Waiting for Joe Biden’s speech to a joint session of Congress to begin this week, I observed at New York that Republicans were struggling to define him consistently, which felt like a familiar problem for them:
When Bill Clinton was at the pre-Lewinsky peak of his powers, he drove Republicans nuts. They alternated between accusing him of “stealing our issues” with his triangulating pitches on welfare reform and crime and the size of government, and of being “liberal, liberal, liberal!” — a sort of boomer love child of George McGovern and Janis Joplin in a deceptive deep-fried southern packaging. Eventually the opportunity to depict him as a lying sexual predator solved the conservative dilemma, though you could argue he never stopped throwing them off-balance.
Republicans are similarly having problems getting a clear focus on Joe Biden, as the Los Angeles Times’ Noah Bierman observes:
“Alex Conant, a Republican consultant who has advised Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, [says] that his party’s two main messages about Biden are at odds with each other, blunting their impact. ‘The thing you hear Republicans say most is that he’s too old for the job, which isn’t consistent with saying he’s doing too much,’ Conant said. ‘You can’t effectively argue that he’s incompetent and that he’s too effective.'”
This dual framing of Biden was evident during the 2020 campaign, when Trump called him “Sleepy Joe” and with his usual lack of subtlety suggested his opponent was senile, even as he assailed Biden’s party of radical socialist aims. The 45th president and his surrogates squared the circle by treating Biden as the half-there puppet of the real powers, particularly the “communist” Kamala Harris.
But now, 100 days into the Biden-Harris administration, even though the new president has kept an unusually low profile, there are no signs of Harris or anyone else manipulating him. Indeed, so far his White House has been remarkably free of the factionalism that often undermines clear presidential leadership. With Clinton as president you had a White House staff famously divided (ironically, given the later reputations of the First Lady and the veep) into progressive “Rodhams” and centrist “Gores” who jockeyed for position and placed their varying stamps on administration policies. George W. Bush’s presidency was also marked by competing power centers (e.g., his terrifying vice-president and the “Boy Genius” Karl Rove); to a lesser extent, so was Obama’s. As for Donald Trump, hardly a week passed without someone — particularly his rotating cast of chiefs-of-staff — being described by “insiders” as the real power behind the throne or perhaps as the wild man’s lion-tamer.
Trump, of course, created some of the same problems for Democrats that Clinton — and now Biden — posed for Republicans. Was he the “toddler president” who ran a hollowed-out administration with no real core of convictions or goals? Or was he a putative Il Duce craftily planning an authoritarian takeover of the country? Up until the day he left office there was evidence for both descriptions. Indeed, the coda of his presidency, the January 6 Capitol riot, was variously regarded as a fascist coup attempt and a clown show.
Trump’s successor will have an opportunity in his first address to a joint session of Congress to add to the impression that he is quietly but firmly in charge of the executive branch, and has imposed order on his fractious party as he unveils yet another massive proposal. Kamala Harris will be sitting (and often standing and applauding) behind him, likely looking more like an adoring protégée than any sort of puppet-master. But if he stumbles at all, or looks tired, or says things that supposedly centrist Democrats like him don’t believe, the knees of many elephants will jerk and out will come the mockery of the old man who is a reassuring front for the Marxists actually running the country.
Such confusion if it continues will be of great service to Biden, much like the current Republican tendency to focus on irrelevant culture-war themes while a mostly united Democratic Party enacts legislative initiatives of a magnitude we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan’s first year in office. For all their political gifts, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — who, lest we forget, both had a much more firmly Democratic Senate and House the first two years of their presidencies — couldn’t come close to the mastery of Congress Biden has exhibited up until now. As Republicans watch Biden’s speech, they should soberly realize that before long it may not matter that much if they bust up the Democratic trifecta in 2022. The damage to GOP policies and priorities wrought by “Uncle Joe” and his “senile socialist regime” could be too large to reverse by then. While Republicans fret about Trump and rage about “cancel culture,” Biden is eating their lunch.
My memory of Rubinomics associates it with bringing down the interest rate and reducing the deficit, rather than free trade. This apparently has changed in the post-election discussion.
The benefits of free trade have not been shared, no doubt. The “free” part has been taken by opportunists to mean free from the need to share gains or mitigate pains. Populists are right to shut down the store until accounts are set up correctly.
But the other side of Rubinomics is no less difficult. Getting the budget under control. Debt service and the retiring baby boomers are going to set up an impossible situation. Remember, off-the-books borrowing from Social Security and Medicare funds is not only going to stop, but will need to be reversed simultaneous with the ballooning debt service.
Clearly fiscal responsibility means revenue increases. Tax increases? Not on the middle class. That is the Democrats bargain with the voter in the past election. And we’d better not renege on that. The 1994 election, if you’ll recall, was demagogued by the Gingrich and the Republicans using very meagre tax increases.
Where then? I’d like to see somebody else’s ideas. I would first end the cap on payroll taxes. This would have the effect of increasing the top marginal rate by 16% or so for earned income, earmarked for the entitlements that will be needing it.
Symbolically, it might be neat to institute a new top marginal rate of 80 or 90 percent on income over $3 million.
An idea that is not mine, but I forget where I saw it, was to get rid of all the income tax deductions and credits and bells and whistles in favor of five: children, pensions, health care, education, mortgages. This might net the most, while holding the middle class harmless.
“Taxes” won’t be such a dirty word if it is applied to the other guy.
“Free” vs. “Fair” Trade
As the Rubinites and the economic populists square off on a number of issues which includes the free versus fair trade debate, the narrow use of the term “fair” trade by some Democrats borders on a disguised and thus disquieting form of rank economic nationalism.
Free trade is not fair trade when our government, thanks to powerful and well-heeled lobbies, refuses to couple “free” trade with the abolition of the patently inefficient subsidization of cotton, wheat, and sugar production in this country, among other such supports. These subsidies underwrite a monied elite while increasing the price of these products for consumers, not to mention the denial of economic opportunities for foreign workers. (Here in Florida, for example, we not only subsidize “big sugar” and thus pay more for our sugar, but we also subsidize their cost of doing business by using tax dollars to clean up their despoilment of the Everglades.)
An example of this “fairness” is reflected in the draft free trade agreement with Peru. As drafted, its implementation would demolish the Peruvian wheat, cotton, and sugar industries, for even with their lower wage rates, they cannot compete with the artificially supported low prices for these products.
Some Democrats are calling for better labor and environmental laws and their enforcement, which in Peru’s case could be strengthened, but this call is being made without any discussion whatsoever of the “unfair” destruction of three Peruvian industries.
The money we waste on welfare for industries that don’t need protection could be better spent on the social nets necessary for a fair trade driven economy.
In short, if the economic populists are going to argue for fair trade then they should use that term consistently to apply not only to our trading partners but to ourselves as well.