Trump's Policies: Pros and Cons

[blackchubby38]

Regarding NATO.

Maybe just the presence of the organization was enough to keep the USSR from attacking the west. Or maybe it was also a conscious effort by the USSR not to trigger World War III. They probably figured there were other ways to wage war against capitalism and West. But it would be suicide to take on the collective strength of United States and Western Europe by going directly at them.

As for NATO's lack of action towards the USSR when it comes to their actions in Hungary and the other incidents that stavros mentioned, maybe that was conscious effort by the member nations not to trigger World War III. The idea being, we just recovered from almost 40 years of conflict that led to the loss of human life and devastated Europe's infrastructure. Do we really want go through that again with the possibility of nuclear weapons being brought into the equation?

[broncofan]

and before you point out Seinfeld's mother is Jewish, we note your vile attack on American Jews from 3 days ago so I guess you have a list of undesirables you want excluded from your country...?

I know this thread was about policies but I think you've hit upon a very important condition for the attitude of the alt-right towards Jews.

Rejection of Muslims is unconditional for Budweiser. But if you are Milo, can lay claim to Jewish ancestry and spend your days pouring hatred and scorn onto Muslims, you are beyond reproach. On the other hand, if you have spent your entire life in public service like Ginsburg and do your job you can leave this country with a doc marten boot to the ass. He is offering peace in return for silence, a condition that is eventually revoked if one accepts it.

I'm not implying the actions against Muslims are not disgusting without considering their collateral consequences, but this debate will eventually effect the dignity of non-Muslims as well. Same probably goes for the wall.

[Stavros]

Broncofan, what puzzles me about the alt-right in general, and the variants we have in Europe is that I don't see what the outcome of the attack on PC and 'Identity politics' looks like other than version of social armageddon in which 'they' all disappear, or cease to be a vocal minority (like they are going to shut up or hibernate for 4 years?), an exception being abortion where there is a clear intention to either make it illegal or in practical terms impossible. It has been argued that the war against the Jews in Europe began more than a millenium before the Holocaust and that what happened in the 1940s was thus the culmination of a long gestation of hatred and rejection, with a devastating outcome. In the USA in the past, immigration laws, beginning with the the law that limited Chinese immigration in 1889 continued with the limits imposed on Jewish immigration from the 1920s to the 1930s and had a clear objective to 'keep them out'. Although the Executive Order thus implies a Muslim ban, the USA has done it before, and has a clear political outcome, to stop more Muslims from entering the country. However, the hostility shown to Muslims and the various claims made about the threat that they pose means the Executive Order looks like a half-baked policy, as any new atrocity will incite a different set of arguments -should Muslims be rounded up and put in camps or 'sent home'?

Again, if Trump is to lead a campaign against political correctness, what in practical terms does it mean? And in the case of 'identity' rights, the point would be that if Americans are equal before the law, how does one alter the law to produce -what outcome? Same-sex relations and marriage are not going to be re-criminalized, the 'bathroom' rule is for States to determine, but I guess Federal funding for social programmes that relate to transgendered youth can be cut, just as the anticipated demolition of arts funding could damage transgendered artists who may need help to make a film, a play, an exhibition to get practical experience, be noticed, develop a reputation etc. The only outcome I see here is that the Federal government is cutting funding and even if artists can find sponsors somewhere else, if programmes designed to help transgendered youth with drug problems, mental health issues or just basic survival issues like somewhere to live and an income, are cut or stopped altogether, removing what little help they get is hardly a positive outcome. If it smacks of anything it is some form of resentment that transgendered people should have been able to claim it in the first place, much as there must be some voices who see in the Trump administration an opportunity to roll back the Welfare programmes Johnson set in motion in the 1960s which are seen as retarding economic development and creating welfare dependents. As is still the case we have to wait and see how Trump and his allies in Congress approach social policy, and it may be that the socially and economically most disadvantaged are most vulnerable on funding, but even then the outcome that saves the taxpayer money may be lost if the cost in delinquent behaviour increases as a result.

[Stavros]

Regarding NATO.
Maybe just the presence of the organization was enough to keep the USSR from attacking the west. Or maybe it was also a conscious effort by the USSR not to trigger World War III. They probably figured there were other ways to wage war against capitalism and West. But it would be suicide to take on the collective strength of United States and Western Europe by going directly at them.
As for NATO's lack of action towards the USSR when it comes to their actions in Hungary and the other incidents that stavros mentioned, maybe that was conscious effort by the member nations not to trigger World War III. The idea being, we just recovered from almost 40 years of conflict that led to the loss of human life and devastated Europe's infrastructure. Do we really want go through that again with the possibility of nuclear weapons being brought into the equation?

The developments of NATO on the one side, and the Warsaw Pact on the other can be seen as the outcome of the conferences the Allies held toward the end of the War, from Tehran to Potsdam which, in effect, carved Europe into two spheres of influence, with a tacit agreement that one side would not intervene in the other. This was laid down before the development of nuclear weapons and the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, yet some Cold War critics argued this gave great powers to both sides to stamp on dissent -from the Berlin riots of 1953 through to Poland in 1980 on one side, and on the other the campaigns financed by the CIA and domestic intelligence services to combat existing Communist Party politics in Western Europe, in the case of Italy descending into the violence associated with the Gladio network and the emergence in the 1960s of the 'Red Brigades'. Thus one side was paranoid about domestic communism, the other about domestic anti-communism, and this all seemed to melt away with the end of the USSR, which is why Putin is feared, because he has publicly mourned the end of the USSR and his attempts to create at least an economic substitute/successor have been stymied by the refusal of Ukraine to go along with it -Ukraine is see as an industrial and agricultural asset to important to be left alone.

Where this leaves NATO I am not sure. If there is a strategic difference, it is the Russian fear that states that were once reliable Soviet allies become part of NATO, even though they may not be able to afford it- I can't see Montenegro paying 2% of its GDP if it formally joins in April or May. Moreover, Putin's real fear is not that some European state is going to follow Napoleon or Hitler with an invasion, it is the loss of economic sovereignty that Putin feels Russia lost in the 'sale of the century' when his mentor, Boris Yeltsin was in power and, for example, western oil companies rushed in to grab their share of Russian resources, Putin having successfully rolled back many of those deals in the last 5 years or so. Thus for Putin globalization exploited Russia's weakness, and he thus sees Russian security is both military and in economic terms sees Russia as the hub of an economic bloc stretching from the Ukraine through the Caucasus and Central Asia to Vladivostok with access to China as a plus.

In this sense Trump is viewed as a maverick who by undermining NATO would embolden Putin to intervene on his western flank to keep NATO at a distance, though Pence and Mattis have both made commitments that suggest their influence will determine policy rather than Trump's rhetorical flourishes. At the moment, the move made by Putin to recognise travel documents issued by the 'independent republics' of 'Lugansk' and 'Donetsk' in eastern Ukraine raises the bar in terms of what happens next, and while this might mean the government in Kiev receives more aid from NATO, we have yet to see if Trump has an appetite for this fight given the doubts expressed over his relations with Putin, real or imagined.

[filghy2]

Broncofan, what puzzles me about the alt-right in general, and the variants we have in Europe is that I don't see what the outcome of the attack on PC and 'Identity politics' looks like other than version of social armageddon in which 'they' all disappear, or cease to be a vocal minority (like they are going to shut up or hibernate for 4 years?), an exception being abortion where there is a clear intention to either make it illegal or in practical terms impossible.

For most of these people I think it's about the journey rather than the destination. Some people seem to derive their sense of purpose and satisfaction primarily from being part of a group in opposition to other groups that they hate/resent/fear, rather than from any positive goal for themselves. Even if, say, all muslims converted to christianity tomorrow, these people would only be satisfied temporarily. They would soon shift their focus to some other enemy.

This sort of tribalism may be hard-wired into us biologically, because hostility and fear towards other tribes was a good survival strategy in the early days of humanity. For most of recent human history, this has been overcome by culture (broadly defined), which has been critical to human progress. Essentially, we have learnt that cooperation with others and evidence-based learning is a superior strategy to endless fighting and prejudice-based beliefs. Periodically, however, we regress and tribalism regains the upper hand; usually after some economic crisis that leads people to doubt the benefits of cooperation.

One key difference between this and previous episodes is the role of technology. In the old days people were dependent on a relatively small number of media sources, which generally filtered out extreme views (unless the extremists took them over), and also meant that most people were exposed to a reasonably similar range of information and views. Now it is much easier for hate-mongers to spread disinformation, and for people to live in a bubble where they are only exposed to 'information' that confirms their prejudices.

[Stavros]

According to the New York Times, there is a split in the Administration on transgendered students whose rights were protected by directives issued by the Obama administration which conservatives want reversed. The claim is that the split is between the Education Dept which seeks to maintain a Federal directive on rights, and Justice which is opposed. It transpires that Betsy DeVos is a supporter of transgender rights where Jeff Sessions is not. Trump has swung both ways on the issue, wanting the issue sent back to the States rather than see it become a Federal issue, and there is some confusion over the specific issue of 'toilet rights' and bullying, as this quote illustrates:

While the draft being circulated in the Trump administration amounts to a significant rollback of transgender protections over all, it does include language stating that schools must protect transgender students from bullying, a provision Ms. DeVos asked be included, one person with direct knowledge of the process said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/u...=top-news&_r=0

Apparently both Justice and Education have to agree on policy, so one awaits a final judgement. I can see where this kind of issue appears to be simple, with regard to bullying, and wonder how much of an issue it should be with transgendered students who cannot be a major drain on resources, and for whom a separate or unisex bathroom would seem the obvious solution. But I leave it to others with more knowledge of schools to comment. The broader issue may be important as a litmus test of Trump's campaign rhetoric on political correctness and the position Christian fundamentalists take on gender issues.

[holzz]

More factories in Rust Belt.

Pros - more jobs for depressed regions. More exports to halt trade balance. pro for him to get more votes in hardline GOP areas or Democrats areas like Ohio and Indiana, or PN. Stop reliance on imported goods from China, and "unfair" trade from China.

Cons - China exports a lot since it has less regulation and lower living standards/wages. iPhones or cars made in the USA would cost a lot more. Not many industries could set up in the Rust Belt, since they won't switch from India or CHina, or Africa, overnight. More thought is neede d to see which industries are most economical, have the best opportunity cost, or comparative advantage.

[trish]

More factories in Rust Belt.

Pros - more jobs for depressed regions. More exports to halt trade balance. pro for him to get more votes in hardline GOP areas or Democrats areas like Ohio and Indiana, or PN. Stop reliance on imported goods from China, and "unfair" trade from China...

These aren’t policies, they are goals. One problem so far with Donald is he has no coherent job’s policy. The coal industry is depressed because it’s being squeezed out by oil and natural gas. An executive order that allows coal companies to dump their tailings into fresh streams won’t create jobs in West Virginia, although it will affect the health of the inhabitants adversely. The sad thing is that Donald knows that (even if his acolytes don’t). His order had nothing to do with jobs - in West Virginia or elsewhere. He just wanted to poke his thumb in the eyes of the EPA and environmentalists.

What the country sorely needs is to maintain its deteriorating infrastructure: dams, sewer systems, power grids, bridges, roads etc. Before the GOP obstructionists took over the legislative branch there was bipartisan support for an annual infrastructure budget. No Republican seems to have cared about the jobs lost when that money was diverted to give tax breaks for their donors.

Those tax breaks, we’re told, will spur corporations to make more products and thereby create jobs. There are several problems with this ‘policy.’ Tax-breaks for large corporations aren’t Trump’s idea. They’ve been tried and have failed before. 1) Tax-breaks don’t generate production, demand does. If enough corporations pay their workers shit, there will be no one around who can afford to buy their products. 2) Job growth no longer increases in proportion with increased production because production lines are almost entirely automated these days. A factory that once employed a thousand or more laborers now employs a few hundred. I don’t know of anyone who has a workable policy solution to the problems posed by modern automation.

The Wall Donald wants to build will admittedly create a number of temporary construction jobs, and it will cost $15-million to build. It will be paid for by American tax-payers. The tariffs Donald threatens to place on Mexican products will be paid for by American consumers. If we stop consuming Mexican goods, we’ll collect no more tariffs to cover the cost of the wall. Either way you look at it, WE pay for the wall. The farmers around me, who are all Republican and who all depend on seasonal laborers, get government subsidies and depend on government agricultural forecasts (what insects, what weeds, what blight does one need to inoculate against this year) are beginning to have second thoughts about whether they voted for the right person.

Policy is not Donald’s medium. To develop a policy requires understanding how things interlock and interact with each other and how they react to perturbations from the outside. Donald has never demonstrated he has a head for such things. He knows ‘terrific’ people, posts ‘amazing’ tweets and he has the ‘best words.’ He knows how to bankrupt a company and come out smelling like a rose with gold plated petals. He knows how to hire foreign laborers and hide them from view. He knows how to stiff workers and bail on loans. He knows how to look into a camera shout, "You're fired!" A phrase we may well have to get used to over the next four years.

[broncofan]

Trish covered everything I wanted to say in my post and more. But my reaction to your post was similar. How do we achieve these objectives? Nobody would object to greater exports. How do we increase exports? Are we only trying to minimize the trade deficit and therefore just going to discourage imports? You're more likely to decrease imports and exports at the same time because other countries don't like having their goods taxed.

Who wouldn't want to increase employment in distressed areas. Is it the onerous corporate tax that is preventing companies from hiring more people? I haven't seen any empirical evidence that's the case. Do we subsidize industries to hire workers instead of using automation? Or do we pay to retrain people or provide social services for people who are temporarily displaced? Donald's answers to these questions are like a child's. He does not understand people have been grappling with these issues and it's not as simple as, produce our own stuff, increase the stuff we sell, and build factories.

Instead of infrastructure projects, which the Republicans see as welfare, they want to revive an economy that is obsolete and pay enormous costs to keep it afloat. I don't mind the government paying out money (I think it's a humane thing to do), but isn't this a more indirect way of helping people who are economically distressed and don't want to admit it.

[Stavros]

These aren’t policies, they are goals.

The only thing I would add to your articulate post is the danger of presenting policy as slogans, such as 'Build the Wall', 'lock her up' and so on. Even before he entered office Trump realised that his other slogan -'Scrap Obamacare'- was empty rhetoric, and that was just after one hour with Obama. Affordable Health Care is an example of how the determination by some Republicans to erase everything created during the Obama Presidency is a form of anti-policy revenge with no coherent substitute just as the transgendered student issue both reverses bathroom option policy while protecting victims from bullying, or claiming to.

I have read that at your 'Town Hall' meetings citizens have complained to their Senators and Congressional Reps about the lack of clarity on health care, while Trump and Calamity Sean claim these are all rent-a-crowd agitators who may not even live in the district the meeting is being held in. However, barely a month has gone by and there is still a lot yet to emerge, in policy terms, particularly with regard to taxation and tariffs, but if there are already divisions in government on an issue like transgender students which I am guessing is not that important to most Americans, policy-making on the 'big issues' may yet expose even more weakness and division, and that does not make good policy, and runs counter to Trump's claim to bring people together.