“More than one country has descended into riot, revolution, coup or civil war territory over disputes about the integrity of its elections,” I wrote in 2016. “Think it can’t happen here? Think again.”

At that time, Donald Trump was busy making preemptive excuses (“we are competing in a rigged election”) for his expected loss in the 2016 presidential election. His opponent, Hillary Clinton, played the same game, whining that her prospective loss raised  “national security issues” because the rigging gear was Made in Moscow.

Seven years later, American politics remains awash in “rigged election” rhetoric.

That rhetoric usually ignores the obvious, “rigging” by the nation’s two “major” political parties, which work overtime to prevent third party and independent candidates from even appearing on ballots. Instead, Democrats lean heavily into complaints of Republican “voter suppression,” while Republicans claim large-scale Democratic “voter fraud.”

As an outsider and anarchist who believes the US is in its period of terminal decline, I can’t bring myself to care very much which of those “major parties” runs the show or what dirty tricks it uses to get and keep the job.

On the other hand, few of us, no matter how pessimistic or cynical, really like the idea of riot, revolution, coup and civil war. Like God in the old saying, those things don’t care if you believe in them — they’ll wreck your day without regard to your political sentiments.

Two presidential elections after I called out that potential, the “rigged election” tune seems to be segueing seamlessly into its second verse: The advent of the strongman.

Even as he cracks wise about it and muses that it might just be for “one day,”  former president and current Republican front-runner Donald Trump’s recent campaign schtick leans heavily into some Americans’ fear of — and others’ longing for —  a totalitarian dictatorship, complete with revenge prosecutions of political enemies and mass roundups/detentions of immigrants and malcontents.

Trump’s likely opponent, incumbent Joe Biden, sticks more to themes of “democracy” and “the soul of America” when on the stump. But he’s given the imperial presidency he inherited a steroid injection. He’s already on the job of  revenge prosecutions (of, among others Trump), bolstering the immigration police state, and instituting censorship in the name of “fighting disinformation.”

It’s difficult, at this point, to envision a freer, more peaceful, and more prosperous America within the confines of the existing political system. We’re sliding down the pole of history toward tyranny, as most polities do, and we’ve reached the portion of the pole that’s greased.

If we end up with a man (or woman) on horseback, our rightfully fraying faith in elections will be the horse. Politics will end up breaking us, unless we break it first.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Sound advice from US Senator Mike Lee (R-UT): “As a rule, Americans shouldn’t trust any bill so large that it has to be delivered by handcart.” He’s referring to the latest “National Defense Authorization Act,” which weighs in at more than 3,000 pages.

Stopping at “Americans shouldn’t trust any bill” would improve Lee’s rule, but he’s a politician, so let’s give him some (cough) Lee-way and credit him with a good start.

There’s plenty of bad stuff crammed into the latest NDAA, not least renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which should really be called the “Illegally and Unconstitutionally Spying on Americans Act.” But as usual when it comes to NDAAs, I prefer to focus on the over-arching badness of the thing.

According to the congressional conference report on the bill, it “allocates $841.4 billion to the Pentagon, $32.4 billion to the Department of Energy and $438 million for other ‘defense-related activities.'”

That’s $1.3 trillion, or nearly $3,900 from each American adult and child, to maintain a gargantuan military machine that has about as much to do with “national defense” as the latest reboot of Frasier has to do with the original Cheers.

At present, the US armed forces include more than 1.3 million active duty troops and about 800,000 reservists.  That’s about the same level as 50 years ago, when the US was just extricating itself from the Vietnam quagmire, when various automations (such as drones) were in their infancy, and when warm infantry bodies were a much bigger factor in war-fighting compared to today’s emphasis on air power.

In theory, at least, the US is at something called “peace” these days. Instead of fighting its own wars, it mostly farms them out to proxies like Ukraine and Israel, or at least “partners” with indigenous puppet regimes for manpower (e.g. Afghanistan).

And in truth, the US has few if any “defense” worries apart from the blowback its direct and proxy misadventures tend to culminate in. No other power in the world, let alone the western hemisphere, possesses the ability  to invade, conquer, and occupy a United States with so much as 1/10th of its current military capabilities.

The US “defense” budget isn’t about “defense.” It’s equal parts corporate welfare, workfare for poor and middle class youth who need money for college,  and “mad money” for politicians to get their megalomaniac on, trying to run the rest of the world as viciously and incompetently as they run their own little piece of it, with.

Which explains why it will pass in something like its current form. Lobbyists and politicians see lots of money — lots of YOUR money — and they want it. Ideally, all of it.

As I explain every time an NDAA bill comes up, remember that “defense spending” could be slashed by 90% without significant negative impact on “the national defense.”

Having remembered that, what to do with the knowledge? I guess you could call “your” congressional representatives, but that won’t do any good. They’ll keep blowing that money … as long as you keep giving it to them.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“All [Donald Trump] did was impose tariffs, which raise the prices for every American,” former New Jersey governor Chris Christie pointed out in the  December 6 GOP primary debate. “You can’t say he was good on trade because he didn’t trade. He didn’t change one Chinese policy in the process. He failed on it.”

Christie’s correct  that tariffs make the American consumers who pay them poorer, and that Trump’s “trade war” with China hasn’t resulted in “victory” when it comes to policy changes on that government’s part.

But does that make Trump’s tariff obsession a “failure?”

Success and failure are measured in terms of accomplishing, or not accomplishing, particular objectives.

If we assume that Trump’s actual aim was to increase the ratio of American exports to Chinese imports, then yes, he failed. Miserably. The US “trade deficit” with China has increased, not decreased, since Trump’s inauguration.

That’s actually kind of good news. The term “trade deficit” sounds bad, but what it actually means is that (in aggregate) we’re giving up less and less of our stuff in return for more and more of their stuff.

The bad news is that we’re paying more and more for … well, everything. That’s not ENTIRELY due to trade policy, but it is to some extent. And instead of assuming that tariffs are intended to address “trade deficits,” it’s worth looking at who benefits from those tariffs versus who suffers.

Christie took notice of one suffering demographic: American consumers. Tariffs jack up our prices.

Chinese workers also suffer if there aren’t as many jobs making as much stuff (whether for domestic consumption or export).

The beneficiaries of US tariffs on Chinese goods are American businesses who compete with Chinese businesses to make stuff and sell that stuff to us.

Simplified version (there are factors other than the ones I’m noticing here):

Suppose you can buy a Chinese-made widget for $1.00, but an American-made widget costs $1.25. You’re more likely to buy the Chinese widget.

But if the US government puts a 30-cent tariff on Chinese widgets, the American company can increase its price to $1.29 and still sell its version to you more cheaply than the Chinese version.

Sure, you pay 29 cents more (or four cents more, if you preferred American-made widgets for some reason other than price point) for the same widget that used to cost you $1.00/$1.25 — but hey, that American company’s owners make out like bandits, even after they pay lobbyists to talk politicians into imposing the tariff.

The real question is whether politicians like Trump are screwing you because they really believe their pro-tariff nonsense, or whether they’re just screwing you on behalf of their Big Business contributors.

That question pretty much answers itself.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY