The Border

As a tease to his recent article in The Atlantic, David Frum on Tuesday tweeted "If liberals insist that enforcing borders is a job only fascists will do, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't."

In her own confused way, a co-host on The View tried to makea similar point when

In a conversation Monday about the migrant caravan heading to the United States from Central America, The View’s Meghan McCain accused co-host Sunny Hostin of calling her a liar, after claiming that “the left” wants ‘open borders and no consequences’ for undocumented immigrants.

“When you see these images, this is a conservative fever dream and a gift to the mid-term elections because this is exactly what conservatives think people on the left want to have happen into this country,” McCain said. “What a lot of people on the left are saying, no one on this table, is that you want open borders and no consequences.”

Very few people on the left are "saying" that they "want open borders and no consequences." However, they- and yes, that includes Hostin- seem to be saying that. In his article, Frum criticizes President Trump and appears to understand that support on the left for open borders is neither policy nor explicit record. However, he observes 

in the Democrats’ liberal base, the mood toward the caravan is positively sympathetic. The caravan’s slogan, “People without borders,” chimes with the rising sentiment among liberals that border-enforcement is inherently illegitimate, and usually racist, too.

Frum adds

The theory behind the caravans—this latest, and its smaller predecessors over the past 15 years—is that Central Americans have valid asylum claims in the United States because of the pervasive underemployment and gang-violence problems in their countries. If that claim is true, that is a claim shared not only among the thousands in the current caravan, but the millions back home. A 2013 Pew survey found that 58 percent of Salvadorans would move to the United States if they could. The seven countries of Central America together have a population of some 45 million, or about the same as Mexico’s back in 1970, when the mass migration from that nation began.

The fortuitous rise in the ratio of workers to job openings, which may boost wages, undermines one of the legitimate arguments against increased immigration. Nonetheless, it is having a perverse effect as

The strong US job market is again attracting low-wage workers. After a dip in 2017, illegal crossings of the southern border in 2018 have returned to their levels of 2016—and are running well ahead of 2015. If the thousands of people in the caravan successfully cross the border, lodge asylum claims, and are released into the U.S. interior pending adjudication, many more seem likely to follow.

Why wouldn’t they? More than 60 percent of the population of Honduras lives in poverty, according to the World Bank, and very nearly 60 percent do so in Guatemala. While rates of crime and violence have declined in both countries since 2014, they remain appalling by world standards.

The likely political consequences should be evident and are, at least to Frum, who recognizes

For Trump, the caravan represents a political opportunity. Here is exactly the kind of issue that excites more conservative Americans—and empowers him as their blustery, angry champion.

For Trump’s opponents, the caravan represents a trap. Has Trump’s radical nativism so counter-radicalized them that they have internalized the caravan message against any border enforcement at all? If yes, they will not help immigrants. They will only marginalize themselves—and American politics will follow the European path in which anti-immigration parties of the extreme right cannibalize the political center.

The images of thousands (or what appear to be thousands) of refugees- demonized by Trump as immigrants or terrorists- is potentially devastating to Democrats, and are repeatedly played on cable news.  (It doesn't help that they appear to look different than most Americans.)

Pointing out that immigrants have a lower crime rate than native-born Americans, work hard,  are not terrorists, are in Mexico rather than knocking on the door in Brownsville, Texas, or often speak English (which, revealingly, goes unmentioned) will not erase those images. Nor will references to a "nation of immigrants," the promise of the Statue of Liberty nor to Jesus welcoming strangers and refugees, the poor and the persecuted.

Democrats promptly should turn the issue around, arguing that deportations have declined since Donald Trump became President, people are still overstaying their visas, illegal immigrants are staying in the country longer, and caravans will become the norm with this guy's policies. In the short term, the least Democrats could do is to emphasize that Trump's policies are a failure in protecting the interests of Americans. In the long term, they need a simple and coherent, yet sensible, message.

Otherwise, as David Frum realizes, Republicans in the Trump era are going to present Americans with an either-or choice: vote for those of us who will defend Americans, or for the ones who will defend the other. And the demagogues do not intend to lose.

Share |

Checking Team Russia

On Tuesday morning before the Manafort verdict and the Cohen guilty plea, Carl Reiner tweeted

Hearing all the breaking news this morning caused me to envision Trump as Humpsty Dumpty tottering on his wall as he is about to fall

— carl reiner (@carlreiner) August 21, 2018

After Manafort and Cohen went down (at least for now), Charlie Pierce wrote

This is a mortal blow to the administration*, which may stagger around for a year or so before it falls over and crushes people, but there is no way I can see that this gets any better for the president* or the people around him. The president* and his fixer paid off Stormy Daniels, and also paid off a tabloid media company, in order to bury stories about the president*'s wandering Donald, and did so in direct violation of even those campaign finance laws that Anthony Kennedy left in place.

Pierce has proclaimed the First Law of Economics as "Fck The Deficit. People Got No Jobs. People Got No Money."  And although people have jobs now, they may be working two at a time and inflation is rising so real wages are not. A corollary to Pierce's Rule of Economics could be "no one cares about the deficit (except some congressional Democrats)."

However, there is another law of American politics which roughly states "no one cares about campaign finance violations." Consequently, the reliably cynical (and realistic) Steve M argues

I think ordinary Americans are simply too cynical about campaign finance -- and rightly so -- to get worked up over this. What's the admission here? That Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 to remain silent during the 2016 campaign. But another news story yesterday told us that Sheldon and Miriam Adelson gave $25 million last month to the Senate Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC. Would you blame people who don't follow politics closely if they don't understand why a six-figure de facto campaign contribution is a felony but an eight-figure gift is just fine? I think most Americans believe that the problem is that American politics is awash in money, not that a gift directly to a candidate ought to be under strict dollar limits while super PAC money can flow much more freely.

As SM understands,  people will take notice if Cohen starts to spill his guts, which is likely to occur at some point.  Nonetheless, he's overly pessimistic when contending

If Democrats take the House, they might believe this is enough for an impeachment, though I think they know better. I believe any impeachment will be an exercise in futility unless public opinion changes dramatically and persuades Senate Republicans that they should vote to convict.

Democrats are unlikely to gain control of the House of Representatives unless they win the national popular vote for the chamber by something north of eight percentage points.  As Steve Bannon predicts, the midterms will likely be "a referendum on the Trump presidency." With the economy perceived by Republicans, the mainstream media, and even conceded (unnecessarily) by some Democrats as strong, a Democratic takeover will not occur unless public opinion about the Russia probe does change significantly.





If that occurs and Democratic losses in the Senate are held to a minimum, the stakes in the Special Counsel probe are heightened. If Mueller issues a damning report or the investigation is severely curtailed or ended by President Trump, the reaction is likely to make the latter wish he had never heard of the presidency.

Of course, Donald Trump may be called to account even if Michael Cohen doesn't sing or the Democrats gain control over the House of Representatives. Still the majority in both chambers, the GOP could decide to put country over party. Just kidding.

Share |

Prices Soaring, Wages Down; Republicans Should Talk- Prosperity?

Maybe Donald J. Trump knows more than the rest of us.  However, Washington Post reporter Robert Costa, widely believed to have contacts within the Republican Party second to none, tweets

Ahead of the midterms, most Rs talking up the tax cut and economic numbers. But the president isn’t sticking with those issues. It’s immigration and Mueller criticism, again and again, to rally the base. https://t.co/fcVaGVX9QB

— Robert Costa (@costareports) July 30, 2018

Obviously, Trump's secondary motive in criticizing the Special Counsel's investigation is to discredit and delegitimize it so that if the President is unable to end the probe, Mueller's eventual report detailing multiple high crimes and misdemeanors is unconvincing.

Yet Trump's emphasis on the investigation and immigration rather than on tax legislation and the economy may even help the GOP retain its House majority in the November elections.

Costa isn't alone in implying that the GOP should focus on economic issues. It's conventional wisdom among Joe Scarborough and other anti-Trump Republicans that gosh darn, if only Trump would lay aside his bigotry and paranoia, Republican orthodoxy would carry the day.

There are three ideas which unite Republicans: tax cuts are good; tax cuts are good; tax cuts are good. Trump and his Party would benefit, the reasoning goes, from pointing out that jobs are increasing and the economy currently is growing rapidly, at the annual rate of 4%.

However, June's bump means very little because the numbers were buoyed by accelerated export of soybeans to avoid the impact of expected tariffs. Moreover, much of it was fueled by deficit spending, which is unlikely to sustain growth.

Nor are most Americans interested in the quarterly growth rate. Admittedly, they do care about whether they have a job, and the number of jobs is up, as it was once President Obama helped pull the nation out of recession.

Additionally, despite the absolute wage increase, real wages are down. They have declined because of inflation, which has been fueled by a rise in gas prices as well as housing and medical costs. Voters do care about the cost of living, and the price at the gas pump is a visceral reminder of increased prices.

Gasoline prices, vulnerable to changes in global politics, can go down as well as up.  However, interest rates have risen lately and they're likely to go up further.

And so President Trump may know more than  (alert: demagogic observation ahead) journalists and other media types, perhaps trapped in their bubble.

If Republicans want to pound the notion that Americans are swimming in an ocean of wealth with the tax cut, Democrats can emphasis that the cost of living is up and wages are down. Hillary Clinton noted during her campaign that the economy was improving, especially with stock market and job gains- much as is the situation now. Thereafter, many pundits attributed her loss to "economic discontent."

The Washington Post noted that one non-partisan analysis of the GOP tax law passed at the end of 2016 gives "the richest 1 percent of Americans an average personal income tax break of about $33,000, while the poorest Americans will receive an average personal income tax break of $40."  Or as Democrats running this year could say, "Republicans are giving billionaires a new BMW; you're getting a new bicycle."

Share |