Category: Domestic Policy

Domestic Policy, General, General, Politics

100 Days of Myopia

Bob Claude |

Source: “Pictures of TR & FDR Together”, Theodore Roosevelt Association Journal, Vol. 16, No.1 in Theodore Roosevelt Digital Library, Theodore Roosevelt Center, Dickinson State University

Nothing worth having comes without effort – Theodore Roosevelt

Since the purpose of this website was to develop a positive ideology of nationalism, I have avoided keeping up with the chaotic first three months of the second Trump administration. We have now reached the vaunted 100-day mark in his presidency, which is too often used to judge a president’s success. It leads to a temptation to focus on quick, shallow policy victories at the cost of lasting change and thus risks squandering a mandate.

Trump’s victory came amid claims that it heralded a historic realignment towards a new nationalist majority in the American electorate.  However, history shows that lasting political realignments are processes, not specific events. They begin before the election and are then fostered by the victors afterwards. The campaign doesn’t end, but continues as the victor explains their new national priorities and broadens his movement’s connection to the American public.  As Trump should have learned in his first term, he had no automatic sinecure, but was simply on probation. His support may have been a mile wide, but was only an inch thick.

The obsession with a president’s first 100 days harks back to the first administration of Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin, Franklin.  In an attempt to revive the economy during the Great Depression, he used the Democratic majority in Congress to enact a wealth of legislation to stabilize the economy and create jobs.  No one knew what would work, and so it was the policy equivalent of throwing mud against the wall and seeing what stuck. The Supreme Court voided some of it as unconstitutional. Most economists now agree it had little impact and that the economy did not fully recover until the advent of World War II.

This, however, does not mean it was ineffective.  Americans may not have known much about the alphabet soup of federal agencies FDR created, but every family huddled around their radios each week to listen to his fireside chats.  In a calm avuncular manner, Roosevelt used this relatively new medium to promote his legislative program and explain his philosophy. This created the support that enabled him to eventually pass iconic liberal goals like Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act in the latter two years of his first term.  It cemented a realignment that continued for almost 40 years and still is a part of our political landscape.

Trump has an opportunity to achieve a new nationalist version of the Roosevelt majority. Globalist Democrats are in disarray and their popular support has sank to historic lows. It is a golden opportunity for the kind of debate that would cement a lasting nationalist mandate. Instead, Trump 2.0 has taken the easy way out by making the same myopic mistakes as Trump 1.0, but on steroids. It has been dominated by Trump’s desire for revenge and his addiction to executive orders, many of which are futile, bombastic, unconstitutional or all three at once.

Theodore Roosevelt certainly pushed the boundaries of presidential power (see this earlier article), but as part of a coherent discussion of the policy reasons for it.  His most important political role was as a cheerleader for local Progressive reform movements. Much like FDR, he enjoyed using the “bully pulpit” of the presidency to promote his philosophy and embraced the possibilities for persuasion that the legislative process offered. It was hard work, but worth the reward. Instead, Trump’s arrogance and dictatorial methods risk reviving globalist legitimacy while justifying the use of similar tactics by a future president of that ideology.

2024 Election, Domestic Policy, Environment, Politics

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index – Conservation and the Environment

Bob Claude |

Theodore Roosevelt and Sierra Club founder John Muir in Yosemite

Score

Harris + 6 Trump -5

Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I ask nothing of the nation except that it so behave as the farmer behaves with reference to his own children. The farmer is a good farmer who, having enabled the land to support himself and to provide for his children, leaves it to them a little better than he found it himself. I believe the same thing of a nation.

Theodore Roosevelt, The New Nationalism, August 31, 1910

Theodore Roosevelt’s name is synonymous with the cause of conservation in American history. In both action and word, he called the nation to value and preserve the unique beauty of the American wilderness and to husband our natural resources for future generations. The more recent cause of environmental health and safety regulation sprung from this ideal as well as his advocacy of healthy working and living conditions.  However, he differed with Sierra Club founder John Muir in that TR believed sustainable development could occur consistent with the conservation of those resources.  The struggle to reconcile these two ideals still resonates in today’s environmental politics and policy and thus, in this election.

Climate Change

The Biden Administration made the challenge of climate change the centerpiece of its domestic and foreign policy. Its (unfortunately misnamed) Inflation Reduction Act invested $380 billion in new clean energy projects and technology while continuing oil & gas leasing on federal lands (see this previous post). Meanwhile, the EPA increased the price for purposes of costing carbon emissions. To reclaim our legitimacy on the issue overseas, President Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Accord and appointed John Kerry as our first ambassador at large on climate change. These are just a few of the administration’s initiatives that put America at the forefront of addressing this challenge.

Donald Trump could not be more different.  He has ridiculed the very concept of climate change, though he did not actively prevent state and private clean energy projects while President. The only saving grace of his neglect of the issue was his unwillingness to sacrifice American economic security to carbon reduction goals to which China, Russia and the rest of the world were equally uncommitted.

Both candidates, however, have failed to coherently address the one climate issue which should be non-partisan – climate adaptation. Most scientists now admit the world will not reduce carbon emissions enough to avoid the 1.5 -2 C increase in world temperatures necessary to avoid the effects of global warming. Meanwhile, the increasing number of wildfires here in the West and Hurricanes Helene and Milton have strained the resources of the Federal Energy Management agency to the limit (see this article from the Council on Foreign Relations).

The American people deserve a climate adaptation policy that prepares the nation for  all of the changes we face in the future. It should address issues as diverse as land use,agricultural policy, housing affordability and potential population relocation as well as the impact on American foreign policy.  It is not climate defeatism to start pivoting our focus to this challenge.  Unfortunately, the Biden Administration seems to believe so, simply because they have not featured it in their policy.

The good news about Vice President Harris is that she will undoubtedly continue the current arc of the Biden climate policy. The bad news is that she has advocated more radical approaches in the past that would hobble the American economy. Thus, she deserves only a plus 2 on the issue while Trump continues to deserve a minus 2 on it.

Parks and Public Lands

An inscription from a speech by Theodore Roosevelt on the Roosevelt Arch at the north entrance to Yellowstone National Park declares the park to be “for the benefit and enjoyment of the people” . The same goes for all of our national parks, monuments and public lands, which stand as a common heritage of all Americans. Indeed, they have been a model of conservation for the entire world.

President Biden has fully embraced this heritage. He added more than 12.5 million acres of monuments and protected lands and invested billions in land conservation efforts (see this article for more background). The Bureau of Land Management now considers conservation equally important to land development . The only drawback is the backlog of unused land locked up by the Wilderness Act, which could be released for development or joint use. (see this previous post) .

The Trump Administration was a friend of the established national parks and, for example, signed the Great American Outdoors Act appropriating billions for park infrastructure.  However, he was hostile to other public land preservation, reducing the size of several established by the Obama Administration. Moreover, the Project 2025 platform prepared by former Trump officials actually advocates the repeal of the Antiquities Act that TR’s used to preserve the Grand Canyon and authorized Biden’s preservations.

At the same time, both Vice President Harris and Trump have strangely advocated  the construction of housing on public lands despite the fact that the vast majority of it is located in the Western states. Governor Walz qualified her position during the Vice-presidential debate, saying a sale of lands was unnecessary. Nevertheless, the past policies of The Biden administration still earn Harris a plus 2 on the issue while Trump receives a minus 1.5 .

Environmental Regulation

The Biden environment program began by prioritizing climate change and environmental justice initiatives. In addition to reinstating many of the rules abolished by the Trump Admini8stration, the Biden EPA issued a series of regulations to limit the use of and clean up PFAS chemicals found in drinking water, packaging and other consumer goods (see this article). It also acted to protect workers from increasing heat risk by issuing the first outdoor and indoor heat standard (see this article).

These rules address important health and safety issues, but also push the boundaries of agency jurisdiction.  While the Supreme Court just refused to issue a stay of an EPA rule to require power plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions by 2037, the litigation over the issue continues in the lower courts. One of its PFAS rules also is in serious legal question after the Supreme Courts’ Loper Bright decision (see this article).  The next administration must commit to protect necessary health, safety and environmental regulation by reviewing and updating relevant legislative authorization in light of the Loper Bright decision (see the Draining the Swamp post in this series).

Vice President Harris clearly supports this kind of health and safety regulation, but it is unclear whether she has the will or the interest in working with Congress toward new legislation to better define agency jurisdiction.  She thus receives a plus 2 in this area. Meanwhile, Trump has shifted to a more hostile attitude to such regulation than he previously exhibited during his presidency. It is possible that Robert F Kennedy, Jr.’s historic environmentalism will moderate the influence of Trump’s new corporate allies, and so he receives just a minus 1.5 score.

Conclusion

In the last century, TR’s conservation and environmental ideals have moved from being a novel proposal to becoming a centerpiece of American public policy. Their implementation, however,  remains controversial. The next president must find a way to use the common blessings of our national beauty and our respect for the health of our fellow Americans to unify the nation and reignite our hope for the future.    

2024 Election, Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Domestic Policy, General, Immigration, Politics

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index – The Square Deal

Bob Claude |

Score

Harris +4 Trump +2

Theodore Roosevelt campaigned against privilege primarily because he saw its corrosive effects on the average American family. A devoted family man himself, TR worked to prevent child labor and improve working conditions so that workers could fully contribute to their families and to the nation as a whole. He was realistic about the changes necessary to give those families a “square deal”, saying that  

But when I say, I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service.

Today’s American workers face similar obstacles to building strong families and contributing to society. Redistribution of wealth through taxation will not solve these problems. Only changing the laws and the rules of today’s game will build the strong families and strong America necessary to meet the challenges of the future.

Immigration

The sudden arrival of over 20,000 Haitian immigrants in the city of Springfield, Ohio, has become a microcosm of the nationwide impact on American citizens of the Biden-Harris open immigration policy. The issue was never about the damn cats.  It was about importing and dropping a huge community of foreign nationals on a city already struggling with unemployment and decline (see this post from X). A local plant then justified on the grounds that the Haitians were better employees. Meanwhile, rents continued to climb and the local school district had to try to integrate a large influx of students, many of which did not speak English.  

American workers were just beginning to catch up to living costs when this hurricane of immigrants hit them. Even the Federal Reserve Chairman recognizes that this wave of over 8 million immigrants has increased the unemployment rate. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration also allows the tech industry to use the H1B program to undercut wages of STEM workers despite the fact that the STEM unemployment rate is higher than the national average.

This mass importation of foreign immigrants represents a new slavery this administration celebrates rather than fights (see this past post). Vice President Harris has taken even more extreme positions in favor of it.  Her failures and those of President Biden rate a minus 2.5 score. Unfortunately, President Trump has moved more toward the corporate globalist approach. He calls for the unrealistic goal of “mass deportation”, closing the border and E-verify while also supporting automatic green cards for foreign students. He thus earns only a plus 1 score on the issue.

Antitrust and Consumer Protection

This is an issue where the Biden – Harris administration has really shined. They reinvigorated antitrust enforcement by fully utilizing the Clayton Act to object to mergers and bringing suit against tech companies like Google and Facebook for using their market power for monopolization. The Federal Trade Commission under its Chair Lina Khan has also led on antitrust and in expanding basic consumer protections.  In particular, the ban on the abuse of non-compete clauses will free many workers to fully utilize their skills where they can be better compensated (though I worry the ban exceeds the Commission’s jurisdiction).

Unfortunately, in the rush to raise campaign funds from Silicon Valley, Vice President Harris refuses to say whether she would reappoint Khan to the Commission. Nevertheless, she has expressed support for the antitrust campaign and earns a plus 2.5 as a result. While Trump initiated the Google case during his term, he has changed his position and parroted the corporate line against these efforts. It is possible that RFKJr will be able to turn him back to a more active antitrust role, but for now, he rates a minus 1.

Child Tax Credit

American families have historically struggled to raise their children with little help from federal and state governments. During the COVID pandemic, the Biden Administration’s COVID stimulus plan expanded the child tax credit to as much as $3,600 a year and included low income families who were previously ineligible for the credit because they were not paying taxes (see this past post). This halved the child poverty rate, which then rose when the program ended in 2022.

Both Harris and Trump support expanding the credit.  Harris proposes a $6,000 annual credit while Trump’s running mate Sen. J.D. Vance has filed legislation to expand it to $5,000 per year. As this article relates, the most likely difference between the two plans is that Harris may limit the credit to low-income families, which would reduce the impact on the federal deficit. Both campaigns deserve credit for supporting families by expanding the credit, with Harris earning a 2.5 score and Trump a score of 2.

Housing

Home is where the heart of a family resides, but more and more families are unable to realize that dream because of lack of affordable housing.  There are many causes – high building costs, local zoning regulations, private equity purchases of local housing for investment and high mortgage rates, among others.  It is a national crisis that needs a comprehensive response.

Vice President Harris has proposed a plan that would give first time home buyers a $25,000 tax credit, create incentives for home builders and control the purchases of single-family homes for investment. She also said she would challenge regulations that limit the construction of homes.  Here in the West, we are unfortunately familiar with the environmental restrictions on logging that have significantly reduced lumber supply. Color me skeptical that Harris will actually break with environmental groups on these restrictions. However, the plan is a good start and merits at least a 1.5 rating.

Trump’s plan is less comprehensive and relies on lowering corporate tax rates, cutting federal regulations and reducing demand by deporting immigrants.  It is not clear how much this would impact the problem and so it only rates a zero score.

Conclusion

While both candidates score positively on achieving a square deal for America’s families, the differences in method matter.  Vice President Harris appears to believe she can ameliorate the socioeconomic crisis of open immigration with federal regulations and dollars. Her proposals would help but would be more effective and cheaper if immigration was controlled. Trump understands that immigration is an underlying cause of many of American worker’s problems. However, except for the child tax credit, he opposes further federal help to solve them. A nationalist like TR would recognize we need progress on both fronts if we are to truly reduce wealth inequality and give American families the hope, stability and square deal they deserve.