Blog

Monday, March 24, 2025

Cutting Medicaid is Possible

In February, Republicans announced their intention to cut $2 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. $880 billion of that is to come from the Committee on Energy and Commerce (See Title II), which oversees Medicare, Medicaid, national energy policy, environmental protection, and several others.

Just doing basic searches on Medicaid cuts, trying to find information, all of the top stories include a warning about how many people are going to be hurt by this, but interestingly, there are no mentions of how much Medicaid has grown in the past ten years, even beyond its ACA expansion, how fast it's projected to grow, or how much waste could be cut. Every story just assumes, without including details, that every penny of Medicaid goes to children, poor adults, or disabled adults, but given the recent expansions, this seems unlikely.

The Recent Run-Up in Medicaid

Since 2000, federal Medicaid spending has been trending upward. In 2000, after 8 years of a Democratic president, federal Medicaid spending was just 1.1% of GDP, and it has nearly doubled since then. Some of that surely is the increasing cost of medical care, but it's also driven by enrollment growth due to expanded eligibility and state incentives to get matching federal funding.

Federal Medicaid Spending as a % of GDP

Source: Author Calculation based on NHE (Actual Federal Medicaid Expenditures), FRED (Actual GDP), CBO (Projected Medicaid and GDP)

In the last twenty-five years, the largest, single-year increase in federal Medicaid spending occurred in 2020, the year of Covid. This, in and of itself, is unsurprising, but what's harder to understand is why it has barely fallen back to its pre-Covid rate, even four years later, while the economy has boomed.

In the last twenty-five years, the largest, single-year increase in federal Medicaid spending occurred in 2020, the year of Covid. This, in and of itself, is unsurprising, but what's harder to understand is why it has barely fallen back to its pre-Covid rate, even four years later, while the economy has boomed.

Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

CMS periodically estimates the total "improper payments" in Medicare and Medicaid. The most recent estimate for Medicaid is that 5.1% of total Medicaid payments are "improper." While that sounds like fraud, in fact, the majority of these improper payments are simply insufficiently documented legitimate payments. They also estimated how much of the improper payments were actually illegitimate and found that 20% of them are truly improper and should not have been paid out.

Applying this rate of illegitimate payments to the CBO's ten-year forecast produces an estimate of $91.2 billion over ten years that can be saved without harming Medicaid recipients.

Applying this rate of illegitimate payments to the CBO's ten-year forecast produces an estimate of $91.2 billion over ten years that can be saved without harming Medicaid recipients.

Locking in Normal Growth

One approach Republicans might consider would be to lock in overall Medicaid growth to match its 2016-2019 rate. This was a time of a stable economy, after the major ACA expansion and before further expansions under Covid-era policies and the Biden administration. It represents a steady-state era for Medicaid.

During this time, Medicaid grew at 3.1% per year. This would represent smaller growth than the CBO estimated (between 4 and 5% per year).

Federal Medicaid Spending Growth by Year 2000-2024

Source: Author Calculation based on NHE (Actual Federal Medicaid Expenditures), CBO (Projected Medicaid)

Holding growth in Medicaid to the 2016-2019 average over the next ten years would save $778 billion. Considering that 2016-2019 was a time without major cuts to Medicaid benefits or eligibility, it would seem possible to lock in that growth rate without harming any beneficiaries.

Federal Medicaid Spending if Growth Held to 2016-2019 Rate

Source: Author Calculation based on NHE (Federal Medicaid Expenditures), CBO (Projected Medicaid)

Locking in Enrollment Levels

Another path Republicans might take is setting an enrollment target for Medicaid, which is supposed to assist the poorest Americans, yet enrolls close to 1 in 4. According to poverty statistics, before accounting for transfers 11.1% of Americans are impoverished. Medicaid, however, covered 27.4% of the US population in 2023.1

From 2000 to 2023, enrollment in Medicaid has grown from 12% of the population to 27% of the population, more than doubling, even though the federal poverty rate has barely moved, going from 11.3 to 12.5%. Some of that, obviously, was intentional, as the ACA expanded Medicaid, but in 2019, before the pandemic hit, and after state expansions had taken place, Medicaid penetration was only 23.0%. Since Covid, it has risen several percentage points, even without expanding Medicaid in large states like Texas and Florida.

% of Total US Population enrolled in Medicaid by Year

Source: Author Calculation based on NHE (Total Medicaid Enrollment), CBO (Projected Medicaid Enrollment). Note: The 2025 CBO projection for Medicaid spending is substantially higher than the 2024 CBO projection, but they have not yet released the breakdown. The dotted line represents a higher level of enrollment which could explain the higher CBO estimates.

Setting a maximum Medicaid enrollment of 23.0%, the highest level it reached before Covid and after the ACA expansion, would save $1.4 trillion over the next ten years.

Capping Medicaid enrollment at its pre-Covid peak would save $1.4 trillion over the next ten years.

Federal Medicaid Spending if Enrollment Held at Pre-Covid Maximum

Source: Author Calculation based on NHE (Total Medicaid Enrollment), CBO (Projected Medicaid Enrollment)

Conclusion

Rolling the Medicaid program back to the pre-Covid norm, when there were no significant criticisms of its inadequacy, would save more than Republicans are pushing for.

Medicaid has expanded in scope and scale over the past twenty-five years and has grown to a point where some pruning can be accomplished without the devastating results that many warn will occur. Simply rolling the program back to its scale from prior to the pandemic would provide more money than Congress is looking for and would return Medicaid to funding and enrollment levels that, at the time, drew little to no criticism.

Notes

For a counterargument, Kaiser Family Foundation claims it's impossible.
For some supportive analysis and a more detailed proposal for Medicaid, Manhattan Institute

Stray Thoughts

One of the explanations CBO gave for increased expected Medicaid spending from 2026-2035 was new spending on GLP-1s, which reduce obesity. Theoretically, though, the reduction in obesity should also lead to improved health and reduced spending. I'm curious if that is included in their estimates.

Footnotes

1This number has fallen in 2024 as the Medicaid expansions from the Covid-era are being unwound. The rate today is between 25 and 26%.

Thursday, March 13, 2025

Trump’s Tariffs and the Major Questions Doctrine

President Donald Trump has sent shockwaves through the global economy with his announcement of sweeping new tariffs, triggering concerns across financial markets. His proposed tariff increases, including a universal 10% tariff on imports and a 60% levy on Chinese goods, not to mention those he's applying to Canada and Mexico represent an unprecedented escalation in trade policy.

The stock market’s recent decline reflects deep uncertainty about the economic ramifications of these measures. While past presidents have wielded tariff authority aggressively, Trump’s unilateral moves raise constitutional questions that weren't being asked when previous presidents' tariff authority was called into question and the Supreme Court may be more willing to rein in his authority under the recently developed Major Questions Doctrine.

The President’s Broad Authority Over Tariffs

Historically, the President has been granted broad discretion in setting tariffs. Various laws, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, provide statutory authority for imposing duties under certain circumstances, such as to protect national security or counteract unfair trade practices. The courts have repeatedly upheld these powers, deferring to the executive branch on matters of international commerce. Challenges to presidential tariff decisions have generally failed, as the judiciary has been reluctant to second-guess economic and diplomatic policy choices entrusted to the executive branch.

The Algonquin Case and Past Legal Failures

Legal challenges to Trump’s tariff policies in his first term were largely unsuccessful due to the precedent set in Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc. (1976). That case affirmed the President’s authority to impose trade restrictions under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, provided they were justified on national security grounds. The Supreme Court reasoned that Congress had appropriately delegated this power, and as long as the President’s actions were tied to national security concerns, they fell within the scope of the law.

This ruling shielded Trump from legal challenges when he levied tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, despite widespread objections. However, the decision was based on the premise that these actions addressed an actual national security emergency—an argument that becomes far shakier in Trump’s current, more sweeping proposals.

The Rise of the Major Questions Doctrine

Recent Supreme Court rulings suggest that the legal landscape may have shifted dramatically since Trump’s first term. The Court has increasingly relied on the Major Questions Doctrine to rein in executive overreach, particularly in cases where an agency has exercised powers beyond what Congress clearly authorized. The doctrine, which has become a growing concern of the judiciary, holds that when an issue is of vast economic or political significance, a clear congressional mandate is required before an executive action can take effect.

The doctrine has been invoked in several high-profile cases, most notably West Virginia v. EPA (2022), where the Supreme Court struck down an Obama-era environmental regulation that significantly expanded the agency’s authority. The Court applied the same reasoning in Biden v. Nebraska (2023) to block President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, ruling that such a massive financial program required explicit congressional authorization. The underlying principle in these decisions is that broad, transformative policies cannot be implemented solely through executive interpretation of ambiguous statutes.

Given the Supreme Court’s increasing focus on limiting executive power, Trump’s tariff gambit could present the perfect opportunity to extend the doctrine into the realm of trade policy.

Applying the Major Questions Doctrine to Tariffs

Trump’s proposed tariffs go well beyond the intended scope of executive authority under existing trade laws. While past tariff decisions have typically been linked to specific national security threats, Trump’s latest modifications amount to a blanket tax on imports—a unilateral rewriting of U.S. trade policy. Congress never envisioned the President having the power to overhaul the tariff system at his sole discretion. The Constitution explicitly vests the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations in Congress, and while it has delegated some authority to the executive branch, that delegation was never intended to allow a President to bypass the legislative process and implement sweeping economic policies without congressional oversight.

While Congress has delegated some authority to the executive branch, that delegation was never intended to allow a President to bypass the legislative process and implement sweeping economic policies without congressional oversight.

Under the Major Questions Doctrine, courts should consider whether Trump’s broad-based tariffs constitute a usurpation of legislative authority. Unlike previous instances where tariffs were justified under specific statutory provisions, Trump’s current approach appears to lack a clear congressional mandate. His tariffs serve a general economic protectionist agenda rather than a narrowly tailored response to a national security crisis. As such, they are precisely the kind of far-reaching executive actions that the Court has recently deemed impermissible.

Trump's new tariffs are precisely the kind of far-reaching executive actions that the Court has recently deemed impermissible.

Extending the Doctrine to the Presidency

Until now, the Major Questions Doctrine has primarily been used to curb the power of administrative agencies, not the President directly. However, under the Unitary Executive Theory, which holds that executive agencies act as extensions of the President, there is little meaningful distinction between an agency head making sweeping regulatory decisions and the President doing so himself. If the Court is willing to strike down actions by unelected bureaucrats on the grounds that they exceed congressional authorization, it should logically apply the same standard to the President’s direct policy decisions.

Trump’s tariff agenda presents an ideal test case for expanding the Major Questions Doctrine to constrain presidential overreach. If a President can unilaterally impose import taxes that reshape entire industries and alter global trade relationships without explicit congressional approval, then the doctrine’s purpose—to ensure that fundamental policy changes come from the legislative branch, not executive fiat—would be undermined. The judiciary has already signaled its willingness to push back against executive overreach; now it must decide whether the President himself is bound by the same constraints it has imposed on his subordinates.

The Supreme Court has already signaled its willingness to push back against executive overreach; now it must decide whether the President himself is bound by the same constraints it has imposed on his subordinates.

For what it's worth, Google Gemini believes this approach has a reasonable chance at success.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s growing reliance on the Major Questions Doctrine provides a viable legal avenue to challenge Trump’s tariff policies. While past attempts to litigate his trade decisions failed due to Algonquin, the current Court’s skepticism of unchecked executive power creates a new opening. Trump’s proposed tariffs represent an unprecedented exercise of presidential authority—one that stretches far beyond the bounds of what Congress has authorized. Given the economic and political significance of these measures, the courts should intervene to prevent an unchecked expansion of executive power.

Update

2025 March 28 - The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board also believes Trump's tariff actions can be challenged in court, based on a more statutory interpretation.

Notes

Note that this was written by ChatGPT, after being trained on my own writing and being given the prompt below. After it was composed, I edited it.

Please write a piece arguing that someone should sue Trump over his tariffs on the grounds of the Major Questions Doctrine.

• Start with a short paragraph summarizing Trump's tariff actions and how they are significant and unprecedented. Mention the stock market's recent decline.
• Next talk about how the President has broad powers to set tariffs and multiple court cases have reaffirmed them.
• Paragraph about the Algonquin Case and how lawsuits failed in Trump's first term because of it. Be sure to mention how Algonquin was decided on the basis that there was a national emergency, and the powers were appropriately used with those facts.
• Paragraph(s) (as needed) on the recent jurisprudence of Major Questions Doctrine. Explain what it is. Talk about how it's a growing concern of the court. Mention that it's a reaction to the growing influence of government. Mention that it was used for student loans and any other high profile cases.
• Describe how it could be used on tariffs. Namely, a paragraph arguing that Trump is using his tariff power beyond their intended purpose and beyond the scope that Congress envisioned, essentially legislating on his own.
• Paragraph about how the Major Questions Doctrine has heretofore been used to stop agencies or bureaucrats within the executive branch but never the President. However, according to the Unitary Executive theory, they were acting on his behalf and there should be no difference, to the Court, on whether it applies to the President himself or his agents.

Monday, November 11, 2024

Why Harris Lost

Many others have offered myriad explanations for how Trump defeated Harris. Some think Harris lost because she didn't appeal enough to women. Some argue that Biden stayed in the race too long, and it doomed Harris because she didn't have enough time to win. Some say it was trans issues. Some say it was inflation. Some even say that Trump voters were duped by a disinformation bubble.

Here are a couple rundowns of reasons from Vox and AEI. I find this explanation closest to my own view, and below, I explain it more comprehensively.

I'm a long-time proponent of the median voter theorem. The concept is more simple than the name. The idea basically is that to win an election, a candidate needs to win a majority of the votes, and to win the majority of the votes, that candidate has to win the vote of the median voter--the voter exactly in the political center of all voters. The candidate who wins that voter, generally by staking positions closest to them, wins the election.

The story of 2020-2024 is that in 2019 Harris was pretty far to the left, and lost the primary. Biden was pretty close to the center and won it. In the general election, he campaigned as a perfect centrist. However, once he became president, he shifted to the left and stayed there. When Harris took over, she moved up to, but not beyond where Biden governed, which left Trump much closer to the center than Harris, so Trump won.

In 2020, Joe Biden ran as a moderate

The 2020 Democratic primary featured candidates spanning the entire Democratic party, from Sanders and Warren representing the far-left to Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar representing less far-left. And of them, Biden had the most experience, name recognition, and political power.

Once he won the nomination, he campaigned on ending the pandemic, but never said how. He was ambiguous on fracking. He thought Trump's immigration restrictions were too restrictive.

The Brookings Institute: "Joe Biden appealed to the center of the electorate across party lines. He did 10 points better than Hillary Clinton among Independents, and he doubled her showing among moderate and liberal Republicans...If the Democratic Party is regarded as going beyond what the center of the electorate expects and wants, Democrats' gains...could evaporate."

The BBC: "Biden stuck with a centrist strategy, refusing to back universal government-run healthcare, free college education, or a wealth tax. This allowed him maximise his appeal to moderates and disaffected Republicans during the general election campaign."

Biden won independents by 9 points--52 to 43, when Clinton had only won them by 1 point in 2016.

Joe Biden barely won his election

Even with all the benefits of running against one of the most singularly despised candidates in decades, a pandemic roiling the economy and the culture, civil unrest, record-setting fundraising, Biden only barely defeated Trump in the electoral college. Biden won three states by less than 1% of the vote--Georgia (0.23%), Arizona (0.30%), and Wisconsin (0.63%). Combined, Trump lost by a total 42,918 votes.1

Votes are still being counted in the 2024 election, but at the moment, Harris's easiest path would have needed to swing Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin to have won the election. She would need to swing 255,000 votes. The differences in margin are 1.2% (PA), 1.4% (MI), and 0.8% (WI). Not quite as close as 2020.

Biden Moved Left

Once in office, President Biden swiftly moved left. He issued executive orders "at a record pace," signing more executive orders in his two days than any other president signed in his first 30. His executive orders were not just undoing President Trump's work, or meant to address the pandemic, but showed that he was "taking steps Democrats have long demanded on immigration, the environment and racial justice."

In his initial flurry of executive actions, Biden required masks on federal property, extended foreclosure and eviction moratoriums, froze student debt collection, revoked the permit for the Keystone Pipeline, cancelled other energy rules created under the Trump administration, and pulled back on immigration enforcement. While many of these were demanded by Democrats, even the ones that were arguably centrist positions at the time, came to represent a immoderate president.

In February, Biden indicated he was more beholden to the teachers' unions than science when he waffled on re-opening schools. The head of the CDC, Rochelle Walensky indicated it was safe to re-open schools, but teachers unions scoffed, and the Biden administration fell in line and called for more funds before they could re-open.

In March, Joe Biden nominated Lina Khan to be an FTC Commissioner, notably, not the chair. Lina Khan was notable for writing a very famous article calling into question the application of anti-trust law to the current slate of American tech companies, most prominently Amazon, because they served as platforms that gave their products away for free, so the conventional approach of using price increases to prevent monopolies wasn't reliable.

She went on to work for other Democrats, and was considered a talented but pretty far-left expert on anti-trust in the digital age. Many Senators thought being a commissioner was acceptable given it was the President's prerogative, and the FTC could have three Democrat-appointed commissioners. One of them being more progressive was unobjectionable. However, immediately after she was confirmed with bipartisan support, she won confirmation in a 69 to 28 bipartisan vote, President Biden named her the chair of the FTC.

"Her appointment was a victory for progressive activists" according to the New York Times and was "hailed by many Democratic lawmakers." Elizabeth Warren said "With Chair Khan at the helm, we have a huge opportunity to make big, structural change..." The Vice President of NetChoice said she would make the independent agency more political. In office only briefly, she embarked on a aggressive agenda to push the FTC firmly in the progressive direction.

This episode symbolized Biden's move from moderate campaigner to aggressively progressive president. No one expected he would put Lina Khan in change of the FTC, even when she was nominated for commissioner. The change was a shock not only because it was unexpected, but it was unprecedented for a President to have misled Senators and the public on his intentions. In addition, while the business world had strongly supported Biden's campaign, their support of him surely wavered with such an anti-business Democrat put in charge of the FTC.

These are just two early-on instances of his lurch to the left, especially as compared to how he campaigned. There were many more. There was Merrick Garland going after parents who were concerned about what their kids were being taught, labelling them as terrorists; there was the student debt relief which he had avoided during his campaign and steered clear of, but then decided to pursue unilaterally despite previous arguments that it was unconstitutional. He tried to require masks on planes and vaccines for workers. Both of which failed in court. Both of which he continued to pursue despite their unpopularity. He always sided with unions and decided he'd be the first president to stand in a picket line. He discontinued natural gas exports. He tried to apply the protections in Title IX, which was meant to prevent discrimination based on a person's sex, to trans students. Biden also moved to aggressively reduce the number of gas-powered cars and replace them with EVs and his administration briefly contemplated banning gas stoves before it went public.

Biden was so committed to not enforcing the border, he wouldn't enforce his vaccine mandate for illegal immigrants even though he did for travelers. He flew illegal immigrants all over the country though he did his best to keep it quiet. He created an app so that illegal immigrants could bypass the border altogether and schedule their entry via airplane. Lastly, when there was a misunderstood photo of the border patrol and a border crosser, he immediately sided with the immigrant and never apologized for his mistake.

Also remember that the Build, Back, Better agenda was originally another multi-trillion dollar package for which many Democrats tried to expand the definition of infrastructure to include their economic agenda.

The result of all of these individual items and moves was that Biden was perceived by many, on the left, and the right, and the center, to be the most left-wing president of the last fifty years. People compared him to FDR and he basked in it.

Biden's Approval Rating Suffered

Source: 538

The other, more significant, consequence of Biden's policy portfolio was an approval rating that danced around 40% for most of his presidency. It's well-known, that his approval rating plummeted after the botched Afghanistan withdrawal. It reached its lowest point in July of 2022, almost a year later, and just before the Chips and IRA bills passed in August. He enjoyed about six months of approval in the low 40s, before it started dropping again. From December 2023 up until his disastrous debate, his approval was slightly below 40%.

Harris Ran as Biden

While many people think Harris ran as a moderate, to be more precise, Harris ran at the exact point on the ideological spectrum that Biden governed. The illusion of being a moderate was created because she shifted her policy stances from where they were in 2019 (confiscating guns, in favor of trans surgeries, opposition to fracking, in favor of Medicare for All), up to but never beyond the positions Biden held in 2024. While she renounced her previous, left-wing positions, she often didn't provide a detailed policy proposal of her own, but when enough detail was provided, she it would perfectly match Biden's policy.

Her response to every question regarding immigration policy was to support the Lankford Immigration Bill which Biden had supported, but did not have support of enough Republicans to pass. She never proposed or accepted any measure that wasn't part of that bill. On Israel/Gaza, she used the same language and answers Biden gave, that there needed to be a cease-fire and the hostages needed to be returned. There was no daylight between her and Biden on any issue.

Despite many opportunities, Harris refused to stake a position closer to the center than Joe Biden on any issue. She famously told The View and Stephen Colbert that she wouldn't do anything differently than was done by Biden. She adamantly refused to move closer to the Center than Biden governed, and that put her to the left of the median voter.

Donald Trump Ran as a Pretty Moderate Republican

Meanwhile, President Trump ran pretty close to the center. It surely doesn't seem that way because of the parts of his campaign that the media chose to highlight, but he is the least conservative president in decades on abortion, saying he does not want a national ban and he's not sure about Florida's six week ban. On immigration, probably his rightest-leaning issue, he supports deportations, but so do 51% of Americans. It flew under the radar, but Trump also indicated that he wanted to give citizenship to any immigrant who gets a degree in the US, which is surely popular.

One can also consider the outcomes of the Senate elections. Which states flipped? West Virginia, where a Democratic Senator, while a thorn in Democrats' side, eventually agreed to the Inflation Reduction Act, which sealed his fate. Montana and Ohio's Senators lost resoundingly, both red states with moderate Democrats who had won before but voted with Biden on everything. Voters are tolerant of moderates to an extent, but that tolerance was exhausted by Biden's governance.

In the end, Trump ran much closer to the center than Harris, and Harris lost because of it.

Footnotes

1 This would have ended up an electoral tie, which Trump would have won in the House.

Friday, August 18, 2023

Let He with Reservations Cast the First Vote

Disclaimer: This is not intended to support or malign any specific candidate. It is general advice promoting voting when candidates are unlikeable. Any promotion of specific candidates is a result of current polling on race, not policies or characteristics of the candidates.

Dominic Pino said something interesting on the 8/15 edition of The Editors Podcast. He argued that while a majority of Republican primary voters may support Donald Trump, a majority of Republicans probably doesn't, and almost certainly, a majority of people who might consider voting Republican also wouldn't support Trump.

This is a unique election. In my lifetime, these are the two worst candidates ever. Arguably, both are unqualified to be president, but for very different reasons. In elections before 2020, many people would complain about the quality of candidates, and it's true that the two parties' nominees are typically pretty poor representatives of the greatest America has to offer, but to a large extent, that's what the system, as it is currently constituted, can produce. That's also a very complex topic.

The difference with the 2020 election and the two front-running candidates for 2024, is that they're not just sub-optimal people, neither of them should be in the White House with any power whatsoever to make decisions for the country. Many, many people detested Hillary Clinton, but the idea that she was unqualified is ludicrous. The same can't be said for Biden and Trump. It would be easy to make an argument for either one of them that they are unqualified from holding this office.

For Biden, there's not much that can be done in a primary election, when no viable candidate wants to challenge him. For Trump, however, there is an opportunity. This will make practically everyone angry, but the most American thing a person can do is to vote in the Republican primary, for the candidate who's most likely to beat Trump.

This will make practically everyone angry, but the most American thing a person can do is to vote in the Republican primary, for the candidate who's most likely to beat Trump.

Many moderate Republicans, who despise Trump, have also developed a strong aversion to DeSantis because of his stances and focus on cultural issues. Even if they don't think DeSantis should be president, they should still vote for him in the Republican primary, assuming he stands the best chance of beating Trump. It is un-American to believe that Trump is a mortal threat to democracy, but allow him to win the primary and have a chance at becoming president. Right now, polls are pretty close. In fact, Trump has a better chance at beating Biden than DeSantis. Anything can happen between today and the 2024 election, and if you truly believe Trump is unfit for office, doing nothing but hoping things work out is a dangerous gamble.

If you truly believe Trump is unfit for office, doing nothing but hoping things work out is a dangerous gamble.

But you don't like DeSantis, and you're afraid he might win the general and become president. If you're a pro-democracy patriot, you should be okay with that, even if it's not your ideal outcome. In fact, you should want a strong contest between qualified candidates, even if it doesn't go the way you want. Whether you're a full-blooded Democrat, an ambivalent moderate, or a disaffected Republican, the most civic-minded thing you can do is vote for the Republican who stands the best chance of beating Trump.

Perhaps you think DeSantis himself is unqualified, just like Trump, so why vote for him. Here's a great test as to whether you believe a candidate is qualified. Ask yourself, why shouldn't this person be president. Come up with as many answers as you like, but try to be honest with yourself as to why you don't think they should be in office. If the reasons are all policy-related, then the candidate is qualified, but just has different positions. Shouldn't voters make that decision? Don't you want an election where voters can talk about issues and choose who better represents them and not a "my guy's awful, but their guy will usher in Ragnarok" election?

Monday, November 7, 2022

Trump's Kryptonite

Main Takeaways:

• Free media is Trump's superpower
• Stop sharing the non-substantive things he says!
• Continuing to serve as Trump's conduit is evidence you want him to win

Over the decades, politics and entertainment have become harder and harder to disentangle. Since the 1930s, presidents have gradually adopted more and more of a celebrity personality. This culminated in a celebrity-president that had mastered the shock jock-driven nature of social media. A significant reason that Trump was elected and remained relatively popular with his base throughout the years was his penchant for making outrageous claims that won him free media attention. These statements impassioned both his biggest critics in the media and his strongest proponents in the electorate.

Everyone in America wanted to know what Trump was saying. They wanted to hate him for being offensive, racist, sexist, bigoted, crazy or they wanted to love him for poking the bear, being funny, saying things they were thinking. And because the public wanted to know, the media wanted to get in on that action (not to mention many in the media were also outraged and hoped to spread their own distaste).

Most people now recognize that the media erred by providing so much free press to Trump back in 2016. At the time, there were many reasons they did this, not just to cash in on the public's demand for all things Trump, and to tell the world how crazy he was, but also because they were convinced he would lose. All gain, no loss. But then he did the unthinkable.

Even while he was President, he would issue tweets that would dominate the news cycle for the day. They were very rarely substantive tweets; most of the time, they were only meant to be provocative. Provoke they did. As someone who wasn't on Twitter at the time, I could look at these controversies in a more detached way. I think there is much more detachment that is needed today, especially from the media.

This is why I want to propose that all journalists take a vow to no longer support Trump as they have in the past. I'm sure they believe they're doing their jobs by reporting on the things Trump says everyday, and to some extent, that's true. That's definitely not the only motivation though, and it's not the only effect. In fact, their reporting is probably counter-productive. The more they try to prove to Trump's supporters (and even to those on the fence) that Trump is bad, the more they solidify his support.

To really hurt Trump, what they need to do is stop playing his game. Stop sharing video of him doing crazy things. Suppress the urge to retweet and quote retweet.

Obviously journalists still need to report the news, so I suggest the following: think of Trump as two people--the shock jock provocateur and a politician running for office. If the politician says something important and substantive, report on that. If he calls a fellow Republican by a nickname, don't report on that. Don't even comment on it. It's really not important.

Every journalist should take this vow: I promise not to promulgate non-substantive stories pertaining to Donald Trump. If I encounter a tweet from him or others or an article about an outrageous claim he made, I will move on without comment. I will also criticize anyone who purports to be anti-Trump who does provide him with free coverage.

Many, many people both in the media and outside of it claim that they don't want Trump to ever be president again, that it is a danger to the country. It's time for them to start going beyond just saying so. It's time for them to start behaving that way as well. To me, the best way to prevent this eventuality is to use the one thing that saps his power: apathy. We must assume that anyone who continues to repeat Trump's comments wants him to win.