Given the break-neck speed that Trump and his administration have been acting since he took office in January, it's easy to forget that his current term isn't even 150 days old, that we are barely 10% into his Presidency.
Last night, I had a call with one of my good friends here in NYC, who pointed your substack out to me some time ago. We talked about the issues for which, even for self-proclaimed heterodox thinkers, likely still Overton windows exist (such as hard to deal with sub-population average differences in IQ scores based on immutable traits). And I came to some sort of interim conclusion: so long as people still fear for their reputation if they were to even mention *having thought* about a topic (forget about what conclusions they draw!), so long will Trump likely keep the upper hand. As status-oriented as his behavior often seems to be, at the very least he clearly demonstrates that he is not afraid thinking and talking about any topic in pretty much any direction (in his, admittedly, hard to sell to intellectuals way). One of the underlying aspects that I strongly suspect voters in all Western countries are now outright rejecting is the notion of “wrong-think.” That a topic would be off-limits prior to having even being given that chance to think it through, and instead being asked to accept an opinion (sex assigned at birth, comes to mind) as fact just *feels* too wrong to people, and they would rather accept a (necessarily!) raging bull in the proverbial china shop than any more politician who is incapable of speaking about truths that are self-evident. Trump discovered the one loophole about human psychology during his stand-up comedy like 2015/2016 campaign that no other politician is willing to touch: just say what everyone knows to be true, no matter how far out of the Overton window it is, and enough people will trust your judgment, even if they will tell pollsters that you are, of course, a morally decrepit person…
I think that a few of the "uncancellables" such as Rowling and Rogan have made it safer to voice heterodox opinions. Of course, that isn't always a good thing - too many treat opinions that lack any foundation as "as good" as those that do.
Great take. The waving of Mexican flags is (at least in our area) not being taken lightly. It pisses a lot of people off. As our public infrastructure is overwhelmed, schools, hospitals, and many other places are continually overwhelmed with new people. It’s like the shale oil boom in North Dakota. Not enough places to handle the massive influx of new people. I’ve tried to want to stay on team Red, but since they’ve lost all sense of fiscal responsibility I had to defect to the “Disgusted Party” which I think is actually how a vast majority of citizens feel!
👍 Excellent post. The absurdity of the Democratic Party continues to astound me. The self appointed intellectual elites continue to choose the wrong side of every 80/20 issue in front of them. I’ve assumed that it’s simply because they wish to oppose everything Trump does, but so many normal people have left the Democratic Party that it’s entirely possible that the ones who remain and have power simply believe in the 20% side of those 80/20 issues. 🤷♂️🤷♂️
At this point, the Ivy League elites have become the Poison Ivy elites, leading the party over the cliff to join Thelma and Louise on the canyon floor. While it is fair to point out that there are (and always will be) crazies on the right, the difference is that they have a smaller voice and, more importantly, they have no power to force crazy policies on the Republican Party.
When Trump's term is up much if not all of what he's doing now will probably go with him. By then some other Republican, building on or deviating from the current policies, perhaps even a conservative Democrat will gain favor with the voters. People do have a tendency to get jaded by too much of the same thing. It's inevitable so unless the 22nd Amendment is rescinded like in that movie Civil War and things escalate in unexpected ways what we're seeing now is a phase. I admit its unique but our system of checks and balances does not allow for extreme change.
I disagree. Trump is a symptom, a product of the nativist surge that we have been seeing in many Western nations and which is itself a reaction to unmanaged immigration. Until the conditions that feed that sentiment ease, the core of Trumpism will remain. The next GOP President may depart from some of Trump's economic policies, but he or she won't get elected without the same "America First" message.
Reagan also had an America First policy though it wasn't called that in the much reminisced 80s. Still, the problem of unchecked immigration does need to be addressed.
I'll retreat to libertarian first principles. The government should not get between a willing buyer and a willing seller, or between a willing employer and a willing employee, even if it's across a line in the sand drawn by politicians. Borders should denote the jurisdiction of different governments, not control the movements of people.
Analogous to the War on Drugs, the problems associated with illegal immigration are due to the "illegal" part, not the "immigration" part.
Short of the open borders ideal, I'll go with 2024 LP presidential candidate Chase Oliver's proposal for a new "Ellis Island" - identify yourself, submit to a background check, health check, then come on in.
Yes, Milton Friedman said you can't have open immigration with a welfare state. So, limit public assistance for X years as a condition of legal entry. I'd be ok with charging an admission fee to defray possible social costs - a couple of thousand per person would raise a lot of cash and undercut the prices charged by smugglers who are just as likely to leave migrants stranded in the Darien Gap or the Arizona desert.
I'm mostly with you on all points. I do believe that a nation that does not control its borders is not a nation, and I have no problem prohibiting bad actors from immigrating. The Charles Koch "anyone who would make the nation better, and no one who would make the nation worse" metric.
Where that hits the wall of practicality is the welfare state. Any restriction on public assistance is easily rescinded by the next administration, and everyone knows that, and so the moral hazard will remain.
Unfortunately, the only real remedy to that moral hazard, at this juncture, is deportation. I'd prefer it was limited to those who fall on the second half of the Koch rule.
Note that I offered none of my immigration prescriptions in the article - I was just reading the tea leaves.
I think you, and many others, fail to mention the one reason big government likes these immigrants. They work for low wages. That keeps other wages from going up and makes the statistics on inflation look better than they might be. That they are getting tons of more or less invisible money, from government funded NGOs, never seems to appear.
Meanwhile the debt grows and Rome prepares to burn.
Good article! Am resigned to 90% agreement with you regarding most things political, but then I had a panicky minute there ...when I read "Fuentes" as "Freitas".
Last night, I had a call with one of my good friends here in NYC, who pointed your substack out to me some time ago. We talked about the issues for which, even for self-proclaimed heterodox thinkers, likely still Overton windows exist (such as hard to deal with sub-population average differences in IQ scores based on immutable traits). And I came to some sort of interim conclusion: so long as people still fear for their reputation if they were to even mention *having thought* about a topic (forget about what conclusions they draw!), so long will Trump likely keep the upper hand. As status-oriented as his behavior often seems to be, at the very least he clearly demonstrates that he is not afraid thinking and talking about any topic in pretty much any direction (in his, admittedly, hard to sell to intellectuals way). One of the underlying aspects that I strongly suspect voters in all Western countries are now outright rejecting is the notion of “wrong-think.” That a topic would be off-limits prior to having even being given that chance to think it through, and instead being asked to accept an opinion (sex assigned at birth, comes to mind) as fact just *feels* too wrong to people, and they would rather accept a (necessarily!) raging bull in the proverbial china shop than any more politician who is incapable of speaking about truths that are self-evident. Trump discovered the one loophole about human psychology during his stand-up comedy like 2015/2016 campaign that no other politician is willing to touch: just say what everyone knows to be true, no matter how far out of the Overton window it is, and enough people will trust your judgment, even if they will tell pollsters that you are, of course, a morally decrepit person…
I think that a few of the "uncancellables" such as Rowling and Rogan have made it safer to voice heterodox opinions. Of course, that isn't always a good thing - too many treat opinions that lack any foundation as "as good" as those that do.
Great take. The waving of Mexican flags is (at least in our area) not being taken lightly. It pisses a lot of people off. As our public infrastructure is overwhelmed, schools, hospitals, and many other places are continually overwhelmed with new people. It’s like the shale oil boom in North Dakota. Not enough places to handle the massive influx of new people. I’ve tried to want to stay on team Red, but since they’ve lost all sense of fiscal responsibility I had to defect to the “Disgusted Party” which I think is actually how a vast majority of citizens feel!
👍 Excellent post. The absurdity of the Democratic Party continues to astound me. The self appointed intellectual elites continue to choose the wrong side of every 80/20 issue in front of them. I’ve assumed that it’s simply because they wish to oppose everything Trump does, but so many normal people have left the Democratic Party that it’s entirely possible that the ones who remain and have power simply believe in the 20% side of those 80/20 issues. 🤷♂️🤷♂️
At this point, the Ivy League elites have become the Poison Ivy elites, leading the party over the cliff to join Thelma and Louise on the canyon floor. While it is fair to point out that there are (and always will be) crazies on the right, the difference is that they have a smaller voice and, more importantly, they have no power to force crazy policies on the Republican Party.
I've been of a mind with you on your last point, but I am feeling increasingly wary of ignoring the right-crazy, because it's getting stronger.
Yeah, you’re right! Gotta keep the crazies out of power.
When Trump's term is up much if not all of what he's doing now will probably go with him. By then some other Republican, building on or deviating from the current policies, perhaps even a conservative Democrat will gain favor with the voters. People do have a tendency to get jaded by too much of the same thing. It's inevitable so unless the 22nd Amendment is rescinded like in that movie Civil War and things escalate in unexpected ways what we're seeing now is a phase. I admit its unique but our system of checks and balances does not allow for extreme change.
I disagree. Trump is a symptom, a product of the nativist surge that we have been seeing in many Western nations and which is itself a reaction to unmanaged immigration. Until the conditions that feed that sentiment ease, the core of Trumpism will remain. The next GOP President may depart from some of Trump's economic policies, but he or she won't get elected without the same "America First" message.
Reagan also had an America First policy though it wasn't called that in the much reminisced 80s. Still, the problem of unchecked immigration does need to be addressed.
Yeah, but it wasn't the same sort of nativism.
And, yes, the border *needs* to be controlled. I say that even as a staunch advocate for robust immigration.
I'll retreat to libertarian first principles. The government should not get between a willing buyer and a willing seller, or between a willing employer and a willing employee, even if it's across a line in the sand drawn by politicians. Borders should denote the jurisdiction of different governments, not control the movements of people.
Analogous to the War on Drugs, the problems associated with illegal immigration are due to the "illegal" part, not the "immigration" part.
Short of the open borders ideal, I'll go with 2024 LP presidential candidate Chase Oliver's proposal for a new "Ellis Island" - identify yourself, submit to a background check, health check, then come on in.
Yes, Milton Friedman said you can't have open immigration with a welfare state. So, limit public assistance for X years as a condition of legal entry. I'd be ok with charging an admission fee to defray possible social costs - a couple of thousand per person would raise a lot of cash and undercut the prices charged by smugglers who are just as likely to leave migrants stranded in the Darien Gap or the Arizona desert.
I'm mostly with you on all points. I do believe that a nation that does not control its borders is not a nation, and I have no problem prohibiting bad actors from immigrating. The Charles Koch "anyone who would make the nation better, and no one who would make the nation worse" metric.
Where that hits the wall of practicality is the welfare state. Any restriction on public assistance is easily rescinded by the next administration, and everyone knows that, and so the moral hazard will remain.
Unfortunately, the only real remedy to that moral hazard, at this juncture, is deportation. I'd prefer it was limited to those who fall on the second half of the Koch rule.
Note that I offered none of my immigration prescriptions in the article - I was just reading the tea leaves.
I think you, and many others, fail to mention the one reason big government likes these immigrants. They work for low wages. That keeps other wages from going up and makes the statistics on inflation look better than they might be. That they are getting tons of more or less invisible money, from government funded NGOs, never seems to appear.
Meanwhile the debt grows and Rome prepares to burn.
I don't think that's the motivator behind the Left's open border policy. That's two or three levels deep, and they aren't that calculating.
The politician aren't, but the people they really report to are. The ones who get the goodies buried on p 348 of the bill nobody read.
I honestly don’t see a difference between Al Qaeda and members supportive of the DNC at this point.
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/mexican-and-palestinian-flag-waving
Good article! Am resigned to 90% agreement with you regarding most things political, but then I had a panicky minute there ...when I read "Fuentes" as "Freitas".
Old age ain't for sissies!