With Meet John Doe, Frank Capra crossed the thin line between populist sentimentality and populist demagoguery.
--Andrew Sarris, The American Cinema,(University of Chicago Press 1968)
Commentary has taken the trouble, in their current issue, to take Donald Trump's policies seriously and analyze them in detail. The conclusions:
On Trade. After a detailed analysis of Trump's plans to impose high tariffs and to withdraw from all U.S. trade agreements (and the difficulties with implementation) Scott Lincicome writes: "We have many existing examples of how Trump-style tariffs have resulted in lower growth, higher prices, foreign retaliation and few, if any, new jobs."
On Taxes. James Pethokoukis looks at Trump's tax plans and concludes, "It features cuts so large that any growth they generate might get swallowed by unprecedented debt increases. It supposedly tries to sock it to the undeserving wealthy but will actually reduce their tax burden."
On "The Wall." Linda Chavez looks at the building of a wall across the border with Mexico and concludes it would cost 17 billion dollars, even if all the difficulties with eminent domain and environmental impact problems can be overcome, slowing down the building of the wall for decades. Trump's plan to remove all illegal immigrants in two years would cost $300 billion and, even then, "there is no evidence that Americans would rush to pick fruits and vegetables, de-bone chickens, scrub office floors and toilets, the jobs illegal immigrants currently dominate"
On Health Care. Tevi Troy points out that Trump is offering little that Cruz and others have not offered and (my own comment here) offers nothing for those currently without healthcare insurance or those who will lose it when Obamacare is repealed, as Trump wants to do.
On Infrastructure. Phillip Klein points out that Trump is big on building but has been vague on how he plans to pay for it (see On Taxes, above).
On Nato, On Asia, On Israel. Tod Linberg, Michael Auslin, Jordon Chandler Hirsch point out the risks and dangers of Trump's isolationist ideas. As Hirsch concludes: "A world in which the United States betrays bedrock alliances, cozies up with enemies, and raises the drawbridge is a world in which the Jewish state will struggle to endure."
For historical perspective I also recommend, in the same issue of Commentary, Terry Teachout's The Harbinger of Trumpism, about Sir Oswald Mosley (1896-1980), who in 1932 founded the British Union of Fascists. As Teachout says, "Anyone who seeks to understand how authoritarianism might become a force in America would thus do well to consider his spectacular rise -- and ignominious fall."
For novels that have, in various ways, written about the rise of populist fascism in America I suggest Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here (1935), Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men (1945), and Philip Roth's The Plot Against America (2004). For a fascinating look into the evil heart of anti-Islamic fascism in Norway I recommend One of Us by Asne Seierstad (translated by Sarah Death).
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Friday, April 15, 2016
Democratic Debate April 14, 2016
Hilary Clinton is beginning to annoy me:
1. Why won't she release the transcripts of her $250,000 speeches to Goldman-Sachs and others? Is there something like what David Corn and Mother Jones found in Romney's famous "47 percent" speech? And who are these other unnamed people who should also release transcripts? Bernie Sanders has no transcripts to release and even if Cruz and Trump do, so what? Does she really want to associate herself with those dissemblers?
2. In the early part of her campaign Clinton couldn't distance herself fast enough from Obama while last night, as Sanders pointed out, it was all "Obama this and Obama that." One wouldn't have to be particularly cynical to think that this change is because Obama's approval ratings are rising and Clinton is again shifting with the wind. Everything good that Obama has done was because of her advice and every mistake he made was because he didn't listen to her!
3.Clinton claims she has stood up against the insurance companies and the drug companies so why is she opposed to single-payer healthcare? She says she wants the remaining 10% of Americans covered but offers no suggestions how she will do this or how, if at all, she would bring down the costs for many of the poor who cannot afford what Obamacare costs or cannot afford the increasing co-pays. Her only defense --and this is true about other issues, too -- is that she wants to "avoid a contentious debate and forge a consensus." Good luck with that, it sounds to me like an abdication of authority.
4. Clinton claims to be sympathetic to the problem of student debt but she doesn't want free tuition for state colleges because there are too many Republican governors and that would provoke the dreaded "contentious debate."
5. Clinton deplores climate change but doesn't think we can do anything about it unless India and China can be convinced to change their policies. Meanwhile, she supports fracking and does not support a carbon tax.
6. Clinton is sorry about what happened in Libya but what could one do, they didn't want our help! She voted for the Iraq war -- Sanders voted against it -- and still doesn't seem to understand that getting rid of a ruthless dictator is fine as far as it goes but one has to have some kind of plan for what happens afterwards.
I wish both Sanders and Clinton would come more strongly to the defense of unions. Sanders at least made a point about Verizon and the CWA and the continuing erosion of the middle class as the power of unions has precipitously declined. I must admit I was a little confused during the discussion of guns: Clinton thinks that gun sellers and manufacturers should be responsible for what someone does with a gun even if that gun was sold legally? Sanders did not bring it up during this debate but his suggestion for single-payer healthcare, including mental healthcare, would likely be of more help than additional gun control, as much as that may also be needed.
1. Why won't she release the transcripts of her $250,000 speeches to Goldman-Sachs and others? Is there something like what David Corn and Mother Jones found in Romney's famous "47 percent" speech? And who are these other unnamed people who should also release transcripts? Bernie Sanders has no transcripts to release and even if Cruz and Trump do, so what? Does she really want to associate herself with those dissemblers?
2. In the early part of her campaign Clinton couldn't distance herself fast enough from Obama while last night, as Sanders pointed out, it was all "Obama this and Obama that." One wouldn't have to be particularly cynical to think that this change is because Obama's approval ratings are rising and Clinton is again shifting with the wind. Everything good that Obama has done was because of her advice and every mistake he made was because he didn't listen to her!
3.Clinton claims she has stood up against the insurance companies and the drug companies so why is she opposed to single-payer healthcare? She says she wants the remaining 10% of Americans covered but offers no suggestions how she will do this or how, if at all, she would bring down the costs for many of the poor who cannot afford what Obamacare costs or cannot afford the increasing co-pays. Her only defense --and this is true about other issues, too -- is that she wants to "avoid a contentious debate and forge a consensus." Good luck with that, it sounds to me like an abdication of authority.
4. Clinton claims to be sympathetic to the problem of student debt but she doesn't want free tuition for state colleges because there are too many Republican governors and that would provoke the dreaded "contentious debate."
5. Clinton deplores climate change but doesn't think we can do anything about it unless India and China can be convinced to change their policies. Meanwhile, she supports fracking and does not support a carbon tax.
6. Clinton is sorry about what happened in Libya but what could one do, they didn't want our help! She voted for the Iraq war -- Sanders voted against it -- and still doesn't seem to understand that getting rid of a ruthless dictator is fine as far as it goes but one has to have some kind of plan for what happens afterwards.
I wish both Sanders and Clinton would come more strongly to the defense of unions. Sanders at least made a point about Verizon and the CWA and the continuing erosion of the middle class as the power of unions has precipitously declined. I must admit I was a little confused during the discussion of guns: Clinton thinks that gun sellers and manufacturers should be responsible for what someone does with a gun even if that gun was sold legally? Sanders did not bring it up during this debate but his suggestion for single-payer healthcare, including mental healthcare, would likely be of more help than additional gun control, as much as that may also be needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)