Presidential Debates with a Twist

After watching the presidential debates, Professor Maria Guadalupe had an idea.  What if the genders of the two candidates were swapped?  How would Trump's aggressive demeanor have been viewed were a woman to have acted that way?  Would Hillary's superior political experience have received more recognition when delivered by a man?  She set out to test the theory.  Actors were cast.  A woman would play the Trump clone, Brenda King, while a man would play the Hillary clone, Jonathan Gordon.  Watching and listening to the debates, each actor sought to mimic the tone, cadence, and mannerisms of the candidates.  Finally, they gave a couple of performances.  To the amazement of all, Brenda King came off surprisingly well while Jonathan Gordon came off stiff and overly reliant on rehearsed statements.

 

Though an interesting experiment, it doesn't look fair to the Hillary clone.  Assertive and aggressive behavior in a woman is far more acceptable than effeminate behavior in a man, especially when looking at a potential president.  One picture shows Gordon in a very awkward pose for a man that would be unremarkable of a woman.

 

Of note, in the first televised presidential debates in 1960, those who heard the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won while those who watched on TV chose Kennedy.  The visual cues made a big impression.

 

For a future experiment, run the debate twice with the same actors but have them switch roles the second time around.  Script remains unchanged.  One actor should be George Clooney and the other can be Steve Buscemi.  This sounds like an obvious sort of experiment and has probably already been done but the results could be instructive.

Obamacare 2.0

Back in 2009 and 2010, the Republicans managed to hold together and vote 100% in opposition to a government takeover of the healthcare sector.  When they took over the House in January 2011, the repeal bills began.  Once the Republicans captured the Senate, a repeal bill actually made it to Obama's desk where he - unsurprisingly - vetoed it.  Now, rather than just erase this disaster and have US law return to what it was in February 2010 (the month before the ACA was signed into law), they are having second thoughts.  The Democrats took the hit - having lost over one thousand elective offices across the country during Obama's Presidency - so the Republicans figure why give up the power that Democrats committed political suicide to acquire.  Really, let's not be hasty.  Is it any wonder I left the Republican Party?

Apparently, the free market is a foreign concept to the party that used to champion free markets.  Have they not noticed that goods and services provided by the free market see tremendous improvement over time and also drop in price?  Here is a great graph that shows how prices have changed over the last 20 years.  All those things government has sought to make more affordable (e.g. college, health care, housing, food) have seen massive cost increases.  Those items left to the private market (e.g. clothing, cars, furniture, cellphone plans, TVs) has seen prices flat or dramatically fall.  Maybe there is a correlation?

 

Among the crazy things the Republicans have decided to retain is the guarantee of coverage for those with a pre-existing condition.  That would be like allowing a homeowner to buy insurance while the house was on fire.  The fire is a pre-existing condition; how can the insurance company deny?  That isn't how insurance works.  Insurance is a hedge against disaster, not a payment plan for routine costs.  No one buys gas or gets their tires rotated through a copay.  Why doesn't health insurance work that way?

 

The best thing that Congress could do would be to repeal the whole enchilada.  And then just keep repealing until there are no national laws or regulations regarding health care.  Prices would plummet, insurance would transform to only paying for catastrophic care, and the states could setup modest programs to cover the poor.  The Constitution does not authorize the government to do anything with regard to health care.  Set the market free and it will do wonders.  The drawback is that government would have less power over the peasants and fewer dollars to spend.

Schumer Voted for the Wall

Here is an article in which Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer plans to filibuster the wall and, to read it, one would think Schumer has a good shot.  However, the legislation for the wall is already passed: Secure Fence Act of 2006.  Schumer voted Yea.  Therefore, the only thing needed for building the fence is a check.  That can be done through reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes.  Hey, that's how the Democrats managed to ram through the Affordable Care Act even after they lost the 60 vote majority in the Senate.  Of course, the Republicans may play along and pretend that they have no means of overcoming Schumer's parliamentary tricks.  Voters with short memories will believe it.  If such does come to pass, look for Trump to start tweeting about spineless Republicans.

Worse than Watergate?

Mark Levin, a conservative talk show host and former member of the Reagan Administration, makes the case of Obama Administration spying on the Trump Campaign by citing left-leaning news sources.  Of course, citing these same sources with equal brevity, one can make the case that Trump's Campaign was deeply entangled with the Russians.  However, which story is more prevalent?

That is the secret of spin, slant, and fake news.  When the accusation comes on page 1 and the retraction on the following day appears on page 20, how many readers will have read the former but not the latter?  Is that by accident or intention?  For weeks on end, the news will report about a hate crime, but when the victim turns out to be the perpetrator, silence.  The news had given the impression that rape is common and widespread on college campuses but every story that gets wide coverage turns out to be false.  The media picks which stories will go viral and which will get a mention - so they can honestly say they covered it - and then never go anywhere.  The majority of the media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.) are staffed with Democrats.  It's an echo chamber run on confirmation bias.  The fact that the word 'narrative' is so popular in news coverage today speaks volumes.  The Op Ed page has invaded the whole of the news industry.

 

The Russia story is bogus.  It was used as a means to get a FISA judge to approve surveillance.  Russia had no reason to prefer Trump over Hillary.  Obama was the best US President Russia ever had.  He stood by with empty words when Russia invaded the Crimea.  He was flexible on weakening the US military.  He stood by as Russia sent forces into Syria.  He managed to improve the relationship between Turkey and Russia, which is not beneficial to America.  He gave billions of dollars to Iran - a Russian ally in the Middle East - and lifted sanctions, again benefiting Russia.  He nixed our missile defense agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic, which pleased Russia.  While Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary approved the sale of 20% of the US uranium mines to a Russian mining company, Rosatom.  With a series of victories like that, why would Russia want an erratic real estate mogul who keeps saying, "Make America Great Again" rather than Obama's chosen successor?  It sure looks like the Russia story is a clear case of projection.

 

As for the spying, one must ask what did Obama know and when did he know it?

Uber

Does Uber have a responsibility to cooperate with sting operations favoring crony-capitalist competitors?

Steven Green, Instapundit

 

In an effort to circumvent the laws in some cities, Uber has an app called Greyball.  The app keeps track of those accessing the Uber app with particular attention to those who might be setting up a sting operation against Uber drivers working in areas where the ride sharing service is not legal.  Clever.

One of my favorite economists, Walter Williams, has described smugglers as heroes.  Indeed, if Bill is willing to drive Sally to the airport in his private vehicle and Sally is willing to pay, why should government have the right to deny them from engaging in this mutually beneficial trade?  On the other hand, if the population of a locality has freely elected those who make such laws, those laws should be followed.  Federalism and libertarianism clash here.  But even there, Steven Green has a point in that it is not incumbent on the "lawbreaker" to cooperate with efforts to catch them.

 

The taxi model with its medallion system is a relic of an older era.  With cellphones and willing drivers, hailing a cab is heading out with the buggy whip.  Heck, before too much longer, cars with drivers will be an oddity.  Embrace the future and let free people engage in free trade.

Watergate Redux

In 1972, members of the Nixon campaign sought to steal documents and plant bugs in the offices of the Democratic National Committee at Watergate.  President Trump claims that the Obama Administration - which was actively campaigning for Hillary Clinton - did the same.  Here are a couple of Trump's tweets on the subject:

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

 

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

Donald J. Trump, Mar 4, 2017

 

Is that crazy talk?  Sadly, no.  The Obama Administration tapped the phones of the Associated Press for two months.  Even more invasive measures were taken against Fox Reporter James Rosen.  Edward Snowden was sufficiently alarmed that he went public with leaks revealing mass surveillance.  The Obama Administration used the Espionage Act of 1917 to punish leakers rather than to prevent espionage.  Add to that Krauthammer's view that the outgoing administration left "landmines" to hobble the early days of the Trump Administration.  With all that in mind, was this the kind of administration that would pull a Nixon?  Yes it was.

 

Obviously, it remains to be proven.  Trump makes wild claims (e.g. Inauguration crowd size, electoral college margin, etc.) but he is in a position to know what government agencies have been doing; they all report to him now, even if reluctantly.

Breaking the Elite Clique

I had mentioned in an earlier blog that Trump's election expanded the potential nominees.  I had offered Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerburg but Oprah Winfrey is also qualified by our new standard.  She is tremendously successful in a variety of enterprises, has name recognition as great or greater than Trump, and - unlike Trump - she is almost universally loved.  Though she didn't think she was qualified, now she thinks perhaps she is.  Although Oprah and I are on different sides of the political spectrum, I would rate her as more qualified than most Democratic politicians because she has been successful in the private sector.  Politicians with a long and distinguished career in government think nothing of piling regulations, taxes, and other burdens on the private sector but Oprah has been on the receiving end of that.  Also, she has more character than most politicians.

 

This is exactly why the insiders are up in arms.  Trump has vastly expanded the competition.  The cozy little clique of Harvard and Yale graduates have controlled the presidency since 1989 and are furious that their reign has been interrupted.  A third of all presidents have gone to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton.  These universities are churning out a professional political class which has become the American aristocracy.  In order to save the clique, Trump must fail.  Trump must fail so badly that the voters realize their error and never commit it again.  Then the aristocracy can claim that it takes a particular education to be president and only we chosen few may apply.

 

Here are the last 8 elections.  Only schools that were attended by multiple nominees are highlighted.

 

2016 - Trump (U Penn) vs. Hillary (Yale)

2012 - Obama (Harvard) vs. Romney (Harvard)

2008 - Obama (Harvard) vs. McCain (Annapolis)

2004 - Bush II (Yale & Harvard) vs. Kerry (Yale)

2000 - Bush II (Yale & Harvard) vs. Gore (Harvard)

1996 - Clinton (Yale) vs. Dole (U Kansas) vs. Perot (Annapolis)

1992 - Clinton (Yale) vs. Bush I (Yale) vs. Perot (Annapolis)

1988 - Bush I (Yale) vs. Dukakis (Harvard)

 

Only Dole and Trump did not attend Harvard, Yale, or Annapolis.  Trump is the first person since Reagan in 1984 to win without having attended Harvard or Yale.  If she runs, Oprah attended Tennessee State University.