November 18, 2016

verlassen schadenfreude

OK, it's been fun, but now I'm inspired to help a GOP-led country flex some, flaunt a little and get down to the gritty business of governing for the people. I'd like to collect some strategy tips, and some ideas about what's to be done early/first. I like the idea of doing something popular, while more quietly doing something important. Love to hear TS'ers ideas on what's popular, and what's important.

My draft list of popular: build the wall (sorry JK, the welfare state is not going away - but VDH's idea below in bold is better), refloat the military, gut the ACA (smiling all the way), reform the VA.
My initial take on important: expose the Clinton Foundation's racketeering (to stop the Obamanites from doing same), block the Revolving Door, break the crony capitalist piggy bank, realign NASA, which has been promised and the IRS. Repeal Dodd-Frank.

The eminent Dr. Hanson has some ideas: foremost an "optics" approach or strategy described as in mediis rebus that's Trump's style, and could be used for powerful effect.

If in the first 100 days Trump can push through tax reform, deregulation, Keystone, clean coal, new leases for fracking and horizontal drilling on federal lands, an end to the crony-capitalist Solyndra-like subsidies, a cut-off of federal aid to sanctuary cities, support for school vouchers, the wall, deportations of those illegal aliens who committed crimes or have no work history, plans to rebuild the military, a freeze on federal hiring, trade renegotiations then surprising things will follow.
VDH, PhD, further states that Social Security should be left alone - did Trump promise that?

Freedom on the March Posted by nanobrewer at November 18, 2016 12:26 AM

I ended my schadenfreude on a particularly hoch note. The Federalist Society did a two or three day symposium on Justice Scalia. Ted Cruz wrapped it up with a "happy-warrior" and "vanquished but ready to serve loyal opponent" style in a great speech about Scalia and jurisprudence moving forward. It was inspirational and cemented my contentment in the election's outcome.

VDH. I love the man. He wrote the introduction and two appendices for the Thucydides Landmark Edition I have been boring y'all with. I've long been a fan of his work in National Review.

But he was one of the first nativists. He write a book called "Mexifornia" out of dismay for his ancestral home in Central California. America's breadbasket turned into a hell-hole, but I think he misplaces blame.

I recognize President Trump will have to do something to fulfill his promises. I hope they are as politically palatable and economically-un-distortionary as possible. Some money for tech, and kick out some truly bad hombres. Fingers crossed.

I'm mixed on prosecuting the Clintons. Yes in a rule-of-law way, no in a Wilson-jailed-Eugene-Debs way. The balance will be harder than it looks. Pardon her and ask Congress for legislation limiting such enterprises in the future.

1 -- Fill Scalia's seat (Sen. Cruz?)
2 -- Trim the EPA's sails. Expedite Keystone and DAPL.
3 -- Fed hiring freeze "I got elected when I was outspent 5:1 by these guys who say they need more resources than they do." It might be more ceremonial than effective, but it tells the private sector and those who would invest in it that its supremacy is recognized.
4 -- Blue Ribbon Laffer/Kudlow/Moore panel to finalize a tax plan and work with VP Pence as legislative liaison.
5 -- something touchy-feely for the LGBTQ+ community. I do not think he is anti-gay, the Dems have whipped that up. An important post for Peter Theil, some symbolic legislation.
6 -- Make America Great Again or something. :)

Posted by: jk at November 18, 2016 1:23 PM

Agree with everything above but want to add my numero uno (see what I did there?) priority - Cancel, withdraw, repudiate, eliminate US involvement in the Paris Accord, and any transfer payment of US taxpayer dollars for "climate action."

As for deportations, I support deporting criminals who ALSO are here illegally, and defunding sanctuary cities. My dream "optic" is for a leftist-church to take in a violent criminal alien who looks like Danny Trejo and for ICE to "Elian Gonzalez his ass" back to a Mexican prison, on the way to defunding the sanctuary city in which the church is situated. Meanwhile, the mothers and fathers here on expired visas shouldn't be touched with a thirty nine and a half foot pole.

Posted by: johngalt at November 18, 2016 4:04 PM

Pffft! Hardware guys. A software person would have inserted a "priority zero."

Posted by: jk at November 18, 2016 6:15 PM

Guilty as charged!

Posted by: johngalt at November 18, 2016 7:29 PM

{ Fixed the "Crony Capitalist" link } I love it!! Keep the guy too busy to muck with trade pacts.

Did you read _Mexifornia_? I read his intro to it, and I clearly recall his daughter(s) had married into hispanic families. Like Sessions, I think he's just against illegal immigration. Hopefully what they're both for is enforcing the law!

JK is "mixed on prosecuting the Clintons"
Hmmm, good point - just gives them an excuse to stay relevant and play the victim card... help some of their victims' sue??

Drain the swamp! {I'm still a bit in awe - not all good - that DJT is soon to be POTUS}

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 19, 2016 12:37 AM

No sir. I was a subscriber to NR ("on dead tree") when Mexifornia came out, and they did a cover story which was a lengthy summary. So, I've read the Cliff's Notes.

Note that I did not call him a racist; I called him a nativist. He yearns for the Central California of times past. It is a conservative magazine, and we should all mourn what decades of California politics has done to it.

I'm imaginative enough to envision A Central Valley that prospers with lots of Hispanic residents but few ruinous EPA/Jerry Brown/Tom Steyer regulations and usurpations of property rights.

To my blog brothers' continual annoyance (sorry), I do not really distinguish between illegal and illegal immigration. If there were actual opportunities to come here legally I would be happy to differentiate.

I want more legal immigration and would supplement it with "undocumenteds" rather than starve the economy. VDH and "AG Jeff Sessions" (ehrmigawd) disagree. That is their right,

Posted by: jk at November 19, 2016 2:00 PM

Let's talk about "nativist."

I had an introductory conversation on the immigration issue with my squishy sister-in-law yesterday. It prompted some deeper introspection on my part.

"Demography is destiny." I and the North American Indians may not like it, but it is fact.

"La Raza is hell bent on reclaiming California as part of Mexico." Well, not really part of Mexico, but ruled by Mexican people.

"How many immigrants should the USA allow to enter the country legally, each year?" Well, this is the crux of the "comprehensive reform" issue, is it not?

Hey jg, I thought you wanted to talk about nativism? Yes. The term is a bit harder to define than the word "is" is. [Take that "end a sentence with a preposition haters. I ended with two, back to back!]

If by "nativist" you mean a straight white male who wants America to be dominated and controlled in every manner by the traditional values of straight white males, I can see why you would recoil at the supremacy of nativists. But if you mean someone who believes America's constitutional republic was the greatest political economic creation in the history of man and it should be preserved in its original form - perhaps I might coin the term "neo-nativist" then opposition to this agenda would have to be recognized for what it is - democratic, tyrannical, socialist, and ultimately Unconstitutional.


Posted by: johngalt at November 21, 2016 11:05 AM


"Nativist" to me is a semi-pejorative for a person who choses preservation of existing cultural norms over the economic advantages offered by trade and immigration.

I'm preemptively rejecting any assertions that limited government cannot be perpetuated by people with more melanin than Thomas Jefferson. I highly recommend Michael Barone's "New Americans" and expect it's a-penny-plus shipping these days. Every twenty years, our teeming shores are invaded by a group that -- unlike the last -- shows no hope of assimilation and Americanization. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

If the only means of preserving liberty is to entrust it to the exclusive purview of a shrinking demographic, then we are in pretty bad trouble. I'd tell you and Professor Hanson to look less at California and more at Texas.

"La Raza is ..." strikes me as parallel to "The KKK likes Trump!" We cannot lower the capital gains tax because it would please the KKK? By the same token, we can't keep all Hispanics out because they might join La Raza. I purport that a more open immigration policy would admit more entrepreneurs who would be too busy for identity politics; the current system admits uncles and cousins who might have the time and inclination.

How many to admit? More. Admit enough legal ones to allow us to keep out the "bad hombres." Admit lots from everywhere, those who will pack up and move are by definition risk takers and workers.

I watched much of the "Teen Jeopardy" tournament in the last couple weeks. It's better than "McFarland!" Brilliant young men and women of many races give me confidence in the future. And proof that is safe in non-white hands.

Posted by: jk at November 21, 2016 12:46 PM

Whoa! I didn't mean to imply that "only white people" can maintain the republic - quite the opposite. I was trying to bifurcate between opposing immigration on cultural grounds and being wary of immigration on republican principles.

Cutting to the chase - if the republic felt secure, much more secure, from threat by democratic takeover (principally native, white, democratic takeover it must be said) then much immigration resistance could be relaxed. At least by yours truly. But one major strategy of that native white democratic takeover effort is more immigration.

The bottom line is that more immigration favors Democrats; there is no prediction of Democratic electoral ascendancy that doesn't rely on demographic factors as the main engine of the party's dominance.

It is not the immigration that I oppose, it is the concomitant Democrat electoral ascendancy.

Posted by: johngalt at November 21, 2016 1:49 PM

Huh. There's an Internet Meme going around with your picture and the text "Only white people can maintain the republic!" Guess I should have checked it on

You're plugged in -- can you compare the results of immigrants to Millennials? I suspect they're fairly close, and I have warmer feelings about possibly educating the immigrants someday.

Majority support for Republicanism is a difficult -- I hope not insuperable -- problem. Closing the doors doesn't strike me as a solution.

Import on Miami Cuban for every other immigrant and we'll be fine.

Posted by: jk at November 21, 2016 2:33 PM

If it's as impactful as the meme I created last week, nobody will see it.

Millennials were about 56/35 Clinton/Trump.
Hispanics were about 65/29.
There aren't enough Cuban immigrants to offset that bias.,_2016#Voter_demographics

Here's the most telling breakdown I found - "Gender by marital status"

Of the four groups, married men, married women, unmarried men, unmarried women - only one broke for Trump (by a wide margin.) Two were narrowly for Clinton and one other was overwhelmingly for Clinton. I won't even bother telling you which were which. It is self-evident.

Is the Trump vote a proxy for preserving the Republic? I think so, yes.

Posted by: johngalt at November 21, 2016 4:21 PM | What do you think? [11]