Disbelieve almost everything she has said for weeks in disavowing almost everything she said for years while reciting progressivism’s catechism. She seems to have no more agency than does an iron filing drawn to a magnet. The pull of her party’s progressive base, whose Bay Area faction incubated her political persona, means that she would be a progressive president.
Or as much of one as the Supreme Court (progressives since Woodrow Wilson have disrespected the separation of powers) and a Republican Senate would permit. Then, in 2028, Republicans could offer a choice, not a Trumpian echo of progressives’ executive highhandedness, fiscal profligacy and economic intrusiveness: his industrial policy (protectionism) against theirs.
The past eight years have illustrated the impossibility of having just one healthy party. If one of them, drunk on 100-proof grievance populism, careens into a ditch, the other, sensing an opportunity to go on a bender of condescending progressivism, finds its own ditch. (“Are you deplorables too dense to understand that your cars, stoves, air conditioners and hamburgers are murdering the planet?”)
Scott Winship continues to look with clear eyes at the American economy. A slice:
What many of these claims have in common—whether they decry how much we must work or how scarce jobs are—is economic declensionism. It’s an increasingly popular view that the economy is failing us, necessitating greater government intervention. Or perhaps the blame lies with policymakers wedded to outmoded ideas. Either way, declensionists of the left and right tell us it’s time for a fundamental rethink.
Assessing the evidence over one hundred years and more, however, suggests that declensionists have it backwards. Both declines and increases in work that have occurred over the long run turn out to mostly reflect the country’s increased affluence rather than an underperforming economy. By misunderstanding trends in work as problems created by rapacious capitalism or out-of-touch elites, we fail to grapple with the choices everyday Americans and denizens of other rich countries have made. The resulting trade-offs have created a variety of quality-of-life improvements while destabilizing other aspects of society. If we wish to remedy problems like increased dependence on safety net benefits, declining marriage, or rising single parenthood, it will not do to indulge myths of economic decline.
Jeff Jacoby asks: “Why don’t unions have to stand for reelection?” Two slices:
IT WAS my first day on the job. In the sheaf of new-employee materials I received from HR was a form authorizing the company to deduct a certain percentage from each week’s pay and send it to the union that represented the company’s workers. I didn’t want to be involved with the union, so I didn’t sign the form.
A few days later, the union sent me a letter. It was a reminder to complete and submit the dues-withholding authorization — and a warning that the matter wasn’t optional. Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement then in force, employees were required to relinquish part of their pay to the union as a condition of keeping their job. It made no difference that I had no interest in any union, still less that I had no wish to be represented by this particular union. My preferences were irrelevant. I was working at a union shop in a state without a “right to work” law; if I refused to pay the specified weekly amount, the union could compel the company to fire me.
In the end, the union got my money. What I got in exchange — or rather, was forced to accept — was to be represented by the union in its negotiations with the company. But one thing I and my co-workers did not get — not then, not ever — was a vote on whether we wanted that representation to continue.
…..
Labor unions are granted considerable privileges. They can count on a guaranteed stream of income from employees’ paychecks, and they alone are empowered to negotiate wages, benefits, and working conditions on behalf of the whole workforce. So it’s only right that employees should get a regular say in whether the union stays or goes. “One person, one vote, one time” is no way to uphold democratic values. Lawmakers in America take it for granted that their constituents get a vote every few years. Should workers be entitled to anything less?
Here’s wisdom from Jon Miltimore about today’s political fevers.
The American steel industry has faced significant challenges for decades. Global competition has intensified, and despite various efforts to revitalize the industry, many companies are struggling to stay afloat. The U.S. government continues to intervene with domestic subsidies, job-killing tariffs and “buy America” policies to protect the declining industry. But these interventions often come at a high cost to taxpayers, workers and consumers, and they ultimately cause more harm by discouraging innovation and competitiveness.
Japan-based Nippon Steel is one of the world’s leading steel producers. It’s offering a different path forward for U.S. Steel. We share deep military, economic and cultural ties with Japan, whose companies have a proven history of responsible investment in the U.S. They have been employing thousands of Americans, contributing to local economies, and bringing innovative practices to our industries for decades. If all goes well, Nippon Steel, with its financial stability and commitment to sustainable development, will bring those same benefits to the steel industry.
…..
Early last week, reports suggested that the Biden administration was preparing to block Nippon Steel from acquiring U.S. Steel. The Biden administration has claimed the deal threatens national security and the preservation of American manufacturing jobs. This reasoning reflects a dated mindset that ignores the strategic benefits of partnership with a trusted ally like Japan. Rejecting this deal would undermine our relationship with a key economic partner and weaken Japan’s ability to compete with China, the global leader in steelmaking.
After significant outcry from just about every corner of the political and economic spectrum, by Friday the White House backtracked, indicating it was delaying any decision until after the election. If that’s not a clear indication this straightforward private-sector deal has become a political pawn, I don’t know what is.
Reason‘s Ron Bailey asks: “How reliable is America’s electrical grid?”
