Now, social media make it possible for a candidate’s reach to far exceed his or her internal capabilities to formulate policy. Even at this very late stage, we still don’t have much sense who Trump’s advisors would be or what his cabinet would look like.
I recommend the whole column. Meanwhile, here are my final thoughts.
1. I can think of two positives for Mrs. Clinton. One is that she strikes me as more capable then Mr. Trump of reading and digesting information. Another is that she will have access to the best and the brightest among Democratic advisers. On the Republican side the best and the brightest are NeverTrumpers, and I don’t see Mr. Trump reaching across those burned bridges. I do worry that Mrs. Clinton is so personally insular that instead of relying on wise figures on her side she will remain ensconced with her immediate entourage of unimpressive long-time aides.
2. Unfortunately, the best and the brightest on the Democratic side are not as good as they were two decades ago, because the whole country has moved to the left. Indeed, Mr. Trump strikes me as more like Huey Long than Barry Goldwater. When Bill Clinton was President, a lot of leading figures in the Democratic establishment had genuine respect for markets. Today, that is not the case.
3. I can think of one positive for Mr. Trump. He would sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare with a more market-oriented alternative. Instead, with Mrs. Clinton, government will try to fix the problems it has caused by exerting more control, which is likely to make things worse.
4. I think that the main theme of the election is cosmopolitan vs. anti-cosmopolitan. I take the cosmopolitan side, which alienates me from Mr. Trump and his supporters.
5. Another theme is elite vs. anti-elite. There, I don’t have a dog in the race. I would generally side with an elite, but it needs to be a humble elite. We mostly have an arrogant elite, which I fear is even worse than a non-elite.
6. When I was in Boston last week, I overheard a concierge in an apartment building claim that Mr. Trump is one of the greatest businessmen of all time. Similarly, I have seen Facebook posts from supporters of Mrs. Clinton extolling her long career in public service. I get the sense that there is a tendency to vastly over-rate the candidate that one supports. I find that sad and troubling.
7. As the campaign has progressed, my impressions of Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump, and Gary Johnson have all suffered declines. Still, I plan to vote for Mr. Johnson.
The first question for any policy should be “can we solve this problem?”, the best and the brightest often skip over that portion and run to “how should we solve this problem” which ends up in an exercise of ever tightening options. In Vietnam it was obvious that overwhelming military strength would be needed, however the most overwhelming options (nuclear) was out, as was massive occupation of North Vietnam, but the assumption that the war could be won without either of these two options stayed in place so escalation continued. If Syria and Obamacare are indicators Clinton will be another “I have decided on X, tell me the ‘best’ way of doing X” president, which is not a good quality.
What has allowed Trump to get away with giving the impression to guys like the concierge that he is “one of the greatest businessmen of all time” is the fecklessness of the banks and bondholders that improvidently financed his original over-expansion and then, when it all came tumbling down in insolvency, allowed him to emerge, at their own expense, with some semblance of a business organization and a glitzy “brand” that allowed him to remain a celebrity and, ultimately, to get himself nominated for president by a major party. This is one disaster that I don’t think can be pinned on the government.
You might be surprised.
94% of what matters is the 2-party system. If a ham sandwich was one of the major party candidates, it would be polling at 47%.
How much is the government responsible for the 2 party system? I think a lot.
As far as I know, the government did not push the banks and investors to fall for Trump’s lies and lend him more money than he could ever hope to pay back or to let him and his crummy brand survive his multiple bankruptcies. Not everything is the government’s fault. Many things are, but not everything.
The 2 party system is a part of our system of government (and has been for 200 years, give or take), so it doesn’t make much sense to blame it on the “government.” Unless you think we’d be better off without a government at all, or a completely different kind of government.
I can’t prove it, but I don’t think a cheesy con artist like Trump could have obtained the GOP nomination even 4 years ago. Something has changed in the Republican electorate. Whether the government bears responsibility for this is an interesting question.
All the Democrats have seemed to me for quite a while just as bad as, or worse than, Trump, so the problem with Democratic voters goes back farther.
Trump won the nomination for the same reason Clinton did: Q Score.
My point was that we have Trump’s mindless lenders – not the government – to thank for Trump’s Q Score. Market failure does happen from time to time.
You seem to be suggesting that democracy inevitably results in choice of leaders by Q Score. I would respond that our system was not designed for the kind of electorate we now have.
You’ve created this electorate through policies going back the last few decades. Don’t like the result?
I don’t like the government policies that contributed to the making of this electorate, but I don’t think it was created by government policies alone. The demographic changes due to immigration are not the only factor here.
I don’t know about Trump not being able to win 2012. In fact, it appears Republicans learned the wrong lesson of 2012 with such great candidates like Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Perry and Pawlenty leading the polls as the lead non-Romney. (really only Perry and Pawlenty should have been close.) Rs should have learned that such a candidate was dangerously close.
Yeah, those candidates are pretty bad. Almost as bad as the Democrats.
I have every bit as much respect for you as I do for Sean Hannity. Have a nice day.
If America had the demographics that existed during the Reagan administration they would have won in 2012 by a landslide similar to Reagan. Demographics are all that matter.
The lesson the Republican electorate learned from 2000-2012 is that the GOPe hated them.
What I meant was, the white, middle and working class Republican electorate itself has deteriorated to the point that it fell for a sleazy con man like Trump. Who, even if he were elected, would do nothing to help them (just a few days ago he said he wants “tremendous” numbers of immigrants, as long as they come in legally – for what?). The electorate can no longer rationally make even a vague connection between its interests, problems and concerns and political candidates. Whatever the question is, Trump is the wrong answer. His supporters will learn that the hard way, either tonight, when he loses, or (less likely) during the next four years, when he betrays them.
What exactly did you want the white middle class to do instead? They spent the last twelve years reliably giving the GOP the tools they needed, only to be fleeced like suckers. Do you think Bush or Romney were any less con men then Trump?
At the end of the day, demographics is destiny. Whether Trump would follow through or not he articulated the correct opinions on immigration and political correctness. Nobody else even tried.
Actually, I don’t think Romney was a con man, though I can’t prove it, since he wasn’t elected. The views he expressed on immigration were much better than the drek coming from Trump, who may have given one coherent speech on the subject that made sense, but whose genuine position seems to be touch-back amnesty and increased legal immigration, with some sort of cosmetic increase in border enforcement to serve as a virtual “wall.” If you want to believe that he really would “deport them all” and build a real wall, suit yourself. If I’m not mistaken, the man was a full-bore in favor of open borders as recently as 2012. I see nothing in the man’s history indicating that he cares about anything other than himself and would not in the end, if elected, take the easy way out of redoing Gang of 8, suitably renamed to fool the rubes.
It’s interesting that you overlook that some of the worst Conservatism Inc. open borders hacks – Stephen Moore, Larry Kudlow, Fred Barnes – have climbed on the Trump bandwagon. I don’t think they see him as a threat to what they care about.
You seem to think Paul Ryan was the entire pre-Trump GOP. I disagree. Cruz, although far from perfect, has moved in the right direction on immigration. I would have preferred the party to have taken a chance on him than what it has done, which may well be the end of any effective opposition to the Left in this country.
I have low expectations for Trump, including on immigration. But its greater then 0% chance of action being taken, which is my hope with all other candidates.
Perhaps more importantly, Trump has come to symbolize the anti-PC anti-demographic replacement block. If he loses it signals complete prog victory for all time. They know what the population projections look like.
Whatever positions the right and left take on immigration publicly (remember Bill Clinton in the 1990s, how did that work out) we know that none of them care and deep down they mostly just want to stick it to those fly over rednecks they hate so much.
Bottom line, asdf, you and I disagree on whether genuine conservatives had better options this election than Trump. I guess we’ll never know for sure.
Trump is a master persuader who nailed the mood affiliation at a peak of anti-establishment sentiment when his opponent was being exposed by the new internet transparencym
When it comes to the government centralizing control, that will be the theme of the cosmopolitan and elite government. The elites may simply choose to centralize nationally, the cosmopolitans want to centralize internationally. We should all know where centralization heads.
1. “… she will have access to the best and the brightest among Democratic advisers …”
This was certainly true when she was Secretary of State. Exactly which of her failed initiatives, policies, or wars from that time lead you to think this goes on the plus side?
Obamacare was the most market oriented plan possible, so much so that it still fails to insure everyone. This is evidenced by alternatives which either cover fewer and rely even more heavily on cost shifting or even greater government involvement. Democrats haven’t lost faith in markets but may have had too much. The renewed look at anti trust and competition is overdue. It isn’t markets they are against but the social darwinism of the right.
Some things never change.
It kind of helps stave off the Lovecraftian horror life otherwise might be. THANKS!
Such delusion. Republicans aren’t market oriented but owned even more by their donors.
Which donors wanted Trump to be the nominee?
None, save a few personally in his corner like Thiel. Trump is being massively outspent.
None, but he was nominated to spend his own money. Everything about Trump is BS. When it came down to policy, he just adopted mostly standard Republican policy with some rhetorical excesses, so he got that by default.
Several other points (from a Californian so take that with a grain of salt):
1) Another theme is elite vs. anti-elite. The one aspect I have not liked in this election is HRC did win the Primary with working class Democratic voters…But they were African- or Hispanic-American ones. The greatest proof of this was the largely Hispanic voters in line at Cardenas at 10 to vote on Friday. So I hate this elite vs anti-elite stuff.
2) I think the problem of cosmopolitan vs. anti-cosmopolitan is there are a lot urban working classes voting for HRC .
3) I am not sure why it bothers you so much campaigns overstate their candidate’s strengths. That is the entire job of the campaign!
4) The interesting aspect of this election cycle is it is the poor white working class communities suffering the most not minority ones. For instance, in California the biggest jump in crime in 2015 by race is the white crime not minorities. Also, the latest drug epidemic has hit white communities most which has never happened in our past. I consider a lot of this is private de-investment of these towns so I believe it is a natural consequence of the global economy and I don’t know a solution.
5) To support Point 4, it is the Hispanic- & African-American workers getting most of the wage increases the last two years. (I think this is because urban cities have a labor shortage.)
6) I would completely agree that Trump is a Huey Long type politician and not Goldwater. The question is whether the Republican Party moves that direction versus more of a traditional conservative candidates. (And Dems become the college educated white and minority party.) And remember Huckabee 2008 or Santorum 2012 had some Primary success so it is not coming out of nowhere.
7) I still think the big issue of 2016 was the original Trump speech announcing his candidacy in which illegal immigration and minorities position in the US is questioned.
I simply don’t understand the belief that Clinton is competent in anything other than personal aggrandizement. Her tenure as SoS was a disaster that continues to blaze away today.
As for who she will surround herself with- simply look around you at the rot of the government at almost every single level. These are the people and the intellectual descendants who have been running things for decades now.
I seriously doubt Trump was a true agent of change, but he is all that was on offer in this election. Even the avowed socialist candidate was miles better than Clinton.
Interesting thoughts, but the candidates’ foreign policy differences seem especially large, even between the major parties for a change – any meditations there?
Whatever happens tomorrow, I am frankly amazed that despite practically the entire establishment, left and right, constantly throwing everything they had at him for over a year, someone like Trump nevertheless made it this far where, even at this late hour, his victory is reasonably probable.
I fear that, whatever happens, this election will break many relations past any hope of reconciliation.
#3 isn’t enough?
What Hillary represents is a “the post-human empire.”
Progressivism as an ideology has hinged on creating and nourishing a generation that is “ahistorical” for it remembers nothing, conserves nothing, and learns only enough history or sociology to support the dogma, with little subtlety. Nor does it seek to develop each person as a craftsman of intellectual discovery, just enough to be vessels and the servitors of a hostile ruling class.
Faced with the permanent and total triumph of this ideology through demographic replacement the best some can muster is to vote for the guy whose #1 issue is legalizing pot.
Don’t forget abolishing licensing for hair-braiding.
In addition to Obamacare, Trump is skeptical about the climate change agenda, which if brought to full fruition would impoverish billions of people around the world.
There is no such thing as a “humble elite.” We’re better off with a non-elite, at least for four years.
Neither Clinton nor Trump are capable of learning anything new. So that’s a wash.
Trump is a much more talented politician than Clinton. He’s a man who prides himself on making deals. Accordingly, I think Trump can actually construct a useful solution to our immigration problem. (And it won’t include mass deportations.)
Like Steve Jobs, Trump can create a “reality distortion field.” That’s a useful skill for somebody whose biggest weapon is the bully pulpit. Trump’s personality is so big that he can even change the language. It’s yuuge.
Gary Johnson is an idiot.
Bottom line: Vote for Trump.
The crimes and corruption that Hillary and her cronies are getting away with (getting away with legally and electorally) are jaw-dropping. The post-Watergate, good-government era is definitely over. We’re now going back to the age of the corrupt political machine with a vengeance, but this time Boss Tweed is going to be in the White House. And there’s simply no evidence of success or even competence from her time in the Senate or, especially, as SOS to counterbalance that. As for Trump — I have really nothing at all to say in his favor either. I have also been disappointed by Gary Johnson’s lackluster campaign, but even so he’s still a very easy choice for my vote.
I was originally a Cruz or possibly a Walker supporter, but will be voting enthusiastically for Trump. I lived in the NY area for 35 years, and am very familiar with Mr. Trump. I considered him a gaudy showoff, I remember his financial near-death and resurrection, and his divorces and marriages. But my opinion changed when he entered the presidential campaign and proved to be the only Republican tough enough to withstand the barrage from the Democrats and their propaganda media. He has been relentlessly attacked from the start (despite the current claim that the Democrats wanted him to be the Republican candidate) and has been pronounced “dead” by the media in June, August and September. But here it is on Election Day and he is close. It will not take much of a hidden vote for him to win – I think quite a few voters are reluctant to say that they will vote for him because of the “ew” factor. You are voting for Trump? He said a bad word! He ran beauty contests! He called Mexicans rapists!
BTW, I think the distaste for Trump among the economists I read is based on distaste for Trump’s style. He is not their kind of person. I do not see much of an attempt to analyze Clinton.
Trump has not been a politician until the last two years and does not measure every statement by how it will be perceived. Consequently, many of his statements are routinely mischaracterized, instead of accurately reported (e.g., his temporary halt on immigration from the ME was translated into a ban on all Muslims).
I don’t endorse his trade positions, but I will note that a law that is a Free Trade Act is not necessarily that (Affordable Care Act, anyone?). He has a number of good ideas, such as repeal Obamacare, reduce taxes, repeal Obama executive orders and reduce regulation.
OTOH, does anyone need further evidence that Clinton is a loathsome person, corrupt and incompetent? She will lie to your face and expect to get away with it. I have asked her supporters to outline her accomplishments, and when someone does venture an answer, it is usually that she has “spoken out for” or “stood for”; nothing tangible.
Finally, I think the Republican Party will be finished if Trump loses. I believe many of his voters will leave it and I would not be surprised if a new party is formed. I don’t think that is a good idea (I would rather reform the RP), but they are out of patience with it.