Politics This Time, Team Trump Wants Tariffs  Trump now has a pool of advisors and officials committed to enacting his economically nationalist policies. Credit: image via Shutterstock Economic nationalism has been a rhetorical pillar of the former president Donald Trump’s message since he first entered the 2016 race. His vision for trade and industrial policy overturned decades of GOP orthodoxy and won over millions of Americans left behind by globalization and deindustrialization. Yet, during his presidency, Trump struggled to enact economic nationalist policies, which conflicted with the entrenched economic views of his advisers, donors, and staff. As Trump makes trade protection a centerpiece of his 2024 platform, an uncomfortable question still lingers: Will his administration follow through? “Personnel is policy” is a mantra familiar to anyone privy to conversations about staffing the next Trump administration. This also extends to the people around Trump—his most trusted donors, informal advisors, etc.—who shape his priorities even if they are not appointees. Unlike before, Trump may very well have a growing circle of influential advisors and donors who share his vision for fair trade and reindustrialization. To evaluate the prospects for trade policy in a putative second Trump administration, we first must consider what transpired during Trump’s presidency. Of course, the administration successfully imposed massive tariffs on the People’s Republic of China, starting a trade war and effecting a historic shift in the U.S.-China relationship. Spearheaded by the highly capable U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and his well-aligned staff, the Trump trade policy has been one of the administration’s most enduring achievements. Along with Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum, and solar panels, the tariffs on China have been maintained, if amended, by the Biden administration. Many of Trump’s other goals for trade and industrial policy nevertheless went unfulfilled by the end of his term. A fifth column of free-market-fundamentalists and Never Trumpers in the congressional GOP had compromised the legislative potential of the 2017-19. During that critical period, Congress failed to take up Trump’s infrastructure proposals, ignored his call for anti-offshoring legislation, and instead approved a package of tax cuts with some merit but little to direct new growth towards fixed capital investment in manufacturing.  Congressional intransigence aside, other executive-led initiatives were not as successful as the Chinese tariffs. Reasonable tariffs on goods from the EU, which protects its own markets from U.S. exports, met with international controversy and eventual removal. Likewise, tariffs on Canada and Mexico amounted to very little. NAFTA’s replacement with the just marginally improved USMCA did not reverse the decades of damage inflicted by one of the worst trade deals in the history of trade deals. Infighting among senior administration officials over trade policy may have compromised the administration’s position in critical trade negotiations.  Perhaps because of these setbacks, Trump has redoubled his commitment to a tough trade policy on the 2024 campaign trail. He now promises to enact tariffs of 60 percent on Chinese goods and 10 percent on all imported goods—in effect, returning America to the protectionist posture that was our historical norm. Despite a great cacophony from doomsaying economists, Trump seems determined to realize his first administration’s promise of a revolution in U.S. trade policy. He has even suggested replacing the income tax entirely with tariffs, a politically fanciful idea that nevertheless signals his commitment to tariffs. Moreover, he chose a pro-industrial policy vice presidential nominee and still listens to his hawkish trade advisors Peter Navarro and Lighthizer. What’s more, the legal and procedural obstacles for President Trump to enact his desired tariffs are minimal. Recent analysis by CSIS found that the president has sufficiently broad legal authority to unilaterally impose massive import duties, with no legislation required. Of course, that possibility may not become reality if the administration is mired in infighting and internal resistance. Most ruinous to Trump’s trade vision would be economic policymakers and advisors who quietly cling to Republican free-market orthodoxy and restrain or subvert President Trump’s desires for trade and industrial policy. Trump has no shortage of committed free-traders among his closest advisers, namely Larry Kudlow, Kevin Hassett, the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, and the billionaire hedge fund manager John Paulson, whom Trump has publicly suggested as a potential Treasury Secretary. The greatest risk is that these advisors will amplify the media’s already alarmist rhetoric about protective tariffs to persuade Trump to weaken or drop his pledged package. In Trump’s last administration, a ringleader of this resistance was none other than donor-turned–Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, whom the New York Times identified as one of the administration’s “strongest voices for the free-trade position.” Publicly, Mnuchin toed the pro-tariff line, but he provided internal resistance to Trump’s economic nationalism. It was Mnuchin’s feud with Navarro that reportedly weakened the American negotiating stance with China in the pivotal trade talks of 2018. Crucially, some of Trump’s key donors and likely appointees now appear to genuinely support his economic agenda. This camp of free-trade skeptics extends beyond Trump’s established retinue of trade hawks, led by Lighthizer and Navarro, who are both likely to return to the administration. Lighthizer has even been floated for Treasury Secretary. Trump’s circle of advisors has grown to include some new voices who could be powerful advocates for the president’s trade and industrial policies. One of the most encouraging figures among Trump’s new circle of friends is Scott Bessent, ironically George Soros’s former chief investment officer. Though not a factor in Trump’s earlier campaigns or the first administration, Bessent has become “Trump’s New Obsession,” per a recent Wall Street Journal profile—one of his most respected economic advisers, and even a contender to be Secretary of the Treasury. His newfound prominence is a great boon to the prospects for real trade reform in the next administration.  Most importantly, Bessent is a reasonable and articulate interlocutor for an economic agenda that faces considerable public scrutiny and controversy. Speaking at the National Conservatism Conference in July, Bessent explained the inherent value of tariffs: Industrial policy solutions that rely on changing relative prices at the market level create better outcomes and will tend to be more effective than what we have seen from the Biden administration, which requires the government to pick winners and losers. This is why tariffs can be a potent economic tool since they operate at the market level. Such authentic support of tariffs is rare in Washington and has been for at least a generation. To have “one of the most brilliant men on Wall Street,” as Trump calls Bessent, endorse his trade agenda undoubtedly strengthens Trump’s resolve. As Trump lavishes praise on Bessent and the once-private investor talks to the press, one might expect that he will play a role in the next administration. Another surprising trade hawk is Howard Lutnick, co-chair of the 2024 presidential transition team and billionaire CEO of financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald. Speaking at the Madison Square Garden rally on October 27, Lutnick denounced NAFTA, decried offshoring, and defined America First as “American citizens employed first.” Lutnick recently endorsed Trump’s tariffs (in tandem with corporate tax cuts), stating, “Tariffs will protect our farmers. Manufacturing will employ our people and energy will drive down our costs.”  Elite opinion, more broadly, has quietly shifted in favor of a new attitude towards trade and industrial policies. This can be seen on Wall Street with Bessent and Lutnick as well as in Washington, where the respected Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a likely senior Trump appointee, has endorsed trade restrictions on friendly countries to promote reciprocity. Meanwhile, the increasingly conservative tech sector has become fascinated with rebuilding the defense industrial base (and securing lucrative government contracts). Even Elon Musk, no great friend of tariffs, has supported Trump’s plan, noting that it may cause “temporary hardship […] When the storm passes and everyone realizes we are on sounder footing, there will be a rapid recovery to a healthier, sustainable economy.”  The prospects for real trade reform in a second Trump administration appear surprisingly bright. Some of the next Trump administration’s top economic officials could almost certainly be free-trade skeptics who want to support American industry and reverse the damage of globalization. In general, Trump’s trade and industrial policy proposals seem to be more popular among GOP donors and policymakers than they have ever been before. The president’s nationalist economic agenda may progress much further in his second administration than it did in the first.  Even as support for Trump’s trade policy grows, adoption and implementation in his potential second term will prove difficult. Tariffs on friendly countries in Europe and Asia have been and will be a tough sell; most of the GOP only tolerates industrial policy and trade restrictions in the context of the “U.S.–China great power competition.” Internal ideological resistance is a major problem, but Trump may have the political momentum and human capital to overcome it. In his speeches and policy proposals, Trump has made it clear that, if elected, he wants to bring a quick and decisive end to the free-trade era in American economic history. With friends like his, he might be able to pull it off.  The post This Time, Team Trump Wants Tariffs appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Trump Already Won  It’s the Donald’s world; we’re only living in it. (Twitter) Election Day has mercifully arrived, bringing to a close Donald Trump’s electoral trilogy. After nine years of exhaustive campaigning and unprecedented dramas, the American people will finally render their verdict on him and his revolutionary movement. So much ink has been spilled on the 2024 election that I won’t bore TAC’s readers by rehashing polls, prediction models, or betting markets. As we’ll likely see this evening, these self-anointed oracles often hold limited value. Though an entire industry is devoted to understanding the American electorate, the volatility of the past decade has rendered much of it obsolete. At this stage, the only certainty is uncertainty. Tonight’s results could be decisive—or they may plunge the country into weeks of chaos, a la the 2000 Florida recount or the 2020 certification crisis. Nobody knows for sure. What is certain is that this election marks another precarious moment for the United States. The dramas of the past two decades have become mainstays of American politics: impeachments, assassination attempts, indictments, media scandals, and coups are no longer Constitutional bugs but defining features of the American system. The battle between competing visions of America—as a nation or as an empire—remains the defining question of our time. Despite Washington’s hopes that Donald Trump’s potential electoral defeat or imprisonment will end this debate in their favor, it is likely that this fundamental constitutional struggle will persist long after Trump’s tenure as the de facto head of American public life. Ominously for neoliberals, a Harris victory tonight will not erase the influence of Trump’s personality from public life. A generation of Americans has come of age in the shadow of Trump’s America First revolution. For voters under 30, Trumpian rhetoric, theatrics, and grievances are the only politics they’ve meaningfully engaged with. Many men, in particular, have embraced Trump’s combative style as a response to an elite culture they feel ignores their economic and social interests. In crucial ways, Trump effectively canceled cancel culture: left-wing rhetorical policing failed to contain him, and his perseverance through a decade of media attacks has blazed a trail for future anti-establishment crusaders. On policy, the future of American partisan realignment is secure. The convergence of reform-minded actors under the Trump banner is multi-generational and potent. Bobby Kennedy’s broad agenda has largely been absorbed by Republican voters, while Tulsi Gabbard’s realism and restraint have become the dominant perspectives on foreign policy. Figures like Elon Musk, David Sacks, and Bill Ackman now form the foundation of a renewed business wing within the party. Senator J.D. Vance’s selection as the vice-presidential nominee positions him as the movement’s heir apparent—the face of the Republican Party’s new commitment to trade protection and domestic industry. Without Trump’s 2024 campaign, traditional conservative interests, represented by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, might have prevailed. Yet Trump’s decisions this cycle have ensured a strong cohort to whom he can pass the baton. Democrats may not yet realize it, but the America First movement is still in its infancy. Of course, Donald Trump may win tonight. If he does, it will be the largest political upheaval since the election of 1828, when Andrew Jackson swept aside the Eastern elite and reoriented American democracy to serve the interests of middle America. Trump’s political comeback would be the greatest in our national history, delivering a decisive, shattering blow to the decaying neoliberal world order. Should Kamala Harris’s deeply reactionary campaign fail, it is unlikely the United States will ever elect another neoliberal to office. The consequences for global institutions and liberal trade agreements, which have long been underpinned by American commitments, will be obvious and far-reaching. Regardless of the election result tonight, the consequences of Donald Trump’s decade in public life will impact us for a generation. Despite reactionary efforts to undo Trump’s movement, the die has already been cast. Votes are still outstanding, but on matters of style and substance, Donald Trump already won. The post Trump Already Won  appeared first on The American Conservative.

Reese Report: Rampant Voter Fraud Ahead of Election Day '24 - 20,700 views November 1, 2024 Reese Report - https://gregreese.substack.com/ - https://reesereport.com/#donate - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES MIrrored From: https://rumble.com/c/c-659545

Trump's Kabbalistic Call to Kill Us Masterclass Decoding Death. Christopher Jon Bjerknes - October 2024 CJBbooks - Christopher Jon Bjerknes - That's Right. Trump Calls for the Death of Anyone Who Speaks Out Against Jewish Crimes Against Humanity - IT MAY BE TOO LATE FOR THE ELECTION, BUT EVERYONE MUST UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH - October 9, 2024 CJBbooks - Christopher Jon Bjerknes - FOLOW ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/user/CJBbooks - CJB Books: https://cjbbooks.com - BITCOIN - bc1qqp9hthur3nwrfahwx0walh0v9qgavnu73tpkn4 - ETHEREUM - 0x5a49DAdb765E816aFB84E2b09C7768482251f189 - CJB Twitter: https://twitter.com/cjbbooks - CJB Odysee: https://odysee.com/@CJBbooks.com - CJB Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/CJBbooks - # CJBbooks #cjbbooks - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES MIrrored From: https://rumble.com/user/CJBbooks

Marr and Rouke's secret love. The post The closest The Smiths ever got to funk: “I’m almost embarrassed” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

? Order my new book from Amazon here: https://amzn.to/40vEC9U ⚡️ Join my exclusive Locals community here: https://markdice.locals.com/support ? Sponsor me through Patreon here: https://Patreon.com/MarkDice Order my book "Hollywood Propaganda: How TV, Movies, and Music Shape Our Culture" from Amazon: https://amzn.to/30xPFl5 or download the e-book from Kindle, iBooks, Google Play, or Nook. ? Order my book, "The True Story of Fake News" ➡️ https://amzn.to/2Zb1Vps ? Order my book "The Liberal Media Industrial Complex" here: https://amzn.to/2X5oGKx Mark Dice is an independent media analyst and bestselling author of "Hollywood Propaganda: How TV, Movies, and Music Shape Our Culture.” He has a bachelor's degree in Communication from California State University and was the first conservative YouTuber to reach 1 million subscribers (in 2017). He has been featured on Fox News, Newsmax, the History Channel, E! Entertainment, the Drudge Report, and news outlets around the world. This video description and the pinned comment contains Amazon and/or other affiliate links, which means if you click them and purchase the product(s), Mark will receive a small commission. Copyright © 2024 by Mark Dice. All Rights Reserved.

Since spring, I have been sending regular dispatches to a small French review, Histoire et Liberté, on the progress of our political year. I have tried to explain with bland and nonjudgmental accuracy the positions taken by the candidates and how well they have defended them. I did not much enjoy the chore, I admit quite frankly, and why should I have? The last time I commented on American politics was in January 2021, in response to the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election. (READ MORE: Weathering the Storm of the Presidential Transition) Anyone can look up what I wrote, which followed a column by The American Spectator’s editor-in-chief in which he dissociated himself from the incumbent, whose cause and administration he had long supported. The attempt to simply subvert the Constitution by disrupting the mandated certification of the duly elected president was too much for Mr. Tyrrell. Like him, without neglecting to deplore the grotesque and subversive — that word again — assaults on Mr. Trump throughout his administration, I stated plainly this was a line that could not be crossed without foul consequences for our liberty-preserving system of government. Two wrongs do not make a right and all that sort of thing. If we wanted to keep a republic and preserve the Union — not the vacuous and sentimental “unity” that is the catchword of parties and candidates trying their best to fool all the people, all the time — we had best turn the page, not try to edit it. I did not write about American politics after this, and not because they are shabby. Most politics in most countries are — this does not matter too much so long as constitutional rules are honored in the end (if only in the breach) — and the politicians still respect the people. But to write about politics, shabby or not, you have to take the reporting job seriously, which means that, whatever your tone — sarcastic or amused or sober or somber or simply flat — you have to get to the facts of the matter at hand, listen to and report all sides, and constantly follow up and revise and rewrite because politics is a running story, obviously. How many actually do this? Editors who should know better forget the admonitions of Lionel Trilling and William Buckley Jr. The former said that, for editors, intelligence is a moral responsibility. The latter explained it was time to stand athwart history and shout: “Stop!” Intelligence and pondering the past to better understand the present count for little in American political reporting; that is why it is falling down on the job. In explaining this to my French readers, I did allow that they should take my own discouragement with a grain of historical and editorial salt. Historical, for after all we have wallowed in this sort of mediocrity before; editorial, because most people are smart enough to know, when reading about politics in the papers, it is a waste of time. Anyway, there are always exceptions to the rule (or the trend). The Wall Street Journal has remained throughout these low, dishonest years a steadfast upholder of correct journalism and remembered the Trilling rule about the moral imperative to be intelligent. There are others. Honest men working independently in improvised outlets and new publications springing up — for example Tablet, the Free Press, the investigative writers at RealClearPolitics, and the deep research men at City Journal, to name only a few. The French understand this since their situation is comparable — a mainstream “media” that is cribbing the U.S. corporate media instead of doing their own work, and small outlets making what they would call a baroud d’honneur (last stand) for their profession, however small their readerships. We at The American Spectator should know. I dare believe the upstarts will save the day and replace the worn-out flacks, on both sides of the ocean. And there is cause to believe this, even if the signs of its passing are still faint. Anyway, what I explained to my French readers is that when you get down to it, right now, election time, bygones must be bygones, and it is better to let the voters decide on the fitness or unfitness of candidates. Better at any rate than corrupting the judiciary, the security agencies, and the media to stay in power. We are not a banana republic nor a single party policy state. However, in my French language correspondence, I found that my readers were accusing me of malpractice, committing the pox-on-both-houses cop-out. And, though these are mainly anti-communist old-school liberals who learned to think from the likes of Raymond Aron and Jean-François Revel, they are terrified of the one the media in Europe has been calling dirty names, like “fascist.” (RELATED: Fascism Is a Progressive Tendency — Not a Trump One) “Not guilty!” pled I. Crude vote-fixing attempts following an election and in defiance of American constitutional tradition are pretty bad, but the wholesale subversion of entire sections of our government with the cooperation of a servile press is worse. America may have a bad cold, but, like Sinatra, it is far from finished. I believe my (and our) friends far away — not only in France but beyond, even Africa — know this and can be reassured. These are cultured people who love what America stands for and know their American classics. They can see it is right that Robert Frost, who chooses his road and accepts the consequence, should be our great national poet. Of course there is plenty of competition for that honor, and that is fine, but we, and others, can also agree that, for all of his genius, out of the running is the pessimistic T. S. Eliot with his sour view of April, the time of young love and baseball. That is a very un-American — mind, not anti-American, Eliot was a conservative — attitude. Also, we are a country of endless summer — when the “fish are jumpin’ and the cotton is high” — and we are always building, inventing, performing great feats of valor and goodness, in cheerful defiance of the grifters in Washington, D.C. So go and vote, as I plan to. I do not really deeply care who wins. Even if, objectively, there are reasons to believe one side will make it easier for our enemies to do us harm both at home and abroad, while the other side will likely bumble and fumble but maybe get a few things right that give us elbow room to get our act together — an essential and permanent task, as Daniel Webster was in the habit of asking: “How fares the Union?” Americans learn that nothing is impossible, even if they came to America in rags and in the dark of night on dangerous journeys or leaking boats, and they, or their children, will soon spread their wings and reach for the sky. READ MORE: We Can Be Heroes for One Day — Election Day Whoever Yells ‘Fascist’ First Loses Roll the Dice With Trump or Go Down the Tubes With Harris The Final Choice: Civilizational Arson Versus Civilizational Sanity   The post Reflections on the End of an Election Cycle appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Calling Trump 'Hitler' Has Done Permanent Damage to the Moral Realm

Trump’s ‘Operation Aurora’ Is Essential to Stop the Tren de Aragua From Taking Over American Communities