Want to search for posts across your favourite author? Just click on their name to reach their '100 most recent posts' page, and then use the search box located beside their name.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 8
Back on TMF, we had a lot of discussions about Trump's performance in office during his first term. I frequently claimed that Trump was bad at "presidenting" - the ability to skillfully use the office to accomplish his specific goals. He often tried to run the Presidency as if the federal government had the same characteristics as the closely held family-owned corporate organizations he's spent his life running. Because the Presidency
isn't like that, he made a number of missteps that made it harder to implement his policies.
The general assumption is that Trump has learned from that experience. He seems to have genuinely grasped the "personnel is policy" lesson (the President is not the only 'boss' in the federal government, and if you want the agencies to do more what you want and less what Congress wants you have to staff them that way). He also has learned the importance of taking a more active role in dealing with Congress
politically. Granted, he has more
power within the party now than he did in 2016 - but he's also made it more of a focus.
So - now a key test is coming up. Congress is wrapped around the axle over whether to pursue Trump's budgetary agenda (border funding, energy funding, and tax policy) in one bill or two. The Senate prefers two bills, the House a single one.
I don't know what the
right answer is (or if there is a "right" answer at all). The test isn't
what call Trump makes on this issue - it's whether he makes a call at all. Trump's management style in his private business has often been to let subordinates have conflicts amongst themselves, with the idea being that prevailing in that internal fight is a good indication of which was the better idea. But that's not the best path forward, here - the exceedingly tight calendar, combined with a weak Speaker and a narrow majority in the House means that Congress will have a lot of difficulty getting everything done if they don't decide
quickly what path they'll take. And that requires a Presidential choice, because Johnson and Thune aren't in positions of sufficient power to dictate to their members any given path.
It will be interesting to see if Trump steps in to make that choice, or if he continues his current path of hedging his bets. My cynical prediction is that he won't make a clear call, so that he can take credit if things work out but blame legislative leaders if the reconciliation bill(s) gets into trouble. But we'll see...
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/07/trump-gop...
No. of Recommendations: 4
He often tried to run the Presidency as if the federal government had the same characteristics as the closely held family-owned corporate organizations he's spent his life running.
He seems to be turning (or at least attempting to turn) the federal government into something much like a 'closely held family-owned corporate organization'. An autocracy.
No. of Recommendations: 2
"He seems to be turning (or at least attempting to turn) the federal government into something much like a 'closely held family-owned corporate organization'. An autocracy."
I'm not a poly-sci scholar ( lol, that's an understatement ), but from what I've read over the years, Congress critters have 1 main goal: Get Reelected. I have to believe that at least a few of them wearing MAGA proudly across their chest realize that some of Trump's policies that he wants put into law will lead to some disgruntled voters on the MAGA side as well the Left. This will not help them with getting Reelected ( excluding the gerrymandered locks ). So behind the scenes, there might be a whole lot of push back on Trump's "vision".
And wouldn't 1 gigantic bill lead to more governmental opaqueness, not transparency ? Seems
like more opaqueness helps the swamp creatures thrive. So I guess swamp won't be draining, lol.
Also from my readings, Trump was a POS businessman. If Big Daddy Fred hadn't continually
bailed him out, he would have been a failed and disgraced businessman. The main thing he is/was
good at is licensing his name. And role playing a hard-ass on The Apprentice. I don't think
either of those skills are going to benefit America from his perch as President.
So hopefully he fails on Albaby's first Presidential test.
No. of Recommendations: 3
...and that is why one should always be aware if policy has any intersection with potential PERSONAL benefit to trump&family as a primary trigger of interest\disinterest.
where is trump really on the h1b ? is he for immigration today or not? probably no one has made a sufficient offer, and thus he remains somewhat subdued.
the classic example is in the realm of disinterest\negativity on crypto. how that predictably flipped is captured by this blurb from palmvalley capital :
"All three of President Trump’s sons are involved in the family’s new cryptocurrency platform,World Liberty Financial. Justin Sun, the crypto
billionaire who recently paid $6.2 million for a banana stuck to a wall with duct tape, and then ate it, bought $30 million in tokens from the World Liberty venture before Thanksgiving. Sun was charged with fraud by the SEC in March 2023 for actions related to his cryptocurrency, Tronix (TRX), which operates on Sun’s TRON blockchain. The impending, crypto-friendly change of the guard at the SEC shouldn’t hurt his chances in court.
Tronix is now the 10th largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization. During December, it was roughly equal in size to corporations such as Estee Lauder, the #2 global cosmetics powerhouse (founded in1946); State Street, the largest custodian bank in the world (founded in 1792); and Church &Dwight, the steward of ARM & HAMMER(founded in 1846). We know why these enterprises exist, but we can’t say the same for TRX or hundreds of digital tulip bulbs."
No. of Recommendations: 7
The main thing he is/was good at is licensing his name. And role playing a hard-ass on The Apprentice. I don't think either of those skills are going to benefit America from his perch as President.
I think this overly minimizes the considerable political skills he's demonstrated in his ten years in public life. He's an enormously capable self-marketer - astonishingly adept at harvesting free media, cultivating an image of himself among his customers/supporters, and recognizing far better than most what media channels are effective in this day and age at reaching his target audience. Democrats probably don't credit it, since he's not speaking to their audience - but he's better at comms than many other modern politicians. He's also fantastic at the "sharp elbows" style of politics - we disparage that today as being "autocratic," but it's been practiced by successful politicians for time immemorial (legendarily, LBJ was a noted arm-twister).
What he hasn't shown himself to have is a good sense of how the federal government actually is structured. It's not a private business where the President is an analog to the CEO, and where you can entirely change what the federal government does just by winning your single election. That complicates your ability to get the government to do what you want it to do, and you have to be adept at working within those constraints.
He was not adept at so doing during his first term. It remains to be seen whether he will have improved. How (or if) he manages the current divide in Congress over reconciliation strategy will be instructive.
No. of Recommendations: 2
What he hasn't shown himself to have is a good sense of how the federal government actually is structured. It's not a private business where the President is an analog to the CEO, and where you can entirely change what the federal government does just by winning your single election. That complicates your ability to get the government to do what you want it to do, and you have to be adept at working within those constraints.
The first few weeks will start to tell the tale. Susie Wiles has made it clear that things will be different this time.
No. of Recommendations: 6
The first few weeks will start to tell the tale. Susie Wiles has made it clear that things will be different this time.
It's not her call. She's certainly an extremely competent political operator who can perform the functions of her office well - but the same was true of Reince Priebus. This isn't a question of whether the President has staff around him that can help him translate his policy goals into actual outcomes - it's about his own choices in what direction he gives his staff.
I'm sure Wiles will have advice on whether Trump should weigh in and decide the "one vs. two bills" question for Congress. But ultimately it's his choice. He's the only one that will decide whether he will weigh in decisively on that question - and the only one that will decide whether he will stick with what he decides.
The spending bill/debt ceiling issue is not a great early sign for him getting better at Presidenting. One of the skills of Presidenting is making sure that everyone knows what your priorities are on big important bills. The spending bill was the big bill going on at the time, and it's pretty clear that Johnson was blindsided by Trump's eventual demand to include the debt ceiling raise and his general opposition to the original negotiated bill. Part of that is on Johnson, and it will severely hinder his Speakership - no one will trust that he's not out over his skis again. But part of that is on Trump - there's no way he should have let a big bill get that far without letting the Speaker or Majority Leader know he's got a problem with it, either with what's in it or what's left out of it.
No. of Recommendations: 9
He's an enormously capable self-marketer
AKA Fraud/snakeoil salesman
- astonishingly adept at harvesting free media, cultivating an image of himself among his customers/supporters, and recognizing far better than most what media channels are effective in this day and age at reaching his target audience.
A con is a con is a con..
...but he's better at comms than many other modern politicians
I have said the same, and stipulating that all politicians, especially in campaign mode, lie, nobody has ever lied as much, as compulsively, as blatantly, as Trump.
He's also fantastic at the "sharp elbows" style of politics - we disparage that today as being "autocratic," but it's been practiced by successful politicians for time immemorial (legendarily, LBJ was a noted arm-twister).
He's glamorized being a bully. He's encouraging/empowering his cult, lone wolfs and violent militias to extremes; J6, threats to people with opposing views at all levels.
He is anathema to democracy.
No. of Recommendations: 2
It's not her call.
Disagree. White House Chief of Staffs carry *enormous* power in DC. They're often the people the President tasks with getting the things that the Prez wants done.
The spending bill/debt ceiling issue is not a great early sign for him getting better at Presidenting. One of the skills of Presidenting is making sure that everyone knows what your priorities are on big important bills. The spending bill was the big bill going on at the time, and it's pretty clear that Johnson was blindsided by Trump's eventual demand to include the debt ceiling raise and his general opposition to the original negotiated bill. Part of that is on Johnson, and it will severely hinder his Speakership - no one will trust that he's not out over his skis again. But part of that is on Trump - there's no way he should have let a big bill get that far without letting the Speaker or Majority Leader know he's got a problem with it, either with what's in it or what's left out of it.
I think you're selling Trump short. Do you think he's not aware of the fact that his last term could have been more than it was?
No. of Recommendations: 6
Disagree. White House Chief of Staffs carry *enormous* power in DC. They're often the people the President tasks with getting the things that the Prez wants done.
I didn't say that she didn't have enormous power. I said it wasn't her call.
Only the President can control whether the President makes choices that will facilitate the implementation of his agenda. If Donald Trump chooses not to direct Congress to try one bill or two bills (whichever!), Susie Wiles doesn't get to countermand him.
I think you're selling Trump short. Do you think he's not aware of the fact that his last term could have been more than it was?
I think he's aware - I just don't know whether he has the skills, knowledge, temperament, or even the desire to do things differently this time around. He screwed up with the spending bill. It's very clear that he didn't sit down with Mike Johnson and lay out directly what he wanted in the bill, and what he didn't like about the current negotiated version (or have Wiles do that - it doesn't have to be Trump personally). That's a mistake! Without getting into the merits of what he wanted or whether it was possible, it's clear that no one from Trump's side ever told him that the debt ceiling was a top priority or that the bill was "too big" for Trump.
My impression of his management style (which very well could be wrong!) is that he likes to let his subordinates thrash things out amongst themselves, rather than provide a lot of direction from the top. Regardless of whether that's a successful formula in a private business - and Trump certainly seems to think it was successful for his businesses - it's not always a good fit for the Presidency. It's certainly not the right fit for the specific question of "one vs. two bills" that Congress has to decide early in his Administration.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Disagree. White House Chief of Staffs carry *enormous* power in DC. They're often the people the President tasks with getting the things that the Prez wants done.
In addition to albaby’s critique, I would add:
Competent and ethical people in Trump’s employ have a way of disappearing. Either they are fired or resign.
If Suzie is still Chief of staff in four years, it will be evidence of her complete abdication of power she may think she has now.
No. of Recommendations: 2
If Suzie is still Chief of staff in four years, it will be evidence of her complete abdication of power she may think she has now.
Other than your emotional reaction to Trump, on what logical basis do you draw this conclusion?
Does it occur that she's...actually pretty good at her job, and that he respects her?
No. of Recommendations: 4
Other than your emotional reaction to Trump, on what logical basis do you draw this conclusion?WH Chiefs of Staff almost never last a full term, just in general. It's a difficult and brutal job in even the best circumstances, and the average tenure in the role is only a year and a half:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Chief_of...In Trump's first term, he had four Chiefs of Staff, which is more turnover than typical, so it's pretty likely that he won't have a single CoS during the entire four years of his second term.
No. of Recommendations: 3
"I think this overly minimizes the considerable political skills he's demonstrated in his ten years in public life. He's an enormously capable self-marketer - astonishingly adept at harvesting free media, cultivating an image of himself among his customers/supporters, and recognizing far better than most what media channels are effective in this day and age at reaching his target audience."
I agree with that. He knows exactly what to say, and how to say it, to his supporters.
I just have 0 faith in the Country following his ideas in regards to Trump running the
Country like he ran his businesses. He was not a good businessman. He bk'd casinos.
His real estate empire teetered on bk many times, and his Dad bailed him out more than once.
He was reckless, and thought he was smarter than anybody in the world. But I know you're
looking beyond that, and dealing with the reality we have. He is President. Can he deal with it for the good of the Country ? I truly hope I'm wrong in my opinion of him.
No. of Recommendations: 6
I truly hope I'm wrong in my opinion of him.
You're not. He is a sociopath, and suffering dementia, and a toxic narcissist, and a lot of other things (including incompetent businessman). My hope is that he will try to bully his way with Congress, and fail (yet again). He has put competent people in positions of power, and also several billionaires who don't know how government works (but have agendas to neuter various regulations). Whether the convict listens to them is another question. I hope he doesn't. I think we can survive four years of flailing aimlessly. I'm not so sure we can survive four years of ruthless efficiency in gutting the Treasury, removing worker protections, removing environmental protections, and the various other protections designed to protect us from big corporations (whom have vastly greater resources than you or I, and can only be reined-in by government).
No. of Recommendations: 2
Does it occur that she's...actually pretty good at her job, and that he respects her?
Of course she’s good at her job. But Trump doesn’t react well to being kept on the rails.
His MO is to attack the competent and/or ethical.
Just as I predicted last week that Trump would react badly to having the flags at half mast during his inauguration, it’s just who he is. No miracle or magical powers needed to see the trainwreck ahead.
Suzie will either bail or get tossed off the train. Or if she is as craven as he is, she’ll ride until the whole thing goes up in flames.
No. of Recommendations: 18
<<This isn't a question of whether the President has staff around him that can help him translate his policy goals into actual outcomes - it's about his own choices in what direction he gives his staff....>>
I suspect Trump cares even less about policy outcomes than he ever did. He's already accomplished his primary goals--staying out of prison, avoiding financial ruin, and regaining the presidency so he can montetize the hell out of it. He can't be re-elected, so it's very much "apres moi, le deluge."
Perhaps JD cares about policy outcomes. Perhaps Don, Jr. But Il Douche'? Nah.
