Posted on by Nathan Riley

Is Trump Winning Elections?

On Wednesday (March 26), Donald Trump, as part of his blizzard of new ideas and executive orders, announced that all foreign cars will have a 25% tariff. Presumably the three American manufacturers should be happy.

Curious, I looked for the American automobile manufacturers’ reactions. After saying they support President Trump, American Automakers, the trade association for American automobile manufacturers, was unenthusiastic. First, they wanted a durable solution, and the dramatic announcement of a major market change didn’t sound durable.

There is no sign that foreign competition is the American manufacturers’ major concern. The companies wanted answers to questions that governments normally provide before, not after, a drastic policy change is announced. General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler) wanted to “avoid raising prices.” Making it probable that their problem was not foreign competition but that their cars were too expensive for American buyers. If the tariffs raised prices and consumers could not pay them, the number of cars made by these automakers would decline. This worry was accelerated by another Trump tariff on imported aluminum and steel. Making metals more expensive means car prices will increase. Normally, a government carefully weighs these issues before starting a new policy. If Trump had done that it was clear he never told U.S. automobile makers. In fact, the suspicion is that Trump, forever the showman, picked the 25% tariff because he liked the number and wanted to make a public impression. No good can come out of policy changes that are not backed by serious study.

Stock traders also worried. The price of Ford and General Motors stocks fell. The day before the tariffs Ford stock traded for $10.30; by Friday afternoon, two days after Trump’s announcement of the tariff, it was trading at $9.65. General Motors went from $52.59 at the close of Tuesday to $46.39 on Friday afternoon. Stellantis went from $12.40 down to $11.30.

In other words, the 25% tariff imposed on foreign cars did not bring good news. I’m not concerned about the automobile manufacturers’ stock prices, but I am curious whether these businesses really want Trump to be President. It is likely that the rich and powerful are nervously watching the President and wish he wasn’t there.

There is evidence that most people are turned off by the Donald. An election in Pennsylvania for its state senate flipped the district. A Republican local elected official, Josh Parsons, lost to a local Democratic mayor, James Malone. What was red turned blue in a district that overwhelmingly supported Trump.

Even the Trump administration is worried; they told Elise Stefanik from upstate New York she should stay in Congress. She will give up her chance to be the ambassador to the United Nations. Far from New York City, in upstate, the Republicans are the majority, but the administration was worried, and it decided to play it safe and keep her in the Republican majority.

Plainly, Trump is losing support, but the Republican in Pennsylvania lost by the narrowest of margins. The next test of Trump’s popularity occurs on April 1st. In Florida, there are two special elections for Congress caused by the resignation of Republican members of Congress. Matt Gaetz’s successor is being chosen, and Mike Waltz, who resigned to become one of Trump’s national security advisors, will have his successor chosen. In Wisconsin, millions of dollars are being spent in a statewide election, choosing a state supreme court judge. Brad Schimel, a conservative, is running against Susan Crawford, a liberal. The winner will decide if the state’s highest court has a liberal or conservative bent.

Clearly, one reason Trump is losing popularity is the aggressive behavior of Elon Musk. The Democrats are insisting their judge will stand up to Musk while Schimmel will do the rich man’s bidding.

We are just days away from an early read on Trump’s staying power. If the automobile manufacturers and Pennsylvania voters are changing their minds about Trump, this helps explains the decline in his polling numbers. On Tuesday April Fool’s Day we will find out if Trump’s bull-in-a-chinashop style will hurt him in the elections.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Is Trump a Tyrant?

Trump is making everybody nervous. His latest proposal for a 30-day ceasefire threatens his plans to establish normal relations with Russia.

Russia will only accept a ceasefire if Ukraine demobilizes its armed forces. Putin won’t allow Ukraine to rearm during a ceasefire, and so far he is winning this war. At the same time, Putin would look really bad if he rejected this idea. So Trump is making everybody nervous. Is he destroying the progress he’s made towards normal relations with Russia? Or is he making nice to the vast majority in the United States who damn Russia for invading Ukraine?

His other claim to progress in foreign affairs is the ceasefire between Palestine and Israel continues. But everybody is worried that war will resume any week now. Given the intense hatred between Israel and Palestine, this tension will remain normal.

The two wars conducted when Joe Biden was President horrified me and made me an unenthusiastic Democrat. Trump is doing so badly that he is restoring my enthusiasm for the Democrats.

His attacks on DEI, a desirable Democratic program, have inescapable racist overtones and anti-LGBTQ messages. His promises to dismiss and humiliate women make Trump indefensible. To nobody’s surprise, the President makes rational discussion impossible.

Diversity is a necessary ingredient of Democracy. It makes the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian Americans members of the same community. In this sense, it serves the goal of inclusion—we should all get along. Equity offers all persons in the United States an opportunity to choose their own path.

Trump tears down computer sites offering applications for student loans, making it difficult, if not impossible, for families to pay for higher education. Computer information about filing a complaint is quelled.

It is absurd and embarrassing that in the 21st century the United States is closing its Department of Education. All governments have education offices, and the United States looks screwy to close its department.

Clear signals are being sent that it is okay to hire whites and create obstacles to blacks and Spanish-speaking people. Turning the Civil Rights gains of the 1960’s into partisan programs supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans is a sop to those who accept the weak arguments that blacks and Spanish-speaking people take jobs away from whites. The objective should be finding jobs for everybody.

It is foolish to blame diversity, equity, and inclusion for making wages fall behind rising prices. The public has to make this clear to the political leadership. Prosperity is not full employment; prosperity is full employment if wages keep up with prices.

Trump’s pleasure at squashing DEI programs is too often embarrassing. On March 7th, the Enola Gay was removed from the Defense Department’s website. The word “gay” is a no-no, and Defense Department Secretary Hegseth has banned it from its website. Unhappily, Enola Gay doesn’t mean two guys holding hands; it is the name of the airplane that dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. Like the censors, who try to squelch sexual scenes, banning words leads to foolish embarrassment that makes, in this case, the Defense Department look stupid.

Add it all up, and Trump appears to be volunteering for the role of tyrant. He is tilting at programs that make free speech and divergent political views feasible. He gets furious when his order doesn’t happen. Most adults accept that they only get their way some of the time. It is unclear if Trump has accepted this reality.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

What Do I Get For My Taxes?

Ralph Nader is a sharp critic of the Democratic Party. For example, he believes the Party made a fatal mistake when they abandoned most states to the Republicans.

Like many critics, he thinks the D’s dug a hole when they devoted their efforts to impeaching and damning Trump. Sensible voters want to know, “What will you do for me?” Hating Trump does not answer this question.

Nonetheless, Nader remains pragmatic. “We’re sick of not having the government return the benefits of massive taxation to us.”

 “All we hear about is empire abroad. All we hear about is more military budgets.”

His attack on the Defense budget is widely shared among left voters. The attackers wish this agency was a giant piggybank that could pay for programs that voters will love, like the expensive proposition of providing healthcare for all. This view is untested in elections. No candidate besides Nader has pushed it, and when he ran he was damned as a spoiler: a vote for him was viewed as a vote for Republicans. Like most Americans, Nader believes the nation and the party is controlled by wealthy donors. Having good ideas for changing this dominance would be popular and improve Democratic chances.

Good advice, even from an unfriendly source, deserves serious consideration. His test: making the government return the benefits of massive taxation is realistic and a guide for supporting or rejecting Democratic policy ideas.

He clearly lowers the importance of helping the transgendered, people of color, women, and other groups. His criterion is good policy is universal. It can answer the question “What will it do for me?” Using this test, the Democrats top priority should be finding policies that bring benefits to every voter.

The most obvious example is ending the copays and the costs of medical insurance. It’s an ambitious idea, saying that a person seeing a doctor shouldn’t have to reach for their wallet will be expensive. It would require constant political support. European countries regularly limit their medical budgets to keep costs in line. Obviously, that restricts some medical care.

 Such a program may be impossible in the United States, given the opposition to taxation. Countries like Sweden devote 41.4% of their gross domestic product to taxes, in return for free college, free medical care, and comprehensive laws governing vacation time, hours of work. A degree of government supervision that would make most Americans apprehensive.

Nonetheless, Democrats should find ways to reduce the cost of medical care. It is a basic program that voters will greet with approval.

Their recent record is discouraging. Since 2023, Congress has passed laws to bring high-speed internet connections to rural areas and schools. The thought is there, but nothing happens. On January 6, 2025, the new Congress updated the laws and time will tell if the high speed connections are installed. The failure by the Democrats to translate the thought into deeds is a reason why rural states are red and backed Trump.

It should be easy to do. Democrats and Republicans favor the idea. It would be a real-life example to the question, “What do we get for our taxes?” Hopefully, these connections will finally go into effect.

Reviving the Democrats requires actual changes to people’s lives. It is one thing to see the need for improving infrastructure, but voters are clearly correct; they want to know what actually got built. Joe Biden made this a priority, but the Democrats never convinced the public that the construction made the United States better.

Nader’s test showing voters how high taxes improve their lives is pragmatic and sensible. Democrats should adopt this test. Surely, the voter who asks, “I pay all these taxes, what do I get?” deserves more than a pat on the back. He or she should actually see the benefits. Reviving the Democratic Party means doing things, not talking about them.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump’s negotiating style

On Friday, Trump’s high tariffs on Canada and Mexico were in effect. On Monday they were gone.

On Tuesday Trump said the Palestinians must leave Gaza, the most extreme demand of Netanyahu’s ultra nationalist coalition. The United States should take over Gaza, he added. Within hours, European and Arab States including Saudi Arabia and Egypt said no way.

Trump had to have been pleased. The most extreme Israeli proposal had been trounced and died without Trump leaving any fingerprints. Indeed, he roped in the most extreme supporters of Israel. The ones most likely to contribute to the Republican Party and most willing to call Democratic doves antisemites were happy. They were convinced that their President Donald Trump was a true friend of Israel, uncontaminated by wishy washy moderates.

The Arab’s rejection presumably was music to Trump’s ear: no American troops would go to West Asia. But Trump was the crazy man who wanted to use American power in Palestine. Democrats’ reaction is still taking shape. They and their friendly media accused Trump of being a mad man, exactly the image he wanted to project.

The other step Trump took offered Iran unspecified goodies if Tehran gave up atomic weapons. A proposal that presumably sits well with the Saudi Arabians. Trump reached this step without looking like a moderate. Netanyahu was neutralized. He was a major endorser of Trump and has damaged, if not destroyed, his relationship with Democrats. Trump’s headline grabbing proposal to turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” is actually the opening gambit for the intricate negotiations that could lead to stability.

Bloomberg reported, “US President Donald Trump said Wednesday he’s willing to immediately start working on a new nuclear deal with Iran that allows the country to ‘peacefully grow and prosper,’ seemingly softening his stance on the Islamic Republic.”

In a matter of hours, Netanyahu’s visit had generated a proposal to reduce tension with Iran. An outcome from the first face-to-face meeting between the President and the Israeli leader that nobody predicted. Trump had gotten the better of Netanyahu. Democrats were left sputtering. They don’t support the removal of the Palestinians and consider Trump’s Riviera proposal outlandish. Accusations that usually have the effect of increasing Republican confidence in Trump and making it unlikely in the near future that Democrats will play a constructive role.

There is no mystery to Trump’s method: open with an idea that will be rejected and then move on. Putting Israel in a box might create a stunning success—a cease fire that lasts.

The Democrats project competence as opposed to Trump’s chaos, but they lack Trump’s showmanship. The voters are evenly divided but Democrats should not be fooled with the comforting belief that Trump is crazy and incompetent. It’s safe to say that eventually Democrats will make more specific, even damning, criticisms of Trump’s Middle East policies.  

Posted on by Nathan Riley

It Wasn’t The Left, It Was The Party

It may be normal politics to blame the left for failures committed by all the Democrats. But the D’s should spread their net much wider. It was not just the left that made the party appear hapless in 2024.

My roommate, a poet, recently returned from a variety show at a Brooklyn home. A friendly gathering where photographers displayed their work, poets shared their creations, singers jammed, and everyone left with a warm glow—transgendered, gay, lesbian, or whatever choice the guests preferred. Who wouldn’t say “they” if that was the preference of a guest at this gathering. The left will only make modest changes. They are not a majority of the Democratic party, but it would be nearly impossible for this party to become a majority without their support.

In his book “Where have all the Democrats gone” Ruy Teixeira stresses the importance of social gatherings to cement political loyalty. Labor unions offered events and gathering places for years. Union members and their families and friends assumed we are all Democrats. That social cohesion is gone, replaced by the NRA and its social events. The assumption among this working-class group is we are all Republicans.

This is one meaning of the thought that the Democrats have lost the working class. Adding to this gap is the change in union membership. Industrial workers form one group among union membership. Other strong unions represent schoolteachers, government employees, and healthcare workers. Groups who identify as middle-class.

The industrial workers understand that their employers, be they General Motors or U.S. Steel, face stiff competition from foreign companies. They have softened their adversarial posture, recognizing that protecting their industry from overseas competitors requires a different approach. Needless to add, they are thrilled that Donald Trump will erect tariffs to protect their jobs and keep their employers competitive.

Teixeira seeks a revival of Democratic social solidarity with the working class, and he places great faith in a rejuvenated labor movement. His efforts should be encouraged, but he certainly is off base if he relies on blaming the left for causing the D’s problems. The left is here and enjoying its variety shows. It thinks Trump is a buffoon or even dangerous.

My roommate looks stunning in the dresses he frequently wears. His friends and I lavish him with compliments. He will continue to display his creativity. It is improbable that Teixeira’s reproach will have an effect on their lives and preferences.

And it will certainly be true that Kamala Harris would enjoy herself at one of these variety show. The Republicans scored a direct hit with the tag line “Kamala is for ‘they/them.’ President Trump is for you.”

Teixeira worries that the Democratic National Committee will favor the Kamala Harrises, and the NRA will retain its hold on working class. He is absolutely correct that this is a critical question; the tactic he favors, blaming the left for the D’s decline, misses the mark.

It might be the right tactic but it is the wrong analysis.

Roosevelt’s party defeated itself.

From the moment D’s decided to impeach Trump in his first term, they became enamored with anti-Trump hostility. It backfired. Democratic hostility proved to many Americans that Trump will make a difference. According to the Dems, Trump would destroy democracy and the rule of law. In other words, the Dems hostility convinced many that Trump is a genuine change agent. So great was mainstream party leaders’ faith in the electoral appeal of civic virtue that they spent years on venomous attacks.

Attacks that amounted to endorsements for the millions who thought the nation was on the wrong track. Undoubtedly the Dems kept the party united, but they ignored the crucial question: what will the party do to make America better. Trump had an answer. The Dems proudly touted their programs that helped the poor while allowing the nation to be flooded with low-wage workers. Obviously, it did not address the question. As of now, the Democrats still have not projected a program that will generate wage inflation. While Trump devotes most of his time to this popular task.

It was the Dems’ failure to have a popular and unifying program that allowed the trans issue to become a hot-button election issue. Had the Dems something to offer in the way of policy the trans issue would have stayed in the background. The left did not push the issue to the forefront. It was the Republicans. They got away with it because the Dems offered no alternative that engaged the voter.

The Dems are still at Trump’s mercy. They must wait to see if high tariffs raise Americans’ standard of living. Shifting the blame to the left avoids criticizing other wings of the Democratic Party, but it could stifle policies that truly compete with Trump’s.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

The News is about Peace

Since this piece was first published, immediately after the ceasefire, several criticisms became obvious. John Measheimer stressed there can be no peace with Israel where the Jews dominate the Palestinians just as the whites dominated blacks in apartheid South Africa. Unless Trump’s special ambassador Steve Witkoff can breathe new life into the Abraham Accords, allowing Arab gulf states to finance Arab peacekeepers, Israel will be the sole country judging if Hamas is complying with the terms of the peace treaty. In this circumstance, it is widely expected that Israel will renew its attack on Hamas. With the release of the hostages, Hamas will have lost its trump card pressuring Israel to act peacefully. Whatever else is true, this ceasefire is at best only a beginning.   

Friday, January 17, 2025

Days before Trump officially becomes President peace has become the news story. If all the provisions of the agreement become effective war between Israel and Palestine might be over.

Antiwar analyst John Mearsheimer concluded that the proposed treaty preserves the close relationship between Hamas and the Palestinians.

Palestinians will be able to return to their homes and Israelis will leave Gaza. Hostages will be released, and some Palestinian prisoners will get out of jail.

Israel might be compelled to live with a Palestinian nation says Mearsheimer, a professor of International Relations at the University of Chicago, who believes the goal of a Greater Israel might be over if this treaty begins a real peace process.

Although negotiated by President Biden’s appointees many Democrats are conceding that Trump’s forceful backing was critical. Trump promised to end the Ukrainian war on day one, but actually he may started peace in the Middle East on day one. A task everyone thought would be much harder. It is a stunning challenge to the Democratic Party.

Presumably a lasting peace will require peacekeepers. Trump is not going to send U.S. troops. One possibility is using Egyptian soldiers financed by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. In return Israel will establish normal relations with other Muslim nations.

Iran would be on the sidelines. As a Shia nation it doesn’t fit easily with the Sunni Muslims who border Israel. In other words, optimists believe this is a big deal that might give Trump a place in history.

Nothing is certain but in a matter of days peace has become possible and this has worked a revolution in the political dialogue.

Consider the impact on the religious fundamentalist Trump appointed Ambassador to Israel. Mike Huckabee will have the happy task of soothing relations between Israel, the U.S. and Palestine. He won’t be a cheerleader for Israeli aggression that was the widespread anxiety in December. Rather he will speak a common language with Israelis who justify their actions by citing the Bible’s Old Testament.

This is a shocking possibility. The Republican hope that Jews will switch parties. It might happen because the new President is more diplomatic than the Democrats.

Democrats have spent years condemning Trump as lawless and stupid. What happens if it was the Democrats who refused to listen and evaluate?

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Stranger Danger

          Joe Biden’s troubles shouldn’t change Freedom Democrats’ minds. We support him even with health problems.

Stranger danger is one reason for staying away from Republicans. It’s a basic Republican principle that strangers should make decisions that in a free country should be the responsibility of one person.

Becoming a mother is a responsibility that lasts decades. It should be the mother who decides to accept this responsibility, but Republicans insist that government—that is, the strangers—law enforcement, and churches should be equal partners. Although the fetus never expresses an opinion, right-to-life sympathizers inject themselves into a decision that realistically is the responsibility of the mother. These strangers believe they know what will protect the child and in fact that they can ignore the mother’s choice.

This is absurd. Consider a good thing; a referendum proposal in Arkansas that would permit  abortions up to sixteen weeks and in cases with special medical needs. This is a good faith effort to find a middle ground between pro-choice advocates and right-to-life diehards by permitting a procedure. If the bill gets on the ballot, it should be supported.

However, four months is a reasonable period for an adult comfortable with her body, but what about a fourteen-year-old girl who has an irregular menstrual cycle? She could easily take more than four months before she recognizes her pregnancy. These types of problems are aggravated by stranger danger. At least to my mind, I don’t want a child to become a mother unless her family is willing to accept the responsibility. This is just one of the dozens of real-life examples that make it difficult, if not impossible to write rules about the complexity of human relationships.

In a free society, the mother should choose. Strangers have no business making rules about complicated problems like this. It’s already a difficult decision, and allowing strangers to make it more difficult is destructive and impinges on freedom.

This is only one of the areas where thoughtless government officials and their public supporters allow private matters to become the business of strangers.

These decisions can be fatal. When it became clear that OxyContin was making some users have a compulsive habit, little help was offered to them, and public wrath was unleashed on pharmaceutical companies for making the drug.

Users were simply told, “Stop!” To nobody’s surprise, while some stopped others entered the illegal market. Politicians thoughtlessly expanded crime. Nobody tells a heavy person, “Stop eating!” But the powers that be, without thinking, huffed and puffed and said, “No more. You can’t get this drug. We’re going to make it illegal.” By doing this, the government forced drug users to enter the illegal market and get close fentanyl. Thousands have died because strangers thought they could tell a person what pills they can use.

What’s worse is that the strangers are accepting magical beliefs in the power of these illegal drugs. People who use drugs have individual reactions to their choice of highs. Some drug users go to work, live responsible lives; others get wrapped up in depression, and the law cruelly magnifies their problems. Very few homosexuals are child-molesters, and the number of drug users whose lives are ruined  by their high is far smaller than lawmakers claim. Once again, strangers who have little experience are making life-and-death decisions that properly belong to the individual and his doctor.

Sex work also runs the gambit of human behavior. Some are graduate students working on their PhD. Others are homeless and distressed. Making their life illegal allows strangers to interfere in private concerns, when the object in a free society would be to help people live their lives even if they rent their bodies, abort their pregnancies, or choose to take drugs.

Obviously, the Democrats are only occasionally helpful on drugs and sex work. They almost universally want to keep strangers away from decisions about pregnancy.

The key difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is a willingness to learn. At one time, many Democrats were against abortion-law reform; today, the party is nearly unanimous. In the areas of drugs and sex work, many Democrats are open-minded. Democrats are far more willing to consider stranger danger than Republicans, who self-righteously insist they know how individuals should live their lives.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump Shows Signs of Running a Professional Campaign, Making Democrats Worry

Clearly Trump will be harder to beat this year than he was in 2020. The election was held in the middle of the Covid epidemic, and glaring errors hurt Trump’s chances for reelection.

When Trump, at a news conference with public health officials, started thinking out loud, he suggested “it would be interesting to check” whether bleach could kill the virus and restore health. This mistake added to confusing messages he had been sending about the virus and wearing face masks.

This mistake was good news for Joseph Biden, who was trying to oust Trump from the White House. Biden’s aides quickly realized that Trump had hurt his chances of being reelected: “this was stratospherically insane and dangerous.” In 2024, the evidence is growing that the Trump campaign is avoiding errors that work to Biden’s advantage.

The Republican campaign is showing signs of professionalism that have to make Biden’s team nervous. The thorny question of who will be Trump’s running mate was presented for public comment when Donald Trump invited Doug Burgum to ride on his campaign airplane. It wasn’t an announcement, but it clearly signaled that anyone objecting had better make their case now, before the announcement. This is standard operating procedure, and it is a sign that this year Trump will be avoiding the mistakes that helped Joe Biden’s campaign win in 2020.

Doug Burgum is a native son of North Dakota who has amassed a considerable fortune and is in his second term as governor. He is the epitome of the self-made man and has a career that probably appeals to Trump. While still in college, he became a chimney sweep, a lowly beginning that is played up in his biographies. He started a software company that did business in Midwest states like North Dakota. It was a success, and Microsoft purchased the company. Governor Burgum has a knack for impressing people. Microsoft placed him in charge of Microsoft Business Solutions, selling Microsoft products to other businesses.

After leaving the software giant, Burgum went off on his own and started a technology venture capital company and a real-estate development firm. The Republican establishment backed the State Attorney General in North Dakota for Governor, but Burgum had the money and the personality to easily win the Republican primary.

In other words, Burgum has a career that may appeal to Donald Trump. In another sign that Trump is running a professional campaign this year, Burgum addressed a massive Trump rally on the Jersey Shore. 100,000 people showed up at the Wildwood rally. Beyond this show of enthusiasm, the rally took place in the Philadelphia media market. Trump found a way to mobilize his supporters and make a big impression in Pennsylvania, one of the battleground states for this year’s election.

This adds up to a campaign triumph, and it makes Biden’s job more difficult. Four years ago, Trump’s mistakes helped Biden win the election. That seems less likely this year.