Tag: Harris2024election

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.

2024 Election, China, Foreign Policy, Politics, Realist Theory

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index Speaking Softly

Bob Claude |

This is the third in a series examining the issues in the 2024 presidential election. To see other articles in the series, click on the “2024 Elections” link under the heading “Politics” in the above menu.

Score

Harris -6 Trump +1.5

While Theodore Roosevelt was known to engage in bellicose rhetoric, his foreign policy as president was based on adroit diplomacy. Roosevelt knew that the world was in a transition where nations such as the United States, Germany and Japan were becoming powers as the British Empire was reaching its peak. He used diplomatic negotiation to prevent a German intervention in Venezuela and to stabilize great power rivalries in Europe and in Asia, thus increasing America’s soft power.

The Biden-Harris ticket campaigned on the slogan “a foreign policy for the middle class”. After the election, they implemented the exact opposite- a policy that desperately tried to maintain the American unipolar hegemony of the 1990’s and extended our scarce resources far from our limited national interests.  The only people served by such a policy were business and foreign elites.

The correct worldview is that we now live in a period of great power competition on its way to becoming a G0 world; that is, a world where there are only regional powers and no superpowers. In a G0 world, the US would be the preeminent power in the Western Hemisphere with the ability to influence other issues in the world primarily by diplomacy. In the meantime, the US must live and act in the current great power reality while planning for this future state. I advocated abandoning liberal interventionism in favor of a realist approach in my series “Nationalist Foreign Policy -a History” (see the Foreign Policy tab above). Trump and Harris have very different philosophies on these crucial issues.

National Security Strategy

Every new presidential administration produces a document called a National Security Strategy (“NSS”) that shapes American foreign policy as well as its perception overseas. Comparing those of the Biden and Trump Administrations reveals a marked difference in strategic emphasis and priorities.

The Biden NSS speaks repeatedly of addressing “shared challenges” that “are not secondary to geopolitics but are at the very core of security and should be treated as such.” This would be accomplished by a “rules-based international order” that would grow “the connective tissue” between the US and other nations to spread democracy and strengthen national security. In addition, it expressly seeks to use foreign policy to “spur reform and rejuvenation domestically”.  A more globalist, liberal interventionist policy could not be imagined.  The best that can be said is that it is a statement of how to achieve a G0 world, while trying to wish away the geopolitical realities of today’s world.

In contrast, the NSS of the Trump Administration leads with the statement the government’s first duty is to its citizens. It expressly rests on a “principled realism”.  The most fundamental duty of the President is to protect the homeland, our way of life and American interests overseas. It recognizes that we are in a great power rivalry with China and Russia.  Our allies and other countries can “magnify our power” but are expected to help us address threats.

We can assume that Vice President Harris and former President Trump would implement these past strategies of their respective administrations, though the details may differ. Harris maybe even more globalist if her administration includes more radical “progressive” globalists as this article suggests. Based on their record and this possibility, she deserves a  minus  2 score. Trump has often said he believes in a more “transactional” foreign policy, which is consistent with a realist approach. His running mate Sen. JD Vance also wants to reorient American foreign policy away from the Biden view to a more realist strategy (see this article). The Trump– Vance ticket thus earns a plus 1.5 score on this fundamental issue.

Ukraine and European Policy

The Russo – Ukraine war has now ground on for more than two years. The Ukrainians achieved a dramatic victory in preventing Russian forces from taking Kyiv. We now know that a peace could have been negotiated at that time, but the US and Britain encouraged Ukraine to continue the war to attempt to recover the Donbas region and Crimea (see this article from Foreign Affairs magazine– subscription required).  The West, particularly the United States, then begin shipping arms to Ukraine, but only to the extent it did not provoke Russia to escalate the war into NATO. The result has been another “forever war” with no clear strategy or achievable goal at the cost of thousands of Ukrainian lives.

The war has also proved to be a crucible of fire testing the strength of NATO and our European relationship. Eastern Europe stepped up to support Ukraine while Western Europe, in particular Germany, gave limited support. Some NATO members such as Hungary actually opposed aid and overtly sympathized with Russia. These divisions call into question whether it is in our interest to remain a NATO member, especially in light of Europe’s potential defense capability (see this past post on the issue).

The next administration needs to concentrate on bringing peace to this conflict.  Ukraine will have to accept the loss of the Donbas and Crimea and Russia will have to accept the sovereignty and, thus the loss, of Ukraine. At the same time, we should have no illusions about Vladimir Putin.  He is a ruthless dictator who, among other war crimes, orchestrated the kidnapping of hundreds of Ukrainian children to be placed with Russians. We cannot have normal relations with him. For example, we should immediately kick the Russians off of the International Space Station.  

However, the increasing importance of East Asia and our neglect of Latin America require a reassessment of our NATO commitment. Vice President Harris appears committed to continuing the war in Ukraine and our current NATO commitment despite these realities and so deserves a minus 2.  In contrast, Trump pushed Europe to increase its defense spending to counter Russia and criticized Germany for its reliance on Russian oil and gas. He has said he would settle the Ukraine War even before he takes office, though without specifying how. His past efforts and current attitude merits a plus 1 score in this area.

Israel and Middle East Policy

As of this writing, Iran has just launched a barrage of missiles at Israel in retaliation for its killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon. It is an escalation of a war that has extended far beyond the originally stated goal of freeing the hostages that were taken during the October 7 raid of Hamas. Instead, Israel has used the raid as an excuse to widen the conflict to attack Hezbollah as well as expand its control over the West Bank in violation of the Oslo Accords and international law. They call it “mowing the grass”; i.e., not eliminating the problem, but simply keeping it under control.

As I argued in this post, we have an interest in a stable Middle East, not one regularly wracked by war that threatens world stability. Israel is a critical pillar of this stability, but so is the Arab and Muslim world. The Biden Administration has endangered this balance by tethering American policy to Israel without imposing any real costs to its expansive goals that contradict our own stated policies in support of a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, both Harris and Trump support this myopic policy, though Harris’s connections to pro-Palestinian groups in the Democratic Party make her more open to change. Trump successfully negotiated the Abraham Accords normalizing relations between Israel and some Arab states, but those are in tatters now. In light of these performances, Harris and Trump both receive a minus  2.

China and Asia

The vaunted “pivot to Asia” during the Obama Administration has become a circular pirouette during the Biden administration. Its concentration on Ukraine and Israel has led it to ignore crises in East Asia that directly threaten important Pacific Rim nations. China has effectively annexed the South China Sea in violation of international law and is now regularly challenging Philippine control of its seas. Meanwhile, Xi Jin-peng threatens Taiwan, which is only now starting to ramp up its defenses.  

A Chinese attempt to take over Taiwan would have severe economic and geopolitical consequences for the world.  Nevertheless, it would be impractical and possibly disastrous for the US to stop a military invasion. It is more likely that China would simply try to strangle the island with various levels of blockades.  The American people need to be prepared for the tariffs and other sacrifices that may be required to impress upon the Chinese leadership the costs to China of a forcible takeover.  We will need the support of East Asian nations in this effort. President Biden’s support of Israel has made this more difficult in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country that straddles key shipping lanes. Trump led the way in raising alarms about China’s rise during his administration while Harris’s approach is unknown. Thus, Trump receives a plus 1 on this issue and Harris gets a zero.

Conclusion

American foreign policy will succeed in the present and future multipolar world only if it is clear, flexible and based on realist international theory.  Donald Trump seems to understand the need to change our current unipolar and interventionist approach while Kamala Harris will likely continue it in some form.  It is time for an American president with Theodore Roosevelt’s courage and vision and who will lead the transition to a foreign policy that effectively serves the American people and, in the end, the rest of the world as well.