Some pro-Trumpers embrace the President on the idea that “a businessman can apply common business sense to out-of-control government.”
Though government could use more such sense, not less, overall I’m not very impressed with this argument because in key ways government is nothing like business.
Government lacks the salient standard of profit and loss.
Therefore, people trying to apply decent standards are at a disadvantage. The feedback mechanism just doesn’t seem to work in favor of responsibility. Accountability is especially hard when those who must hold bureaucrats and politicians accountable are tempted to get in on the racket.
Which is why so much of politics is B.S.
And if politics is mostly B.S., then maybe putting a B.S.er in charge isn’t such a crazy idea after all.
Did Mr. Trump just prove himself in this manner?
Less than two days after bombing three Iranian nuclear sites, he abruptly announces a cease fire between Israel and Iran, with a promise of peace.
Almost every politician is a narcissist, and Trump wears that diagnosis on his sleeve. He plays one on TV 24/7. Still, it might be . . . B.S. Narcissists don’t conspire to produce peace behind the scenes.
Trump is something else. He may be a B.S.er on most subjects, but perhaps he thinks that the only way to play a B.S. system is to out-B.S. it at every move.
He may have just proven the wisdom of his
We’ll see. We all hope for peace, though, right?
Right?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Krea and Firefly
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
10 replies on “A Unique Style”
A cease-fire between the state of Israel and the Iranian state does not necessarily entail a cease-fire between the Iranian state and the US.
If the Iranian state settles for the attack pro forma on the US base in Qatar, then the Iranian state will seem weak to its opponents domestic and foreign, and to its external allies. The external allies may seek to realign themselves; the domestic opponents would intensify their pursuit of reform.
I wonder to what extent the Trump Administration felt that it should bomb Iran so as not to seem weak to the Chinese state. The window of opportunity in which the Chinese state might successfully attack Taiwan could close before the end of the Trump Administration.
Finally, let me note two points that many others have noted. First, the President had no authority under the Constitution to attack Iran as he has. Second, in ordering this attack, he used powers previously seized by President Obama.
In Art. II, Sec.1, the Constitution gives him “executive power” generally, which has always been understood to mean the power to guide America’s foreign policy. Article II, Sec. 2 makes him Commander in Chief of the military, and gives him the implied power to deal with foreign nations, limited only by the explicit requirement that the Senate provide advice and consent for actual treaties. Lastly, Art II, Sec. 3 gives him the sole authority to deal with ambassadors and other public ministers. These powers are meaningless if Congress must be consulted before action is taken. The plethora of leakers in government negates the element of surprise. As for Obama, no one had a problem when he sent the military to kill Osama bin Laden.
The power to declare war is explicitly given to Congress by the Constitution in Article I § 8 Clause 11, and would be meaningless if undeclared war were somehow constitutional. The authority to delegate such power could not be constitutional unless the Congress could at will rescind that delegation; but the Constitution does not limit the Presidential power of Veto in cases of such rescission, so delegation must in the first place be unconstitutional.
In violation of the Constitution, Congress has repeatedly delegated its responsibilities, including its responsibility to decide upon war, but a major shift took place during the Obama Administration, in which the President waged overt wars unsupported by Acts of delegation. Libya especially stands out, though it is not the only case. The killing of Osama bin Laden was not, however, part of this new seizure of power.
“Executive power” is the power to execute.
Execute what?
The president is allowed to spend money — money appropriated by Congress — in the ways it’s appropriated for.
The president is allowed to negotiate treaties, appoint ambassadors and cabinet secretaries, etc. — but only with the express approval of the Senate for those treaties and officials.
The president isn’t, constitutionally, “in charge.” He’s Congress’s gofer. They hold the meetings and make the decisions, he makes sure the coffee and donut table remains tidy while he awaits their further instructions.
Yes, that constitutional setup started failing before the ink was dry on it, but the idea that the framers intended a “unitary executive” in a way that meant “he does whatever he damn well pleases, but Congress can certainly make recommendations” is nonsense on stilts.
Even as a “businessman,” Trump was always what one would expect if Bernie Mac and Bernie Madoff made a baby together — an over-the-top entertainer running scams. And he wasn’t even particularly good at it. If he’d just put his inheritance in an indexed mutual fund and retired, he’d be wealthier today than he got running fake universities, driving six businesses into bankruptcy, etc., before moving his “skills” into politics.
I’ve often read that Donald Trump invested his inheritted wealth badly, but I’ve never seen a proper case for that claim.
Trump’s father died on 25 June 1999. When I try to learn how much Trump inheritted, I instead read of how much he received over the years, including his inheritance but also money received from his father earlier. That’s actually a more meaningful sum, but I’d like it broken-down. In any case, the figure given is $413 million dollars in 2018 dollars. That would be about $274 million dollars in 1999 dollars. Conveniently, the Dow-Jones Industrial Average was at about 10,000 at that time. It is now at about 43,000. A Dow-indexed fund of $274 million in June 1999 would be worth about $1.180 billion now.
But Trump’s net worth is estimated at over $5 billion by Forbes, and at over $7 billion by Bloomberg.
Better numbers on how well Trump might have done as a passive investor could be calculated if the aforemention break-down were presented. But it seems from a back-of-the-envelope calculation that Trump has done better as an active businessman.
To arrive at a upper bound, assume that Trump instead received all of that money from his father when Donald turned 21 years old, on 14 June 1967. $413 million dollars in 2018 was roughly the equivalent of $55 million in 1967. The DJIA was about 860. So, placing the money in a Dow-indexed mutual fund (had such a thing existed in 1967) would have produced $2.75 billion; or perhap %39 to 54% of Trump’s estimated net worth.
Two ways to take him. Literally or seriously. Mutually exclusive.
China will attack Taiwan on their schedule. B2 bombers will not deter them.
What would deter the Chinese state (which is no more China than you are America) would be an expectation that costs will exceed benefits.
A major benefit sought by the Chinese state is capture of Taiwanese capacity to manyfacture high-end integrated circuits. Consequently, part of US war plans has been for destruction of that capacity if an invasion seems likely to succeed. The question is of whether the US could and would execute such plans.
Meanwhile, the potential costs of an invasion include damage done to the resources that would be used to effect an invasion.
B2 bombers are very relevant; even more relevant is the will and ability of the US political leadership to use the tools of war.