Even Big Tents have Capacity Limits

Posted on by
Reply

Kevin Roberts, the President of the Heritage Foundation, has messed up badly. As Joseph Sternberg described it in his Wall Street Journal op-ed,

The groypers purport to be a movement of disaffected far-right nationalists, predominantly young men, under the sway of charismatic podcasting personality Nick Fuentes. Mr Roberts plunged into hot water last week when he announced that he wouldn’t cut Heritage’s ties with Tucker Carlson after Mr Carlson gave Mr Fuentes a platform to air a sampling of his antisemitic, racist, and misogynistic views uncontested. Mr Roberts argued that to disavow Mr Carlson would be to give in to a form of cancel culture, and insisted the conservative movement should remain a big tent.

Even big tents have capacity limits, though, and there is no room in the Conservative movement for antisemitism, racism, or misogyny. These bigotries aren’t even conservative holdings; they’re beyond even the extremist pale of either end of the spectrum. Severing ties with Carlson has nothing to do with any sort of cancel culture.

It’s time for Kevin Roberts to be dismissed from the Heritage Foundation. Even were Roberts to apologize for his gross error and follow through on cutting ties with Carlson, at this late date it would be impossible to take an apology as truly sincere and not just a collection of words uttered in response to opprobrium, and it would be impossible to believe that he won’t make a similar “misjudgment” regarding bigotries in the future.

If the Heritage Foundation won’t make that move, it could only be because they condone Roberts’ support for the antisemitic and racist bigotry and the misogyny of Carlson and Fuentes. In which case, it’ll be time for the rest of us to dismiss the Heritage Foundation, a once proud and valuable member of the Conservative movement.

Well, Yeah

Posted on by
Reply

David Malpais, Treasury Undersecretary during Trump I’s first two years, has misunderstood what the Federal Reserve Bank must do. He undergirded his misunderstanding with this:

…the Fed’s demand-side model treats economic and job growth as inflation risks and prescribes higher interest rates.

Well, yeah. Economic growth in demand, without a parallel growth in economic supply is inflationary, and job growth increases business’ costs and so applies upward pressure on prices businesses must charge.

The correct answer for the Fed, given its dual mandate of price stability and full employment, is not just to stop reducing its benchmark interest rates—they’re too low already—but to raise them a quarter point to the level (4.75%-5%) historically consistent with its price stability goal of 2% inflation. Then the Fed should sit down and let the market fluctuate interest rates and let the inflation rate bounce around those 2%. A free market, in an environment of reduced regulatory constraints (over-regulation being one of President Donald Trump’s (R) bugaboos) will easily correct on its own, both those market interest rates and that inflation rate. That will allow the market to flourish, and that, in turn, will produce full employment.

Artificially suppressing interest rates is far more inflationary than are stable rates in the 4.75%-5% range. Lowering the cost of money artificially, rather than letting market forces deal with that, only stimulates demand without stimulating production (which by the nature of the two, strongly lags changes in demand), and that’s directly inflationary; it’s the textbook basic cause of inflation.

Mamdani’s Nod in the General Direction of Stability

Posted on by
Reply

The newly elected Mayor of New York City, the Socialist Zohran Mamdani, has indicated he’s taking the City’s crime problem seriously with his claim that he would like to retain Jessica Tisch, the city’s Police Commissioner.

I have questions, though.

With what authority would Tisch have actually to deal with crime and to pursue the criminals that commit them? Would she have free rein, or would he try to keep her hemmed in? He is, after all, on record calling to defund the nation’s largest police force and accusing it of racism. He was speaking from his heart then; is he now speaking merely politically, or has he evolved his views?

Assume he’s serious, even if merely arguendo. A couple follow-on questions arise. What will he do regarding both city prosecutors who decline to prosecute the criminals and that subset of them who also attempt to prosecute the victims for their heinous efforts to defend themselves?

In those few cases where the suspect actually faces trial, what will he do about city judges who insist on turning those suspects loose on no bail, and what will he do about the ordnances and State laws (over the latter which he has little influence) that mandate many of those no-bail releases?

What Will She Do with that Intelligence?

Posted on by
Reply

Mexico’s President Claudia Scheinbaum doesn’t want to deal with Mexico’s cartels (mostly drug, but they’re into sex- and child-trafficking, also, and a few other…industries) violently. Her predecessor also swore off hard-style confrontations, insisting on dealing with them with hugs. Scheinbaum wants to increase intelligence efforts in dealing with them, even including a willingness to receive intelligence from the US government. But no more help than that.

Sheinbaum said her government had accepted the US offer for help in obtaining information and intelligence, but she rejected US intervention in Mexico’s affairs. “Intervention isn’t justice,” she said.

That “intervention” was an offer to assist—not to do for or to do instead—Mexico in dealing with the cartels kinetically, which is to say, violently.

Last week, Carlos Manzo, the anti-cartel mayor of Uruapan, the largest city in the state of Michoachan, the state immediately west of Mexico City, was hugged several times, fatally so, by the cartels. Even so,

[Sheinbaum] pledged to continue with her policy of strengthening Mexico’s National Guard, concentrating on the use of police intelligence to take down violent criminals while addressing the social causes of crime.
Sheinbaum criticized political opponents who she said were taking advantage of Manzo’s killing to attack the government, and said she had ordered an investigation into the surge in antigovernment posts on social media.

When those violent criminals and/or their cartel supporters resist being “taken down?” Will she continue to answer their violence with her own hugs? So far, her response is limited to inflicting lawfare violence on those impudent enough to criticize her government’s handling of the cartels. Why not hug them, too, instead?

Scheinbaum apparently has no serious use for that intelligence, American or her own nation’s.

This is what a failing narco- and trafficking-centric nation looks like.

A Mixed Message

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump’s (R) tariff program is before the Supreme Court (oral arguments were heard last Wednesday), it appears to be in trouble, and I claim it’s due to his mixed messaging to us in the public.

I have long argued, especially during Trump II’s tariff implementations, that there are two purposes for tariffs, and so two kinds of tariffs. One kind is protectionist tariffs, tariffs implemented to protect domestic industries, especially those in their nascent stages and those that are national security critical. Protectionist tariffs are, in the main, badly mistaken for a variety of reasons; although, an argument can be made that protectionism related to national security is a cost of national security that must be paid if we’re to remain free as a nation.

The other kind of tariff is that used as a foreign policy tool, tariffs applied in order to persuade another nation or bloc of nations to desist from their unfair trade practices, viz., dumping product at below cost, unfair subsidies of their own domestic industries, withholding export of products critical to the importing nation’s economy or national security, or other policies to which the tariffing nation might object.

Trump has been busily touting both the revenue raised by all of his tariffs, of both kinds, while also insisting that they’re necessary foreign policy tools intended to get other nations to leave off their unfair trade practices, to “stop ripping off America,” and to mend their ways on other matters.

Which brings me to the present article by The Wall Street Journal‘s Greg Ip.

Lawyers often stretch the facts to make their case, but even so, this was quite the howler from US Solicitor General John Sauer in defense of President Trump’s tariffs at the Supreme Court on Wednesday: “They are not revenue-raising tariffs.”

Ip, with that lede, stripped his Sauer sentence of its context. The rest of what Sauer was saying is that their purpose, as a foreign policy tool, is to persuade the targeted nations to change their ways. That these foreign policy tools also happen to produce money is deeply secondary. Ip later acknowledged that, but not until deep into his piece. Sauer again, originally:

“The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental. The tariffs would be most effective, so to speak, if no person ever paid them,” because they would have achieved their goal of changing another country’s behavior, or diverting all American purchases away from imports to domestic goods[.]

And that’s the problem with Trump’s rhetoric here. He’s made no distinction in his program between tariffs as protectionism and revenue-raising, the latter which is a Congressional prerogative and not Executive, and tariffs as foreign tools, which is an Executive prerogative and not Congressional.

This is a milieu where Trump’s studied vagueness in his rhetoric may well backfire. Keeping adversaries suitably confused as to our intentions through ambiguity can be highly useful. However, American law, and so our courts—especially our Supreme Court—deal in clearly stated specifics within each case that comes before them. Vague, especially, internally conflicting, speech is properly disdained by judges and Justices.

Trump’s contaminating his use of tariffs as foreign policy tools with his use of tariffs as protectionist policy may well produce the elimination of his tariff program in toto. That would be to our nation’s economic ill, and to our nation’s national security detriment.