Monday, March 28, 2016
Sunday, March 27, 2016
On Trump's March 25 Interview with The Times
I read the transcript of Donald Trump's interview with the New York Times on Friday March 25. Apparently, it went on for over a hundred minutes spread out over two sessions, one in the morning and a followup in the afternoon. I believe I can get a better sense of the man if I watch his speeches and read transcripts of his interviews with the press, especially with papers like The Times.
This is the transcript, if you care to read it yourself.
First of all, a couple of observations from me: I think Trump is vocalizing what many of us have at one time or another asked ourselves about America's place in the world. That is, who made Uncle Sam the world's policeman, the world's superpower? And, just because he doesn't always articulate himself as eloquently as Obama or, say, the New York Times journalists would, doesn't mean the media or the upper 25% should turn up their noses at him. The point is, he's raising issues we've all wondered about. He's addressing the disenfranchised masses. And (at least, I believe) he genuinely cares about his country. Do I agree with his views? Mostly no, and I wouldn't vote for him as president (too mercurial, for my taste, among other things). But here's the thing: in this interview with The Times, he answered the questions directly, even if you didn't agree with his answers or if his answers were perhaps incomplete, changed later, or just not thoughtful, the way Obama's are. He did not duck any questions and yes, we got to see where the chinks in the armor are.
For the most part, Donald Trump does not come across like a greasy politician the way a, say, Ted Cruz does. He may be a narcissist, he may crave power but, he also loves his country. This I believe, after reading the transcript.
So what did he say? Well, he said he's for "America First". He said the accepted doctrine (which, by the way, was made by the U.S. after WWII) that the United States must be the world's military policeman, which involves, among other things, paying for U.S. military bases in foreign countries like Japan and South Korea to protect those countries against aggression from North Korea or China, must be re-thought. Or, more accurately, re-negotiated. Especially when it comes to rich countries like Saudi Arabia. Trump sees it as an unfair economic playing field, one where the U.S. can negotiate much better deals with European nations like Germany, and the aforementioned Asian and Middle Eastern countries. He sees this as a principal reason for the United States' decline over the last several decades.
There's an element of truth to what he's saying, in my opinion. As a Canadian, I've taken for granted that if Canada were ever threatened by another country, that the U.S. would defend Canada completely and as if it were one of its own states or territories. I suspect that Germany feels the same way. Why would it not? U.K.? Same. Australia, which is a world away? Same. Japan? Of course. South Korea? Ditto. Saudi Arabia? Despite Trump's comments, I think the Kingdom feels pretty safe because of America. America has been spending a disproportionate amount of its vast GDP on defense of the Free World while the rest of us have sponged off the Americans. Canada has been particularly exploitative, in that regard.
So Trump has a point. Economically, the U.S., if you did the math, has probably lost money on this policy to be the world's supercop. But do you change the policy to stop the economic hemorrhaging?
The reason the U.S. assumed the role of supercop was to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons into multiple countries. Imagine if 200 countries had nukes. Now, there's a frightening thought. Naturally, U.S. allies were the first to agree to not develop their own nukes as long as the U.S. undertook to protect them. The rest of the world's countries were either coaxed, through diplomacy, or have been forced, through sanctions, to steer clear of owning nuclear weapons. The theory is, if the world can be disarmed in this fashion, then the world -- and the United States -- stands a far greater chance of surviving. The policy has not worked perfectly well, of course. Pakistan and India, both friends of the United States but sometime adversaries with each other, have nukes. North Korea, a rogue nation, has nukes. China, an economic superpower, has nukes. And, of course, Russia has nukes. Nuclear weapons exist. But they are so far being contained. The policy, messy as it has been to maintain, is so far working. No one has blown up anyone. Except for the United States in 1945, that is.
So I guess what I would say to Mr. Trump is, if you want to make America Great Again, and you want to reduce the enormous U.S. public debt (over twenty trillion dollars which, like most countries, it owes to itself, to American debt holders), then, instead of abandoning the America-as-supercop policy which has kept the world safe for over 70 years after Hiroshima, consider raising income taxes and gas taxes and sales taxes, just like the rest of the world, so that you can balance your books and pay down your debt. Meanwhile, keep in mind that while you have the mightiest military that the world has ever seen these past 70 years, it has fostered a tremendous defense industry, which has been a boon to your economy, and a tremendous military machine, which has employed millions upon millions of people. So, it hasn't been all bad; and as one-sided as Mr. Trump has felt it has been.
Finally, even if America's most trusted allies -- the U.K., Canada, Germany, Japan and others -- chose to design and build their own nukes, and if America closed its military bases on their soil, I don't think the money saved would make the kind of dent to America's budget deficits that Mr. Trump thinks are needed to Make America Great Again. No, what's sorely needed, if America's leaders are serious about making America "great" is income redistribution on a scale bordering on socialism -- at least compared to what most Americans are used to -- to reduce the huge gap between the haves -- like Mr. Trump -- and the have-nots. Until America really gets that it needs to spread the wealth more equitably, with or without free trade and globalization and automation, it will continue to breed discontent and resentment among its people, and it will continue to find it increasingly difficult to reach that "greatness" that Donald Trump and his fans dream of.
I agree with Trump on one thing: it's not rocket science.
This is the transcript, if you care to read it yourself.
First of all, a couple of observations from me: I think Trump is vocalizing what many of us have at one time or another asked ourselves about America's place in the world. That is, who made Uncle Sam the world's policeman, the world's superpower? And, just because he doesn't always articulate himself as eloquently as Obama or, say, the New York Times journalists would, doesn't mean the media or the upper 25% should turn up their noses at him. The point is, he's raising issues we've all wondered about. He's addressing the disenfranchised masses. And (at least, I believe) he genuinely cares about his country. Do I agree with his views? Mostly no, and I wouldn't vote for him as president (too mercurial, for my taste, among other things). But here's the thing: in this interview with The Times, he answered the questions directly, even if you didn't agree with his answers or if his answers were perhaps incomplete, changed later, or just not thoughtful, the way Obama's are. He did not duck any questions and yes, we got to see where the chinks in the armor are.
For the most part, Donald Trump does not come across like a greasy politician the way a, say, Ted Cruz does. He may be a narcissist, he may crave power but, he also loves his country. This I believe, after reading the transcript.
So what did he say? Well, he said he's for "America First". He said the accepted doctrine (which, by the way, was made by the U.S. after WWII) that the United States must be the world's military policeman, which involves, among other things, paying for U.S. military bases in foreign countries like Japan and South Korea to protect those countries against aggression from North Korea or China, must be re-thought. Or, more accurately, re-negotiated. Especially when it comes to rich countries like Saudi Arabia. Trump sees it as an unfair economic playing field, one where the U.S. can negotiate much better deals with European nations like Germany, and the aforementioned Asian and Middle Eastern countries. He sees this as a principal reason for the United States' decline over the last several decades.
There's an element of truth to what he's saying, in my opinion. As a Canadian, I've taken for granted that if Canada were ever threatened by another country, that the U.S. would defend Canada completely and as if it were one of its own states or territories. I suspect that Germany feels the same way. Why would it not? U.K.? Same. Australia, which is a world away? Same. Japan? Of course. South Korea? Ditto. Saudi Arabia? Despite Trump's comments, I think the Kingdom feels pretty safe because of America. America has been spending a disproportionate amount of its vast GDP on defense of the Free World while the rest of us have sponged off the Americans. Canada has been particularly exploitative, in that regard.
So Trump has a point. Economically, the U.S., if you did the math, has probably lost money on this policy to be the world's supercop. But do you change the policy to stop the economic hemorrhaging?
The reason the U.S. assumed the role of supercop was to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons into multiple countries. Imagine if 200 countries had nukes. Now, there's a frightening thought. Naturally, U.S. allies were the first to agree to not develop their own nukes as long as the U.S. undertook to protect them. The rest of the world's countries were either coaxed, through diplomacy, or have been forced, through sanctions, to steer clear of owning nuclear weapons. The theory is, if the world can be disarmed in this fashion, then the world -- and the United States -- stands a far greater chance of surviving. The policy has not worked perfectly well, of course. Pakistan and India, both friends of the United States but sometime adversaries with each other, have nukes. North Korea, a rogue nation, has nukes. China, an economic superpower, has nukes. And, of course, Russia has nukes. Nuclear weapons exist. But they are so far being contained. The policy, messy as it has been to maintain, is so far working. No one has blown up anyone. Except for the United States in 1945, that is.
So I guess what I would say to Mr. Trump is, if you want to make America Great Again, and you want to reduce the enormous U.S. public debt (over twenty trillion dollars which, like most countries, it owes to itself, to American debt holders), then, instead of abandoning the America-as-supercop policy which has kept the world safe for over 70 years after Hiroshima, consider raising income taxes and gas taxes and sales taxes, just like the rest of the world, so that you can balance your books and pay down your debt. Meanwhile, keep in mind that while you have the mightiest military that the world has ever seen these past 70 years, it has fostered a tremendous defense industry, which has been a boon to your economy, and a tremendous military machine, which has employed millions upon millions of people. So, it hasn't been all bad; and as one-sided as Mr. Trump has felt it has been.
Finally, even if America's most trusted allies -- the U.K., Canada, Germany, Japan and others -- chose to design and build their own nukes, and if America closed its military bases on their soil, I don't think the money saved would make the kind of dent to America's budget deficits that Mr. Trump thinks are needed to Make America Great Again. No, what's sorely needed, if America's leaders are serious about making America "great" is income redistribution on a scale bordering on socialism -- at least compared to what most Americans are used to -- to reduce the huge gap between the haves -- like Mr. Trump -- and the have-nots. Until America really gets that it needs to spread the wealth more equitably, with or without free trade and globalization and automation, it will continue to breed discontent and resentment among its people, and it will continue to find it increasingly difficult to reach that "greatness" that Donald Trump and his fans dream of.
I agree with Trump on one thing: it's not rocket science.
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Trump: The Ultimate Politician
Is Donald Trump telling it like it is, or just telling us what he thinks we want to hear?
In Boca Raton, Florida last Sunday he said, "We're gonna bring the jobs back .. I'm working for you folks .. I'm self-funding my campaign". That's all they needed to hear.
It doesn't matter that Trump can't just slap a tariff on imported goods from Mexico, or countervailing duties on products from China, without support from other parts of the US government or without triggering a trade war. Maybe that's why he also said at that same Boca Raton venue, "We're probably gonna have free trade".
Say what? I wonder how many people in the audience picked up on that one.
Maybe he meant that his dream team negotiators, which would include guys like Carl Icahn (who at age 80, is probably more interested in enjoying some time at the club than sitting in a room with a dozen Japanese trade experts), would call the other countries' bluff and cause them to suddenly increase the value of their currency which would make American products more competitive which, in turn, would lead to more American jobs. Or maybe he meant that the threat of tariffs on Mexican products would cause companies like Carrier Corporation, which manufactures air conditioners, which he also mentioned in his Boca Raton speech, to cancel their plans to relocate their Indianapolis, Indiana factory to Mexico.
Who knows? Because Trump leaves out the details.
Even if Trump did somehow impose tariffs on imported goods, in today's highly interconnected global economy, the consequences would be higher prices for everything; i.e. more inflation. Inflation leads to higher interest rates. That can't be good for fragile home mortgages. And house prices. And consumers. Who would have less disposable income. Which would mean less consumption, and a shrinking economy. A recession, by another name. But that would mean layoffs and fewer jobs, wouldn't it?
Wait, what?
The point is, in the global economy of today, tough trade talk and tactics may bring economic consequences that are far more depressing than the ones we are in today. At least the economy is growing. At least hundreds of thousands of new jobs are being added every month, despite what Donald Trump would have you believe. At least we can afford Vietnamese-made shirts and Chinese-made shoes and Mexican-made Fords.
Of course, Trump prefers not to get bogged down in details about any of his promises, and his supporters don't bother to go there. Because, as the wise American author, Upton Sinclair, who wrote many aphorisms, stated, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". Trump's supporters believe their jobs depend upon placing their faith in Donald Trump and upon not trying to understand his opponents' rational arguments.
If Trump were truly earnest about helping the bottom 75% he would stop promising to cut taxes, which would benefit Trump and the rest of the top 25% a hell of a lot more than the bottom 75% (since nearly 80% of federal income taxes are paid by individuals earning over $100,000 a year, according to public sources like this one which means that any cuts would not benefit the bottom 75% that much).
No, Trump is interested in one thing: getting elected to be president. To do that he knows he must also be competitive in attracting the top 25% as well; hence, the need to cut taxes.
Trump says he's not a politician? He's the best politician out there in the worst sense of the word.
In Boca Raton, Florida last Sunday he said, "We're gonna bring the jobs back .. I'm working for you folks .. I'm self-funding my campaign". That's all they needed to hear.
It doesn't matter that Trump can't just slap a tariff on imported goods from Mexico, or countervailing duties on products from China, without support from other parts of the US government or without triggering a trade war. Maybe that's why he also said at that same Boca Raton venue, "We're probably gonna have free trade".
Say what? I wonder how many people in the audience picked up on that one.
Maybe he meant that his dream team negotiators, which would include guys like Carl Icahn (who at age 80, is probably more interested in enjoying some time at the club than sitting in a room with a dozen Japanese trade experts), would call the other countries' bluff and cause them to suddenly increase the value of their currency which would make American products more competitive which, in turn, would lead to more American jobs. Or maybe he meant that the threat of tariffs on Mexican products would cause companies like Carrier Corporation, which manufactures air conditioners, which he also mentioned in his Boca Raton speech, to cancel their plans to relocate their Indianapolis, Indiana factory to Mexico.
Who knows? Because Trump leaves out the details.
Even if Trump did somehow impose tariffs on imported goods, in today's highly interconnected global economy, the consequences would be higher prices for everything; i.e. more inflation. Inflation leads to higher interest rates. That can't be good for fragile home mortgages. And house prices. And consumers. Who would have less disposable income. Which would mean less consumption, and a shrinking economy. A recession, by another name. But that would mean layoffs and fewer jobs, wouldn't it?
Wait, what?
The point is, in the global economy of today, tough trade talk and tactics may bring economic consequences that are far more depressing than the ones we are in today. At least the economy is growing. At least hundreds of thousands of new jobs are being added every month, despite what Donald Trump would have you believe. At least we can afford Vietnamese-made shirts and Chinese-made shoes and Mexican-made Fords.
Of course, Trump prefers not to get bogged down in details about any of his promises, and his supporters don't bother to go there. Because, as the wise American author, Upton Sinclair, who wrote many aphorisms, stated, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". Trump's supporters believe their jobs depend upon placing their faith in Donald Trump and upon not trying to understand his opponents' rational arguments.
If Trump were truly earnest about helping the bottom 75% he would stop promising to cut taxes, which would benefit Trump and the rest of the top 25% a hell of a lot more than the bottom 75% (since nearly 80% of federal income taxes are paid by individuals earning over $100,000 a year, according to public sources like this one which means that any cuts would not benefit the bottom 75% that much).
No, Trump is interested in one thing: getting elected to be president. To do that he knows he must also be competitive in attracting the top 25% as well; hence, the need to cut taxes.
Trump says he's not a politician? He's the best politician out there in the worst sense of the word.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
How Trump Changed the Game
Donald Trump seems to know his audience, basically, a dumbed-down America. It took thirty-five years, but I give credit to Reagan and the GOP for driving America in the ditch like this. Trump plays to it. He makes it up as he goes. He speaks their street language. He appeals to how they feel.
The rest of us -- his opponents, the media -- don't seem to get it. I thought the Fox News Detroit debate moderators asked excellent questions and were well prepared with their facts when they confronted Trump. Yet they were trying to argue rationally. Rubio, Cruz and Kasich don't get it either. They're trying to debate Trump about policy, that is, when they're not ganging up on his track record as a businessman, something they are not qualified to comment on, according to Trump. But it's not so much about policy for Trump. It's about the the reason behind whatever policy of the day he is espousing.
The reason is always because Donald Trump wants to "make America great again" which, loosely, correlates with more jobs and a better life for Americans, right? As such, it is tough to nail him down on policy. Or anything, for that matter. It's too late to nail him down, quite frankly. He has first-mover advantage. He was the first to coin the slogan "Make America Great Again". He is the master marketer in this game. That's because he changed the game.
The game is about appealing to the bottom 75% of America. Provided he can motivate them to vote, he will amass a majority of GOP delegates and he will become the party's nominee for president.
So far, they are coming out to vote. Seven hundred and forty thousand people voted in the SC primary a few weeks ago, nearly a hundred thousand more than in 2012. And on Super Tuesday, GOP voter turnout was way up, sometimes setting new records.
What about his opponents? Cruz and Rubio are senators and part of the regular political establishment. That's why Trump uses every opportunity he gets to point out that they are funded by big money lobbyists and other donors, and that he personally hates "That word, politician" and, by inference, politicians. He is in one stroke identifying with the masses, stating that he is not one of the political Establishment, and that his opponents are! That's masterful.
In this game that Donald Trump has defined, except for Ben Carson, whom he "loves", his opponents are automatically disqualified.
And what about John Kasich? I thought he was the one that made the most sense on stage Thursday night. Unfortunately, he too doesn't get it. The conventional war he is fighting is not the war that Trump is winning. Kasich, though justified in making the case that he is the one with the most experience and the best track record as a politician, buried himself by doing so. He just put an exclamation point behind the argument that he is one of the Establishment.
The rest of the GOP -- John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan -- do more damage by attempting to stop Trump than they would by lying silent. They too are Establishment politicians, after all.
Who will win the contest for president? If it's Trump versus Sanders, I think Sanders will win. Yes, he too is an established politician but people don't see him that way. They seem him as champion of the little guy. And someone with more integrity than Trump. Sanders is therefore a less risky bet.
If it's Trump versus Hillary, then I think the advantage will go to Trump, although the race will be very close. And if Clinton's past comes back to haunt her (remember the emails, Benghazi, even Whitewater, for heaven's sake), definitely Trump over Clinton.
The way it looks now, Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. So, it looks like Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States of America.
The rest of us -- his opponents, the media -- don't seem to get it. I thought the Fox News Detroit debate moderators asked excellent questions and were well prepared with their facts when they confronted Trump. Yet they were trying to argue rationally. Rubio, Cruz and Kasich don't get it either. They're trying to debate Trump about policy, that is, when they're not ganging up on his track record as a businessman, something they are not qualified to comment on, according to Trump. But it's not so much about policy for Trump. It's about the the reason behind whatever policy of the day he is espousing.
The reason is always because Donald Trump wants to "make America great again" which, loosely, correlates with more jobs and a better life for Americans, right? As such, it is tough to nail him down on policy. Or anything, for that matter. It's too late to nail him down, quite frankly. He has first-mover advantage. He was the first to coin the slogan "Make America Great Again". He is the master marketer in this game. That's because he changed the game.
The game is about appealing to the bottom 75% of America. Provided he can motivate them to vote, he will amass a majority of GOP delegates and he will become the party's nominee for president.
So far, they are coming out to vote. Seven hundred and forty thousand people voted in the SC primary a few weeks ago, nearly a hundred thousand more than in 2012. And on Super Tuesday, GOP voter turnout was way up, sometimes setting new records.
What about his opponents? Cruz and Rubio are senators and part of the regular political establishment. That's why Trump uses every opportunity he gets to point out that they are funded by big money lobbyists and other donors, and that he personally hates "That word, politician" and, by inference, politicians. He is in one stroke identifying with the masses, stating that he is not one of the political Establishment, and that his opponents are! That's masterful.
In this game that Donald Trump has defined, except for Ben Carson, whom he "loves", his opponents are automatically disqualified.
And what about John Kasich? I thought he was the one that made the most sense on stage Thursday night. Unfortunately, he too doesn't get it. The conventional war he is fighting is not the war that Trump is winning. Kasich, though justified in making the case that he is the one with the most experience and the best track record as a politician, buried himself by doing so. He just put an exclamation point behind the argument that he is one of the Establishment.
The rest of the GOP -- John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan -- do more damage by attempting to stop Trump than they would by lying silent. They too are Establishment politicians, after all.
Who will win the contest for president? If it's Trump versus Sanders, I think Sanders will win. Yes, he too is an established politician but people don't see him that way. They seem him as champion of the little guy. And someone with more integrity than Trump. Sanders is therefore a less risky bet.
If it's Trump versus Hillary, then I think the advantage will go to Trump, although the race will be very close. And if Clinton's past comes back to haunt her (remember the emails, Benghazi, even Whitewater, for heaven's sake), definitely Trump over Clinton.
The way it looks now, Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. So, it looks like Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)