Politics, Government & Public Policy: February 2016 Archives
Said Donald Trump as he concluded his victory speech last night in Nevada. That's exactly the sentiment that many voters want to hear. Trump isn't my first choice for the nomination, but I have to admit, his nationalism gets my blood pumping. I don't think he's really conservative -- most recently I've condemned his lack of support for strong encryption -- and I'm anxious about the policies he'll actually enact when he's president.
Wait, did I just write "when"? I guess I did. Yeah, I think it's pretty likely at this point. Of course, I didn't think America could possibly re-elect Obama after his disastrous first term, so my record of predictions is pretty bad. It's more a gut thing than a prediction: Trump will destroy Hillary, just like he dominated the Republican nomination process.
Even though I am skeptical about Trump's conservatism, this is the best kind of civil war for America to have: a political war. With the level of discontent and disconnect between the elites and the average citizen, the election of Donald Trump might cause enough institutional destruction to force our government to come back into alignment with us. Much preferable to a shooting war.
I'm disappointed (but not surprised) to learn that Donald Trump has condemned Apple for refusing to cripple its encryption system for the benefit of law enforcement.
Donald Trump slammed Apple on Wednesday for its refusal to cooperate with federal authorities in the investigation of one of the iPhones of the San Bernardino shooters."I agree 100 percent with the courts. In that case, we should open it up," the Republican presidential candidate told "Fox & Friends," referring to a court order demanding the California-based tech company create a way for federal investigators to break into the iPhone of one of the perpetrators of the Dec. 2 terrorist attack. "I think security, overall, we have to open it up and we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense," Trump continued, echoing his recent common refrain. "Somebody the other day called me a common-sense conservative. We have to use common sense."
It's hard to imagine what can be learned from the iPhone in question that can't be otherwise discovered. The perpetrators are known, and dead. Their family, friends, and associates can be tracked down by a variety of methods. It feels to me that the terrible attack in San Bernadino is being used as a convenient "crisis" to justify a power grab by the government. It's difficult to balance freedom and security, but in this specific case it doesn't look to me like a difficult decision at all.
It's not good when Democrats don't trust their "inevitable" nominee.
That point is driven home hard in the exit poll following Clinton's 22-point drubbing at the hands of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. More than one in three (34 percent) of all New Hampshire Democratic primary voters said that honesty was the most important trait in their decision on which candidate to support. Of that bloc, Sanders won 92 percent of their votes as compared to just 6 percent for Clinton.
Maybe the other 6% didn't understand the question.
People don't trust Hillary because she lies a lot. Sure, Republicans have amplified the issue, but the root of the mistrust is Hillary herself.
But politics isn't about dealing with the world as you would like it to be. It's about dealing with the world as it is. And as New Hampshire made clear, there is a strain of concern/distrust within the Democratic base when it comes to Hillary Clinton. She needs to first acknowledge that it's a real feeling as opposed to simply a Republican talking point. Then she has to figure out a way to begin changing that perception -- A major speech directly taking the idea on? A series of ads that show her being as good as her word? -- in the minds of Democratic primary and caucus voters.
How could Hillary possibly reverse a decades-old perception that she's dishonest? I don't see how a speech or some ads would do it. In real life, as opposed to politics, the way you rebuild trust is to first come clean: admit that you lied. Then you can clean the slate by individually confessing to all the deceptions, apologizing, and promising not to lie anymore. But of course that's impossible for a politician. Hillary can't take the first step and admit she lied, or her career would be over.
Megan McArdle, who I really like, says that Trump voters (and other angry Americans) should face reality: nothing in Washington can be changed. Very cynical of her, or as she says, "realistic". Yes, the federal bureaucracy has a huge amount of inertia, but McArdle neglects to mention a few things that a President has significant control over.
Washingtonians, unlike the people making the demands, actually have to analyze the feasibility of these various sorts of requests. When they do, they quickly see that they are impossible, and set about finding innovative ways to ignore them. The insiders who need to get elected nonetheless say, "Yup, I'll get right on that," and then ignore them.This makes people think that Washingtonians don't care about them. This is false. Washingtonians do care. It's just that they seem to have misplaced their magic wand.
The second problem has to do with Item No. 4: Everything you do in Washington is a compromise. There are a lot of people in the country, and most of them don't care about what you want. To get money spent or unspent, taxes raised or lowered, you have to give those people something they do want. The result is an ugly mess with little resemblance to the original plan.
Don't like it? Welcome to representative democracy. If you have a plan to deal with this problem that doesn't involve fantasizing about the sudden (but nonviolent) disappearance of more than half your fellow citizens, we're all ears. Otherwise, this is what we're stuck with.
But the next president will be able to do lots of things that will have a huge effects:
- Appoint judges
- Appoint various commissioners
- Negotiate treaties and trade agreements
- Direct the military
- Issue (and negate) executive orders
- Set law enforcement priorities for the Department of Justice
- Use federal funding to pull strings on state and local governments
- Sign and veto laws
Iowa caucus results make the Republican primary a three-man race.
Talk of Donald Trump's unstoppable momentum is over. As the race for the Republican nomination speeds into New Hampshire today, the campaign has morphed into a three-man contest.Ted Cruz won Iowa in such a decisive manner that the Republican National Committeewoman for New Hampshire went so far as to call Trump the "underdog now" while another GOP operative said more donors are suddenly eager to fund an ad campaign against the New York billionaire.
I like Rubio, but I'm apprehensive of his lack of executive experience (see: Obama). I don't much like Trump, but I admire his executive experience. I like a lot of what Cruz says, but could he run the country?
Ezra Klein analyzes the interview styles of Trump and Rubio and concludes:
One reason Trump is ahead in the polls is that he's simply better at this than his opponents are -- he talks directly to the electorates' id, while his establishment-lane challengers keep trying to win over Washington's superego.
(HT: Scott Adams, who should get royalties from Vox.)
