Steve Bannon remarked the great chattering class of news media, pundits on CNN, MSNBC, PBS and elsewhere have been or should be humiliated by how wrong they were about the Trump election, and in that he could have included Nate Silver and the pollster class, the political science department at Harvard, you name it. They all had their numbers and they were dead wrong.
So Mr. Bannon has a point.
You'd be well advised to figure out why you lost before you go attacking Mr. Trump.
“While it may upset The New York Times, Hollywood, the cast of ‘Hamilton’ and the groups marching in the streets, it is not upsetting to the constituents that elected these members and senators,” Sam Geduldig, a Republican lobbyist, said of Mr. Trump’s behavior. “There is a feeling that if those groups are against you, you’re doing the right thing.”
And there is some wisdom here.
I, for one, would not dismiss everything Mr. Trump has said just because he's a stupid frat boy.
1. Isolationsim/ War with Islam/ Anti Muslim Sentiments/Xenophobia:
I share the concern about an immigrant population which, far from pushing to "assimilate," refuses to embrace the one cardinal principle of a free society: Freedom of speech and with that, the notion, "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
No, that's not what we hear from at least a few Imans at some Mosques in England, France and Germany. In those places, the mosque is a place of foment, discontent, rage and rebuke to all those infidels outside its walls who practice free love, who believe women should be sexually free and economically independent, who might draw cartoons about the prophet Mohammad and then deserve to be murdered.
A group which enters, or you might say "infiltrates" a country with that sort of behavior in mind, really is a "Trojan Horse" in the purest sense. This is a group which is determined to destroy the city from within. The question is, how do you identify the bad actors? The idea of a Trojan Horse is the invaders bent on destruction are concealed.
This is the concept of "invasive species." In New Hampshire Norwegian Red Maple trees are considered invasive species. They don't belong here according to the department of Horticulture at UNH. Fact is, every species of tree is an invasive species or was once. Fact is, somebody on the faculty of UNH doesn't like red trees. Color of the leaves offends them. But look around Hampton, NH and you'll see a lot of people like the mix of red and green leaves. Mixing of the races. New Hampshire just doesn't look the same. The same as when?
Same is true of London, Berlin, Paris. Walk down some streets in London and you'd think you were in Baghdad. Is that a bad thing? For some this change is disturbing and unpleasant.
The problem is Trump's solutions, a ban on entry into the country of all Muslims, a registry of "suspects" i.e. Muslims is akin to the solution of the Third Reich. Just round 'em all up and kill them.
In Europe now, Germany, France, England, the idea of what a country ought to be like is it ought to be white, Christian and not swarthy or Muslim. Diversity is not embraced as a good thing. As far as I'm concerned, that is a value to be resisted or even deplored, and, practically speaking, America is stronger than any individual European nation precisely because we have, finally, after 300 years actually internalized that mixing of races and ethnicities is a good, joyful thing. At least 49% of us have done this.
2. Protectionism, Anti Globalization, Anti Capitalism, Workers and their American Jobs:
The idea of protecting American jobs against the global economy, of protectionism as a value which Trumps free trade, low prices, maximal capitalist efficiency, is not ipso facto a loser.
The American entrepreneur who has developed a factory to manufacture shirts, who discovers he can have those shirts made in Vietnam, shipping the cloth there, having the workers paid $1 a day rather than $15 an hour, asks himself: What am I in business for? Am I going to work every day to make shirts, sell shirts and make as much money for myself as I can, or am I doing this to provide jobs to 300 workers here in America, and with that, to pay for their workmen's compensation, their retirement and their health insurance?
The capitalists, the upper 1% crowd, has clearly decided, we are going for the money. We do not sell shares to our stockholders so we can support an American workforce. Our primary loyalty is to our stockholders, which means what we are about is maximizing profit. In that sense, we are anti labor and we regard our employees as competitors, as a force which limits profit, which stands between us and our ultimate goal.
If the reason for keeping a Carrier airconditioner plant open is to generate profit for the shareholders, then we move the factory to Mexico. If it's to provide jobs for American workers, then we keep it in Indiana. Of course, then you have the problem of robots: If we can make shirts in either place with 20 employees and 200 robots rather than 400 employees, do you have to choose the 400 employees?
From our earliest days as a republic, New England shoemakers wanted protective tariffs while Southern cotton planters (who had nearly free slave labor) wanted no such barriers to trade with England. Protective tariffs might have inhibited trade, but it protected shop owners and workers in Massachusetts.
Any effort to protect workers may, but not necessarily always does, result in building inefficiency into the chain of production.
This raises the question of why do we produce stuff? Is it to meet consumer demand or to provide jobs for workers?
In some ways maybe we should shift to an economy which no longer produces stuff but only provides services. Services nearly always requires employees.
The stuff can come from elsewhere.
3. The Unites States as the World's Policeman:
Why do we have American troops in Korea, Japan, Germany and who knows where else? Why do we have to spend money for that?
Why do we have American troops in Europe to defend Germany and France against Russia?
The "American First" types from the 1930's didn't care about Hitler or fascism or Germany rounding up and killing Jews and Gypsies. They just didn't want American boys dying to prevent that sort of nastiness on the other side of the ocean.
The lesson of isolationism carried us forward for 75 years, but now, do we really want to launch our nuclear missiles or even send in our armoured division to defend Lativa, Estonia and Lithuania or Poland?
Why does the American taxpayer have to work 6 months a year to pay to maintain solidiers the French and German and Italian taxpayer do not have to pay for?
Americans are lucky to get 2 weeks paid vacation. In Europe 12 or even 16 weeks of paid vacation is not uncommon.
Are we being played for suckers?
When Trump looks at NATO and all the other places we spend money, I have to smile in silent (until now) agreement.
The question is, have we really heard all the arguments?: At least we have to be thankful to the Donald for opening the discussion.
So Mr. Bannon has a point.
You'd be well advised to figure out why you lost before you go attacking Mr. Trump.
“While it may upset The New York Times, Hollywood, the cast of ‘Hamilton’ and the groups marching in the streets, it is not upsetting to the constituents that elected these members and senators,” Sam Geduldig, a Republican lobbyist, said of Mr. Trump’s behavior. “There is a feeling that if those groups are against you, you’re doing the right thing.”
And there is some wisdom here.
I, for one, would not dismiss everything Mr. Trump has said just because he's a stupid frat boy.
1. Isolationsim/ War with Islam/ Anti Muslim Sentiments/Xenophobia:
I share the concern about an immigrant population which, far from pushing to "assimilate," refuses to embrace the one cardinal principle of a free society: Freedom of speech and with that, the notion, "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
No, that's not what we hear from at least a few Imans at some Mosques in England, France and Germany. In those places, the mosque is a place of foment, discontent, rage and rebuke to all those infidels outside its walls who practice free love, who believe women should be sexually free and economically independent, who might draw cartoons about the prophet Mohammad and then deserve to be murdered.
A group which enters, or you might say "infiltrates" a country with that sort of behavior in mind, really is a "Trojan Horse" in the purest sense. This is a group which is determined to destroy the city from within. The question is, how do you identify the bad actors? The idea of a Trojan Horse is the invaders bent on destruction are concealed.
This is the concept of "invasive species." In New Hampshire Norwegian Red Maple trees are considered invasive species. They don't belong here according to the department of Horticulture at UNH. Fact is, every species of tree is an invasive species or was once. Fact is, somebody on the faculty of UNH doesn't like red trees. Color of the leaves offends them. But look around Hampton, NH and you'll see a lot of people like the mix of red and green leaves. Mixing of the races. New Hampshire just doesn't look the same. The same as when?
Same is true of London, Berlin, Paris. Walk down some streets in London and you'd think you were in Baghdad. Is that a bad thing? For some this change is disturbing and unpleasant.
The problem is Trump's solutions, a ban on entry into the country of all Muslims, a registry of "suspects" i.e. Muslims is akin to the solution of the Third Reich. Just round 'em all up and kill them.
In Europe now, Germany, France, England, the idea of what a country ought to be like is it ought to be white, Christian and not swarthy or Muslim. Diversity is not embraced as a good thing. As far as I'm concerned, that is a value to be resisted or even deplored, and, practically speaking, America is stronger than any individual European nation precisely because we have, finally, after 300 years actually internalized that mixing of races and ethnicities is a good, joyful thing. At least 49% of us have done this.
2. Protectionism, Anti Globalization, Anti Capitalism, Workers and their American Jobs:
The idea of protecting American jobs against the global economy, of protectionism as a value which Trumps free trade, low prices, maximal capitalist efficiency, is not ipso facto a loser.
The American entrepreneur who has developed a factory to manufacture shirts, who discovers he can have those shirts made in Vietnam, shipping the cloth there, having the workers paid $1 a day rather than $15 an hour, asks himself: What am I in business for? Am I going to work every day to make shirts, sell shirts and make as much money for myself as I can, or am I doing this to provide jobs to 300 workers here in America, and with that, to pay for their workmen's compensation, their retirement and their health insurance?
The capitalists, the upper 1% crowd, has clearly decided, we are going for the money. We do not sell shares to our stockholders so we can support an American workforce. Our primary loyalty is to our stockholders, which means what we are about is maximizing profit. In that sense, we are anti labor and we regard our employees as competitors, as a force which limits profit, which stands between us and our ultimate goal.
If the reason for keeping a Carrier airconditioner plant open is to generate profit for the shareholders, then we move the factory to Mexico. If it's to provide jobs for American workers, then we keep it in Indiana. Of course, then you have the problem of robots: If we can make shirts in either place with 20 employees and 200 robots rather than 400 employees, do you have to choose the 400 employees?
From our earliest days as a republic, New England shoemakers wanted protective tariffs while Southern cotton planters (who had nearly free slave labor) wanted no such barriers to trade with England. Protective tariffs might have inhibited trade, but it protected shop owners and workers in Massachusetts.
Any effort to protect workers may, but not necessarily always does, result in building inefficiency into the chain of production.
This raises the question of why do we produce stuff? Is it to meet consumer demand or to provide jobs for workers?
In some ways maybe we should shift to an economy which no longer produces stuff but only provides services. Services nearly always requires employees.
The stuff can come from elsewhere.
3. The Unites States as the World's Policeman:
Why do we have American troops in Korea, Japan, Germany and who knows where else? Why do we have to spend money for that?
Why do we have American troops in Europe to defend Germany and France against Russia?
The "American First" types from the 1930's didn't care about Hitler or fascism or Germany rounding up and killing Jews and Gypsies. They just didn't want American boys dying to prevent that sort of nastiness on the other side of the ocean.
The lesson of isolationism carried us forward for 75 years, but now, do we really want to launch our nuclear missiles or even send in our armoured division to defend Lativa, Estonia and Lithuania or Poland?
Why does the American taxpayer have to work 6 months a year to pay to maintain solidiers the French and German and Italian taxpayer do not have to pay for?
Americans are lucky to get 2 weeks paid vacation. In Europe 12 or even 16 weeks of paid vacation is not uncommon.
Are we being played for suckers?
When Trump looks at NATO and all the other places we spend money, I have to smile in silent (until now) agreement.
The question is, have we really heard all the arguments?: At least we have to be thankful to the Donald for opening the discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment