A Few Words about the Election
Why I'm feeling strangely at peace. And why the nation's largest problem, studiously ignored by both presidential candidates, is not about to go away.
As regular readers know, before the Nov. 5 election I explained why, as a conservative in the Ronald Reagan mold, I would not vote for Donald Trump.
In short, to remain in power, Trump attempted to stage an elaborately planned coup d’état following the 2020 election. He has never evinced the slightest hint of remorse, never mind apologized. To the contrary, he has continued to spread the outrageous lie that the election was stolen from him. Compared with this treason, Trump’s buffoonery, ignorance, mendacity, vulgarity, and grifting opportunism are merely the cake decorations.
Confident that New Mexico would go blue, I had intended to cast a write-in vote for Paul Ryan or Liz Cheney, but the New Mexico ballot offered me no write-in option, so I voted for Kamala Harris.
Although the election did not go as I had hoped, I feel strangely at peace. I suppose that’s the luxury that comes with voting against someone rather than voting for someone.
With the nominations or appointments to key government posts of Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and Kash Patel, I feel vindicated in my earlier conviction that the second Trump term would be far worse than the first. And I don’t mind telling my friends and acquaintances who believed otherwise, “I told you so.”
A. The Folly of Imagining a ‘Mandate’
Had Harris won, there would have been a triumphalism on the left that would have mistaken an anti-Trump vote as a mandate for more of what the Biden Administration gave us. Which would have meant, among other things, a continuation of many of the energy policies (especially subsidies for wind, solar, and electric vehicles) that I regard as tragically misguided and wasteful.
Instead, we have the triumphalism from the MAGA forces. And it, too, will prove to be mistaken. For many, a vote for Trump was not an endorsement of the man, but rather a vote against the incumbents. Here’s the brilliant Kevin D. Williamson explaining how the “turbocharged populism” of our times results in the rapid and serial ousting of incumbents:
The U.S. election just (almost) concluded is an example of [the rapid pendulum swings], but the anti-incumbent wave has been nearly universal: The British rejected the Conservatives and Rishi Sunak for the left-wing Keir Starmer and his Labour Party; the French delivered a beating to Emmanuel Macron and his allies in elections for the European Parliament and then in the National Assembly election; the Dutch saw off their longest-serving prime minister and replaced him with a government that will include the party of anti-immigrant demagogue Geert Wilders; the Australians went from right to left, as did the Brazilians; in South Korea, the opposition won a landslide; Italians gave the boot to the technocratic Mario Draghi and put their boot-shaped country under the uncomfortable high heel of Giorgia Meloni; etc. Americans threw out Donald Trump for Joe Biden in 2020 and then threw out Joe Biden’s proxy in 2024 for Donald Trump.
It appears we can add to this list the voters of Iceland, whose discontent over rising prices have them ousting the incumbents on the right in favor of the left.
Does Trump, with 49.9% of the popular vote, have a “mandate” to Make America Great Again by slapping punitive tariffs on foreign goods, organizing massive deportations, revamping energy policies, and diverting the great MAGA river to flow through the Augean Stables of “wokeism”?
Perhaps he does. Perhaps the voters granted him a mandate for some of these things, at least to some extent.
But what voters claim they want is often quite different from how they react once they they actually get it. Slapping tariffs on Chinese goods made for fine raw red meat in front of MAGA campaign crowds, but the reality of significantly higher prices on many consumer goods may prove to be an unpleasant surprise. As may be labor shortages brought about by mass deportations.
And while, in my view, the DEI and related social movements went much too far1, is there not something to be said for showing compassion and understanding toward those people who genuinely feel trapped in the wrong gender, or acknowledging that racism will always be difficult to completely expurgate in a society as heterogenous as ours?
B. Trump Lacks the Traits Required to Effect Major Change
Even assuming a mandate, implementing Trump’s announced policies will require discipline and focus. Love him or hate him, any honest assessment of Trump must concede that discipline and focus are not his strong suits.
Trump’s penchant for chaos seems unlikely to change. He has yet to take office, but already his nascent administration, with factions rapidly forming, is shaping up as a Game of Thrones drama that is all but certain to run for four seasons. Populated as Trump world is with so many deeply ambitious people lacking any moral core, there will be blood.
We can all hope for some grown-ups to be included in Trump’s cabinet and among his other close advisors. But he has never been one to take advice on big issues. Moreover, proximity to Trump has a tendency to corrupt. Consider the careers of, for instance, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and J.D. Vance (and there are so, so many other examples).
C. The Elephant in the Room
Again, assuming some sort of election mandate for the issues Trump campaigned on, there are several key issues that, while campaigning, both Trump and Harris seemed determined to avoid.
The issue that I (and many others) regard as the most serious is our promiscuous public spending2, which has resulted in a federal debt of $36 trillion and counting. From a recent, sober analysis by Al Lewis:
We are nearing what many economists have labeled a critical point: When the nation’s debt becomes larger than its gross national product. Already, it costs more to service the nation’s debt than it does to defend the nation or provide Medicare benefits to elderly Americans. And one day, the world’s investors could curb their purchases of U.S. Treasuries. Then our debt-dependent government won’t be able to function.
How did we get to such a pass? The culprits are many, but none so great as Donald Trump himself. Under the first Trump administration, the national debt increased by $7.2 trillion, exceeding even the $6.0 trillion expansion in Biden’s term so far.
If Trump follows through on even half his campaign promises, there will be much more deficit spending ahead. He has already announced that Social Security and Medicare will remain sacrosanct. He is pushing for extending existing tax cuts set to sunset, and adding further tax cuts, rather than tax increases.
And, if the past is prologue, when it comes to more spending, the Republican Congress, which during the Biden administration so frequently expressed such deep concern about the country’s path to fiscal suicide, will suddenly develop amnesia on the topic, much as the Democrats did once Biden became president.
D. Trump’s Magic Beans
So, does Trump offer any solution to the shocking federal debt and the massive deficits that propel it higher each year?
Why, yes, he does. He has dangled before Americans the promise of $2 trillion in annual budget savings engineered by America’s most valuable geniuses, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who will head up the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Which, in turn, will “partner” with a newly created House of Representatives subcommittee led by that magisterial stateswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene.
DOGE — its laudable goals, its flawed strategy, and its troubled prospects — will be the topic of my next post.
An extreme example was quite effectively offered up by Trump in ads during football games, underlining his opponent’s earlier advocacy of taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgery for illegal immigrant prison inmates.
My focus on our fiscal crisis should not obscure the fact that the world today is far more dangerous than the world Trump faced in 2016. Neither Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, nor Xi Jinping is likely to be much impressed with “The Art of the Deal.” Many of Trump’s closest advisors, including Elon Musk and David Sacks, would slot quite comfortably into the Kremlin.
I ask for guidance, as a non-USA citizen. Is it wise to place Elon Musk inside part of the Federal Government? Setting aside the colourful past of Mr Musk, especially in regard to SpaceX and Tesla, surely a CEO should devote valuable time to keeping these large companies in the best possible shape?
I remain unclear what Vivek Ramaswamy does, so wonder is the department of government efficiency best use of his talents?
With regard to the deficit, it is unlikely that a continuation of Biden's policies would have fared any better than Trump's policies. The amount that can be collected by raising taxes to the point where it negatively affects the economy, is a drop in the bucket compared to the deficit.
A continuation of Biden's profligate and wasteful spending on climate policy and his throttling of energy production would probably have had a larger negative effect on economic growth and the budget than Trump's easing of taxes on the rich.
Trump's tariff threats are concerning, but probably more sabre rattling rather than real intent. Those two clowns, Musk and Ramaswamy will make a lot of noise but won't accomplish very much.
The biggest threat is allowing Trump to control the government without any checks and balances. His picks for department heads and cabinet range from mediocre to downright awful. The question arises as to whether there are enough Republicans in the Senate and House willing to stand up and oppose those choices. It will be the first test as to whether the next four years will be a democracy or a dictatorship. There is no limit to the harm that Trump can do if left unopposed.
The first few weeks will set the tone for the next four years. Dare we hope that there is enough opposition to make impeachment a possibility before the term is ended?