exaggerate the difference between Trump and the average successful politician.”

    Even if that were true, and it’s not, the claim would have no bearing on this post.

    The Dems did not suddenly become hawkish when Trump took power. Trump did suddenly become dovish. Trump really is different.

    Ray, The Andrew Jackson comparison is actually plausible. I’m shocked. On the other hand, your claims about turtle beliefs? SMH.

    Michael Rulle, You said:

    “Even Ray, who is my go to guy on logical thinking”

    ?????. There’s your problem in a nutshell.

    David, Perhaps Ivanka. But she’s actually nothing like Donald.

  27. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    10. October 2020 at 16:03

    Here is a puzzle: many people on this blog have asserted that Donald Trump will do anything to be re-elected.

    Yet Donald Trump, of his own volition, chose to antagonize the most powerful segments in the US power structure—the modern-day China lobby.

    The Apples, Wal-marts, BlackRocks, Disneys and affiliated think tanks, lobbies, media allies, trade groups. Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

    Check out the funding for Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement and Biden’s “salary” fron the university.

    “Beijing Joe” Biden?

  28. Gravatar of JHE JHE
    10. October 2020 at 19:26

    Benjamin Cole: Remind me again of the US trade deficit with China compared to 2016? Or how Trump responded to new levels of egregiousness in China’s human rights behavior (Xinjiang, HK).

    You know the answer as well as everyone else, which is why all you can do is make utterly vacuous “questions” about Trump ‘taking on’ the all-powerful China lobby. A sharp turn in a more anti-China direction has been aggressively lobbied for by plenty of powerful and important people well before Trump became President. Trump, however, had the brilliant insight that what makes China bad is not that the CPC is one of the worlds most repressive regimes, but that the U.S. has a large trade deficit with China…and then proceeded to not change that, while giving support to absurdly evil behavior.

    It’s hard to think of a better illustration of a point where people (including very smart people like Tyler) have been completely suckered by the turtle moving into the ‘anti-China’ square.

  29. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    10. October 2020 at 19:30

    JHE, Excellent comment, but you are talking to a wall.

  30. Gravatar of Cartesian Theatrics Cartesian Theatrics
    11. October 2020 at 00:01

    Just to push back a little, Trump did sign the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020, calling for sanctions for those responsible for human rights violations. I get that he has no real positions, but that’s at least a concrete action. He’s been fairly tough on China in terms of action and public rhetoric. And Bolton’s claims can’t be trusted 100% although I see little reason to think he’s lying. However, saying he would be Hitler if he could is not really justified.

  31. Gravatar of Postkey Postkey
    11. October 2020 at 00:50

    “what makes China bad is . . . that the U.S. has a large trade deficit with China…”

    It appears that the ‘neoliberal’ S.B.S. agrees with this?

    More cognitive dissonance?

    The ‘neoliberals’ are not opposed to ‘trade deficits’?
    Trade deficits are a result of individual choices?
    If ‘individual choices’ result in trade deficits it is the optimum outcome for society?

  32. Gravatar of xu xu
    11. October 2020 at 03:56

    Trump never encouraged Xi to place uighers in concentration camps, and he certaintly never asked Xi to sterlize them. Trump has criticized Xi. His administration just finished a tour of Asia that established the Quad, and revived a Taiwanese independence bill. You simply, once again, dont know what you are talking about. Xi is a Nazi. CCP is hitler 2.0. Not DJT. You are so blind. And your only source about Uighers and Trump comes from Bolton, a man who is known for lying, has a poor track record in politics, was fired by the administration – obviously had a bone to pick – and made a million dollars from a well timed election year book with “made up drama”. You wasted $15. Any other sources? Do you even know that Pompeo was advocating for the release of the uighers last week? Do you know that the US jointly signed a statement with 30 countries criticizing the detention. You are just another liberal, scott, who spits out nonsense.

  33. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    11. October 2020 at 04:27

    JHE/Sumner:

    I think you have unfairly characterized the situation. Actually, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who works for Trump, has been quite vocal on the horrible repressive regime now installed in Beijing. I would say of world leaders, Pompeo has been the most incisive and publicly critical of Beijing.

    Trump has offended the powers that be by slapping tariffs on China imports. Curiously, although Trump is Trump and reprehensible by any normal standards, he has turned the dial on the global conversation regarding Beijing.

    We can rest assured that “Beijing Joe” Biden will reverse course, scale back or otherwise leave unenforced tariffs on China, and earn accolades from Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood.

    Check out this link to the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. They are very, very concerned that Russia is undermining the international order and paying bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan, but not one peep about mainland China, Tibet, Taiwan or Hong Kong.

    I wish I was making this up. It is like a caricature of institutionalized corruption and craven capitulation.

    https://global.upenn.edu/penn-biden-center

    As I say spare your conscience and vote for Pat Paulsen.

  34. Gravatar of JHE JHE
    11. October 2020 at 05:06

    “I would say of world leaders, Pompeo has been the most incisive and publicly critical of Beijing.”

    Not sure if there are any words for this, yes, noted world leader Mike Pompeo has been vocal in opposing the CCP. One of the most entertaining aspects of Trumpism is watching Trump supporters denouncing “the neocons” “the blob,” etc; and celebrating Trump for reorienting U.S. foreign policy, but then heartily endorsing the neocons and strongly opposing what Trump actually believes. On Taiwan, Trump’s views are straightforward—it’s a tiny place compared to China and the views of its inhabitants are irrelevant, just as for HK. Instead, the Trump supporters take comfort in the policies of, to use their own words, disgraced liars like John Bolton.

    It’s similar for Russia, where the conservative Russia hawks will happily attribute to “Trump” policies that he has no interest in implementing and that have much more to do with pressure from the ‘deep state’ that they then argue is villainously undermining Trump.

    Finally, while I would agree that Trump has changed the tenor of discussion on China in the U.S., a more fundamental cause is that China has an insane megalomaniac for a leader who, when he took power, looked at the country and felt that the biggest problems were that the Chinese people had too much freedom and the CPC’s governance system was too democratic. Views of China have cratered around the entire world (before covid even started), even in places where people despise Trump.

  35. Gravatar of Michael Rulle Michael Rulle
    11. October 2020 at 05:39

    @scott——-gotcha!

  36. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    11. October 2020 at 08:13

    Benjamin Cole,

    You need to take the central point in Scott’s post to heart. Trump has no coherent China policy. He’s too ignorant, stupid, and unstable to even pursue his own interests consistently or coherently. What part of that is unclear? The only stable views he has concerning China is a knee-jerk racial and cultural bigotry and those informed by his idiotic mercantilism. But, he’s even a failure from a mercantilist point of view, in addition to being a failure from the point of view of legitimate trade theory. The trade deficit exploded under Trump, despite having slowed economic growth with his stupid trade war. Then, he comes into this year kicking Xi’s boots, desperately trying to avoid an escalation in the trade war on China’s side that could cost him re-election. So, he praised China’s response to the pandemic in February, only to begin attacking them the following month when the pandemic began to really get out of control in the US. The idiot wa telling us the virus would “…go away, like a miracle.”

    Of course Trump upset the “China lobby”, just as a bull in a China shop will upset the shop owner, but what good was done? That’s the part you seem to miss. Trump’s absurd “policies” have been a failure, both from the mercantilist and modern econ perspectives.

  37. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    11. October 2020 at 08:15

    That’s licking Xi’s boots. Trump is a boot licker of dictators.

  38. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    11. October 2020 at 08:54

    Cartesian, He has many Nazi-like instincts. He basically supports Duterte’s murderous policies in the Philippines. He justified the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. He said we should have stolen Iraq’s oil. He supports war criminals. He demonizes foreigners and minorities. I could go on and on.

    The mistake people make is to assume that to be a Nazi one must literally want to murder 6 million Jews. The Nazi Party existed in Germany for many years before the Holocaust. Roughly 35% of Germans voted for the Nazis. There’s more to Naziism than the Holocaust. One can have Nazi instincts without literally repeating Hitler’s specific atrocities, which reflected his specific time and place. Trump certainly has Nazi-like instincts, although as I pointed out in the post he’s not an actual Nazi because it’s impossible to get elected in the US spouting explicit Nazi beliefs. But it’s sort of a miracle that he gets away with so much that is truly offensive.

    Consider that Trump’s advocacy of putting Muslim’s into concentration camps wasn’t even mentioned by Harris in the recent debate, even when China came up. Think how far down in the gutter America has fallen that this isn’t even a controversy worth discussing! You can say we have to rely on press reports that might be fake news, but that doesn’t stop people talking about Trump’s taxes, where we rely on the NYT.

    Postkey, Don’t be an idiot. I’ve never opposed trade deficits.

    Xu, You said:

    “Xi is a Nazi”

    You and Cartesian will have to work that one out.

    Ben, You said:

    “Pompeo has been the most incisive”

    If you regard non-stop lying about China as being “incisive”, then I agree.

    JHE, Please keep commenting here—you are a rare breath of fresh air.

  39. Gravatar of Cartesian Theatrics Cartesian Theatrics
    11. October 2020 at 21:16

    Sumner, you definitely know more than I do about all the sins of the current administration. But mixing the clear-cut cases with the more questionable ones seems like a constant mistake of the opposition. Even with Russiagate they couldn’t focus on the clear abuses and the whole thing just went off the rails. Same with the election interference; not enough to report on freezing the post office, gotta make up a bunch of garbage about mail boxes and land fills. On and on, and yes it’s basically TDS.

    The fundamental mistake Democrats have made it seems to me is thinking they need to erect some kind of iron wall of opposition. The urge for some feeling of solidarity leads to major quality control issues, weakening the cause over time. Or maybe it’s all just cynicism and market forces idk. But to easily win, they simply need to be more impressive.

  40. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    12. October 2020 at 01:22

    Michael Sandifer:

    I appreciate your comments, although I disagree.

    China is a snarl of a problem.

    I can’t say Trump has been right.

    On the other hand, I get queasy feeling at the NBA (No Balls Association)-Disney-BlackRock-Apple-Biden approach of cavalier capitulation. Just how far down this road do we go? Suppose concentration camps turn into death camps? Then what?

    Perhaps as I have lived offshore for a while, I can’t seem to generate strong emotions re Trump or Biden. The pair strike me as poor choices, each with some right and some wrong policies.

    Avoid debasing yourself and vote for Pat Paulsen.

  41. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    12. October 2020 at 11:00

    Cartesian, Your comment is a classic example of changing the topic. Instead of responding to my points, you criticize arguments made by others, but not me. And then try to somehow link them to me.

    There’s nothing there for me to respond to.

    I don’t have to rely on the media reports. I saw Trump encourage the Russians to try to sabotage Hillary on national TV. I saw Trump mock McCain’s war service on national TV. I saw him lie about his taxes on national TV. I saw him praise war criminals at a campaign event.

    His supporters claim it’s all fake news: “He never said soldiers are losers.” The press is lying. Really? He never said McCain was a loser? How likely is it that the press is lying about the other scandals, given how much we can see with our own eyes?

  42. Gravatar of Postkey Postkey
    13. October 2020 at 00:08

    “Postkey, Don’t be an idiot. I’ve never opposed trade deficits.”

    Sorry, but that was the impression I got from reading your posts!

  43. Gravatar of Postkey Postkey
    13. October 2020 at 00:17

    Especially the one above. “JHE, Excellent comment, . . . “. When s/he was talking about the US trade deficit as though it matters.

  44. Gravatar of Postkey Postkey
    13. October 2020 at 00:22

    ” I saw Trump mock McCain’s war service on national TV.”

    Yes, McCain the ‘war hero’. Bombing civilians and a shill for every U.S. illegal military action.

    More evidence that S.B.S. is {not inadvertently?} a shill for the plutocrats and the M.I.C..

  45. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    13. October 2020 at 08:40

    Postkey, You need to work on reading comprehension. I never said a word about whether I approved of McCain’s behavior in Vietnam. Im merely said that Trump regards US soldiers as losers, especially when they are captured. I never said I thought trade deficits matter. I merely pointed out that the Trump administration justified its trade war on the basis that it would reduce the deficit, and failed to do so.

    JHE talked about the deficit as if it mattered to Trump.

  46. Gravatar of Postkey Postkey
    13. October 2020 at 14:42

    Ok. Do you approve of McCain’s and the US ‘behavior’ in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria?

  47. Gravatar of Postkey Postkey
    13. October 2020 at 14:50

    “I saw Trump mock McCain’s war service . . . “

  48. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    13. October 2020 at 15:58

    Postkey, No, yes, no, no, no.

    And are you trying to compete with Ben for cluelessness? Trump mocked McCain because he was a POW, not because the Vietnam war was wrong.

    Don’t be surprised if I go back to ignoring you.

  49. Gravatar of Postkey Postkey
    14. October 2020 at 02:33

    Thanks for your replies.

    Please go back to ignoring me as you do when I offer evidence that ” . . . The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “

    “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
    Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
    Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

  50. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    14. October 2020 at 10:14

    One of the more entertaining comments sections I’ve seen here in a while.

  51. Gravatar of Postkey Postkey
    14. October 2020 at 23:50

    For consideration?
    “The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda. They hailed from four countries; fifteen of them were citizens of Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon, and the last was from Egypt.[1]  “
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
    None from A..
    “WASHINGTON, Feb 11 2010 (IPS) – Evidence now available from various sources, including recently declassified U.S. State Department documents, shows that the Taliban regime led by Mullah Mohammad Omar imposed strict isolation on Osama bin Laden after 1998 to prevent him from carrying out any plots against the United States.
    The evidence contradicts the claims by top officials of the Barack Obama administration that Mullah Omar was complicit in Osama bin Laden’s involvement in the al Qaeda plot to carry out the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sep. 11, 2001. It also bolsters the credibility of Taliban statements in recent months asserting that it has no interest in al Qaeda’s global jihadist aims. . . .
    Two days after the strike, Omar unexpectedly entered a phone conversation between a State Department official and one of his aides, and told the U.S. official he was unaware of any evidence that bin Laden “had engaged in or planned terrorist acts while on Afghan soil”. The Taliban leader said he was “open to dialogue” with the United States and asked for evidence of bin Laden’s involvement, according to the State Department cable reporting the conversation. “
    http://www.ipsnews.net/2010/02/afghanistan-taliban-regime-pressed-bin-laden-on-anti-us-terror/
    Of course, the US had to be seen as ‘doing something’?

Leave a Reply