A Momentous Anniversary

Two hundred and fifty years ago, on April 19, 1775, Massachusetts colonists fired upon British soldiers at Lexington and Concord. We are now entering a period of commemorations of the American Revolution, of events 250 years ago. Last night, at Open Mic Night at Sulfur Books, I read Longfellow’s “Paul Revere’s Ride.” That poem concludes with these lines:

For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,

Through all our history, to the last, 

In the hour of darkness and peril and need,

The people will waken and listen to hear

The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,

And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

Are you awake and listening? 

Not Rich

Increasingly, I hear advertisements for financial services targeted at “high worth” individuals or families. “High worth” is the latest euphemism for “rich” or “wealthy,” each of which suggests a class difference that Americans are reluctant or embarrassed to acknowledge. Significantly, “rich” is often preceded by “filthy,” creating a phrase that clearly is a term of opprobrium. “Wealthy” is somewhat less objectionable—no one speaks of the “filthy wealthy”—but the class distinction is still uncomfortably present.

Our lives are increasingly influenced by the super wealthy whose net worth has been greatly expanded through government policies. Perhaps we should speak more often of the filthy wealthy.

Further Thoughts on DEI

Last month, I wrote a brief post about the meaning of “DEI,” and I asked how anyone could be against it. Below, I intend to offer something of an answer to that question. I don’t actually know why Donald Trump holds the detestable views that he does, but I can at least suggest what those views are.

When I first heard Donald Trump rail against DEI, I assumed he was opposing offices, whether in the government or the private sector, intended to promote a more diverse and fair workplace.

One can quibble about the utility of such offices. There surely is a danger that diversity, equality, and inclusion lead to fixed quotas for minority hires. One can make a case even for quotas, but it is clear that Americans are generally opposed to them.

My conception of DEI has little to do with Trump’s view of it. Trump apparently considers the very idea of diversity, of equality, and of inclusion as anathema. He tasked federal workers with removing even those words from government documents and Web sites. Trump wanted every program aimed in any way at promoting diversity, equality, or inclusion to be dismantled. Programs were indeed killed—or are in the process of being killed—and information involving race or extraordinary women or minority men have disappeared from public view.

To Trump, there is only one race of consequence, and it is White. People of other races cannot be real Americans and certainly deserve no special consideration, irrespective of their past treatment at the hands of the government.

Generously, Trump acknowledges that women exist—one of only two government-recognized sexes now—but they should not be serving in roles traditionally held by men. (Exceptions are made for women in the Trump cabinet.) Transgender, intersex, and gay people are beneath Trump’s notice. The undocumented of whatever race or sex are merely trash to be disposed of. Their children born in this country are freeloaders who should follow their parents wherever they came from.

Who is an American to this president? The real Americans are citizens who are married White, heterosexual, able-bodied Christian, Republican men doing manly jobs. American women of consequence have similar characteristics but are homemakers and mothers.

Why do we have a president who holds substantial numbers of citizens in contempt?

Another Argument Against Trump Tariffs

There are lots of good economic arguments for the insanity of Trump’s recent tariff increases. Trump believes that his tariffs will transfer economic activity from our trading partners to the United States. I won’t bother to repeat the usual arguments here. Instead, I propose a thought experiment.

Assume that the Trump tariffs do indeed lead to production moving to the U.S. We will resume making shoes, building ships, assembling cell phones and televisions, making textiles and apparel. Where are the workers needed to pursue these activities going to come from? The unemployment rate—in the non-governmental sector anyway—is already low. Moreover, Trump is limiting immigration and deporting immigrants already in the workforce. Many of the workers that will be needed require special skills. Where are those workers now? And, of course, there are some activities that just cannot be pursued at scale in the U.S. We cannot grow bananas, coffee, tea, or tropical spices. Tariffs will never allow our country to grow the nutmeg it needs. Perhaps some of the needed workers will come from those thrown out of work because the products they have been making have become too expensive for Americans to buy. For example, auto workers may be in this category. (The U.A.W. has mistakenly applauded the Trump tariffs. It will regret that.)

Alas, if the Trump tariffs are allowed to stand, America will be poorer. And the world will be poorer. A worldwide depression is not unthinkable.