Frank's Musings

The only constitutional method for removing an errant president from office before a federal election is impeachment; but that is currently impossible , given how obsequious the Congress is to President Donald Trump.

Hilary Clinton hasn’t changed her clumsy rhetoric since it cost us her election loss in 2016. She continues to protest Donald Trump’s proposals and supporters as ‘a basket of deplorables,” although in the 28 March 2025 NYT she just calls them “dumb.”

The only way that tariffs can be said to be paid by a foreign supplier is to assume that the import market is so crucial that it forces those exporters  to reduce their prices sufficiently to beat their domestic competitors. This reasoning was rejected after the Smoot Hawley Act that contributed to the Great Depression.   Nevertheless, President Donald Trump relies on it to galvanize support among the majority of Americans whose perspective is narrowly focused on their personal well-being and who lack an appreciation of critical thinking.

It has become apparent that Trump’s genius is that he recognized that he could attain the most prestigious political position on the planet by running for the U.S. presidency because most American voters, regardless of race, share his solipsism. He and they have no higher goal in life than maximizing their personal or their biological family’s comfort.

It’s not that they don’t understand; they just don’t care. Moreover, they resent being looked down on by elite critical thinkers who mysteriously are wealthy and act like they are in control. They think elites are presumptuous and deserve to be put in their rightful place by a populist demagogue like Trump.

If those elites wish to serve the general welfare, they must learn how effectively to communicate in a modern democracy. (One illustration of this is  “servant leadership,” advocated by Rep. Jason Crow (D. CO).  cf. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/19/opinion/jason-crow-democrats.html)

In a liberal democracy, the common people usually outnumber the highly educated  elite.  Nevertheless, by reason of equity, ultimate control of society is awarded to the numerical majority of participants in the decision-making process—general elections.

Public opinion in our modern society is influenced by those who are adept at utilizing its diverse means of communication. These channels include electronic and digital media (broadcast and targeted); in-person contact at rallies, at town-halls,  and door-to-door; hidden messages associated  with various work, recreational, and cultural contexts; not to mention direct mail and print.

As long as public opinion still matters in our system of government, those who wish to redirect its policies towards equitable, non-discriminatory distribution of benefits must learn to communicate effectively to the people who ultimately control it.   The modern irony of liberal democracy is that advances in communications technology have weakened the relative persuasiveness  of critical thought versus entertainment.  Now more than ever, the medium is as important as the message.  Restoring democracy’s liberal values requires packaging them in a consumer-friendly style, not in language that only speaks to the minority elite.

Why couldn’t the February 2025 request from DOGE for federal employee self-critique memos have come from the president and directed that all answers be submitted to the cabinet-level official in charge of the employee’s agency? Such a procedure would have obviated suspicions of violating confidentiality and reinforced the structure of the executive branch.

President Trump was correct that this exercise can be a useful audit of government efficiency. However, it is another illustration of the Trump administration’s chaotic approach to doing the people’s business.

By the way, a “presidential advisor," like Musk, has no power to order civil servants to do anything or to fire any of them for non-compliance.

MAGA Voters won’t listen to reasonable arguments in the abstract. They feel that Trump shows them how to succeed by disobeying the establishment’s rules.  Ramaswamy and Haley missed this point in the primaries.  They proudly restated Trump’s tirades in rational terms; but their arguments fell on angry ears that are deaf to what is  viewed as pusillanimity.  Unfortunately, Harris didn’t take up the banner in the general election, either.

The MAGA movement is not based primarily on policy differences. It is a paroxysm of resentment at being left behind.  Its members can be weaned away from a demagogue only by believable promises of improvement in their economic well-being and in their living ease.

This is where the Democrats must focus to weaken the reliability of the MAGA base for Republicans. Defeating that electoral juggernaut means instilling a sense of being valued by the program of the “establishment” to create safety-net incentives and encourage risk-taking and determined effort by ordinary citizens in their career, budgeting, and investment decisions. That should have been  the centerpiece of the 2024 Democratic platform.  Instead, the Harris/Walz campaign only targeted the minority slice of the public that are critical thinkers, who are equally concerned about  the general welfare as well as  individuals’ well-being.  That portion of the population is often accused of ignoring the concerns that really matter to most people.

If the government is truly less efficient at executing humanitarian programs than the private sector, private donors should be incentivized with tax credits to replace current public sector services. The latter include foreign aid, medicare, medicaid, educational grants, public housing, etc. The net consequence of a policy to offer, say, unlimited 100% income tax credits for funds spent on qualified programs could harness the profit motive of entrepreneurs and the good will of billionaires in the achievement of human benefit for the purposes of both domestic equity and international political advantage.

Ezra Klein’s article in the 26 January 2025 NYT begs the question whether Donald Trump’s targeted audience whose attention he seeks is the same one sought by the billionaire  influence-peddlers who were provocatively seated at his inauguration.  This goes to Trump’s valid  perception that political power in a liberal democracy such as ours belongs to those who are most adept at manipulating information to appeal to the majority of persons who willingly vote and patronize the wealthiest suppliers of information media and consumer goods.  Critical thinking is not the strongest attribute of most people.

To resolve Mr. Klein’s (and James Madison’s) dilemma, those few of us who are lucky enough to merit and afford a higher education must get off our high horses.  We must  speak to the average public in the language of their common concerns to convince them that the MAGA program of mercantilism and its me-first philosophy are neither  in their long-term nor their immediate interest.