I have been pondering what I could say about Donald Trump's speech on foreign policy. On the surface to anyone who hasn't thought about foreign policy as something that needs a coherent core, many things he said sounded reasonable. But then again, his whole instinct is insulting and demeaning people. Foreign policy is the art of getting people, whom you have little to no power over, to do things that you want them to; with whatever persuasive arguments you have to show what you want is in their best interest.
And as an individual from the Hoover Institution (a conservative think tank) pointed out, Trump was promising to make nice with Putin while arguing and insulting our friends in NATO and our southern neighbor, Mexico. And lest you think the Wall is going to be a productive infrastructure project, I will point out that the criminal elements already favor digging tunnels under what is already there and using submarines to get the really high priced contraband around whatever impediments we try to put into place.
My mental logjam was broken by reading today's insightful columns covering old ground. Both David Brooks and Paul Krugman discuss the fact that a substantial set of white voters are angry at what they perceive as the government not working for them. On the Democratic side that comes out in the form of populism and support for things that stick it to the wealthy and help the poor/young. On the Republican side, that comes out in a dislike for anything to do with the GOP establishment that promised Supply Side Economics would benefit everyone and wants to dismantle the safety net that helps people when they reach retirement age.
Paul Krugman analyzes why Clinton could successfully manage this anger. His theory is that Democratic leaders have sufficiently delivered on their promises and the base is sufficiently satisfied with their leadership to support them. GOP leaders, instead have focuses on anger and shutting down the government and not offering solutions to issues that their supporters, like the Democratic's supporters, are having to deal with in their everyday lives. When globalization has been causing your community problems for 30 years, you perceive a problem with political process. And that is why they are supporting Trump, even though he is also a supporter of tax cuts for the rich. What Trump doesn't support is paying for those tax cuts by cutting services to the people. I don't know how he will balance the budget? Perhaps he plans to get China to give the U.S.A. foreign aid to pay for it all.
David Brooks acknowledges that he doesn't have an answer to problems that he probably doesn't completely understand because he lives in the high income bubble. But he recognizes that the anger driving this election needs to be understood and policies developed to address it. I am sure that Brooks as a card carrying Republican wants balanced policies that do not disrupt things that are working broadly for the benefit of society. I would have to agree with that. In his mind, there are places in the U.S. where balanced policies have worked to address the problems and they need to be studied so ideas on how to spread them broadly across the landscape can be discussed.
I would start with health insurance. Paul Ryan wants to help fix the main problem with Obamacare which is that the cost of health insurance for all is being driven up by insuring those with pre-existing conditions. If the 5% or 10% of the population with pre-exisitng conditions had access to high risk pools subsidized by someone unidentified (why not put them into Medicare?), then the other 90% to 95% could enjoy the cost of health insurance for the relatively healthy. Of course, he still needs to address the working poor who cannot afford health insurance without assistance even if the cost does come down.
It seems to be there are many points that can generate they type of anger we see in this election cycle. That is David Brooks desire to identify them and see what can be done to address them. It is his belief that if people can have hope restored to their psychology they will be more rational and less radical voters.
I have long recognized that rural areas have been suffering economically for a long time. What is interesting in this long primary cycle, is that is where Bernie Sanders and Trump/Cruz run up their largest voting percentages. The U.S. rural areas are fired up with anger with no good solutions for their most fervent desires.
Link to Brook's column
Link to Kurgman column
No comments:
Post a Comment