Please Get Your Russia Conspiracies Straight

Another public hacking episode is in the news this week, and naturally, Russia is being blamed for it.

Not that there appears to be much evidence as of yet that Russia is truly responsible. And such evidence is unlikely to be found, even if they did do it. Hacking cases are notoriously difficult if not impossible to definitively attribute. And attribution becomes even more unlikely if you're assuming the hackers have the effectively unlimited resources of a nation-state to fund very sophisticated attacks.

This all leads to a kind of Catch 22. Either Russia's state hacking apparatus is extraordinarily formidable and advanced--in which case, their culpability is not likely to be proved. Or, they are incompetent fools who can't even cover their own tracks--in which case, how much of a threat could they really be? Which one is it?

Sadly, that's not the only cognitive dissonance going on here.

The target of the latest purported "Russia" hacks was two state voter registration systems. This fits well with the useful campaign narrative that Putin is trying to manipulate the election to favor Donald Trump. But a moment's thought reveals that this story has contradictions of its own. On the one hand, we are told that we must fear the recklessness of Donald Trump and be appalled at the idea he would have control of nuclear weapons. But on the other hand, the reckless Donald Trump is also allegedly a "puppet" of Vladimir Putin, the leader of the other nuclear country that the US is most likely to exchange nuclear weapons with. How do we possibly reconcile this?

To believe both of those ideas simultaneously is to believe that Russia is trying to manipulate the elections in Donald Trump's favor, so that once elected, Donald Trump will start a nuclear war against Russia. Sure, no one ever says it like that. But if you believed both narratives that the Clinton campaign advances, that's where you end up. Hopefully, you don't need me to tell you that is crazy.

Thus, we have a humble suggestion. If you're going to demonize Russia, ideally try to use some actual facts. But if you can't muster that, at least get your conspiracy theories straight. It would save the rest of us a lot of needless frustration.

The good, the hysterical, and the dangerous of Trump's economic plan

Trump released his new economic plan yesterday, and the contents were pretty predictable. It's essentially a blend of standard Republican ideas on taxation (lower) and regulation (less) combined with Trump's continued insistence on protectionism. They make for strange bedfellows. Because while on the one hand, he proposes lowering income taxes and cutting and/or imposing a moratorium on new regulations, he also frequently talks about having new tariffs, which are just another tax.

There's no particular reason to think Trump would be successful in getting these ideas passed even if he were elected, so we shouldn't put too much stock in the details. Still, it's worth noting that, except for protectionism, the ideas themselves are generally worthy of praise. Reducing regulation and taxes and simplifying the tax code are all good things for an economy. The last is particularly desirable because a complicated tax code only really benefits two groups: tax accountants, and the very wealthy people and corporations that can afford to hire them. A simpler tax code at a lower rate eliminates most of the energy expended on tax compliance and tax avoidance, and would tend to make tax rates more equal across different groups.

That said, simplifying the tax code, is also among the least likely things to happen because there are so many vested interests that would oppose it. But it's a good idea in theory.

While the benefits of these ideas are not hard to understand, not everyone is so pleased. Apparently forgetting that Congress has to (and will not) pass these ideas into law, many were appalled by the proposals.

For example, The New York Times seemed to be particularly incensed by them. After offering some initial biased coverage of Trump's plan, the editorial board also rushed out a hysterical opinion on the matter. Here's the apocalyptic introduction (emphasis mine):

Donald Trump said on Monday that he wanted to usher in “economic renewal,” but most of his proposals would hurt the economy, rack up huge deficits, accelerate climate change and leave the country isolated from the world.

There are two reasons this sort of attack is absurd.

New York Times as Deficit Hawks?
First, the center-left perspective of The New York Times isn't exactly known for their concern about fiscal deficits or the national debt. And to confirm this, we need only look at... The New York Times itself. For example, just one week ago they published a piece on the Democratic and Republican economic programs, noting that both of them are going to run major deficits. But they had a much cheerier outlook on the matter then, all of seven days ago:

More borrowing might actually be healthy, many economists say, at least in the short term, by helping to elevate the economy’s long-depressed growth trajectory.

Or we could look to the views of economist Paul Krugman, who writes a regular column for the New York Times. Here's what Krugman had to say last fall in an article that was actually titled "Debt is Good". Check the link; I didn't make that up (emphasis added):

Believe it or not, many economists argue that the economy needs a sufficient amount of public debt out there to function well. And how much is sufficient? Maybe more than we currently have. That is, there’s a reasonable argument to be made that part of what ails the world economy right now is that governments aren’t deep enough in debt. 

The precise contours of Krugman's article aren't relevant, but the point should be clear: The New York Times does not give a damn about the debt. They're only pretending to in the most recent piece because they want to engage in some partisan point-scoring against Trump.

Hurt the Economy?
The mainstream Keynesian economic theory, which is shared by the Times, holds that the source of economic woes is fundamentally a lack of spending--by governments, businesses, and consumers. The solution for this is always more spending, and in economic terms, the particular source of that spending is not terribly important. Running government deficits is viewed as beneficial to this end.

But again, in the Keynesian view, it doesn't really matter where the spending comes from so it doesn't matter how the deficit arises. The deficit can come from new federal spending, which is supposed to directly stimulate the economy. Or the deficit may be caused by tax cuts, which also stimulate the economy as consumers with more income left over will tend to spend more. This explains why Congress, acting on this same theory in 2010, implemented a 2% payroll tax cut after the recession.

Thus, the idea that Trump's massive proposed tax cuts are going to hurt the economy really doesn't comport with even the standard Keynesian analysis. Indeed, it's just the Republican-friendly version of the standard deficit stimulus prescription. The Democratic-friendly version involves more government spending instead of tax cuts, but the theoretical economic effect is not fundamentally different.

Now, some economists might argue that Trump's plan would have a greater economic stimulus if more tax cuts were directed at middle-class people--who tend to save less than wealthy people. But again, this is an argument at the margins. The direction of the short-run impact is not in dispute; it would be positive.

The NYT's claim that Trump's plans would hurt the economic is simply not based on economic theory (not even on bad economic theory). Rather, they oppose his policies for other reasons, and are dressing it up as an economic argument for rhetorical effect.

The Real Threat of Trump's Economic Program
The irony in all of this is that the Times is accidentally right on the question of deficits. The debt really does matter. The idea that the United States can endlessly borrow more money with no consequences is absurd--especially in a time when many traditional creditors of the United States, like China and the Gulf States, are struggling themselves.

But neither Clinton nor Trump is going to address the debt problem; both fully intend to run deficits. Only the source of the deficits differs.

On balance, there's good reason to think that, if passed, the Trump program of reduced regulation and taxes would improve the economy somewhat (while protectionism would be harmful). But even if we grant that it would be a net positive effect, it's not going to work miracles. And that's what the economy would need to avoid an outright collapse, given all the precarious warning signs around right now.

And herein lies the most significant economic threat of a Donald Trump presidency. Even though Trump is unlikely to get any of his good ideas passed, and even though protectionism is a direct repudiation of capitalism, the media still paints him as a believer in the free market.

As a result, if and when the economy collapses on his watch, it is undoubtedly the free market that would once again take the fall for a disaster it did not cause.

Libertarian Presidential Ticket Has Another Disappointing Primetime Town Hall

Libertarian political views can be called many things, some deserved and others not so much--bold, heartless, inspiring, naive, peaceful, unconventional, etc. "Boring" usually doesn't make the list.

And yet, somehow at the latest Libertarian Town Hall, with Gary Johnson and Bill Weld at the helm, that was precisely the outcome.

True to form, Weld was coherent, but frequently wrong. Meanwhile, Johnson stumbled through slightly better positions, but was often wrong as well.

Last night, they were campaigning not primarily on the merits of libertarian ideas. Rather, they were campaigning on the alleged virtues of compromise and bipartisanship, and how their personal governing experience could bring those about.

While there were no major gaffes, they expressed many decidedly non-libertarian views.

How to solve the problem of domestic terrorism? They want to expand the FBI. Oh, and things like the Orlando Shooting wouldn't have happened if we didn't have so much due process left in this country (not a direct quote, but the necessary implication of their remarks).

What about terrorists overseas? Weld's okay with drone assassinations, and they were both okay with violating Pakistan's sovereignty to assassinate Osama bin Laden and with invading Afghanistan. Not mentioned--the fact that the Taliban were willing to extradite Osama bin Laden for prosecution, which could have obviated both decisions.

I confess it was around that time that I unplugged with the predicted level of disappointment.

Back in 2007, Ron Paul managed to capture everyone's attention and inspire a movement with a few brief minutes on a Republican debate stage. Johnson and Weld just had a second hour on cable news in Primetime to lay out the libertarian case, and I doubt very much whether anyone will remember it, fondly or otherwise, a few days hence.

Read Brian Doherty at Reason for the rest of the highlights from the town hall, if you can call them that.

Captain Khan Controversy Should Help Third Party Candidates, Not the One That Helped Get Him Killed

Source: Vocativ.com

Trump's rude remarks about Khizr Khan remain in the news cycle yesterday as they have ever since the weekend. You'll recall that Khan's son was a Muslim US soldier who died in the Iraq War, and his father gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention to condemn Donald Trump's various appalling proposals about Muslims.

President Obama spoke out against Trump's criticism yesterday, noting that "no one has given more for our freedom and our security than our Gold Star families," referring to families that have lost loved ones in the armed forces. Republican Senator John McCain took a similar tack to condemning Trump. However, given that Trump's success was not at all imperiled when he deliberately mocked McCain for being a Prisoner-of-War--which would seem to be at least as taboo as the present situation--it's not clear that McCain's comments will have much impact.

The context that remains missing in all of this, however, is that Khizr Khan's son Humayun did not die for the "freedom" and "security". He died in an aggressive, senseless war that should have never been fought--which McCain and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton both voted in favor of. Meanwhile, Obama has resuscitated the same war, and carried out other harmful interventions in Libya and Syria.

Bottom line, this episode ought to be the clearest possible illustration that both major party presidential candidates are awful. Trump implicitly accuses a grieving father of oppressing his wife (amongst other things), and Hillary Clinton helped cause the father's grief in the first place. It remains unclear which of those is worse, but it is clear that the prominent third party candidates, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, did no such thing. That should count for something.

Economic Populism, America First, and Cheers for Gay People at the RNC

Source: The New York Times

Republican National Convention
We watched the final night of the Republican National Convention (RNC) and Donald Trump's acceptance speech so you didn't have to. Here's what you missed:

First, a Positive Disclaimer
I have a fantastically low bar when it comes to watching the two major parties. In effect, I'm expecting it to be uniformly bad. When it's not, I'm pleasantly surprised and those are the things that stand out to me. Naturally, that's what I emphasize in the analysis below as well. It's not that I don't notice the horrifying parts as well; I just take those as a given. If you'd prefer a more balanced or negative take, there is no shortage of apocalyptic overviews for you to seek out. Like this one.

Cheers for Gay People
One of the most encouraging aspects of the evening came from a risky inclusion in the speaking lineup--billionaire entrepreneur and libertarian-leaning Peter Thiel. You may be asking, what's one more billionaire amongst friends?

Well, Thiel was risky for a Republican convention because he's an openly gay man who was expected to address LGBTQ issues--not exactly the bread-and-butter of the GOP. After raucous disapproval of Ted Cruz the night before, there was a solid chance that Thiel would be greeted with boos when discussing his sexual orientation.

The exact opposite happened.

In the speech, Thiel chastised Republicans for getting distracted by "fake culture wars" in general and worrying about the North Carolina transgender bathroom kerfuffle in particular:

When I was a kid, the great debate was about how to defeat the Soviet Union. And we won. Now we are told that the great debate is about who gets to use which bathroom. This is a distraction from our real problems. Who cares?

Indeed.

Then, in what may have been the highlight of the night, Thiel declared his identity and received a standing ovation:

I am proud to be gay. I am proud to be a Republican. But most of all, I am proud to be an American.

That got loud applause at the RNC. And it was followed by chants of "USA! USA! USA!" It was as beautiful as either of the two major parties can be circa 2016.

A similar moment also occurred during Trump's own remarks after he discussed the Orlando shooting and vowed to protect the LGBTQ community from hateful ideologies. Cheers broke out, and Trump explicitly acknowledged them:

And I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you.

This line wasn't in the original draft of his speech. Apparently, Trump was as relieved as the rest of us that Thiel and the discussion of the LGBTQ community received a surprisingly positive reception.

America First
Trump's foreign policy comments remained predictably inconsistent in his acceptance speech. He vows to defeat ISIS quickly in one breath (implying an invasion of some sort), but then opposes nation-building and regime change. He opposes regime change, but can't stand the most prominent instance where diplomacy was used in lieu of regime change (Iran). He correctly blames Hillary Clinton for advocating the intervention that destroyed Libya, but then blames her--the woman who counted Egypt's former dictator Hosni Mubarak as a family friend--for supporting / engineering the Egyptian dictator's overthrow, which is clearly false. He also criticizes Obama for not drawing a firm "red line" on Syria, but had that "red line" been more firm, it would have meant regime change in Syria--which, again, Trump is supposed to oppose.

You get the idea. He can't help but contradict himself all over the place. Some of it's good, some of it's bad, and it can't all fit together. Given how obvious many of these contradictions are, one wonders how they persist. Do his advisers really not understand this? Or maybe it's just some form of political compromise to the hawkish elements of the party? Tough to say for sure.

What is clear, however, is that Trump is pushing the America First theme. This phrase, or some variant of it, occurred repeatedly in his remarks, as an explanation of his priorities on foreign policy and immigration. The term is historically associated with a prominent antiwar movement, and we have to believe Trump knows this. Whether he truly favors this approach, or is simply using it as a marketing ploy is anyone's guess. But it does bode well for the antiwar cause in the upcoming debates. He may not be consistent, but Trump is setting himself up to take the more peaceful stance relative to Hillary Clinton.

Also worth noting here is another great line from Peter Thiel's speech: "It's time to end the era of stupid wars and rebuild America."

Incredibly, that was an applause line at the RNC. One wonders if similar remarks will be heard at the Democratic National Convention, given their nominee.

Economic Populism and Outreach
Another major theme of the evening was economic populism. Trump may want to cut taxes (at least in this speech), but that shouldn't be confused with him wanting to shrink the size of government. Quite the opposite.

Trump's daughter Ivanka highlighted the (highly misleading) idea of a gender wage gap in her speech, attributing it primarily to challenges faced by working mothers. In response, Trump plans to advocate for an affordable child care system and possibly new employment laws preventing discrimination. While superficially appealing, it's not likely these will work well in practice. Do you want to send your kids to the daycare equivalent of the VA? I didn't think so.

Trump's own speech naturally focused on bad trade deals. Light on details but heavy on emotional appeal, he vowed not to sign another deal that harmed workers, and that American companies who tried to shift jobs overseas would face consequences.

Given this mood, you may not be surprised to learn that Trump was making very direct appeals to the Bernie Sanders voters, by favorably referencing the Democrat's populist candidate multiple times. He also referred to the economic plight of African-Americans and Latinos at a couple places in the speech, emphasizing how his policies would help them and all Americans suffering from the "rigged political and economic" system. Of course, this was a theme that Sanders drove home often as well.

With the exception of tax cuts and a few half-hearted nods to deregulation, Trump's economic policies will turn out poorly. But politically, that does not matter. Last night, Trump committed to branding himself as the candidate of the working man--his policies, his rhetoric, and even the personal anecdotes shared by the other speakers were all designed to convey this message.

The End of #ImWithHer

Trump concluded the evening by coining a response to Hillary's ubiquitous slogan #ImWithHer. Instead, Trump offered a different pledge to the American people: I'm with you.

Love him or hate him, this was brilliant.

In effect, it says that Hillary is in this race to just enhance her own personal power and influence and her supporters are pawns to help her achieve this end. On the other hand, Trump is the candidate who is in the race for selfless reasons, just to fight for the American people. Again, it doesn't matter whether you actually think this is true or not; it's a powerful message that fits his strategy.

And if I was a betting man--that is, if it was not illegal for me to wager large sums of money on political outcomes--I'd bet that Trump's strategy is going to work.

Hate, Rage, and "Others"
Disclaimer in mind, Trump's remarks were more moderate and more positive than I expected. The Hillary campaign already issued its verdict, which is exactly what you'd expect, summarizing it as "more fear, more division, more anger, more hate". 

And to be sure, there was some of that. But not as much as you'd think.

Trump still wants a wall and is still worried about illegal immigration. He also called to stop all immigration from countries where terrorism is rampant. But in both cases, his remarks were less categorical than usual.

On immigration, he was no longer fixated on all ~11 million illegal immigrants estimated to be in the country. Instead, his focus was on some 180,000 who were illegal immigrants that committed crimes. One might question what crimes are included and whether this number is right, but this is clearly an improvement over calling for all illegal immigrants to be deported. Similarly, on the terrorism question, he no longer called for a ban on Muslims as such, he wanted it to be based on country. That position won't win any points with libertarians, but it is certainly better than banning people explicitly based on their religion.

In Trump's worldview, at least as expressed last night, the relevant distinction is not (legal) immigrant or non-immigrant; not black, white, or Latino; not Evangelical Christian or LGBTQ. It is American or not American. And he wants to put Americans first. 

Of course, nationalism has a dark side too. If Trump ultimately wins, we may be reminded just how dark it can be. But last night, nationalism convinced a room full of conservative Republicans to cheer enthusiastically for gay people. I say that's worth celebrating.

The Case for Political Optimism Part II: Donald Trump

Forbes.com

Today, we continue to make the case for political optimism in the 2016 Presidential Election. And yes, that case even extends to possible election of Donald Trump, who was officially confirmed yesterday as the GOP nominee.

The basic premise of our belief is straightforward. The near-term outcomes of US politics may be a tragedy, but in the long-term, they are an opportunity. Yesterday, we discussed the upside of Hillary Clinton; today is Trump's turn.

Evaluating the likely impacts of a Trump Presidency are more challenging than considering Hillary's effects. While Hillary is a known quantity, Donald Trump is anything but. He has been known to express contradictory positions within the same week, and occasionally, even within the same speech. It's not even entirely clear whether he does this on accident or deliberately, which would basically mean taking political posturing to a new level.

With that said, there are still some consistent themes that have emerged. And from a libertarian perspective, they are almost exclusively bad--trade (less of it), free speech (more restrictions and lawsuits), police brutality (less accountability), and immigration (build a wall and deport immigrants already here).

On the question of terrorism and foreign policy, Trump is slightly more complicated. On the one hand, he has taken Islamophobia to new and appalling levels, and his emphasis on national security does not bode well for civil liberties. However, he has also been (at least during the election season) one of the most outspoken and effective critics of US regime change operations overseas. When Donald criticizes US intervention, he's unfortunately not sophisticated enough to make the blowback argument--that these interventions are in fact the dominant motivation for terrorism against Western targets. For Donald, Islam is still the leading explanation of that, which informs his other bad ideas. Still, the fact that the Republican standard bearer is willing to criticize US intervention at all--albeit not consistently and imperfectly--is decidedly new ground. It's also not something we're going to hear from Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail.

Most of the above items were strong strikes against Donald Trump. But as with Hillary, the benefits of a Trump Presidency lie more in his unintentional impacts than his deliberate policy proposals.

Animosity with the Press
The media's loathing of Donald Trump is palpable and unprecedented. Partisan biases in the media are nothing new, but this is something else. Indeed, we recently reported with glee on a particularly enjoyable outburst of antagonism between Trump and the press. You'll recall that this was in regards to a Trump fundraiser where the exact amount of funds raised was being questioned. After being pestered about it for weeks, Trump seems to have called a press conference for the sole purpose of berating the media. And it was an absolute delight:

[Trump] called one reporter "a sleaze", the general group "unbelievably dishonest" , and said they should be "ashamed" of themselves.

In response to the abuse, one of the reporters, apparently shaken, asked if it was always going to be like this.

Reporter: "I think you've set a new bar today for being contentious with the press corps, calling us 'losers' to our faces and all that...[interruptions]...Is this what it's going to be like covering you when you're president?"

Trump: "Yeah. It is...Yeah, it is going to be like this, David."

It's not clear whether our lovable reporter David was hoping for a peace offering or just deciding whether to go into another line of work. But, his question is revealing. As it stands, the press corps typically enjoys a very friendly and pleasant relationship with people in power, including presidents. That's why they have a highly publicized White House Correspondents' Dinner ("Nerd Prom") where everyone enjoys champagne while making light (or ignoring) of all the atrocities the amiable President invariably committed in the past year. It's also why the New York Times sees fit to publish fawning pieces like this one on our current president--Sure he's murdered children, but he has so much integrity and grace when he does it!

In the aftermath of the episode, the good folks at the New York Times (and probably many other places) took it upon themselves to explain the critical role of the press to hold politicians accountable. This was ironic, since it is those same news outlets which have proved fantastically inept (or disinterested) in holding anyone in power accountable--including their own journalists that helped sell America the Iraq War. But I digress.

While other politicians consistently receive favorable, uncritical coverage in the media, Donald Trump does not--not now and not when/if he occupies the Oval Office. So far, most of the critical coverage has been petty and trivial (OMG, one of Trump's forty-seven businesses failed!). But we should assume that if a President Trump ever had a real scandal or tried to implement some of his worst ideas, he would soon find an adversarial press corps to be alive and well--for the first time in years.

Public Outrage
Another positive factor (for all of us, if not for Trump himself), is that Trump seems to spark considerably more outrage among the general public than past Republican politicians. People may not have liked Romney for instance, but they weren't going to move to Canada if Mitt took office.

It's worth debating whether the degree of outrage about Trump is really justified. Our own answer is yes and no. Yes, he's an awful candidate, but no, he's not a uniquely awful candidate:

Trump's real crime is not his ideas or his biases. It's his willingness to express them in explicit ways that should and do make us all uncomfortable. He doesn't support enhanced interrogation techniques; he supports Torture with a capital T. He doesn't just support a "strong national defense"; he wants to go after people's families. Unfortunately, there's little that's new here. But it's not often that all of America's worst ideas are thrown out into the open for all to see. That is Trump's core offense. It's why he's inspiring more passionate opposition than any candidate in recent memory. But if the ideas are really bad, and they are, they should have been opposed all along--no matter what form they took and which party was supporting them.

Right or wrong though, the intense opposition to Donald Trump is healthy and useful. I wish all presidents faced such opposition; we might not be where we are now.

What this unprecedented public opposition means is that, contrary to popular belief, Trump is actually likely to wield far less power than President Obama currently does. There's little doubt that Trump, like Obama and Bush before him, would seek to expand his power. But Trump is going to be watched much more closely, by the media and the public. This is an important constraint.

Moreover, there is a genuine fear of Trump having all the power that is already vested in the President by historical precedent (though not by the constitution). Trump is the perfect combination of arrogant and despised to start a real conversation about the necessary and proper limits of executive power. Undoubtedly, this conversation would be initiated with a primary goal of scoring partisan political points. But it could lead to useful outcomes nevertheless.

Trump may also help folks on the left rediscover the merits of state's rights / the Tenth Amendment as an invaluable tool to block unwarranted excesses of the federal government. The left (along with libertarians) has already made major progress using the Tenth Amendment strategy in recent years to legalize marijuana. This same approach could be employed to prevent implementation of Trump's controversial deportation policies, just as northeastern states used it prior to the Civil War to resist the appalling federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. If things get bad enough, we might even see far-left states like Washington or Vermont begin to contemplate secession as a possible remedy (Vermont already has a group advocating for precisely this). For reasons we won't elaborate on here, this too would probably be a good thing.

Economic Policy
Finally, on economic policy, Trump is likely to prove blandly disappointed. Like Hillary Clinton, Trump's major economic policies--namely, erecting new trade barriers--will be calamitous for the US economy. Unfortunately, because Trump is a businessman and a member of GOP, which has a completely undeserved reputation of promoting free markets, an economic disaster on Trump's watch will probably be blamed on capitalism rather than the policies that caused it. There is a minor chance that Trump himself would be blamed given the previously discussed media hatred for him. But even if this did happen, the blame would probably be placed on Trump and his demeanor rather than particular policies. Thus, it's unlikely a failure under Trump will have the same educational value as a failure under Clinton would.

One possible upside comes from some off-hand and decidedly sensible remarks Trump made with regards to the US debt early on in the campaign season. In essence, Trump acknowledged that US debt would need to be restructured. This was viewed as blasphemous because the media still pretends paying off the debt at par is going to happen (it isn't). And Trump immediately walked the comments back the next day, and tried to pretend he never implied that the US would have to default.

It's not clear if he would make any game-changing decisions on US debt as President. Cutting spending has not figured as a priority in his plans, so it's unlikely he will make progress on the deficit. This, in turn, makes it likely a President Trump would face a debt-ceiling showdown just as Obama did.

Now that Trump has publicly acknowledged that the debt won't be repaid (even if he did retract that comment), this could make the next debt-ceiling crisis far more interesting. If investors perceive a real threat that Trump will allow a default, US debt could finally lose its perceived status as a risk-free investment. And when that happens, all bets are off. Interest rates would adjust sharply higher as investors unload US bonds, and the shock would almost certainly spark the next financial crisis, if it hadn't already occurred by then. But in spite of the short-term pain, this correction is actually a great thing for the long-term stability of the financial markets.

The ever unpredictable President Trump may help accelerate this process by his mere existence. If he does, it be a major step toward getting the economy back on a sustainable course. It will also finally discredit the dominant Keynesian view of economics which holds, in effect, that the US can continue accumulating debt indefinitely with no adverse consequences. Both of those outcomes would be welcome news.

Conclusion
Thus, we find that even a Donald Trump Presidency has serious upsides for the state of US politics four years hence. As with Hillary Clinton, the benefits are derived not from his affirmative policies but by the substantial opposition forces that will be unleashed against him. The strength of the Executive Branch and the federal government might receive overdue scrutiny, and Trump's mistakes will be highlighted by an adversarial mainstream press corps that is finally interested in holding the powerful to account. These forces will slow Trump down at every turn, mitigating the impact of his worst ideas.

Another likely benefit of Donald Trump is that his election would thoroughly shatter the prestige of the President. While that sounds bad at first, it really just means that people will clearly understand that the US President is human like anyone else and deserves at least the same level of skepticism. In a time when each of the last two presidents has claimed the power to prosecute new wars without Congressional approval and assassinate people without any semblance of due process, the unpopularity of Donald Trump could provide a much needed remedy.

And that's why there's no need to be pessimistic in this election cycle. Trump or Clinton will win the election, and they are just as bad as you think. But America will survive their leadership. And the reaction against their failures will pave the way for a better path forward.

The Case for Political Optimism Part I: Hillary Clinton

The Washington Post / Getty Images

Let's face it: July has been a bad news month. It's also about to get worse, as two historically unpopular candidates become the official presidential nominees for their respective parties.

It does not really matter whether you think Clinton is the worst case scenario and Trump is the second worst, or vice versa. Most Americans aren't excited about either candidate, and after July, it will be all but certain that one of them occupy the White House come 2017.

This is cause for concern, of course. But the downside is not nearly as great as many believe. I can't remember the last election that didn't occur at a "historic" and "pivotal" moment in the nation's history. And yet, here we are. America survived the foreign and domestic interventions of George W. Bush, and it survived the foreign and domestic interventions of Barack Obama. It will survive Trump or Clinton too. And there's good reason to believe our politics will emerge in much better shape in four years. This is the case for political optimism.

The Upside of Hillary Clinton
From a libertarian perspective, there's not much to like about Hillary Clinton. Her particular form of centrism is opposed to libertarian principles on nearly every count--drugs (mostly pro-prohibition), war (for it), minimum wage (screw poor people), and so on. Thus, the upside to Hillary lies primarily not in what she will try to do, but in what she will fail to do.

Before getting there, though, it's worth noting there is one area where the winds of political pragmatism may call Clinton to do something helpful intentionally. As we discussed yesterday, Campaign Zero has proposed a slate of generally useful reforms for stopping police brutality. They have also compared the candidates' policy proposals to their core recommendations to identify areas of common ground / obstruction. Clinton comes out favorably on this score. Granted, she supports items that, in our view, are the most watered down and among the least important reforms. And of course, all she's doing is undoing some of the harm caused by the 1994 crime bill that was signed in to law (with her help) by her husband. (Don't worry, the harm was only directed at child "super predators", whom she also likened to dogs.) But with all that said, there's a chance some good will come of it. And given that the police brutality problem is liable to get worse before it gets better, she may consider more drastic (and hopefully helpful) reforms if and when she actually is president.

Foreign Policy
That good news aside, it must be acknowledged that Hillary Clinton is an unmitigated disaster on foreign policy. This doesn't make her all that unique, but she's far worse than most of her party in this area. In essence, she's bad on the same things that President Obama is bad on. She just takes them to new extremes and throws in a few extras for good measure. Some choice examples:

• Vehemently advocated for the disastrous overthrow of Libya
• Called for a no-fly zone over Syria (which also implies regime change)
• Is determined to strengthen US relations with Israel's belligerent prime minister
• Called for new sanctions on Iran immediately after the first sanctions were lifted
• Voted for the Iraq War

I don't have enough time in the day to provide a comprehensive list, but you get the idea. When there's a choice between peace and coercion, Hillary Clinton will choose coercion almost every time.

This is clearly bad news if you're an American concerned about terrorism, civilian casualties, or American soldiers needlessly dying overseas. It's even worse news if you happen to be a civilian in any of the countries that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would probably try to get more involved in.

The only real upside in this area is that Hillary is likely to overplay her hand. Among the few virtues of President Obama has been restraint (by recent American standards, that is). His administration has intervened and bombed seven different countries during his presidency. This included the violent overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya via NATO intervention. But to date, Obama has not backed a full-scale effort to overthrow President Assad in Syria, and the troop redeployments in Iraq number in the thousands currently, rather than the tens of thousands that they did during the occupation. His policies have still been egregious, but he had enough political sense to do it quietly. Rather than send the amount of troops needed to accomplish the stated (if futile) goal of uprooting ISIS, Obama has quietly increased the troop count hundreds at a time to avoid any meaningful debate. Politically this works for him, and it means the resulting policy is less bad than it otherwise would be.

Hillary Clinton's deep-seated hawkishness suggests she is unlikely to exercise the same degree of subtlety and tact. More likely, she will push for major new interventions. Iraq is probably the first candidate for greater intervention, with Syria and Libya following close on its heels. When this happens, it's tough to predict how the politics will play out. It's possible that the Democrats will manage to hold their nose while many Republicans offer wholehearted endorsements of the aggression they have always clamored for from the Oval Office, post 9/11. However, if Hillary pushes far enough, the tolerance of the Democrats is likely to wear thin, and Republicans will realize that attacking Hillary on war is politically effective. We saw this right-left unity briefly coalesce around opposition to bombing Syria back in 2013. There's a small chance that Hillary Clinton could revive it, to the benefit of all of us.

Economic Policy

While there's a chance of positive political effect from foreign policy, the biggest upside to a Clinton Presidency lies in the sphere of economics.

As we have noted previously, the US and global economies are ripe for their next collapse. There are many different indicators that would lead us to believe the current expansion is coming to a close, and there's good reason to believe that the next collapse will be even worse than 2008-2009. Moreover, even if you don't buy these ideas, there's also just the simple matter of time. The current expansionary period, as judged by the stock market, is the second longest on record in the post-World War II period. If it were to survive through the next presidential term, it would be the longest expansion of the era by nearly two years. Given the numerous signs of cracking already, this is unlikely to happen. It's a safe bet that the US economy will undergo some kind of recession under the next president.

This won't actually be Clinton's fault--most of the blame ought to lie with the Federal Reserve. Nevertheless, Clinton, and possibly President Obama, will receive most of the blame for it.

This may not be fair, but it will have great ramifications for US political discourse. It will finally put to bed the claim that Democrats know how to "manage the economy" than Republicans. The point here is not that the Republicans are better; it's that the very idea of either party knowing how to manage the economy is absurd.

Even if the general public fails to grasp this particular point, many other things will still become clear. Most importantly, the next recession is likely to come with at least a few bank failures. From an educational perspective, this will be very useful. When banking failures or economic issues arise under a period of Republican control, the blame is always placed on the excesses and greed of capitalism. But when it occurs under a prolonged period of Democratic control, this will be a difficult pivot to make. After all, some Democrats (and the Fed) have claimed that we have implemented the essential regulations needed to keep capitalism, and especially the financial sector, stable and secure. If some of these firms fail in spite of such useful regulation, only a few conclusions are possible:

1. The market still wasn't regulated enough--which would be awkward since Dodd-Frank was hailed as such a major accomplishment,
2. Maybe regulation isn't the solution after all, and/or
3. Maybe, as libertarians have argued all this time, government regulations and interventions are actually the source of our economic problems, not the solution.

Clinton's response to the economic crisis will be bullish for option #3.

After all, economist Paul Krugman is angling to be her chief economic adviser, and his remedy in the crisis will be more of the usual Keynesian stimulus prescription. An authoritarian Clinton may even take things further. Borrowing inspiration from the Democratic legend of FDR, she may make more detailed interventions in the economy--raising wages, implementing price controls, etc. None of the proposals will prove helpful, and most will actively make matters worse, just as they did during the Great Depression under Hoover and FDR.

In other words, a Clinton Presidency will offer the kind of natural economic experiment that economists are usually denied. She is not an avowed socialist like Bernie Sanders, and in some ways, that's actually better. Domestically, she is the opposite of radical. She is the embodiment of centrist conventional wisdom, so she will pursue the orthodox solutions. When they fail--and they will--it will create an unprecedented opportunity.

Twelve continuous years of Democratic rule means that when the next crisis hits, for once, the free market might not be blamed for the follies of government.

America faces many difficult problems right now and many of them will come to a head in the next four years, regardless of who gets elected. But while the short-term outlook looks bleak, there are real reasons to be excited about the state of US politics on the other side. It may be angrier and more jaded than ever, but it will also be smarter. That is worth looking forward to.

Also, look for our post tomorrow when we discuss the unlikely upside of Donald Trump.

Bernie's Legacy and the Enduring Unpopularity of Socialism

We hear a lot of talk these days that Bernie Sanders changed politics forever, even if he appears increasingly unlikely he will become the Democratic nominee.* It's not obvious what the motivation is behind expressing such sentiments, since the idea appears to come from all corners. But whatever their purpose, it's also worth asking whether it's actually true.

If it were true, we could imagine that there would be a resurgence in the popularity of socialism, since that's how Bernie Sanders identifies himself. Granted, socialism is something of a confusing label, because as bad as Sanders' economic policies were, they weren't really socialist in the traditional sense of government-owned means of production. Still, since the average American voter is unlikely to draw careful ideological distinctions, it seems fair to assume many people now think of socialism as something like Bernie's professed platform--expanding the welfare state, moving towards single-payer healthcare, free college, taxing the rich (and the poor, with the latter done more subtly), etc.

So if it were true that Bernie's message changed politics, one would imagine support for loosely defined socialism would be on the rise and support for the similarly vague concept of capitalism would be declining.

Which is why, as a libertarian, I'm pleased to cover a new Gallup poll today which shows that socialism's popularity appears to be on the decline.

The poll also shows that while capitalism, as an idea, has many detractors. Yet the most important real world manifestations of capitalism--entrepreneurs and small business, enjoy near-unanimous popularity. It makes perfect sense, but it's still a remarkable result. Many of us hear enough bad things attributed to big business and capitalism that those faceless abstractions become relatively unpopular. But small business and entrepreneurs play a key role, if indirectly, in our daily lives, whether it's the food cart down the street or the local coffee shop around the corner. If the businesses are successful enough, many such owners could fall within the eminently-hateable designation of the 1%. As long as people can associate free market concepts closely with more real experiences, however, they appear to have a favorable view. And of course they would. If you don't like things in an open market, then you can go somewhere else until you find something you do like. There's little reason not to be satisfied with such an arrangement.

This also ties back to the prevailing sentiment and anger among former Bernie supporters that he was cheated out of the nomination. Clearly, the odds were against him, and the superdelegate system begs for contempt. But it's worth remembering that Clinton actually won more of the pledged delegates and more of the popular vote. Indeed, on the popular vote front, it's not even that close (3.7M vote differential or a roughly 13 point spread). Those figures don't include caucuses since individual votes don't get tallied for those, which could shift the balance a little towards Bernie. And we could always argue that things would be different without closed primaries or a media that limited Sanders' exposure** to some degree. Even taking those things into account, it's not at all clear that could solve a 13 point margin.

Moreover, if we're trying to gauge the popularity of Sanders and his likely impact on politics in general, we'd really need to tease out the Democrats that would have been willing to vote for any Not-Hillary option. I don't have a compelling way to do so, but it would further moderate any claims of a Sanders-fueled revolution of hearts and minds.

What is more likely is that Sanders inspired an incredibly enthusiastic and hardcore base of support, much like Ron Paul did in 2008 and 2012. Such a following makes for impressive rallies by political standards. (After all, I've never understood where they find the people that are willing to attend Clinton, Romney, McCain, etc. rallies unless they're being offered campaign jobs.) And this same core following is going to make the most noise about any perceived or legitimate wrongdoing in the media or party establishment. That said, none of that means the underlying opinions of the American people have changed drastically--they didn't for Ron and they didn't for Bernie either.

The true test of Bernie's impact will be on whether he has a lasting influence on the political views of his core following. In Ron's case, it's certainly true that he inspired a new wave of libertarians, even if it wasn't large enough to produce electoral success. It remains to be seen whether Bernie promotion of a large welfare state in combination with bombing slightly fewer people in the Middle East will have a lasting appeal.

H/T: For more on the poll mentioned above, refer to this excellent discussion from Daniel Mitchell at FEE.

*And yes, that could change if Hillary got indicted. But do you really think the same government that declined to prosecute torture is going to hold a powerful official to account over mishandling classified information? Obviously, that's rhetorical.

**For what it's worth, as a former Ron Paul supporter in 2008 and 2012, I am compelled to note that Sanders got dramatically more media attention than Ron Paul. Lest anyone should doubt it, you can watch this depressing, and admittedly slightly-too-conspiratorial-for-my-tastes, compilation of examples from 2012.

The Media and Donald Trump Don't Get Along, And That's Wonderful

The public was treated to a delightfully contentious press conference this past Tuesday as presidential candidate Donald Trump briefed reporters about his donation to veteran groups. The topic of the press conference has been in the news a lot lately, though it could scarcely matter less.

The basic idea is that Trump held a fundraiser for veterans and declared at some point during the event that they had reached $6 million. After the event, however, the donations were not quickly disbursed (which isn't uncommon), and thus a scandal was born. Where did the money go? Wait, it only adds up to $5.6 million? Liar! Did Trump ever give his own money as promised? And, most important of all, who in the world possibly cares?

As near as I can tell, the first few questions have real answers. But the last one remains a mystery--probably just the media and the Hillary campaign which has decided this issue's going to be a real zinger (it isn't).

But while the topic of the press gathering was meaningless on all counts,* the outcome of the press conference was quite interesting. The best montage I could find is featured here from Fox News (the relevant part stops at around 4:00).

It's really extraordinary because Trump just goes off on them--and of course, there's every reason to suspect he planned to do so. Criticizing the media plays very well with his voters and possibly with Americans in general. Certainly it will with those considering voting for Trump. As a bonus, it also happens to be entirely warranted. Maybe not on this particular issue--I'm proud to say I haven't followed it closely enough to have an opinion on the matter. But in general, the political press absolutely deserves as much criticism as Trump or anyone else is willing to give.

You should watch the video, for entertainment if nothing else. But in case you don't, here were some highlights. He called one reporter "a sleaze", the general group "unbelievably dishonest" , and said they should be "ashamed" of themselves.

In response to the abuse, one of the reporters, apparently shaken, asked if it was always going to be like this.

Reporter: "I think you've set a new bar today for being contentious with the press corps, calling us 'losers' to our faces and all that...[interruptions]...Is this what it's going to be like covering you when you're president?"

Trump: "Yeah. It is...Yeah, it is going to be like this, David."

It's not clear whether our lovable reporter David was hoping for a peace offering or just deciding whether to go into another line of work. But, his question is revealing. As it stands, the press corps typically enjoys a very friendly and pleasant relationship with people in power, including presidents. That's why they have a highly publicized White House Correspondents' Dinner ("Nerd Prom") where everyone enjoys champagne while making light (or ignoring) of all the atrocities the amiable President invariably committed in the past year. It's also why the New York Times sees fit to publish fawning pieces like this one on our current president--Sure he's murdered children, but he has so much integrity and grace when he does it! (And yes, I understand David Brooks' job** is not primarily to cover the President. Still, it seems to be symptomatic of the decidedly friendly relationship between the mainstream press and the president).

Naturally, the same New York Times covered the Trump story, and expressed disbelief at Trump's refusal to acknowledge the valuable role played by press. Here's an excerpt from their coverage:

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an expert on the presidency and director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Trump appeared to be making assumptions about journalism that were “so faulty as to be bizarre.” 

“The notion that the press would be writing stories praising him for keeping a promise he made in public to veterans, months after he made the promise, suggests he simply does not understand the function of the press,” she said.

Ah yes, the function of the press. Certainly, I applaud all the intrepid reporters who are working to nail down Donald Trump's stance on the key subject of rounding. But, they could also ask him about almost anything else, and it would be more important to the upcoming election. How about his stance on the War in Yemen that no one talks about (but which America is supplying and actively assisting)? Maybe Venezuela? Maybe the unsustainable rise in corporate debt, fueled by artificially low interest rates? Nope.

Of course, this problem isn't unique to Donald Trump. It's how the media treats everyone with power. Occasionally, superficial issues will blow up into scandal--did Barack really just wear a tan suit!? But real issues rarely come up. And it's not hard to see why. You don't call out your friends.

In turn, this is why we should want there to be palpable tension between the press corps and the president. When the president stops violating the constitution, international law, and whatever promise he made 3 weeks ago ("boots on the ground" anyone?), then it will be okay for the press and the president to be on friendly terms. But that's not going to happen anytime soon, and until it does, there is an unlimited amount of real material out there waiting to be investigated and asked about.

Recent history strongly suggests we can't count on journalistic integrity or professional curiosity to get the media asking the hard questions politicians deserve. Here's hoping the mutual contempt offered by Trump will produce a better result.

*Note, the reason this doesn't matter has nothing to do with veterans or war. It doesn't matter because it has no bearing on America or the possible policies Trump would implement. The only question that matters is whether Trump defrauded anyone. Assuming he did not do so, it doesn't really matter if he may have embellished slightly on the value of total donations. Politicians tell far bigger lies all the time, and those actually hurt people.

**Note, this isn't the same David that was at the press conference, pure coincidence.

Libertarian Party Nominates Johnson and Weld for President, Failure Imminent

The Libertarian Party convention occurred this weekend and the delegates selected Gary Johnson and William Weld to be the party's nominees for President and Vice President. Johnson and Weld are both former Republican governors in New Mexico and Massachusetts, respectively, and the case for their nomination was made almost exclusively in terms of electability--which is something of an odd criterion for a party that has never garnered above 1% of the vote in any previous presidential race.

Of course, this year is going to be different. Never in recent memory has the American electorate been this dissatisfied with their two primary choices. Indeed, in acknowledgement of this fact, the party actually awarded Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump a Liberty Outreach award for helping the American people search for political alternatives. Further confirmation comes from recent polls that featured Gary Johnson gaining at least 10% support in a hypothetical election contest among him, Trump, and Clinton. If this support rises to 15%, Gov. Johnson would likely be featured in the Presidential debates, which would be a major coup for the Libertarian Party. Moreover, there have even been unconfirmed whispers that Johnson's campaign could be the beneficiaries of millions of dollars of campaign contributions from disenfranchised wealthy Republican donors.

Anyway, this is the context in which the nomination decision was made. And in this context, one can almost understand the desire to choose the compromise candidacy that Gary Johnson and especially William Weld represent, over a more consistently libertarian choice like Austin Petersen or Darryl Perry. Johnson and Weld were viewed as the pragmatic choice, and both managed to win on the second ballot of their respective races (the LP holds separate votes for the VP and President).

I don't think it's all that debatable that the Johnson and Weld ticket will get more media coverage than the libertarian alternatives. Even before their nomination, they gained significant coverage and it's likely to continue. But having a platform to deliver the message is only part of the battle. It also matters what that message is. In the case of Johnson and Weld, the message is going to be many things; confusing is probably going to be near the top of the list.

Before we go further, it should go without saying that Johnson is preferable to Trump or Clinton (or Sanders) on basically every issue. That said, he and his running mate have been sufficiently bad on foreign policy at this point that my vote is likely to go elsewhere.

The Candidates
The former New Mexico governor comes off as eminently likable and real. He was also the first sitting governor to call for legalization of marijuana, way back in 1999, before it was trendy. And to his credit, he takes the libertarian stand on most issues.

The trouble with Gary, however, is that his positions seem to be driven more by instinct than by a set of consistent principles or study on any subject. While this may not seem like a huge deal, it becomes apparent in debates and interviews on a regular basis. The end result is missteps that are likely to turn off disenfranchised Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike. Some choice examples:

• On the minimum wage in an interview with the Huffington Post:
  
• Here, he's making the economic argument in a general way, which is fine. But then he literally says, "nobody works for minimum wage." This is obviously incorrect, and certain to be insulting to a left-leaning audience. On the contrary, the correct argument on this, to such an audience, is to emphasize that this policy is likely to make many poor worse off by reducing their employment opportunities and eliminating their ability to gain experience in the workforce. Meanwhile, if the same argument needs to be framed for a more conservative audience, the key is to emphasize freedom of contract and protecting the free market.
  
• On the issue of climate change and whether government should do more about it, in the debate Saturday night (start at 41:00):
  
• Here, Johnson ends up taking the correct libertarian position (that government shouldn't do anything else), but unfortunately his justification is factually and obviously incorrect. He claims that the free market shifted away from coal naturally as people voluntarily opt for less carbon-intensive fuels. While it's true that there has been a shift, it's wrong to claim the free market was a driver. In reality, increased regulations on the coal industry (and the threat of more in the future), in addition to incredibly low natural gas prices produced by the fracking boom, drove the shift away from coal. One of these is a market force, but the other is decidedly not. Here, by taking what might be seen as a middle ground (care about the issue but don't want government to fix it), he actually alienates both sides of the political spectrum. (His former competitor Austin Petersen, corrected the record immediately when it was his turn to answer the question in the debate.)
  
• Worst of all, on the question of the Iran Deal, again in Saturday's debate (start at 1:07:00):
  
• Here, Johnson starts out by saying he was initially for the deal, but then came to oppose it because he didn't want the US to give money to Iran, because the country finances terrorism. Of course, the money belongs to Iran already and relates to assets that were frozen (that is, confiscated) as a part of sanctions. Johnson's reply implied that he understood this fact, but he opposed it anyway. This is tantamount to believing the US should be able to steal from other countries if we dislike their foreign policy choices.
  
  Additionally, while it's true that Iran sponsors organizations that the US has labeled terrorist groups, it's also true that the main such group, Hezbollah, has also been one of the principal enemies of extremist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria. If standard Washington "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic were to prevail on this subject, Iran, would actually be a natural ally in the current scenario. Obviously, I don't endorse any such alliance, but it just goes to show how shallow and misleading Johnson's characterization is. Furthermore, if financing terrorism were sufficient to justify abolishing trade with other countries, most of the US allies in the Middle East would be off-limits. Just as important, Iran's president ran on a platform of normalizing relations with the West precisely so he could improve Iran's domestic situation--so it's not at all clear how much of Iran's money will ultimately be spent on military efforts / terrorism anyway.
  
  Another problem here is how this contradicts Johnson's professed support for diplomacy and his skepticism of military intervention. Above everything else, the Iran Deal mattered because it moved the US further away from war with that country and was a step toward freer trade. The details make it even easier to support from an American perspective, but even just that broad outline should make it readily supportable from a libertarian, noninterventionist perspective. Thus, getting this issue wrong is likely to be a bridge too far for antiwar voters on the left and among libertarians (quite likely including yours truly). Yet because he wasn't hawkish enough, it's also unlikely to do him any favors among more conventional conservatives.

In short, the pattern is clear and depressing. Gary Johnson's left-leaning social tendencies make him most suited to appeal to Democrats that can't stand Hillary. But his free market leanings and gaffes could easily turn them off. On foreign policy, he's likely to more peaceful than Trump and Hillary because the bar is so low, but his principles can be abandoned on core issues, making him a no-go for antiwar voters. And then on economic issues, he will occasionally take the right position for the wrong reason.

Regrettably, Gary's running mate, Governor Bill Weld, is likely to make matters far worse. To prove this point, all one needs to do is survey the list of endorsements Weld has made over the past few cycles: George W. Bush in 2004 (for foreign policy, of all things), Barack Obama in 2008, Mitt Romney in 2012 (that is, neither Ron Paul nor Gary Johnson), and initially John Kasich in 2016 until switching to become a libertarian. And to top it all off, Weld is known for being bad on gun control. Thus, as a practical matter, what this means is that any conservative that wasn't already alienated by Gary Johnson himself, will be successfully enraged by his vice president.

The end result is a ticket that finds a way to disappoint just about everyone in one way or another, without inspiring many in the process. This is seen as a pragmatic choice, but in reality, it's anything but. Johnson and Weld will likely manage to get in the debates, but as a libertarian myself, I'm deeply concerned how they will represent the ideas once they're there. The most probable outcome seems to be that the American people will be more familiar that libertarians exist, and more confused than ever about what they stand for.

Ultimately, the Libertarian Party has elected two compromise candidates, both of which are former politicians, in a year when much of the electorate despises compromise and politicians with equal fervor. And just as Rand Paul failed to garner sufficient support when he attempted to dilute the message of libertarianism, it is likely that Johnson and Weld will meet the same fate.

Daily Links and Donald Trump Calls Hillary "Trigger Happy" on Foreign Policy

*Note: We're trying out a new format today. Instead of just focusing on a single article, we'll also provide a few quick headlines you might be interested in. Then to close, we'll recommend one longer story with our usual context (though probably not quite as long of a lead-in from us). The goal is to cover a bit more ground, and, if we're going to be totally honest, save some time as well. Let us know what you think in the comments here or wherever you got this link originally.

The Worst New Thing in the World Today Is...
Definitely the new police brutality video out of New Hampshire. At the conclusion of a high-speed chase across multiple states (granted, New England states, so it only half counts), the suspect finally stopped his car and surrendered himself to authorities. Said authorities then promptly made him regret this decision by sucker-punching the suspect as he was on all fours. Multiple police officers then proceeded to join in the fun in a good-old-fashioned group curb-stomp, which, fortunately for all of us, was captured on video by two helicopters. Seriously, you have to watch it to believe it. There are cases where reasonable people can disagree whether cops made the right decision on the use of force. Yeah, this isn't one of them.

(On the plus side, two officers have already been relieved of duty without pay.)

(Dis)Honorable Mentions

Will Work for Work
Zero Hedge reports that initial jobless claims have reached their highest levels in 15 months. And while some would have you believe this is just a temporary phenomenon, it should be viewed as another sign pointing to a looming recession. Of course, the strongest evidence that the US economy is in decline is the astounding popularity of Trump and Sanders.

More Pressure on The Most Transparent Administration to be Transparent
The Guardian is reporting that one of the US investigators for the 9/11 Commission is speaking out about ties to Saudi Arabia. Saying the report was never meant to be an "exoneration" of the Saudis, this is likely to put new pressure on the Obama Administration to finally release the redacted pages of the full 9/11 investigation. The sooner the better.

The Silver Lining Is...
New signs that Donald Trump is going to capitalize on Hillary Clinton's most critical weakness of foreign policy--namely, that she's a warmonger. Speaking at a rally in typical rambling, Trumpian fashion, the Donald pivoted from decrying the evils of Syrian refugees to decrying the temperament of Hillary Clinton. It seems an awkward segue at first, but in fact the two could scarcely be more directly related. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton championed regime change in Libya and doing more covert action against the Assad regime in Syria. Years later the Syrian Civil War continues, due in large part to the fact that the US and its allies in the region have been pouring weapons into the country on the side of (significantly radical) rebel groups. Tough to know whether Trump actually knows this (probably not), but for now, let's give him credit. Well played.

If You Only Read One (More) Thing Today...
Make it the Silver Lining about Donald Trump. The Intercept's write-up is very balanced and well-done. It gives credit to Trump where it's due while also noting his inconsistencies and some truly horrible stances he's taken on foreign policy. The reason this matters is because it's likely to emerge as a major theme in this campaign if we're lucky. Just as Trump scored points in the Republican debates when he said George W. Bush helped lie us into the Iraq War, he should discover that this is a winning issue against Hillary as well. For your average, run-of-the-mill Republican (i.e., neither of the Pauls), criticizing foreign intervention is off-limits. But this is one area where Trump's willingness to say and try anything could be a blessing. It's still depressing that the candidate who promotes torture is the voice of relative restraint in major party politics, but it's better his voice than none at all.

Here's the link to The Intercept piece:

Donald Trump Calls Hillary Clinton “Trigger Happy” as She Courts Neocons

You Can't Waste Your Vote

The Democratic and Republican nominating processes are effectively over, and the general election looks like it will pit Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton. This choice--between two candidates that are each viewed more unfavorably than any previous major party front-runner since the question started being asked--naturally has many people wishing there was a better of option.

This is not really unique, of course. Voting for the lesser of two evils is a time-honored tradition in American politics. We vote for a candidate we don't really like in the hopes of preventing a worse candidate from winning. And even though most of us probably agree much more with a more consistent third-party candidate, we won't vote for the third-party for fear of "wasting our vote". No doubt, you've heard this argument before.

But there's a significant flaw in this line of thinking. In reality, you can't waste your vote because it never mattered in the first place--at least not in the conventional sense.

I'm not suggesting anything conspiratorial here. It's not because of superdelegates or rigged voting machines or an establishment cabal that would overturn the outcome. On the contrary, it's basically just math.

A Simple Example
To see why, let's first consider a pure popular vote-style election. To keep things simple, let's imagine a country that has 100,001 eligible voters and only two candidates running for office, Stein and Johnson. Election day comes, everyone votes, and after the votes are tallied (and recounted), we discover the vote count was 50,000 to 50,001 giving a narrow edge to Mr. Johnson. In this case, exactly one person's vote mattered--the 50,001st vote in favor of Johnson. This is what economists often refer to as the median voter, and it's also why all politicians tend to sound very similar after the primary election. By and large, they're appealing to the very same group of people that has the potential to swing the election.

The idea here is that everyone can basically ranked in terms of their commitment to a candidate. If 100 is a sure vote for Johnson, then let's say 0 is a voter who is certain to vote for Stein, again sticking with our two-candidate setup. A large number of people on both sides of the midway mark are basically committed to their candidates. The person whose preferences are closest to neutral between them is the median voter and the only one that ultimately mattered. In the example above, the median voter was the 50,001st voter to get off the fence between the two and decided to vote for Johnson.

The analysis gets somewhat more complicated when we include the possibility of people not voting and additional candidates. But the fundamental insight remains the same. In a popular vote, the only vote that matters is the one that put the winner over the top in an election. If there's a margin of victory greater than one, then in some sense, no individual's vote mattered because it wouldn't have altered the outcome even if they changed their mind.

So there's always an outside chance of having your vote matter and actually determine the election outcome. But this already remote probability declines the bigger the population is. Thus, in the USA where there are roughly 235 million people of voting age (as of 2012), the probability of your vote being the deciding one would be essentially zero, even if an election really did come down to a single vote.

What about the Electoral College?
We're already basically at zero, but it's worth noting that the probability declines still further for most of us once we take the electoral college into account. Under this system, all but two states (Nebraska and Maine) have a winner-takes-all system where the candidate that receives the most gets all the electoral votes. Thus, if you live in a state that votes consistently for one party in the presidential race, as I do here in Oregon, you already basically know how they'll vote in November. You'll also know whether it tends to be a comfortable margin of victory; chances are it's much larger than one. Whether you like the outcome or not is irrelevant. The point is that the probability of your individual vote changing it are infinitesimal.

This is important because fully 32 states and DC have all voted in the same direction in each of the past 6 electoral cycles. It's not certain that every one of them will do so again, but most of them probably will. If you live in any of those, you probably can rest easy knowing the presidential election doesn't hang on your decision.

What about if you live in the roughly 17 or so that are more likely to be in play? Here again, the same general analysis above comes to bear. For your vote to truly matter, even in a swing state, you would have to be the deciding vote in your state's contest, and your state's electoral votes would have to be the deciding factor. About as close as we ever came to this phenomenon was in Florida in the year 2000, but there was no single deciding vote in that case either (unless we're talking about the Supreme Court).

What's the Alternative?
What all of this means is that you should feel free to vote for what you actually believe. Maybe that's Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Or if you were feeling the Bern before, maybe that's the Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who at least has the scarce virtue of being antiwar in this cycle. Or if you're a libertarian, maybe that means voting for the eventual nominee of the Libertarian Party, likely Gary Johnson or Austin Petersen.

In this election cycle, as mentioned, it won't make any difference. The probability of Jill Stein or Gary Johnson actually becoming president in this election might be one of the only things lower than the probability of you being the deciding vote. But if we vote for the ideas we actually want, we can have an impact on future elections. If pro-peace Bernie supporters vote for Stein or Johnson, the Democratic Party will learn that it can't take the far left for granted when they nominate an overtly militant candidate like Hillary Clinton. This is likely to change their calculations in the future. And indeed, we actually are already seeing some impact from that in primary race as Hillary has consistently moved towards Bernie's positions on many issues.

Similarly, on the Republican side, if conservatives or free market supporters break rank and vote for a libertarian, then the GOP might learn that it can't continue to violate its allegedly small government ideals and still expect support. It would feel the pressure to actually show results from the small government ethos instead of just offering symbolic votes on Obamacare once every few months.

And of course, it's possible that neither party will learn anything at all. But if we vote for what we believe, there's at least a real pathway to changing politics going forward--pushing both parties to more consistently practice what they claim to support. If we continue voting for the lesser of two evils, we know nothing good will happen; that's how we got here.

So when you consider voting third-party this year, just remember this one fact that is equal parts depressing and consoling. You can't waste your vote, because it was never going to change the election in the first place.

Trump's Still-Unpredictable Foreign Policy

After another strong showing in the latest primaries, Donald Trump looks increasingly likely to be the Republican nominee. It's now mathematically impossible for his competitors to reach the magic number of delegates required to be assured the nomination. Indeed, it's virtually impossible for his competitors to catch up to his delegate count, even when combined, yet they are still staying in on the hopes of a convention coup.

In the face of this increasing inevitability, Donald Trump has been working to consolidate establishment support behind him. To that end, he recently gave a long foreign policy speech that was slated to be a more deliberate and premeditated talk than Trump's usual off-the-cuff style. After weeks of everyone saying his understanding is shallow or vague, this was supposed to be an opportunity for Trump to lay out specifics and prove them otherwise.

Unfortunately, despite the planning that went into this one, it came off much like the others. His speech still consists of a series of slogans. Some ideas are eminently laudable for advocates of peace and nonintervention, but there are just as many bad ideas in there to balance it out. Thus, Trump occasionally expresses a reluctance to use force, but at the same time condemns diplomatic successes that required compromise. Similarly, Trump calls for placing American interests first, which is a generally good idea, and tends to imply that we would only intervene abroad in narrow corcumstances that truly impact American security. But then he also says we need to try to bring stability to many other parts of the world. This is problematic because US administrations for several years have interpreted the need for stability as a need for American military involvement, actual results notwithstanding. And so, the two are almost pure contradictions of the other, and it's anyone's guess which Donald Trump we will actually get if he is elected.

What is perhaps more concerning is that it's not clear whether these contradictions are the product of deliberate political calculation or just ignorance. One could imagine a politician giving a speech like this because he gives everyone a little something to like. If you believe in piece, you can point to parts where he expresses reluctance to use force. If you want to see more hawkish positions, you can latch onto various condemnations of Iran. Then again, it seems just as likely that Trump's understanding of these terms and issues is so cursory that he literally doesn't know the contradictions are there. Time will tell.

But having said all that, it's worth saying a word in defense of Donald's somewhat incoherent positions on foreign policy. (And I'm not using incoherent pejoratively here, but literally--that the ideas don't all fit together.) The reason is that, while it's fair to say that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy positions are coherent, they are also dramatically worse. With Trump, there's a chance that America would end up with a less militant president who really does prioritize negotiation. With Hillary, we all know what we'd get--a president that has never met a conflict that she didn't want America to participate in.

For more on Trump's speech, check out the excellent analysis by Daniel Larison and The American Conservative.

Trump's Foreign Policy Speech

What to Think About the US Primary Process

The current political season has been marked with unprecedented levels of disillusionment in both political parties. This is most evident in the success of the insurgent candidates of this election--relative success in the case of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic race, who is far exceeding expectations though still behind, and absolute success in the case of Donald Trump, who seems all but certain to win a majority of delegates prior to the Republican National Convention. As two different brands of populism, Trump and Sanders both clearly represent an anti-establishment position, and their views overlap in a few areas, especially trade (less of it) and the appropriate size of government (larger).

Of course, it's still probably too soon to tell whether either of these candidates will become a major party nominee. The road looks pretty steep for Sanders, and even though Trump is technically winning, the Republican nomination is likely to go to a brokered convention, where Trump's support could rapidly disappear.

This situation--where two widely popular candidates might lose the primary election to more conventional candidates--has many people getting frustrating with the primary process itself. On the Democratic side, this was most apparent after the problems with the New York primary, which is a very closed primary to start with and experienced many voter complaints on the day of, primarily from Bernie Sanders supporters in the reports I read. And on the Republican side, outrage swelled after Donald Trump earned no delegates in Colorado due to its unique election rules.

The frustration is obviously understandable. And it has bubbled over into condemnation of the primary process itself. And there's a lot not to like:

• The use of "superdelegates" in the Democratic race allows a party insider to cast a vote that is equivalent to a pledged delegate from the actual votes that take place. So for example, the Democratic primary in Delaware yields 21 delegates decided based on the votes. That means, a random political party insider's vote counts for roughly as much as 5% of Delaware voters. And not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of superdelegates are supporting Hillary Clinton.
• The use of closed primaries in both parties. These primaries allow only registered members of the party to vote in the primary election. And given that party membership in both parties is near historic lows, this disenfranchises many voters. In the context of the New York primary, Bernie Sanders noted, presumably accurately, that 27% of eligible New Yorkers couldn't participate because they weren't registered for either party.
• The use of a brokered convention to overturn the will of the voters, which is of particular importance in the Republican party and the #NeverTrump movement.

Again, it's perfectly understandable to be irritated about these things. But the fact is that the Republican and Democratic parties are independent, private organizations at the end of the day. Individuals are free to associate or disassociate themselves from either party whenever they want. So the Democratic party is allowed to have superdelegates and closed primaries that require people to register months in advance. And the Republican party is allowed to use arcane rules that give greater influence to political insiders rather than average voters. The end result is a process that is less than democratic.

These are not good things, perhaps, but we should be careful to support the appropriate remedy. If we dislike the nominating process for the two main political parties, the goal should not be to have the government dictate new rules for these parties. Instead, our solution should be to look toward other parties that may have a more inclusive and transparent process--perhaps the Green Party or the Libertarian Party, depending on your sensibilities.

There are many reasons to prefer this competitive solution to a regulatory one. First, we have to acknowledge that the two major parties are currently in power in every state in the US and in the federal government. Thus, unless it was done via referendum, the new rules for political parties, would be written by the parties themselves. It goes without saying that this is unlikely to produce a good outcome. Just as we do not think Goldman Sachs should write new financial regulations, we shouldn't want Democrats and Republicans to be charged with making political party regulations.

Second, we should acknowledge that one reason the nominating process is as convoluted as it is currently, is that political parties want to ensure they can't be co-opted by outsiders. While this is undemocratic in a sense, we can also see how it could be desirable. A popular suggested reform for the primary system is that of open primaries, which would allow any registered voter tovote in any party's primary election. In the current campaign, this would have the likely result of benefiting the insurgent candidates in the major two political parties. But such a rule would presumably also be applied to smaller third-parties. This in turn means that third-parties, which have a relatively small voting base, could be strategically targeted by outside parties. So Republicans irritated by a Trump presidency would set their sights on taking over the Libertarian process (and would likely succeed, given greater numbers and financial resources), and Democrats depressed by a Bernie Sanders victory, could try to co-opt another third-party. If we allow the government to control the nominating process for political parties, it's possible that we end up at a place where we have even fewer alternatives than we do now. 

Instead, we should prefer the solutions that we can control. If you don't like how the Democratic party has treated Bernie Sanders, vote for the Green or the Libertarian in the general election. If you don't like it when the RNC inevitably tries to prevent Trump from getting the nomination, then they should be punished in the general election too. It's not throwing your vote away; it's expressing your discontent in the only way* the political parties care about.

We'll have to wait and see how the final Democratic and Republican nominations are to say for sure. But chances are high that the best option for most of us--whether progressive, libertarian, or just generally disappointed--will be to Vote for Anyone Else.

*Technically, I'm sure large political donations could do the trick as well. But unless you have an incredible amount of money, this probably isn't in the cards.