Human Shields....and Swords

Amidst the endless talk on social media and the mainstream media on the Parkland shooting, another policy position is being espoused by the Left (aside from the predictable hysteria about gun control)—enfranchising high schoolers.  Soon after the shooting, the MSM enlisted a number of them as spokesteens for their anti-gun agenda.  Most notably, student David Hogg immediately emerged as a media darling.  He came off as poised and well-spoken, and the media flocked to him—so much so that his articulateness raised suspicions that he was being coached and had pre-prepared talking points.  

Hogg, (along with a few others), has been elevated to rock star status and has now become the reigning authority and point person on gun policy in the U.S.  He has been omnipresent in the media, blathering on and on, blaming the NRA, NRA supporter Dana Loesch, and the governor of Florida for the shooting while exonerating the people whose job it is to protect children—the F.B.I. and the Broward County Sheriff’s office, urging boycotts of the State of Florida and companies that have ties to the NRA.  He has refused to return to school until gun restriction legislation is passed.  Liberal Democrats haven’t had such a marquee spokesperson since Sandra Fluke was hawking free birth control a few years ago.  The cynic in me is inclined to believe that young Mr. Hogg and a few of his other classmates are perfectly comfortable standing on the dead bodies of their fallen classmates to propel their future media careers. 

Some on the Left are proposing to take this further and are now calling for the enfranchisement of these teens.  Harvard professor Laurence Tribe and Bloomberg contributor Jonathan Bernstein vociferously advocated lowering the voting age to 16, and even lower, if possible.  Tribe asserted “This #ChildrensCrusade will transform America” and that “Teens between 14 and 18 have far better BS detectors, on average than ‘adults’ 18 and older.  Wouldn’t it be great if the voting age were lowed to 16?”   Joshua Douglas at CNN similarly threw in for the kiddie vote, “The real adults in the room are the youth from Parkland Florida who are speaking out about the need for meaningful gun control laws.”  Bernstein argued that it will increase voter participation by getting in the habit of voting early in life and said the voting age might be lowered to as young as 13.

What’s puzzling about this sudden push by the Left to grant children a political voice and full participatory rights in our republic is that until the Parkland shooting, the Left was actively extending childhood.  Obamacare permitted them to stay on Mommy and Daddy’s health insurance until age 26.  Our higher education system had infantilized them and even left leaning Salon and the New York Times voiced concern about delaying adulthood (see, e.g. Judith Shulevitz’s article from a few years ago https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html).  Colleges coddled them in  “safe spaces” and mandated “trigger warnings” to protect them from ideas that might hurt their feelings.  They passed out coloring books, crayons, teddy bears to help COLLEGE students cope with the results of our electoral process.  Likewise, it was only a few short weeks ago that the New York legislature was considering passing regulations forcing P&G to make Tide Pods less appetizing because teens were harming themselves by eating detergent pods.  But now the Left has done an abrupt about face and is clamoring to grant full voting rights to individuals that have not earned their first paycheck yet and whose mommies still pack their lunches and do their laundry for them. 

What gives?

The Left is following the Rahm Emanual dictum, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”  Never mind that the Parkland shooting represents a total breakdown at all levels of government in its duty to protect us.   That tragedy is being seized on to advance a pet objective of the Left—to either erase or water down the 2^nd Amendment so much that it becomes meaningless as to its primary purpose, which is to underpin the social compact (But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security- Declaration of Independence).   Some sort of package restricting guns, ammo or the ages at which they will be permitted will now almost certainly pass.  With untouchable children serving as both shields and swords, some erosion of the 2^nd Amendment is now inevitable.  

But should children be granted the right to vote?  Absolutely not.

While it is entirely appropriate to permit the survivors to emote and express themselves over what happened, it does not follow that it entitles the kids to a full ticket to our political system.  The first clue lies in the CNN “Town Hall” meeting.   The disrespect shown Rubio and Loesch by the “Town Hall” itself is a compelling argument for why children should not be voting members of our society.  It was a one sided affair in which the NRA was labelled “child murderers,” Loersch was accused of being “owned” by the NRA and Rubio was charged with not caring about children.   Adolescents make adolescent arguments that are devoid of fact and analysis and that was on full display last week.

The abdication of government to protect these children ---to be the parent permits the children to try to assume that role.  In a household that is run by a drunk or a drug addict, children often try to pick up the slack and assume responsibilities they are not ready to handle, often with disastrous results. 

That is, in part, what is happening here.  Young Mr. Hogg is being lauded as “courageous” by the MSM.  Meanwhile the highly trained paid state actor armed with a weapon stood outside and did nothing as children were slaughtered.   Children should not be given a vote because the adults in our society have, in some cases, abdicated their responsibility.

The advocacy of enfranchising children arises out of desperation by the Left.  The Coastal Elite had assumed that the election of Hillary Clinton, and another four or eight years of regulatory growth and increased influence over the judiciary would cement its grip on political power for generations.  The election of Donald Trump smashed those progressive dreams.   The Left’s initial reaction was to label Trump’s election as “illegitimate” and they began by attacking the electoral college.   While certain attempts are still ongoing, eliminating the electoral college and electing a president via a straight popular vote will not be an easy thing to pull off.  The other attempt at increasing political power of the Democrats was to eventually enfranchise illegal immigrants.   Trump dangled out the prospect of a one-time enfranchisement as bait but with lots and lots of strings attached and so far, the Democratic leadership isn’t biting.  

Floating the idea of enfranchising children is simply another attempt at creating another pool of voters for the Left.   Contrary to Mr. Tribe’s assertion, high school kids do NOT have a superior BS detector—they actually swallow lots of BS, and sometimes with Tide Pods along with it.   They most often have uncontrolled emotions, their pre-adult brains have been scientifically shown to underappreciate risk, and they are usually some years off from contributing to our society.  But under the aegis and indoctrination of progressive school boards, the energy, malleability and quixotic idealism would make high schoolers a perfect voting bloc for Democrats if you could possibly get them enfranchised.

The enfranchisement of children will not happen.  The Left and MSM will be content to let them carry their water over gun control.  But over time, the Left will keep chipping away at the 2^nd Amendment and taking it apart in pieces until one day we will wake up and it just won’t be there anymore.

The Parkland atrocity and its aftermath is yet another instance in which the West has failed to protect its children, every bit as much as it failed last spring in the U.K. when an Islamic terrorist bombed the rock concert in Manchester.   Our government failed to protect these kids from being slaughtered and to make matters worse, the political Left is exploiting them to advance their agenda and hoping to enfranchise them to increase their political strength, shamelessly using them.  Sadly, our divided politics and partisan media won’t even let children grieve.  We should let them grow up before tossing them into the political fray.

The 15:17 to Paris

Clint Eastwood is, in my view, our greatest living director.   At age 87, Eastwood continues to churn out quality films.  His latest The 15:17 to Paris stays with his one of his favorite themes-personal heroism under extreme circumstances.  Like Sully, which dealt with the Miracle on the Hudson landing by Chesley Sullenburger, 15:17 to Paris recounts the true story of fate placing the right people at the right place at the right time to save the lives of perhaps hundreds of innocent people. 

I began my blog post by writing a traditional review of Eastwood’s film, but events this week caused me to take a detour.

The 15:17 to Paris follows the story of three childhood friends that are normal boys doing boy things growing up.  They came from single parent homes with all the attendant issues.  None of the guys were portrayed as exceptional students.  Spencer Stone had “difficulty fitting in” and apparently had ADHD.  It tracks them through middle school mischief and then into the service, where Spencer Stone struggles along and almost gets bounced out, but through sheer perseverance, he makes it through and gets both hand to hand combat training and EMT training, both of which turn out to be vital skills in foiling the attempted terror attack.

Eastwood uniquely blended professional actors with the actual heroes playing themselves as central characters in this film.  The end of the film also was the actual awards ceremony where then President Francois Hollande honored these young men for their courage in saving the passengers.   The reviews of the film have been somewhat mixed so far.  Of course, since the actors were not professional actors, many film critics criticized the film as being a bit stilted, and that is a fair criticism.      

But the shooting of the police commander in downtown Chicago and the Parkland massacre changed the complexion of the film in my mind and my perspective on it.   I like the film now more at the end of the week than when I saw it.    Because it is more than about heroism.

The 15:17 to Paris is also a tribute to American men and American self-reliance, much like American Sniper.

In Chicago last week, a police commander was shot and killed in downtown Chicago when he answered the call to assist in apprehending a heavily armed and Kevlar dressed man in the State of Illinois center.  Commander Paul Bauer rushed to help his fellow officers confront a four time drug felon and paid the ultimate price.   Later this week Aaron Feis, a football coach at Douglas High School was killed when he threw himself in front of the students to shield them from the shooting rampage of Nikolas Cruz.  And then to top it off, a JROTC high school student, Colton Haab, sprung into action, herding his fellow students into a room, covered them with Kevlar, and stood by the door with a fire extinguisher and a 2  x 4 ready to attack the gunman should he make it to the door.  “My main goal was to make sure everyone got home safe to their family,” he said.  The young man is 17 years old.

In light of these events, I saw The 15:17 to Paris in an entirely different light.  It stands as a tribute to American manhood.  

The evening of the Florida shooting, oracle of the Left liberal law professor Laurence Tribe tweeted out:

“In literally EVERY mass shooting I can recall, the shooter has been a male.  That doesn’t speak well for my gender, I’m afraid.  But it suggests to me that the NRA’s worst excesses are driven by doubts about masculinity.  Small hands, big guns.  A lethal equation.”

Tribe’s absurd tweet captures the demonization of all men by the Left.  We live in an age where men and manhood are under assault from academia,  popular culture and from the mainstream media.  The Women’s March in which both men and women march around in pink pussy hats and deride “the patriarchy” (whatever that means).   Academics and critics of the military complain about “toxic masculinity.”   Transgenderism is celebrated in the press (the New York Times just published a big article about the first lactating transgender mother).   Abercrombie and Fitch recently tried to make a big splash with its gender neutral kids clothing line.   Major elements of the #metoo movement paint all men as predatory creatures.   On college campuses, men have been stripped of due process rights in their sexual relationships, and now stealing a kiss on a date can be deemed sexual assault and subject a young man to expulsion with little chance to tell his side of the story and little recourse (a raft of lawsuits against universities are working their way through the courts or are being settled).  Little boys have even been suspended from school for making a fake gun with their thumb and forefinger.

Yes, men are sometimes capable of acting beastly.

But we see in The 15:17 to Paris and in the events this week that men, good men, real men with traditional qualities that we used to celebrate in men—bravery, courage, physical strength, decisiveness, self-sacrificing, protecting—still come in handy when true evil threatens.  In the climactic scene, when Stone is engaged in desperate hand to hand combat with the assailant, it occurred to me that only a man would have had a chance at successfully thwarting the terrorist.

The police commander was protecting the citizens of the city and laid down his life for them--- all strangers.   The football coach at Douglas High School did not hesitate to fling his body between the shooter and the kids whose job it was to protect.   Spencer Stone instinctively acted to charge and overpower the terrorist who was poised to take the lives of hundreds of passengers on that train, severely injuring himself in the process.  And even young Colter Haab cooly reacted to the danger, shielded his classmates, and demonstrated that he was willing and able to attack the attacker and sacrifice himself if necessary to protect his fellow students.

There is one small scene where Stone helps an aged man off the platform and into his proper seat on the train.   That older gentleman is the person that men like Stone are programmed to protect. 

I was struck by the convergence of film and real life this week, and Eastwood’s use of the real heroes in his film.   On the Thalys train, in the State of Illinois building, and on the high school campus in Florida, real men ran toward the danger and not away from it.  

Because that is what real men do.   Especially when agents of the State are not around.  The Left can continue to try to chip away, blend genders, and de-masculinize our society, but when there is real, life threatening danger present, and the situation is dire, you want real men around.

Laurence Tribe’s sneering comment is standard stuff from the Left, fired off from the safety of the ivory tower at Hahvahd.   There is not a doubt in my mind that under similar circumstances, he would be cowering under the Kevlar rather than standing guard at the door.

Go see The 15:17 to Paris.  It is a movie for our time.

System Failures

The most important function of government is to protect its citizens from harm and its primary function is to keep them from physical harm inflicted by foreign invaders and from other citizens.   We bind together and give up a little bit of freedom for this purpose.   And as I argued in my blog post on May 23 of last year (http://commonsense-mark.blogspot.com/2017/05/our-children.html), no other function is greater than the protection of our children.  Children represent the future of our society (and a principal reason for discord in the EU since they aren’t having any).   The fundamental tensions in our society revolve around what protection means and the limits to the power of the State to exercise those powers, particularly under the 2^nd Amendment and the 4^th Amendment to the Constitution.  The proliferation of firearms and the advance of technology have created new issues under those provisions.   Additionally, the growth and bureaucratization of our federal government have made it so that our security is reliant on complex systems and processes to keep us safe.  These systems and processes need to be rigorous and as free of political taint as possible.

They are failing us, massively.

Last month, a false alarm in Hawaii sent people scurrying in terror as a low level government employee “pushed the wrong button” at closing time, making the island’s inhabitants believe that a North Korean missile attack was imminent.  People screamed, hid children in sewers and braced for what they thought was a nuclear attack.  It took 48 minutes to broadcast an all clear signal.  Imagine the horror for those long minutes that these people thought might be their last on earth.  The employee in question has been fired and “had a history of confusing drill and real-world events.”   The FCC has so far ascertained that the Hawaii Emergency Management system had “inadequate safeguards” and had no way of dealing with a false alarm.  Later, the governor said that he couldn’t sent out the all-clear because he couldn’t remember his Twitter password.   This pathetic Keystone Kops charade is unacceptable in a world in which multiple threats face us.  With North Korea’s presumed missile capability, Hawaii is one of the most vulnerable places in the U.S. and that system needs to perform flawlessly.  The U.S. has been under nuclear threat since 1957 and North Korea first tested in 2006.   The Hawaii failure was at two levels.  First, the system permitted a low level, poor performing employee to set off a false alarm.  That failure was compounded by the failure of the governor to give an “all clear” signal for more than 45 minutes.   In a matter that represent the most fundamental duty to protect—to accurately warn against a devastating existential threat--- government showed that it failed.

The second failure has arisen from the mechanisms that are also specially designed to protect us—the F.B.I. and the FISA courts.   The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) courts were created in 1978 to approve wiretaps and data collection for foreign surveillance, originally as a tool in the Cold War, then pivoting to the war on terrorism after 9/11.  While the facts are still unfolding, it appears that the F.B.I., with the tacit or explicit consent of Barack Obama (and likely funded by the Clinton campaign using one or more intermediaries) utilized the agency to surveil the Trump campaign and transition.  It’s pretty clear that the agents involved in procuring the background information necessary to present to the FISA court were hyperpartisan, and appeared much more interested in derailing or undermining Donald Trump than they were obtaining foreign intelligence.   And it has all the earmarks of an Obama/Clintonesque structure—pretext, plausible deniability, layering through different entities and individuals.   Make it so complex that it takes years to peel the layers and cut through the intermediaries to get to the truth.   And I remind you that Barack Obama has shown few inhibitions about using the mechanisms of the State to go after his political enemies.  He was able to become senator only because his campaign somehow obtained access to the sealed divorce court records of Jack Ryan, and publicized them, effectively derailing his campaign.

FISA Courts, like the I.R.S. and the F.B.I. should be sacred institutions, free of partisanship as possible.  For all the caterwauling about Trump’s “totalitarian inclinations,”  it is the political use of the policing arms of the State that defines a totalitarian regime (see China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela).  The F.B.I. is now taking on the smell and taint of a 3^rd world surveillance state.   Once it heads down that path, its credibility as a protecting agency is lost.  By entangling itself in the political process, the F.B.I. has systemically failed us.

To make matters even worse, the F.B.I. came under fire by the New York Times for its slowness in uncovering the devious deeds of Lawrence Nassar, who molested hundreds of young girls.  The Times article said that from the time he first came under scrutiny by the F.B.I. to the time he was exposed, at least 40 additional girls had been molested by this beast.  It blamed, in part, the lack of coordination between the agency and local law enforcement for its sluggishness in response to the complaints it was receiving.  The New York Times front page article on Sunday, February 4 details the bureaucratic ossification that enabled Nassar to continue to perpetrate his despicable deeds long after the agency was first made aware of them.   While I frequently am at odds with the New York Times, I applaud them for calling out the F.B.I. in this instance.   Its primary purpose is to protect and there is no greater priority than the protection of our children.  And its response to Larry Nassar was a massive failure.

When government gets too big, too cumbersome and meddles in too many things (eg California criminalizing plastic straws and NY attempting to make Tide pods “less appetizing”), it begins to lose function executing on its most important functions.   Government at its core must protect.  The failure of Hawaii’s missile warning system, the failure of the F.B.I. to keep partisan taint out of the FISA surveillance system, and its failure to protect the victims of Larry Nassar are clear warning to us.  These recent failures are large and dangerous.  The Hawaii missile alert system could mean life or death to our citizens.  The F.B.I. failure in issuing F.I.S.A. warrants has serious 4th Amendment implications, and its further failure to act with dispatch permitted dozens of young girls to be hurt.

We are living at a time when SYSTEMS need to work properly.  The threats we face from nation states and nonstate actors have never been so numerous and capable of using technology to hurt Americans.  Government needs to be dramatically reduced so that it can focus on its core purpose.  

Our Union is Strong....Maybe

A number of years ago Dick Gephardt spoke at a business association I belong to.  Gephardt is a former House Majority Leader and House Minority Leader, and has since retired from politics.  I was never a huge fan of Gephardt’s, but I remember his commentary that evening to be mild and nonpartisan and there were a few things that he said that have stayed with me.

Probably the most important point that he made was that he felt that what set the Western democracies apart was that the losers always accept the outcome.   They may not like it, but they swallow hard and accept it.  We have a little revolution every 2 or 4 years, resolve it at the ballot box, and that’s that until next time.

Tuesday’s State of the Union address leads me to believe that this is no longer the case.   It’s pretty clear that liberal Democrats have not accepted the outcome of Trump’s election and that is very bad for our democracy.  Forget about whether you like or do not like Trump.   He is only one branch of the government, and no matter what, in 33 months, the American voters have another chance to toss him out of office and in 10 months have an opportunity to change the complexion of Congress to either limit or affirm many of his policies.

But there are basic courtesies that we should extend to each other, successes that we have achieved and common American values that are part of our culture that we should share.

Democrats would have none of it.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg wouldn’t even show up to the State of the Union address at all.   Her distaste is so bad, she won’t even give Trump the courtesy of listening to what he has to say.  No Democrat would greet him as he entered.  Despite vast policy differences, Republicans did not disrespect Obama in that fashion, even when he wagged his finger at the Supreme Court.  The body language and facial expressions said it all.   Democrats sat grim faced and scowling the entire time.  One congresswoman was even caught playing Candy Crush Saga during Trump's speech.

As has become the tradition since Reagan, Trump brought a number of real life people along to associate faces with his policies—veterans, victims of MS-13, and most inspiring North Korean defector Ji Seong-ho, who raised his crutches in defiance of the brutal North Korean regime.   The Democrats could not bring themselves to stand for this man who courageously fought to gain his freedom, nor could they stand to celebrate the lowest black unemployment rate in history.  

Courage, freedom and economic progress (especially for minorities) are things that we should celebrate together, no matter who is the putative commander in chief. 

It was a disturbing display, especially because Trump was, well, very presidential.  I am not surprised that he performed well.  His speeches in Poland and in Saudi Arabia last summer were visionary, and the State of the Union followed suit.  His speech was well received, and he did remarkably well among independents in the post-speech polling.

Even worse than the behavior of the Democrats at the State of the Union were some of the comments on social media the next day when the Amtrak train carrying Republicans hit a truck, killing the driver.  Jonathan Tasini, a commentator on CNN was almost gleeful.  Author Steven King tweeted out that the accident was “karma.”  Celebrating potential physical harm to the other side is only a short jump from actually committing it.

I read “Havel: A Life” a few months ago.   As you may recall, Vaclav Havel became president of then Czechoslovakia after the Berlin Wall fell.  He recognized that the country was hopelessly divided and ungovernable.   They were two different peoples and two vastly different cultures and the country became increasingly dysfunctional.   With the Democratic reaction at the State of the Union, the reaction from some on the left to the Amtrak train accident, and the disclosure of politicizing the FBI to spy on political opponents, we may be nearer a split than at any time since 1860.

A Bad Week for the West

It was a rough week for Western Civilization last week, and I hope things make a U-turn this week.  Otherwise, it could be head for the bunkers soon.  Freedom, human rights and representative democracy lost quite a bit of ground.

• ·        Topping the news was the sentencing of Larry Nassar, Michigan State physician that sexually abused dozens of girls over his tenure at the school.  This vermin apparently perpetrated his crimes under the auspices of “examinations” and complaints were dismissed or overlooked by the school, echoing the Penn State crimes of Jerry Sandusky.   The president of the school, athletic director and head athletic trainer all resigned in the wake of the scandal.  Ironically, an institution which should be protecting young women was being run by a woman.   And Pope Francis caused an uproar in Chile when he seemed to defend child abuse enabling bishop Juan Barros.  These two institutions should be primarily concerned with protecting children, and instead were protecting the perpetrators.      

•  A photograph with a smiling Barack Obama together with racist and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan surfaced after years of being buried by a “journalist.”  The photo received scant attention in the mainstream media, only a couple of weeks after the MSM went into an uproar over Donald Trump’s use of the word “sh—thole.”  I’m old enough to remember the MSM criticizing Trump for not doing enough to disavow the Charlottesville white supremacists.

•       Donald Trump instituted tariffs on select Chinese goods.  Yes, I know that the Chinese do not always play fair, but trade restrictions will cool this economy down faster than interest rate increases.  So far, Trump’s policies have been a big boost to the economy (and the Dallas Fed even said so).  Bringing our corporate tax rates in line with the rest of the developed world and rolling back some of the massive regulatory expansion under Obama has made doing business great again.  Trump’s announcement that “America is open for business” was a welcome announcement.   Trade restrictions would be extremely counterproductive. 

•       The California attorney general announced that it would prosecute businesses that cooperated with ICE.   This is the worst instance of nullification since the Civil War.  The defiance of several cities and California to federal law is a real threat to the republic.  With freedom of movement between states, we cannot have states decide on their own who they will permit to stay. Likewise, several states have also decided that they will be pursuing “net neutrality” on their own. 
  
• In a breach of decorum, Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced that she will not attend the State of the Union address.   She has been an outspoken critic of Trump, calling him a “faker” and asserted that misogyny played a role in the election.   I objected to Barack Obama scolding the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address and Ginsburg should show some grace and attend.  Her old pal, Antonin Scalia didn’t miss any of Obama’s. 
  
• John Kerry, in blatant defiance of the Logan Act, met with Palestinian leader Abbas and told him not to give in to Trump, that Trump wouldn’t last long.  I don’t recall ever in my lifetime a former official so brazenly undercutting U.S. policy. 
  
• Things overseas didn’t look much better.   Russia jailed its opposition leader Alexei Navalny.  Venezuela accelerated its “elections” to ensure the iron grip of Nicolas Maduro.  And in a ghastly move, the Polish parliament on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day made it illegal to refer to Polish concentration camps or implicate Poles in the complicity with the Holocaust.  Rewriting and sanitizing history is very bad policy--- whether it involves tearing down Civil War statutes or official denial of events. 
  
•  And if that weren’t enough, riots broke out when Nutella cut its price in France.  Yes, there were riots over that chocolate hazelnut spread.  And in Paris, 50 baboons escaped the Paris Zoo, necessitating a shutdown of the zoo.  Best spoof headline: 50 Baboons Escape Paris Zoo: France Immediately Surrenders to the Baboons.

Taken together,  these items do not present a pretty picture for the West and Western culture.

Yet amidst the chaos,  there was at least one hopeful sign.  The people of Iran still yearn to be free.  The young woman that wave her hijab in defiance has been freed, although another woman has been jailed.  Protests continue.  The Iranians

The Wallet and the Soul

Last week was a most fascinating juxtaposition.  I attended the Booth School of Business Economic Outlook, with a roundtable discussion by Rajan Raghuram, Randy Kroszner, and Austan Goolsbee.   Raghuram was formerly the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India.  Kroszner served on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.  And Goolsbee was senior economic advisor to Barack Obama.  All three have held high level policy positions and are well respected economists.  They discussed the state of the economy in this 10th year after the crash.

The very next day after the Booth roundtable, I had an opportunity to hear and meet Ross Douthat,  author and religion columnist for the New York Times, whose topic was The State of Religion in America.

In 24 hours I got a concentrated view of the financial and the spiritual state of America, a pretty complete picture of this divided country.  As I digested it all, I came away with the feeling that the country is in a fragile, unsettled, and morphing state.

While we have had a rather lengthy expansion since the crash of '08, the first seven years of growth were rather muted.   When asked where the points of stress would come from, Rajan and Kroszner agreed that the next crisis will likely not come from the banking system, as we have done a great deal to buttress the banking system.  Rajan's concerns revolve around the "shadow" banking system. Raghuram and Goolsbee are concerned about leverage and asset prices as well as the levels of debt in China.   However, all agree that global growth right now is pretty good.  But Kroszner is concerned that people are too sanguine.

As far as the tax cut goes, Goolsbee (Obama's guy) predictably opposed it.  He argued that it will be a one time windfall and not change behavior long term.  Kroszner took an opposite view-- that it will align incentives and will incentivize investment in equipment, bring money in from offshore and raise wages.  I tend to fall in Kroszner's camp, and companies are already repatriating money and investing in assets and in people.

The group was divided and somewhat perplexed on the topic of Bitcoin.  While Milton Friedman predicted and internet currency, the lack of the rule of law and support from central banks are limiting factors.  Raghuram correctly said that if Bitcoin is to have legs, it will need the support of central banks.

Another interesting topic was inflation.  I grew up in an era where taming inflation was a primary job of the Fed.  "Volker taught us how to reduce inflation," Raghuram said, "but we know little about how to raise inflation."  Kroszner believes that the internet is at least partially responsible for lower inflation because pricing information is easy to obtain.  We used to worry about getting inflation down to 2% and now we worry about getting it up to 2% and have had to resort to exotic means like QE to get raise it. 

Overall, the group does not see a looming recession.  "The length of a recovery does not increase the odds of a recession," says Raghuram.    Overall, the economy is doing well.  The banking system has recovered (and probably overregulated).  But potential dangers remain:  a trade war, a credit bubble, a raft of municipal defaults are all potential triggers for a downturn.

Moving to the spiritual side, Ross Douthat put forward a more comprehensive view of religious life in America.  The general view is that there is a divide between the religious right and the secular left.  But Doughat sees it as a tripartite division.

1. Traditional Biblical-  represented by those that submit to some religious authority. In Christianity, it is moored to the Bible.

2. The Secular Left - represented by the New York Times and elite universities that are deeply skeptical of religion and the metaphysical.  They don't believe in a creator anymore.

3. The Mushy Middle- highly individualistic and at the center of our divided country.  It is represented by Oprah and the "Eat Pray Love" crowd.  It is the new populist center but can blur into the left or right.  It's guiding principle is "to get in touch with your own authenticity," and not submitting to any authority.

Douthat claims that the structure is unstable, and that each has problems in the modern world.  Traditional Biblical, for instance, oppresses gays.   The Secular Left, for example, aggressively goes after Catholic hospitals.  The Mushy Middle doesn't build community or permanent institutions.  He sees that the trend is for the fringe of the Traditional Biblical to move toward the center but the core Traditional Biblical is holding its own.

The Secular Left doesn't make sense to him at all-- you wouldn't be able to get a Bill of Rights out of it or recognize human rights.  He sees a few possible alternatives for the future.  The Oprah Middle and Secular may merge and Traditional Biblical will become isolated.   Alternatively, the Middle may drift back to Traditional Biblical.  Finally, it is possible that there would be a leapfrog of the Secular Left into Traditional Biblical.  The weaknesses of the Secular Left are stark and spiritual life remains a defining part of humanity.  Still, he sees the Catholic Church as having some real challenges--we are aging, and have fewer siblings, implying that many are alone and need help and the Catholic Church is not equipped to reach them.

The two events back to back painted a picture of an America that is in flux, and somewhat unstable.  Modernity, the dynamism of American capitalism and our post Great Recession economy has, on the surface, brought us back from the brink of a real catastrophe in '08.  Yet, I get the feeling that the tectonic plates continue to shift under the surface.

There were two takeaway quotes from people in two different realms that were worth remembering-

Randy Kroszner, "I'm worried when people aren't worried."

and 

Ross Douthat, "There is no evidence that God wants you to be happy."

Anxious quotes for anxious times.

The Great Sh*thole Debate

Donald Trump is a racist.  

That is the consensus view of the Left.  His question last week, “Why are we importing all these people from shithole countries?” leaves no room for doubt.  Not only is he racist but anyone that voted for Trump and continues to support him is racist.  They’ve been saying that consistently all along.   And now we know for sure.   Right?   And the beauty of labeling you as a racist is that it stops the conversation, stops the questioning and de-legitimizes all other points of view you may have because it is impossible to disprove.  We know that now because the MSM and academia has been beating it into us relentlessly since ’08.   “White privilege” on college campuses is what the scarlet letter was in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s time.  NYT opinion pieces have told us that it is permissible for blacks not to be friends with white people and  that it is ok to teach their children not to trust white people.  Other op-eds have asserted that even if no one can detect any racism in our overt words and actions, we still harbor “subconscious racism” that can never be eradicated.    Why, even Dr. Seuss was deemed to be racist last year.   And it is no surprise that after disclosing Trump’s remark (if indeed he did make it and there seems to be debate about what exactly was said).    Dick Durbin wasted no time lambasting Trump and even went so far as to say that the term “chain migration” itself is racist because blacks came over here in chains. 

We all know by now that Donald Trump is blunt, indelicate, course and sometimes vulgar.  Is he racist?  I don’t know for sure, but Left needs him to be and they will pounce on any phrase, wording or expression that gives them the slightest whiff of it to deny him success in advancing his campaign promises.  Now, instead of addressing serious questions about immigration and enforcement, we have devolved into a simple argument with one side accusing Trump of racism and Trump announcing that he is not a racist.

Important aspects of this issue are being overlooked, and I blame Trump, in part, for permitting the Democrats to frame the argument up that way and handing them their weapon of choice.

First of all, by convening Democratic and Republican leaders in a public forum, Trump has already done something that Obama never did on this issue--- put the issue right where it belongs, with the legislature.  Instead, Obama used executive power he did not have to jerry-rig (that’s not a racist term, is it?) an immigration policy through executive order and nonenforcement.  We do get a say in who comes into into our country (and should have a say in who comes into our bathrooms). Then, certain cities and states employed the pre-Civil War practice of nullification to blunt enforcement efforts.   Contrary to the narrative that Trump has totalitarian instincts, he gathered the legislators together and said, “You come up with something, and I will sign it,” signaling that he might even be open to some sort of limited amnesty.

Secondly, for all the flapping around, no one bothered to answer the question, which is a logical one that the average guy in Des Moines or Akron might ask.     Why are we bringing poor people from the third world here?   There is an answer, or several possible answers, but the Left refused to make a case.  Further, there are a number of questions that should be answered and deserve an answer, because those answers will determine the nature and character of our republic in the coming generations.

To ask the right questions, we need to break apart Trump’s question and tone down the language a bit.  And there are several more that must be answered to come up with a sensible immigration policy.

First, let’s delete the word “shithole” and substitute “impoverished nation.”  Second, it is helpful to separate out the economic benefits from immigration from the social norms that these populations bring with them.   There is a third aspect as well, which is providing refuge from tyranny—those that seek to come to the U.S. via refugee status.

First, on the economic front.   Immigration has benefitted the United States in the past and will continue to do so.  That should be a given.  Our economy depends on it. Yet 2018 America is not 1880 America or even 1929 America.   First of all, it has become a welfare state.  Most of our European grandfathers arrived here with no safety net.  And as Milton Friedman observed, “you cannot have open borders AND a welfare state.”   The math doesn’t work.

Trump’s question provokes a more important question.   Who is coming here?   What is their education and job skill level?   What is demand for unskilled labor now and what is it projected to be?   If most labor economists are projecting shrinking demand for unskilled labor, why bring them here in large numbers?  Many futurists are worried about robotics displacing low skill labor.  We know, for instance, that Uber has reduced demand for cab drivers.  Driverless vehicles will have a profound impact on demand for truck drivers.   “Shithole” countries tend to produce uneducated workers lacking in the skills necessary to compete in the knowledge economy.   Second, the cost of trade and transportation have plummeted, so there is less need to bring labor here-especially unskilled labor. (and that is the reason for China’s rise).   In the end, immigrants can only end up in one of three places: (1) working, (2) in the welfare system, or (3) in the criminal justice system.  We need to take care that we minimize the risk that they end up in buckets 2 or 3.

Our social welfare and benefits system is already underfunded and overburdened.  Sweden, an advanced social welfare state, is instructive here.  Because of its mass migration policies, and the costs attached to it, the retirement age was recently increased.   With social security straining, and with most American with insufficient retirement savings, do really want to replicate the same policy here?   Merely crying “racism” or “xenophobia” does little to address this issue.  It is vital that we do not bring people in that are likely to tax our social welfare system.

I will say little about our criminal justice system because we all accept the fact that we imprison at higher rates than any advanced country.   That system already is maxed out.

The second issue that no one one’s to talk about is cultural fit and crime.   And here, we cannot avoid talking about Middle Eastern immigration.  With mass migration, murder and other crimes have increased in London by double digits.  The chief of police of Vienna has warned women that they should not go out at night alone.  France and Great Britain are riddled with “no go” zones.   Sweden has now become the rape capital of Europe.  Further, we are a free and open society.   We drink beer.  We don’t have face coverings.   FGM and child marriage cannot be permitted to become social norms.   There is the increased risk of jihadism.  The reality is that there are aspects in some quarters of the Islamic word that are an anathema to Western liberalism, and more generally, it is prudent to question the wisdom of bringing large populations of poorly educated people from illiberal societies that have a long history of illiberalism.  These are things that need to be discussed with candor.

We have analogous problems filtering out bad eggs from Mexico and Central America.  The notorious MS-13 street gang from El Salvador has metastasized in many of our cities.   20% or so of our federal prison population is foreign born, and 90% of those are here illegally.  We cannot have a system in which states are free to reject enforcement of our immigration laws.   Our children are dying as a consequence.  And nowhere else is the casualty rate higher than places like the South Side of Chicago, where drugs and the battle over their distribution rages, and much of it through the distribution channels of illegal immigration.

Trump’s sin is not that he asked the question, but rather that he asked in such an imprecise, vulgar and insulting way as to invite the charge of racism, which thus obscured hard conversations about real issues.

In my view, there are four pillars for a sensible immigration policy:

1.  Pay your own way.   We need to ensure that immigrants have a high probability of being employed and that they don’t end up in the welfare system or the criminal justice system.  That means having a realistic conversation about the skill level of the people that come here.  Perhaps a starting point would be to put a cap on the number of people that will not be expected to earn enough to actually pay income taxes within 24 months of arrival.  The supervisor in Columbus trying to feed his family on $80,000 a year has no interest in paying for benefits for somebody from Senegal....or Norway for that matter.
2. Don’t kill us.  We need to have better methods of screening out radical Muslims that pose a risk and gang members and people involved in the drug trade (see #4 below) and aggressively move to expel those that come across the border that put our citizens at risk.   The notion of sanctuary cities is insane.
3.  You must adapt to our culture; we’re not adapting to yours.  While Trump’s reference to Norwegians was viewed as racist, I heard it as Western, and we should not hesitate to signal that we are much more sympathetic to immigrants that demonstrate a willingness to adapt to our Western, open, liberal society and democracy.   That means that the odious aspects of some of Islamic culture---burkas, FGM, child marriage, and such are not going to be welcomed in the U.S. with open arms.   We should not be placed in the position we have found ourselves, where Christian bakers are forced to bake cakes in contravention of their religious practices or religious orders are forced to pay for abortive contraceptives, and yet Muslims can refuse to deliver alcoholic beverages in the course of their employment and sustain a lawsuit when they get fired for insubordination for doing so.   Our house.  Our rules.
4. No nullification. Immigration affects the entire nation.   Just as the Commerce Clause is used to govern interstate commerce even if commerce is done within a state, so is it with immigration.  We have free flow across state borders.  If California protects immigrant criminals, that will effect all of us.  

If we come to a satisfactory place on these four plus a wall (enhanced by other technological security measures), I’d be willing to consider some sort of amnesty with age limitations and a lookback period (say two years).   We cannot continue with a lawless immigration policy, and there are limits to the number of people we can take in.

Israel walked from its peace deal with Arafat over “return rights”  because it knew that demography is destiny.  If it agreed to return rights, within a couple of generations, Israel wouldn’t be Israel anymore.  Its culture, its territorial integrity, its economy would, over time,  be overrun and overwhelmed by Arabs.  Israel was not wrong in this position and it has some lessons for the U.S.  Whatever country of origin or race, we have a right to expect that people that come here will assimilate into our culture and economy.

I leave you with this quote from one of my favorite economists:

“People in the poorest countries nowadays, who assume not unreasonably that their economies are zero-sum, reckon they can best advance by theft, graft, influence, corruption, rent-seeking [A/K/A “shitholes”].  People in rich countries reckon, on the contrary, that the best way to advance is invention and betterment, which is why such countries became wealthy, at any rate until government expenditures got large enough to encourage rent-seeking to take over again.”

Deirdre Nansen McCloskey, Bourgeois Equality.

Both Trump and the Democrats are guilty here--- of cutting off real debate of real issues.  Trump in his clumsy way walked right into the charge of racism, which was laying wait for him.  But the cynical and harmful labeling of racism and xenophobia by the Left masks the true agenda--- bring in as many immigrants as possible, try to give them victim status and/or get them hooked on government benefits.   Then you don’t have to worry about trying to get rid of the electoral college.

We need a sane, open debate from both sides about what the country needs and what it should look like in the coming generations.