Blaming Trump for the Erasure of the Republican Party?

In most of the post-election analyses going on, a major theme is that it’s all Trump’s fault. Typical of that is the house editorial in the WSJ.

True to form, President Trump [R] is already blaming everyone else, but he is the main architect of this rout. He’ll say the Senate didn’t break the filibuster or pass his Save America Act. But neither would have saved the GOP this year, even if there had been enough votes to do either. He’ll blame Karl Rove and Texas Senator John Cornyn [R] for the shocking defeats in the Lone Star State, but failed Senate candidate Ken Paxton was his man—and his choice helped bring down Governor Greg Abbott [R] too.

The editors aren’t far wrong as far as they went, but they cast their analysis too narrowly.

Trump’s late season campaign rallies that were all “Yay me,” instead of touting the particular candidate and pushing to get out the vote for him/her, also were counterproductive.

Major contributing factors, though, were the Republicans’ Chaos Caucus in the House that blocked too many of the party’s priorities and the Establishment Republicans in the Senate (not only Thune) who were too timid to force on-the-record votes or otherwise actually to fight for the party’s priorities.

And too many of the candidates themselves, who kept arguing how wonderful our economy is on the national level (and it is), but who didn’t talk directly to their constituents about how they would help, explicitly, those constituents, most of whom weren’t experiencing any of that national wonderfulness at their local grocery stores, local gas pumps, or their local utility bills.

Republicans, if they’re to have any chance of recovery, will need to stop playing at the obstreperous loyal opposition and act like they deserve to be in charge. That will require more than just greater internal unity than the Chaos Caucus has been interested in. It will require, also, vastly overhauling what they use for their communications game and talk often and freely to their constituents—not at them—about those constituents’ problems independently of national conditions, and each Republican needs to lose his fear of specifics and talk to his constituents about what policies he’ll fight for that particularly address those problems.

Republicans also need to learn from the Progressive-Democrats and load up their own saps and use them. Not to smear and lie; leave those to the Progressive-Democrats, instead to call out their specific opponents and identify, with facts and specific outcomes, the emptiness of those opponents’ words and promises and those opponents’ policy failures.

Broken LA

In his WSJ piece about the mayoral race in Los Angeles between a hard core Progressive-Democratic Party incumbent and a dual member of the Democratic Socialists of America and the Progressive-Democratic Party upstart, Karen Bass and Nithya Raman, respectively, the news writer wrote about the broken condition of the city and each candidate’s hopes and dreams (my characterization) for fixing it.

It took an average of seven days to fix a pothole in the fiscal year that ended June 30, up from 0.9 days in 2021-22. Also, the average response time to repair a streetlight outage rose to 224 working days from 31 over the same period, amid a spate of copper-wire theft.

A week to fix a pothole and nearly a year for a streetlight. It’s ridiculous even for those repairs to take the earlier 21 hours and an entire month. If the pothole takes more than a couple of hours to fill with asphalt for a sound repair, it’s only because the city had let the hole fester for so long that a far more extensive repair became necessary. It’s even worse for the streetlight. A month!?

Big government regulation, at the core of those delays and which has so severely damaged the city over the last 25 years of Progressive-Democratic rule, is unlikely to be reduced—indeed, quite the opposite—whether the city is ruled by another Progressive-Democrat or by a socialist running as a Progressive-Democrat.

Regarding the potholes and streetlights in particular, it should be as simple as, channeling Major John “Mac” McGillis, see the hole, fix the hole; see the light, fix the light.

Fat chance under LA’s new old regime.

Some Crime Statistics

Here are some crime statistics, courtesy of the WSJ‘s James Freeman. These are national level, and it’s true that there are distinct local pockets of crime that are significantly higher than these national numbers. The national numbers tell the larger tale, though.

  • violent crime excluding simple assault declined 25%, from 9.9 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 2024 to 7.4 per 1,000 in 2025
  • aggravated assault rate declined 31% in 2025 from 2024
  • property victimization rate declined 19% in 2025 from 2024
  • burglary or trespassing rates declined 25% in 2025 from 2024
  • motor vehicle theft declined 30% in 2025 from 2024
  • other types of household theft declined 19% in 2025 from 2024

2025 is the first year of Trump II’s administration. 2024 is the Progressive-Democrat ex-President Joe Biden’s last year. Nor were those declines a continuation of any trend. Over the four years of Biden’s reign,

  • felony violent crime rose 59%
  • violent crime, including misdemeanor simple assault, increased 42%

These are the improvements that the Progressive-Democratic Party wants to undo with its midterm candidates’ avowals to abolish ICE and throw open our borders; reduce funding for, if not defund, our city and State police forces; empty our prisons; let those accused of violent crimes freely walk our streets on bail; and threats to “investigate” young folks contemplating jobs in the Trump administration.

Harris Plans

Ex-Vice President and former Progressive-Democratic Pary Presidential candidate Kamala Harris is expanding her midterm campaign schedule to include New Hampshire, where she’ll push for Party’s candidates for Governor and Senator.

That raises questions in my notoriously peabrained mind.

Is she going because Party is starting to get worried about its Senate majority prospects?

Is she going because Party is increasingly confident of its chances and is piling on and adding a Governor seat flip?

Is she going because Harris is desperately trying to show her relevance for her 2028 Presidential campaign?

My money is on door number three.

Rahm Emanuel’s Latest Installment

Over the last several weeks, Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate hopeful Rahm Emanuel has been publishing sections of his campaign platform in The Wall Street Journal. His latest installment is here. Emanuel talks a good game, but as Long Time Reader might expect, I have thoughts on it.

The carried-interest rule suggests that those in the business of buying and selling companies need the incentive of a special tax break. They don’t.

This is a conveniently plausible assertion, but it’s wholly unsubstantiated. Let Emanuel supply the facts and logic underlying his claim.

To be effective, reforms will need to work hand in hand with an enforceable international floor.

Absolutely not. Such a move gives foreign governments too much influence over our domestic economic policies. The only legitimate “international floor” needs no enforcement mechanism; the floor is however low individual nations let their domestic tax policies go and stay competitive. Progressive-Democrats spend ‘way too much time and energy trying to limit competition.

[R]aise the capital-gains rate closer to the rate that prevailed during the late 1980s, when it was the same as the tax on ordinary income. … You can’t claim that narrowing the gap between passive income and earned income would undermine the incentive to invest when we saw robust growth in exactly those conditions.

Yes, I can. Emanuel first needs to prove–or at least provide evidence–that the growth under those conditions would not have been even more robust had that gap not been narrowed. Showing a counterfactual is hard, but Emanuel isn’t even trying.

[E]liminate the stepped-up basis that allows them to pass fortunes from one generation to the next free from capital-gains taxes. This policy has nothing to do with driving economic growth and serves only to preserve inherited wealth.

 Contra Emanuel, there’s nothing wrong with a family preserving its wealth. Aside from that, it’s not for Government, or for Progressive-Democrats who want to run Government, to dictate to the rest of us the proper way to handle our wealth.

It’s instructive, too, that Emanuel is not proposing even working toward a single low (in the range, I suggest, of 10-15%) tax on all income regardless of source (viz., those capital gains), with no deductions, credits, subsidies, loopholes, or other froo-froo.

In that environment, private-equity fund managers, firefighters, police officers, and teachers–and Warren Buffet and his (ex-?) secretary–all would be paying the same rates, with the rich still having their bigger bills.