The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Obligatory Video: Donald F–ing Trump

Posted on | April 29, 2011 | 19 Comments

Honestly, I ought to ignore this, but it’s already everywhere else so I might as well do it:

“Listen you mother f***ers we’re going to tax you 25 percent“

Y’know, there’s good populism — defending the honest interests of ordinary people against corrupt machinations of the elite — and then there’s bad populism: Bully-boy nonsense that appeals to idiots who can’t be bothered with facts.

Protectionist tariffs aimed at punishing foreign economic competitors are as idiotic as high income taxes aimed at punishing “the rich.” Both are bad policies which are supported by ignoramuses who cannot grasp that scapegoating villains is no substitute for sound economic policies.

Slapping a 25-percent tariff on Chinese imports would be bad policy, harmful to American consumers. It would take less time to explain what’s wrong with protectionism than it takes Donald Trump to advocate it, but because it appeals to that ignorant bully-boy instinct, why bother arguing the point? Trump is simply wrong, and if you don’t understand why he’s wrong, it’s unlikely that any argument I offer will persuade you to oppose the nonsensical policy he advocates.

Part of the problem here is the failure of Republican political spokemen to articulate the arguments for economic freedom. If the GOP were more consistently in favor of genuine free-market policies (a major failing of the Bush administration), and would take the time to explain why free-market policies are better for everyone, rich and poor alike (which was Ronald Reagan’s great strength), then neither “populist” protectionism nor “populist” class-warfare rhetoric would have any hope of success.

Another part of the problem, as liberal academic Michael Kazin recently bemoaned in the New Republic, is the fathomless ignorance of independent “swing” voters. Some of Kazin’s critics have slammed him as an elitist snob, but he is correct in saying that most independents are “just a confused and clueless horde . . . more myopic than moderate.”

This is not the same as saying these people are all stupid. Rather, it is a recognition that the more attention people pay to current events and public policy, the more likely they are to identify either as Democrats or Republicans. All these pundits who blather about “bipartisanship” are missing the point: Partisanship is a good thing, because it forcuses and clarifies policy differences, and encourages voter interest in public affairs.

Many people who describe themselves as “independent” are, in reality, just people who don’t pay much attention to politics. And there is nothing wrong with ignoring politics, except when you begin encouraging such ignorant people to vote. “Swing” voters tend to be very superficial, judging candidates on the basis of how they come across on TV (this is why the televised debates are often so decisive in presidential elections). And “swing” voters are also usually bandwagon-jumpers, who like to vote for whichever candidate they think will be the likely winner.

Samuel Popkin has postulated the “low-information rationality” theory of how people who don’t pay much attention to politics make their decisions at election time. And Popkin believes that, at the bottom line, such people are reasonably good judges of their own interests. They may occasionally be deceived by an opportunistic charlatan, but usually rectify their errors when the deceptions are finally exposed.

All of which is to say that while the Trump “bubble” is discouraging, it is unlikely to last very long.

(Hat tip: Left Coast Rebel.)


Bookmark and Share
Category: China, Donald Trump, Economics, Taxes, Video

Comments

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    You have a point. Tariffs invite retaliation and no one wins. Wasn’t the draconian Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 a significant factor in the prolonging the Great Depression? It quickly led to foreign tariffs against American goods and caused economic havoc.

    I had no intention of voting for Trump but now he ceases even to entertain.

  • Joe

    All this speech shows is that Trump is not the least bit serious about running for President. I am no prude, I can out swear a drunk syphillic sailor when I am on a roll. But I am not running for President. Guess what, neither is Donald Trump. This is populist Vegas self promotion.

    Even Joe “Big F’ning Deal” Biden thought he was off mike when he made that comment to Obama.

    I am glad that Trump is getting in the President’s face a bit. Good for him. But we need to keep Trump’s “campaign” in perspective.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, protective tariffs invite retaliation, but it’s not just that: Like subsidies, protective tariffs distort prices, favoring some products (and some producers) over others, at the expense of consumers.

    One of the reasons why the United States has such a problem getting other companies to cooperate on free trade is that our enormous (and wrong-headed) agricultural subsidies invite retaliatory measures. Why the hell are we subsidizing sugar cane growers, which drives up costs for every food consumer in the U.S., while benefitting a relative handful of growers in Florida and Louisana, who might more profitably be growing other crops without subsidies), to say nothing of how this policy poisons our relationships with Caribbean nations?

    But protective tariffs violate the very principle for which American colonists fought the Revolution! The whole point of dispute was that the British wished to control the American trade, excluding French, Dutch, etc., to benefit monopolists in England, and force the colonists to pay steep taxes on these goods. The colonial leaders granted the legitimacy of a tax imposed for purposes of revenue, but objected to a tax imposed for purposes of protection.

    The whole point of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations was to argue against the prevalent mercantilist theories by which Parliament was attempting to justify its protectionist policies. Smith demonstrated that it was precisely through trade — the exchange of goods and services — that nations increased their wealth. The proper policy was therefore obviously not to restrict trade (as protectionist policies do) but rather to encourage trade, through the removal of policies that impede markets.

    Stop the subsidies, stop the tariffs, stop the stupid over-regulation!

  • http://www.rightviewfromtheleftcoast.blogspot.com Mark Goluskin

    The guy is an unserious clown. If I believed in conspiracy theories, I think The Donald is an Obama plant. But, I think he will end up down the same path that another front-runner had. Heard of President Guiliani? Exactly.

  • http://www.rightviewfromtheleftcoast.blogspot.com Mark Goluskin

    Yes it was. But that is sure not taught in what passes for history class today. It is that the eeeeevvviiiiilllll, heartless Herbert Hoover kept the depression going and the crippled Franklin Delano Roosevelt rode in on his wheelchair and all became well. Hmm, sounds kind of like things today.

  • Joe

    I am with you completely on Ag subsidies. In addition to your excellent list, you left out how the sugar subsidy is for the benefit of a few megal wealthy individuals. Growing sugar in far south Florida causes environmental damage to the Everglades that we then then have to pay to fix–and has to be one of the stupidest government interventions ever.

    We need to end these sort of games.

    And Trump if he was serious would know punative tarrifs helped cause and prolong the Great Depression. Plus I suspect China would not take a 25% U.S. tarrif lying down. It would retailate and given fiscal realities right now, that is not an engagement we would really want to get into.

  • Pingback: What Happens in Vegas? Donald Trump Unleashes F-Bomb Tirade | REPUBLICAN REDEFINED

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    Stacy, I am impressed with your grasp of the subject matter. Yes, one of the victims of protective tariffs is the American consumer. He is forced to pay higher prices for goods.

  • Anonymous

    This take on “independent voters” reminds me of Rush Limbaugh’s take on them and his irritation at the pundit class for making so much of them.

  • Pingback: Serious Candidates Don’t Drop the F Bomb During Political Speeches | The Lonely Conservative

  • SteveG

    Trump is a smart negotiator.
    Maybe he thinks the Chinese will blink at talk of tariffs.
    It doesn’t hurt to threaten someone with something you have no intention of doing.

    I doubt he wouldn’t defend South Korea… but he doesn’t want the world to take the US for granted.

    I’m OK with him being the bully. Not OK with him being President.

  • johnl

    This “tax the Chinese” business is even stupider than “tax the rich”. Both are something-for-nothing stories but the idea that people in another country are going to provide free stuff to Americans is just insane.

  • http://2011.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    It doesn’t hurt to threaten someone with something you have no intention of doing.

    Only if (1) the other guy doesn’t already know you have no intention of doing it, or that other people have to go along with you, who won’t, or (b) the other guy doesn’t already know that what you’re threatening to do will hurt you worse than it hurts him.

  • Pingback: Donald Trump, the Rated “R” Superstar … Trump Drops “F” Bombs During Speak in Vegas | Scared Monkeys

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1385852725 Richard Mcenroe

    If you voted for Sanjaya on American Idol but didn’t vote in your last off-year election “because it won’t make any difference,” you might be an “independent voter.”

    As for Trump, the last thing we need is another President who isn’t used to being talked back to.

  • dmpward

    “Part of the problem here is the failure of Republican political spokemen to articulate the arguments for economic freedom.”

    Exactly. Well, any mainstream conservative group is in the same boat.

    How hard is it to set up a campaign highlighting the contradiction of calling for balance and shared sacrifice while increasing expenditue by trillions.

    The Republicans in Congress need to wake up. The voters may well want Congress to work together to resolve the crisis. However, now, the middle is far to the left of where it should be, so any consensus will still be bad for the country.

    I have not seen this discussed much, but Obama has moved expenditure from the discretionary column into the non-discretionary column. Certainly one way to ensure your budget increases become untouchable.

  • dmpward

    Notwhithstanding that Trump is ill informed if he thinks a curse filled rant is the way to the voters heart, there is a time and place for even a curse filled rant.

    An event arranged by four Republican Womens groups is not the place.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    (c) the other guy doesn’t have the power to call-in your loans.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705855851 Joy McCann

    Just got a telegram from Trump. It says, “just because you don’t know what I’m doing, don’t assume I don’t know what I’m doing.”

    I remain skeptical, of course . . .

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE