March 15 will be an important day.

[Eric the Green]

In the long run, a "successful" president is not judged by how successful (s)he is in "accomplishing" things, but on what effect their agenda and political philosophy has on the nation.

Trump has accomplished little, but what he has "accomplished" (mainly through executive order, or through congressional repeal of Obama's executive orders) has been completely destructive to the nation. Today, the "political" is everything. It means what one hopes to achieve. The Republican agenda is completely destructive to the nation, and their philosophy is completely bankrupt. Democrats have just enough of a sound and effective agenda and philosophy to move the country forward for the peoples' benefit. So NO, a "successful" Trump presidency would NOT occur if he starts "accomplishing" more of his destructive goals. It will only happen if he completely changes his course. That is possible, but unlikely, and in any case possible only if Democrats win many more elections.

Being "non-political" today is not possible. Moderate is not necessarily what's reasonable. It is not the ability to compromise to get things done, which is a good thing in our system. It is merely the middle between today's views. And today's predominant views may not be for the best in the long run. Today in America, the political "middle" is well to the right, and that means regressive and against the people.

I am pleased with the budget deal. It looks like we have dodged a bullet, so far. That bullet is not so much the potential government shutdown, as Trump's original budget proposals. It still has to be actually voted on though. Some Republicans will have to follow Trump's agreement.

I am glad that my prediction here was fulfilled that there would be no shutdown.

[David Horn]

(05-01-2017, 12:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'm also thinking on a four party way of looking at things.  From left to right, the Warren - Sanders progressives, the Democratic establishment, the Republican establishment, and finally the Tea Party.  There are not a few who would have favored Sanders over Hillary, but otherwise the Warren - Sanders attitude hasn't near the weight yet to dominate.  The Unraveling memes (borrow and spend - trickle down - the government is the problem - spend more on the military) do have a lot of weight in parts of the country.  I've vague daydreams that the Warren - Sanders anti establishment faction and the Tea Party anti establishment faction could unite against the establishment, but the specifics of what is wrong with Washington are driving the two anti-establishment factions apart more than the agreement that Washington is well and truly messed up might pull them together.

As you move to the edge -- either edge -- you find greater reliance on principles and less on anything empirical.  Both extremes exhibit some of this, but the right has moved so far from reality and been in opposition for so long, they have a hard time even linking their principles to policy.  Assume that the Tea Party is more movement than party, and has no chance of governing even as part of a coalition.  It's not their style.  The Progressives have a better shot, if for no other reason than real historical models to draw on.

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:I'm still thinking Trump hasn't got the people skills to form any sort of effective governing coalition.  He is trying to ride the Unraveling memes after their time with a dysfunctional bunch of inexperienced staffers.  This could discredit the Unraveling memes.  This could duplicate the Buchanan - Hoover situations, where attempts to extend old political patterns past their time discredited the old patterns.  That's as close as I can get to a path to a 4T mood.  I don't see where doubling down on the Unraveling memes will go anywhere but worse.

Here we are fully in agreement.  Stridently advancing the unworkable doesn't add one iota to its viability.

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:But it's not clear we're in an unrecoverable flat spin yet.  The Unraveling memes are still mighty in some parts of the country.

That's why I'm in the failed 4T camp.  Let's agree that any 4T, and we certainly have one, will resolve in some fashion.  I just see this one ending in a muddle with no clear path forward.  If that happens, then the pressures already in place will just continue to build, perhaps under the surface.  They aren't going to just disappear.  If ignored, AGW will advance at its own pace.  So too will the pressures from inequality.  The next 2T should be raucous and the 4T ... well, it will be revolutionary.

[Eric the Green]

No 4Ts look like successes when only 8 or 9 years in. That's why it's a 4T. Things look difficult, with huge challenges to overcome. Wintertime is not smooth sailing.

[Mikebert]

(05-01-2017, 09:22 AM)MillennialJim Wrote:

(05-01-2017, 12:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'm also thinking on a four party way of looking at things.  From left to right, the Warren - Sanders progressives, the Democratic establishment, the Republican establishment, and finally the Tea Party.  There are not a few who would have favored Sanders over Hillary, but otherwise the Warren - Sanders attitude hasn't near the weight yet to dominate.  The Unraveling memes (borrow and spend - trickle down - the government is the problem - spend more on the military) do have a lot of weight in parts of the country.  I've vague daydreams that the Warren - Sanders anti establishment faction and the Tea Party anti establishment faction could unite against the establishment, but the specifics of what is wrong with Washington are driving the two anti-establishment factions apart more than the agreement that Washington is well and truly messed up might pull them together.

I'm still thinking Trump hasn't got the people skills to form any sort of effective governing coalition.  He is trying to ride the Unraveling memes after their time with a dysfunctional bunch of inexperienced staffers.  This could discredit the Unraveling memes.  This could duplicate the Buchanan - Hoover situations, where attempts to extend old political patterns past their time discredited the old patterns.  That's as close as I can get to a path to a 4T mood.  I don't see where doubling down on the Unraveling memes will go anywhere but worse.

But it's not clear we're in an unrecoverable flat spin yet.  The Unraveling memes are still mighty in some parts of the country.

I had hopes of a left-right limited anti-establishment/anti-corruption agenda around the time of the TARP vote.  It's since faded, as Tea Party groups are increasingly like the pigs that turn into the farmer in Animal Farm.  (The Sanders wing is not immune from the same, but have fared better due to being in a relatively less powerful position.)  

Trump right now is on the Jimmy Carter track.  He could come out of it much as Bill Clinton was able to do and get re-elected; I'm reserving judgment to see how things play if the Democrats can take the House in 2018.  

I understand Trump best in the context of Skowronik's theory of political time.  He is either a pre-emptive president (if one believes Obama is a reconstructive president along the lines of FDR/Reagan) who is frustratingly swimming against a new, prevailing political tide; or he is a disjunctive president (if one believes Obama was a pre-emptive president), who is the last gasp of the Reaganite governing consensus.  I think of him as a disjunctive president.  He is a president that has little loyalty to party orthodoxy and is unable to hold together a governing coalition, and here we sit waiting for a new "default" to establish itself in politics as we are unable to make any meaningful progress.  [Edit:  I should note that I think a Trump as a reconstructive president scenario has been ruled out by the course of the first 100 days of his presidency.  Had he been a reconstructive president, it would have gone very differently.]

In crises, we have had good presidents and we have had bad presidents.  For every Lincoln/FDR, we have a Johnson/Hoover.  So far, Trump has been a bad president.  I say that not due to my politics, but rather from the standpoint of actually accomplishing what he has set out to do.  Congress, for example, just struck a spending deal what expressly forbids him from using funds on the wall and basically disregards other his budget priorities (EPA, ACA, PP, etc.).  This is indicative of the administration's level of respect on the Hill at the moment.  I suspect that Congress will be doing most of the governing in the next 4 years, to the extent that any governing actually gets done.

Often, with disjunctive presidencies in times of crisis, you see a desire for a virulent, hyperapplication of the governing philosophy of the previous political/generational era.  For Hoover, you have him presiding over Smoot-Hawley, for example.  The impact of that law is debated, but at a minimum, it was likely an aggravating factor in the depression.  Hoover presided over a dying and increasingly answerless GOP governing consensus.  This time, we have Trump defaulting back to an increasingly virulent strain of Reaganism in his governing tendencies.  If he accomplishes anything major before 2018, it will be massive tax cuts.  

IMO the 2020 democratic primary will be the most consequential presidential primary in decades.  I suspect the Sanders wing may prevail, much as the Reaganites finally overcame the GOP establishment in 1980 after coming unexpectedly close in 1976.

I believe Smoot-Hawley had a negligible impact on the Depression which was caused by an entirely different set of forces.  If this is correct then we should see a serious recession when this expansion ends.

[David Horn]

(05-01-2017, 08:04 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I believe Smoot-Hawley had a negligible impact on the Depression which was caused by an entirely different set of forces.  If this is correct then we should see a serious recession when this expansion ends.

I agree with your assessment, but find the Smoot-Hawley Act stupid nonetheless.  Why a net exporter would think it made sense to inflame other predominantly net importing nations by erecting trade barriers seems stupid on its face.

[Mikebert]

(05-02-2017, 04:40 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-01-2017, 08:04 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I believe Smoot-Hawley had a negligible impact on the Depression which was caused by an entirely different set of forces.  If this is correct then we should see a serious recession when this expansion ends.

I agree with your assessment, but find the Smoot-Hawley Act stupid nonetheless.  Why a net exporter would think it made sense to inflame other predominantly net importing nations by erecting trade barriers seems stupid on its face.

True, but hardly any more stupid than our own 4T.

[Mikebert]

(05-01-2017, 09:22 AM)MillennialJim Wrote:

(05-01-2017, 12:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'm also thinking on a four party way of looking at things.  From left to right, the Warren - Sanders progressives, the Democratic establishment, the Republican establishment, and finally the Tea Party.  There are not a few who would have favored Sanders over Hillary, but otherwise the Warren - Sanders attitude hasn't near the weight yet to dominate.  The Unraveling memes (borrow and spend - trickle down - the government is the problem - spend more on the military) do have a lot of weight in parts of the country.  I've vague daydreams that the Warren - Sanders anti establishment faction and the Tea Party anti establishment faction could unite against the establishment, but the specifics of what is wrong with Washington are driving the two anti-establishment factions apart more than the agreement that Washington is well and truly messed up might pull them together.

I'm still thinking Trump hasn't got the people skills to form any sort of effective governing coalition.  He is trying to ride the Unraveling memes after their time with a dysfunctional bunch of inexperienced staffers.  This could discredit the Unraveling memes.  This could duplicate the Buchanan - Hoover situations, where attempts to extend old political patterns past their time discredited the old patterns.  That's as close as I can get to a path to a 4T mood.  I don't see where doubling down on the Unraveling memes will go anywhere but worse.

But it's not clear we're in an unrecoverable flat spin yet.  The Unraveling memes are still mighty in some parts of the country.

I had hopes of a left-right limited anti-establishment/anti-corruption agenda around the time of the TARP vote.  It's since faded, as Tea Party groups are increasingly like the pigs that turn into the farmer in Animal Farm.  (The Sanders wing is not immune from the same, but have fared better due to being in a relatively less powerful position.)  

Trump right now is on the Jimmy Carter track.  He could come out of it much as Bill Clinton was able to do and get re-elected; I'm reserving judgment to see how things play if the Democrats can take the House in 2018.  

I understand Trump best in the context of Skowronik's theory of political time.  He is either a pre-emptive president (if one believes Obama is a reconstructive president along the lines of FDR/Reagan) who is frustratingly swimming against a new, prevailing political tide; or he is a disjunctive president (if one believes Obama was a pre-emptive president), who is the last gasp of the Reaganite governing consensus.  I think of him as a disjunctive president.  He is a president that has little loyalty to party orthodoxy and is unable to hold together a governing coalition, and here we sit waiting for a new "default" to establish itself in politics as we are unable to make any meaningful progress.  [Edit:  I should note that I think a Trump as a reconstructive president scenario has been ruled out by the course of the first 100 days of his presidency.  Had he been a reconstructive president, it would have gone very differently.]

In crises, we have had good presidents and we have had bad presidents.  For every Lincoln/FDR, we have a Johnson/Hoover.  So far, Trump has been a bad president.  I say that not due to my politics, but rather from the standpoint of actually accomplishing what he has set out to do.  Congress, for example, just struck a spending deal what expressly forbids him from using funds on the wall and basically disregards other his budget priorities (EPA, ACA, PP, etc.).  This is indicative of the administration's level of respect on the Hill at the moment.  I suspect that Congress will be doing most of the governing in the next 4 years, to the extent that any governing actually gets done.

Often, with disjunctive presidencies in times of crisis, you see a desire for a virulent, hyperapplication of the governing philosophy of the previous political/generational era.  For Hoover, you have him presiding over Smoot-Hawley, for example.  The impact of that law is debated, but at a minimum, it was likely an aggravating factor in the depression.  Hoover presided over a dying and increasingly answerless GOP governing consensus.  This time, we have Trump defaulting back to an increasingly virulent strain of Reaganism in his governing tendencies.  If he accomplishes anything major before 2018, it will be massive tax cuts.  

IMO the 2020 democratic primary will be the most consequential presidential primary in decades.  I suspect the Sanders wing may prevail, much as the Reaganites finally overcame the GOP establishment in 1980 after coming unexpectedly close in 1976.

Other than my quibble about Smoot-Hawley, I think your take is spot-on.

[MillennialJim]

(05-02-2017, 05:02 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Other than my quibble about Smoot-Hawley, I think your take is spot-on.

My true opinion on the exact scope of any economic effects Smoot-Hawley had is essentially this, after years of trying to figure out where it fits: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So I'm willing to leave the economics of it to smarter people than me, and concede your quibble.  I do still think that it stands as a ham-handed response to a crisis situation, however, driven by outdated political thinking.