I am unusual in that I follow politics and current events very closely all the time. A lot of people have other things to consume their thoughts and time and may not even give serious thought to an election until right before it is time to cast their ballot.
I am sure there are a lot of people who identified as Democrat or Republican and always vote for their party's nominee. Normally that might be all you need to know, and you are safe in voting your values if you let the party label guide your voting. I don't think that can be a good guide in this election. Donald Trump has redefined the Republican Party.
Even if you are a casual consumer of news, you no doubt are aware how controversial Donald Trump is and that he has been called a threat to democracy and a fascist an all of that. You may reason that he didn't do all of the bad things they say he will do when he was president last time, so you see no reason to fear a second Trump term. After all, things were pretty good under Trump. Please consider that Trump has gotten worse and that he won't have the same kind of people around him to guide him and curtail his worst instincts in a second term and he has taken some very non-Republican positions.
Back to my point that party label cannot be a guide to how to vote this time, the parties have actually switched positions on two key issues. All of my life I have identified as a Republican. One of the issues that make me a Republican was that I believe in a strong national defense and America's leadership role in the world. In short, I am a "defense hawk." I have always seen the Republicans as defense hawks and Democrats as the party of isolationism and appeasement. Well, that is no longer reflects today's parties. It is unbelievable that that switch could take place so rapidly, but it has. Now, the Republican Party has become the party of isolationism and appeasement, and the Democrats are the party advocating strong alliances, resisting aggressors, and America's leadership role in the world. Neither I think are strong enough on things like rebuilding our navy, but where there is a difference, the Democratic party is the party of defense hawks.
The other issue where the parties have switched sides in on the issue of economic policy. I know inflation has been worse under the last four years of a Democrat then they were under Trump, but in this case the past cannot be a guide to the future. Trump has proposed a lot of new disastrous economic policies. Neither party is doing what needs to be done to address the looming debt crisis. However, Democrat policy proposals are better that Trump's proposals. Smart economists have analyzed the policies of both candidates and concluded that Trump policies will increase the national debt twice what those of Harris would do. This is serious. We are rapidly heading toward a cliff and neither candidate is hitting the breaks, but Trump is hitting the accelerator.
In addition to increasing the debt more than the Democrat, Trump has proposed another dangerous policy that is a reversal of previous Republican policies and that is to impose an across the board 10% to 20% tariff on all imports. In the past the Democrats tended to be more protectionist, and the Republican Party more likely to favor free trade. Overtime, a consensus favoring tariff reduction emerged. Now Trump wants to make protectionism a major feature of Republican economic policy.
Of course, tariffs are like a sales tax. It is not the exporting country that pays them but the American consumer. Trump's tariff proposal would raise prices, hurt the economy, and spark economic feuds with much of the world. Other countries will retaliate. Trump's tariff proposal could cause a worldwide depression. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930 is considered one of the major contributing factors leading to the Great Depression. We do not want to repeat that mistake.
When one says that in Trump's first term, he did not do anything too radical it is worth noting that in his first term his administration was filled with long-time normal Republicans and they kind of kept Trump within the guard rails. Trump will not have those kinds of people around him this time. They won't serve in his administration, and he won't seek them to serve. Dozens of former Trump cabinet members, military leaders, and staff have said Trump is unfit to serve. In his second term he will surround himself with loyalist and yes men.
If you are one who has not paid close attention and simply doubt that Trump is as dangerous as his critics say he is here are some key words links that will shed more light on Trumps authoritarian mindset: retribution, vermin, enemies from within, jail Supreme Court critics, and suspending the Constitution.
Top Stories
Rod, one minor disagreement in a post of otherwise a string of ditto's! by me: I still don't count Dems as the party of defense hawks: (1) while they have been supportive of Ukraine they have followed Biden's halting approach of providing requested material. Ukraine asks for something, Biden hems, haws, delays, and then finally provides it. And several weeks ago, there was a long delay (though I don't remember what the particular hardware was). This includes Biden's hesitance in providing F-16's. Hesitance to the point of not directly providing them. The F-16's Ukraine has rcvd have been from European countries, not from the US. That weak, halting approach extends to allowing equipment we have sent to be used in striking more deeply into Russia. There was an unconscionable delay the first (only?) time such permission has been granted. And still, I don't believe Biden is allowing other equipment to be so used. This is not a strategy to allow Ukraine to win but simply "allows" them to prolong this war and their suffering. (2) their hawkishness doesn't extend otherwise to defense budgeting. This is true of both parties. You pointed to not rebuilding our Navy. Very true. Same goes for the Air Force, though I haven't followed that much. As you probably know, China now has the world's largest Navy. And much shorter logistics lines for any current or anticipated military actions (including, of course, invading Taiwan. IMO, they're no stronger than Republicans on this issue and I believe they're still reflexively against a strong American military.
ReplyDeleteAn aside: have you seen some of the coverage in the NeverTrump press/websites about Trump's interview with Bloomberg (I think the interviewer's last name was Micklethwaite). In front of, I believe, the Economic Club of Chicago. Trump's answers, from quotes I've seen (some fairly extensive), are virtually incoherent from all the rambling. Commentators saying it's worse than ever.
And this is who our Republican Party has given itself slavishly, cultishly over to?
Our country is circling the freaking toilet. Makes me grateful that I won't live to see how all this ends. But I worry about the next generations.