Tag: Theodore Roosevelt

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, Globalism vs. Nationalism, Nationalist Theory, Politics

Progressive Nationalism and the Goals of Community and Opportunity

Bob Claude |

“Our country, this great Republic, means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy, the triumph of popular government, and, in the long run, of an economic system, under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him. That is why the history of America is now the central feature of the history of the world; for the world has set its face hopefully towards our democracy, and, oh my fellow citizens, each one of you carries on your shoulders, not only the burden of doing well for the sake of your own country, but the burden of doing well, and seeing that this nation does well for the sake of mankind.”

Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism speech in Ossawatomie, Kansas, remains the best expression of American progressive nationalism. He began by saying America must be a strong example of democracy in the world. America is strong when her people are strong, and her people are strong only when they can be the best they can be. We lead because of who we are and what we stand for. TR called all Americans to look beyond their own interests and realize they are a part of the bigger, more important, community of their nation and, indeed, the world.  This love of country also means love of the land it enjoys and so TR’s commitment to conservation was a natural outgrowth of his commitment to America and its promise.

“One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege…. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men in methods of government for their own profit.”

Opposition to “privilege” was a constant theme of TR’s progressivism. Large fortunes and corporations, especially those gained from mere financial speculation, were both a threat to democracy and to equal opportunity. Roosevelt was thus among the first American statesmen to recognize that “bigness”, even if obtained lawfully, could be a threat to democracy because of its potential to grow in power beyond the nation’s ability to manage it. Property thus exists to serve the common good and not selfish private interests inimical to the broader interests of the nation.

“The fundamental thing to do for every man used to give him a chance to reach a place in which he will make the greatest possible contribution to the public welfare. Give him a chance, not push him up if he will not be pushed. Help any man who stumbles; if he lies down, it is a poor job to try and carry him…”

Progressive nationalism offers an opportunity, not a guarantee. TR had no patience for shirkers. Every citizen must work hard, develop their skills and contribute to society not just for their own benefit, but for that of the nation as well. At the same time, Americans deserved to live dignified, individual lives that enabled them to raise good families and build successful local communities. TR’s faith in America rested on his faith in the average American and his belief that most people would seize this opportunity and make the most of it.

“I do not ask for over centralization; but I do ask that we work in a spirit of broad and far-reaching Nationalism when we work for what concerns the people as a whole….. The national government belongs to the whole American people, and where the whole American people are interested, that interest can be guarded effectively only by the national government.”

TR was no libertarian. As a Lincoln Republican, he believed a strong Union required a strong federal government. As business became more interstate in size and scope, he realized that only an effective national government could manage the power these businesses were able to wield. The Constitution also clearly gave only the federal government the power to manage foreign and defense policy.  Thus, a strong and effective federal government was necessary to protect America’s increasing interests overseas.

“Justice and fair dealing among nations rest upon principles identical with those which control justice and fair dealing among the individuals of which nations are composed, with the vital exception that each nation must do its own part in international police work. If you get into trouble here, you can call for the police; but if Uncle Sam gets into trouble, he has got to be his own policeman; and I want to see him strong enough to encourage the peaceful aspirations of other peoples in connection with us…I should be heartily ashamed to see us wrong a weaker power, and I should hang my head in shame forever if we tamely suffered wrong from a stronger power.”

Theodore Roosevelt knew the world was inherently anarchic and thus dangerous, especially for a democracy like the United States. He was a constant advocate for a strong defense and, at the same time, relied as President on adroit diplomacy to avoid using it as much as possible. His diplomacy recognized that the world was full of diverse cultures and powers whose differences must be respected and sometimes even emulated.  In particular, he often held up Switzerland as an example of an enlightened and strong form of nationalism. The Swiss commitment to national military service and neutrality helped knit together a country of diverse cultures and languages (see this article for a modern description of Swiss nationalism). After negotiating the Russo-Japanese peace treaty, he became an advocate for international arbitration of disputes.

Progressive nationalism thus is not an exclusively American concept.   The American version is unique since it seeks to reconcile the often-competing goals of liberty, community, and opportunity amid a welter of diverse peoples and interests. This is why ethnic nationalism is destructive and inherently un-American. Our unity springs from our ideals and not just from our homeland and history.  Theodore Roosevelt believed we were at our best when we married those ideals with our love of our land and our heritage.  We have done it before, and we can do it again!

2024 Election, Politics

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index – Draining the Swamp

Bob Claude |

This is the second 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 0 Trump -5

“Preserving democracy” has dominated the rhetoric of this year’s presidential campaign. Democrats rightly condemn the horrific January 6 insurrection and takeover of the Capitol while casually dismissing Republican’s concern about ballot security and tabulation. As important as the legitimacy of the election process is to the success of democracy, Theodore Roosevelt’s jarring call above reminds us that elections are hollow and deceptive if they do not result in policies that match the goals of the average American.

Sadly, the same alliance TR condemned then has risen from the grave to haunt us. Only Robert F Kennedy Jr. seemed to understand this, but he is now sidelined as a supporter of former President Trump. Thus, we find ourselves choosing between a candidate crowned in a back room deal who never received a single vote in the primaries and an unstable septuagenarian leader of a fringe cult. It looks more like a Russian or Chinese election than anything Thomas Jefferson would recognize.

Nevertheless, choose we must, but in a way that at least begins to challenge this hidden corruption. We can start by addressing three of its pillars – the avalanche of dark campaign money, the wily administrative state and the use of the courts as a weapon against democratic choice.

Campaign Finance and Voting Rights Reform

Our present campaign finance mess rose out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case which found one of Roosevelt’s initiatives to limit corporate influence in federal elections unconstitutional. The case raised important First Amendment issues, but the same result could have been achieved on much different grounds. Instead, it unleashed a flood of dark money from not only the wealthy and corporations, but potentially foreign governments as well. Many have called for a constitutional amendment to overrule the decision, but there is nowhere near the two-thirds majority in Congress necessary to send such an amendment to the states for ratification.

The Democrats introduced a bill early in the Biden Administration called the “For the People Act” to improve campaign finance disclosure and preserve voting rights. Unfortunately, it was a 800-page legislative grab-bag of good and bad ideas (see this post for a more detailed description of the good). It would have expanded and tightened disclosure requirements for corporate contributions (the “DISCLOSE Act”), strengthened the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”), and improved election integrity, among many other improvements. However, it met with solid opposition from Republicans and serious questions from moderate Democrats. 

Sen. Joe Manchin then drafted a compromise that preserved the better parts and added several new ones (see this post for a summary). It preserved the DISCLOSE Act corporate requirements and the FARA amendments, allowed practical voter identification requirements, preserved early voting rights, and made Election Day a national holiday. The bill also would have addressed discriminatory voting practices and election integrity issues. However, Republicans continued to oppose the bill and it can be safely assumed that Trump does as well. President Biden supported it and so Vice President Harris undoubtedly does also.

Meanwhile, the flood of illegal and other immigrants into the country over the last three years has raised legitimate issues about the possibility of non-citizens voting in our elections. This is currently illegal, but there is no national procedure for verifying eligibility. Texas recently discovered 6,500 non-citizens on its voter registration rolls.  The SAVE Act would establish documentation requirements for establishing citizenship, which could include not only the usual methods like a birth certificate, but also other more accessible methods. Democrats oppose it as unnecessary, but the Texas example justifies the concern.

Biden and Harris’s support of the For the People Act and the Manchin proposal earns them points, though their opposition to the SAVE Act means they earn only 1.5 on the nationalist scale.  Meanwhile, Trump’s and the Republican’s position on both rates a minus 1.5.

Curbing the Administrative State

Theodore Roosevelt originally believed that corporate reform would be best accomplished through federal agency action. If he were alive today, TR would be horrified at the Frankenstein‘s monster that has developed from the growth of administrative agency power. From the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to the Clean Power Act, this new form of “invisible government” has arrogated to itself the right to restructure vast swaths of American life with only the input of a select few.  Robert F. Kennedy Jr. highlighted how invisible alliances between business and agencies could endanger the health and welfare of American citizens, the exact opposite of TR’s vision.

The Supreme Court finally forced the issue with its recent opinion in Loper Bright vs. Raimondo, which ended the court’s deference to agency interpretations of the extent of their powers. Congress and the next administration now have an opportunity to thoroughly review agency powers, clarify and specify the necessary ones, and insure that only the democratically elected members of Congress may, by legislation, enact major policies decisions that affect their constituents’ lives.

Unfortunately, neither candidate has a history of reining in executive power.  Instead, they both boast of the executive orders they will sign on their first day in office, not the legislation they will work with Congress to enact. The Biden- Harris administration has responded to the Loper Bright decision with attack rhetoric, which matches their longtime addiction to the use of sweeping agency powers. It earns them a negative 2 score on this issue.

Meanwhile, the Republican House passed a bill last year called the REIN Act, that would require Congressional approval of major rules. The alliance of RFKJr with the Trump campaign suggests the former President would be more supportive of such legislation. However, Trump’s rhetoric and his own past addiction to executive power suggests caution, and so he merits only a zero score on this issue.

Lawfare

Tort reform was one of my first political causes because, as an attorney, I was outraged that the manipulation and gaming of the system by a few well-connected trial lawyers was producing unjust results and enriching only themselves.  Over the last few years, the same type of abuses have moved into the political realm. It acquired the name “lawfare”, which literally means warfare through criminal and civil litigation designed to suppress rights, not protect them.

Both Republicans and Democrats have engaged in lawfare or the threat of it.  We now know major social media sites like Facebook and Twitter (now X) were bullied by the Biden Administration to suppress or remove speech discussing the pandemic response, the Hunter Biden business scandals and other controversial issues. The Democrats engaged in a concerted campaign to keep RFK, Jr. off the ballot and, in a bizarre twist, are suing to keep him from withdrawing and thus assisting Trump.  The New York criminal and civil cases against Donald Trump were brought on shaky legal theories and by a district attorney who campaigned on prosecuting Trump. Meanwhile, the Georgia case is mired in scandals surrounding its prosecutors. There is no question that Trump brought much of this on himself, especially the classified documents case pending in Florida. Nevertheless, Harris and the Democrats encouraged this concerted legal campaign and thus rate a minus 1.5  for these tactics.

Unfortunately, Trump’s response has been to threaten the use of similar lawfare against his perceived enemies, bragging about being “dictator for a day” and proclaiming his own enemies list.  We can hope that RFKJr’s commitment to free speech might blunt Trump’s rage, but there is no guarantee.  These vulgar and incendiary threats only feed this un-American trend and also rates a minus 1.5 on this issue.

There is another form of law enforcement abuse that continues to affect local communities. Four years ago, the killings of African-Americans by the police sparked nationwide protests and led to changes in policing practices in most of our major cities.  However, The Economist magazine recently pointed out that the rate of police killings actually has increased since then, mainly in rural areas and smaller cities (link requires free subscription) . There are several bills, including the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, that would establish standards and practices to reduce these killings. The Biden Administration supported such legislation and also funded an increase in the number of police officers and innovative responses that reduce the likelihood of violence (see also my previous post on this issue).  Republicans have generally opposed these reforms, though they have talked about federal law enforcement issues.  The Biden-Harris approach merits a plus 2 on this issue while Trump and Republicans rate a minus 2.  

Conclusion

For all the rhetoric about saving democracy, the two candidates actually score poorly on this critical and most basic value.  Vice President Harris would open up campaign finance and voting, but then deprive those elected officials of any real authority by pursuing much of her policy through the shadow government of the administrative state. Meanwhile, Trump deserves his reputation in the media as a danger to democratic values. Yet, as I mentioned in the introduction, democracy is not just about using the right process, but also about producing the right policies. The remaining posts in this series will dive into their most important policy positions.

Next: Speaking Softly – Foreign Policy