Donald Trump

[ronbrownfan]

So robots do not (yet) explain much of the decline in the employment-population ratio:

The spread of industrial robots has large negative effects on employment and wages
Using differences in exposure to industrial robots across local labor markets in the U.S., Daron Acemoglu of MIT and Pascual Restrepo of Boston University estimate that each additional robot leads between 3 and 5.6 workers to lose their jobs and each additional robot per thousand workers reduces wages by 0.25 to 0.5 percent. So far, they say, robots have reduced U.S. employment by 360,000 to 670,000 jobs—equivalent to reducing the employment-population ratio (now around 60 percent) by only 0.18 to 0.34 percentage points. But they caution that job loss would be much larger over the next two decades if robots spread as experts predict.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23285?utm_campaign=Hutchins%20Center&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=49570936

[tjb]

This gets close to an explanation for Trumpism:

Donald Trump’s Fictional America

One of the best things I have read on the subject.

[jyd]

That was phenomenal. Thank you.

[UncleLar]

Not directly Trump related, but how's this for a great GoFundMe campaign (or two).

Politicians' web browsing history targeted after privacy vote

Clearly, they're not likely to succeed, but they might get the point across a bit better.

[BleedPSU]

I don't know how anyone can watch the footage from Syria and read the White House response to it and think Trump is a qualified leader. He's in over his head and a has no semblance of a conscience. Embarrassment to the chair and the nation.

[tjb]

Making Athens Great Again

Neither Socrates nor Plato ever challenged the Greek conviction that achieving a life that matters requires extraordinary effort and results in an extraordinary state. But Socrates was determined to interrogate what being exceptional means. Personal fame, he contended, counts for nothing if your life isn’t, in itself, a life of virtue. Only that kind of extraordinary accomplishment matters—and the same could be said for city-states. Power and the glory it brings are no measure of their stature. The virtuous citizen, indeed, is inseparable from the virtuous polis, his claim to significance rooted in his commitment to the common good. What counts, Socrates taught, is the quest for a better understanding of what virtue is, what justice and wisdom are. The goal is a moral vision so compelling that every citizen, no matter his position, will feel its force and be guided by it. A democratic state that fosters the continuous self-scrutiny demanded by such a vision can hope for greatness. Mere kleos [glory] is for losers.

[jyd]

That was fascinating - thank you!

[tjb]

Well, here we go folks.

[PSUdraw1]

Ah a war. Just what we needed.

[rwd5035]

We won't take their refugees but we'll bomb and kill them all. Fantastic strategy. What is the thinking here? "Don't gas your people or else we'll bomb them?"

Really hate Democrats for just sitting idly by and approving of this strike.

[Chaze2k1]

No one approved this strike it wasnt sent to congressional approval

[rwd5035]

Minority Senate Leader and Minority House Leader for Democrats approved of it

Hillary Clinton also approves of it.

[jyd]

Given that this strike (from what I've read) was targeted at the airbase from which the chemical attacks originated, I don't object to what Trump authorized, either. Given that what he did (even if I agree with it) runs counter to his previous "That's not our problem" foreign policy approach, I'm wondering what this means going forward.

I don't know that our President has a lot of "going forwards" in that I'm not sure he gives a lot of thought to what he wants to do.

[Chaze2k1]

It says endorsed says nothing about approval from congress so this still was done without congressional approval

[jyd]

It says endorsed says nothing about approval from congress so this still was done without congressional approval

Entering into wars require an act of Congress. More limited actions like yesterday's do not. I believe the President can even commit to and use U.S. troops in a military action but only for a limited time (which I think is or was 30 days) without Congressional approval.

[tjb]

I don't have a very complicated view of this on a surface level. This is it:

Matthew Yglesias (mattyglesias)

The "normalization" of Trump that I most fear is the Democratic leadership's support for this action. You cannot separate the action from the man in this case; it's the man who is dangerous to the world. He needs to be opposed at every step.

As for Syria generally, I don't think there is a solution. Without one, we need to be circumspect in what we do. For some reason, Assad did not use his chemical weapons with Obama in office after the original transgression. Something changed since. I'm not expert, so I'm not sure what. But there was a tenuous balance the Obama administration seemed to reach among the US, Assad and Putin, and no more sarin.

Obama asked Congress to approve action against Syria, and Congress rebuffed him. There is a popular belief among the Right that Obama was "weak" and that this was a cynical move to avoid having to do anything about Assad. I thought that even if he were being completely cynical, asking for broad support before engaging in another Middle East war was appropriate. It's not just that we learn nothing from history, it's that we learn nothing from what is still going on.

When you see that even Trump can gain support from a lot of Democrats and Obama could gain none from Republicans (who have totally reversed their principles for some unknown reason), it shows the asymmetry of the parties.

That's the last point David Frum made here. Although Frum is more of a Hillary-type Republican in that he believes in intervention abroad to assert US influence beyond its interests, he has a lot of interesting qualms here.

Seven Disturbing Implications of Trump's Syria Strike

But it's this that gets me (emphasis mine):

Trump Is Lucky in His Opponents

“The secret of our success in government is that we did not have us in opposition.” That quip from a friend in an allied government applies with even greater force to the Republican Party of the United States. Trump’s action has gained support from Democrats that was never available to Obama from Republicans. In the fall of 2013, even the hawkish Marco Rubio—who had long called for action in Syria against Assad—nevertheless opposed Obama’s request for authorization to do just that. Rubio’s explanation focused on the flaws in Obama strategy and commitment. “I remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work … I believe that U.S. military action of the type contemplated here will prove counterproductive.”

Rubio’s points surely had some validity. Surely they apply even more forcefully today—yet Democrats from Chuck Schumer to Nancy Pelosi to even Elizabeth Warren have offered support for Trump’s actions. Pelosi praised the action as "proportional.” Schumer went further still: “Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do.”

Unlike Rubio, who understood that viability in the coming Republican presidential contest required absolute opposition to any action by Obama, Democrats operate in a more permissive environment—at least for now. If any further proof is required of the asymmetry of the two parties, here it is.

[tjb]

The "normalization" of Trump that I most fear is the Democratic leadership's support for this action. You cannot separate the action from the man in this case; it's the man who is dangerous to the world. He needs to be opposed at every step.

This dude:

Ruben Gallego (RepRubenGallego)

[jyd]

I asked myself if I would have objected had Obama ordered it, and I wouldn't have.

Trump might accidentally or coincidentally implement an occasional thing that I agree with. I'm not sure it normalizes him if I agree with whatever it was that he did. And I don't know if I should object to something he did that I otherwise would support just because it was he who did it.

I'm still trying to figure this out.

[tjb]

I'm not sure it normalizes him if I agree with whatever it was that he did.

I'm totally OK with that for things that don't involve deadly physical violence or involve international affairs that could lead to deadly physical violence.

[mjg]

And I don't know if I should object to something he did that I otherwise would support just because it was he who did it.

I'm for doing the right thing regardless of who is making the decision. We should be helping these people by whatever means necessary -- bombing their military forces, accepting refugees by the boatload -- whatever it takes. It's a shame politics has been getting in the way of doing what we should do.