Reflections on Trump’s Presidency and the Election

November 10, 2020

I was never a fan of Trump before the 2016 election. As the Republican candidates began their campaigns for the primaries, I gave him zero chance of winning the nomination. He was too acerbic, mean-spirited, brash and bully-like – to the point of being self-destructive – for many voters to get behind his candidacy. However, as American workers and their families continued to reel from the economic damage wrought by the “Great Recession” of 2009, his “Make American Great Again” program caught on like wildfire.

Trump came right out and laid the blame for America’s problems squarely on those factors that every American knew was to blame – the factors that no other Republicrat would even utter for fear of alienating their global corporate benefactors: trade policy that had destroyed the manufacturing sector of our economy, and out-of-control immigration that was being used to keep our labor force in a constant state of over-supply in order to suppress wages. After decades of these policies that turned America – once the world’s preeminent industrial power and the richest nation in the world – into a skid row bum, begging the rest of the world to buy up our ever-growing mountain of debt, the American people were fed up and more than willing to overlook Trump’s issues in the hope of restoring America to the greatness we remembered.

From the outset, Trump faced challenges like no other. The proponents of globalism immediately kicked into overdrive in an effort to destroy him, cooking up a phony Russian influence narrative and then, when that didn’t work, impeaching him over the Ukrainian phone call without proving any “quid pro quo.” Beyond that, it took him a couple of years to weed out of his cabinet people who were supposedly the best in their field, but who proved to be nothing more than globalists bent on sabotaging his America First agenda.

In spite of all that, he made huge strides toward actually “Making America Great Again.” He cut both legal and illegal immigration dramatically. He got Mexico and Central American countries to cooperate in stopping the immigrant caravans. He made big cuts in quotas for refugees and H1-B visas (that steal jobs from Americans) and eliminated the “diversity” category of immigration altogether.

He got rid of the North American Free Trade Agreement and replaced it with an agreement designed to shift more production from Mexico back to the U.S. He slapped 25% tariffs on half of all Chinese imports, reducing the trade deficit with that country. He raised GDP growth above 3% and sent unemployment to record low levels while wages rose at their fastest pace ever.

He stood up to China. He got North Korea to halt their saber-rattling. He pulled us out of the horrible agreement with Iran that virtually guaranteed them a path to a nuclear weapon. He defeated ISIS. He forced NATO countries to begin paying their fair share of their defense costs. The rest of the world began treating us with respect again instead of playing us for fools and treating us like chumps.

He quickly pulled us out of the “Paris Climate Accord.” If you don’t see that as a positive thing, then I challenge you to tell me the mission statement of the Accord. You can’t do it, can you? I doubt that one person in a thousand – maybe one in a million – could tell me what it is. Most people think its mission is to protect the environment, to stop global warming through drastic cuts to greenhouse gas emissions. You’d be very wrong and shocked to learn that its actual mission is to reinvigorate “sustainable development” – the very concept whose practice over the last four decades has led to climate change – focusing on development of third world countries using fossil fuel technology, and all paid for by the U.S.

He did a hell of a lot in spite of the push-back from Democrats and the media. So what went wrong? Sadly, Trump could never get out of his own way. As someone close to me said, “if he’d just kept his mouth shut and stayed off of Twitter, he’d have won the election easily.” Trump just couldn’t stop himself from making over-the-top attacks on anyone who disagreed with him. To vehemently disagree with opponents wasn’t enough for him. He had to destroy them. Voters elected him to put the globalist establishment in its place, but what he did to some people was beyond the pale. The best example I can think of is how he denigrated John McCain. There were many other examples.

And he was a poor communicator. He did a poor job of making Americans understand what he was accomplishing and how it’d make their lives better. Pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord is a good example. Did you ever hear it explained to you as I did above? Instead, the media dictated the message, while Trump focused on trashing his enemies.

Then there was Covid. His initial approach was right on target, but he quickly grew impatient with its effect on the economy. He could have advocated for reopening the economy while doing everything we could to do it safely. Instead, he tried to minimize and even deny the problem. His approach resonated with a lot of people, but angered many more who are terrified of this disease.

Trump will soon be gone from the White House. But there are still a hell of a lot of people who fervently believe in the movement he started to “Make America Great Again.” There are three kinds of voters in America: those who believe America never stopped being great, those who believe that it’s not as great as it once was and needs to be made great again, and those who are fine with seeing America in decline. The biggest group, by far, is that group in the middle. The first group is in denial or detached from reality. The latter group is tiny, but very real and active, and a threat.

Trump started a movement that can and should live on, and will live on with any candidate or party that takes up its banner. Trump could play a huge role in keeping it alive, but that would require fundamental changes in his approach that I doubt he’s capable of. Maybe Mike Pence? Maybe Nikki Haley who did an outstanding job as Trump’s UN ambassador. Or maybe Mike Pompeo, his Secretary of State, who took no crap from any foreign country, to put it in coarse terms. It could even be a Democrat, if one were able to see its potential to restore the party’s image as the party of the working man. Biden? No.

Covid and the daily drumbeat of negativity from the media were a lot to overcome but, in the final analysis, Trump may have been his own worst enemy in his election defeat. Though he’s making a valiant effort to continue to fight with a myriad of court challenges, he won’t prevail. Few believe there was rampant fraud. I agree with those who say that every legal vote should be counted.

But was the election rigged? An election can be rigged through entirely legal means. Consider gerrymandering, the perfectly legal (in some states, not all) of redrawing congressional district boundaries to virtually assure that, once elected, it’s virtually impossible for the incumbent to be defeated. That’s rigging an election and it’s perfectly legal. It’s not a factor in the presidential election – at least not directly – but there are other ways to legally rig that election. I can’t help but have my suspicions. But this has gone on long enough for now. More on that in my next post.


California Admits Failure in its Carbon Reduction Efforts

February 5, 2019

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-california-insight/a-climate-problem-even-california-cant-fix-tailpipe-pollution-idUSKCN1PQ4MJ

Once in a while I divert my focus from the economic impact of population growth to highlight other impacts, like environmental.  This is one of those times, as the report in the above-linked article is so significant that I can’t let it pass without comment.  The state of California is admitting that its decades-long drive to reduce auto exhaust emissions is a complete failure.

For three decades, California has led the fight to control tailpipe pollution, with countless policies promoting cleaner gasoline, carpooling, public transportation and its signature strategy – the electric vehicle.  Californians now buy more than half of all EVs sold in the United States, and the state’s auto-pollution policies have provided a model being adopted around the world.

Indeed, California’s focus on reducing carbon emissions has been a model for the rest of the world.  In fact, such carbon reduction is the model upon which the Paris Climate Accord, whose stated goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level at which sustainable development can continue, is based.  The result?

Tailpipe pollution here is going up, not down, despite billions of dollars spent by one of the most environmentally progressive governments on earth.

“The strategies that we’ve used up until now just haven’t been effective,” Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, told Reuters.

How is this possible – that such measures are having no effect?  The answer is quite simple, and it’s a point I’ve tried to drive home repeatedly.  The planet doesn’t give a damn how much you reduce your carbon emissions.  All it cares about is the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Population growth is negating any gains in per capita carbon emissions.  What difference does it make if everyone reduces their personal emissions by 50%, let’s say, if the population doubles?  Not one damn bit.

That failure has less to do with energy or environmental policies and more with decades-old urban planning decisions that made California – and especially Los Angeles – a haven for sprawling development of single-family homes and long commutes, according to state officials.

Note the word “development.”  It’s the same word you find in the stated mission of the Paris Climate Accord – sustainable “development.”  It’s a code word for population growth.  “Sprawling development” doesn’t happen without it.  “Sustainable development” doesn’t happen without it.  In fact, “sustainable development” has been the biggest cause of climate change and those who continue to promote it are scamming you into supporting their real agenda – profit growth for global corporations.

The fact is that there is no solution to climate change or any of the other myriad negative consequences of population growth that doesn’t BEGIN with a focus on stablizing the human population.  That’s not to say that we shoudn’t also focus on minimizing our emissions of all kinds – not just greenhouse gases but gaseous, liquid and solid emissions of all kinds.  Nor is “sustainable development” a solution to poverty.  It’s actually making it worse, with over-crowding driving down per capita consumption and, with it, employment.

Of course, there’s no overt mention of “population growth” in this article – just “sprawling development.”  So don’t be surprised if the scam continues, but with a new, additional focus on trying to drive people together into tiny apartments in high-rise housing.  Yeah, that’ll work.  That’s a future we can all really look forward to.