We have begun issuing endorsements for the 2026 election cycle, starting with our recent endorsements in Georgia and continuing with our evaluation of Greg Stanton in Arizona’s 4th Congressional District. Additional endorsements will follow over the coming weeks.
Our goal is not to endorse the largest number of candidates, but to apply a consistent framework across a range of competitive races. We evaluate candidates based on the same principles that guide our policy positions: economic efficiency, fairness, personal freedom, and political realism—within the context of strong democratic institutions and a stable international order. In practice, this means placing particular emphasis on a candidate’s willingness to engage with tradeoffs, work across party lines, and operate effectively within existing political constraints.
We are proceeding methodically through a set of races identified from a variety of sources, including publicly available candidate lists and our own review of competitive districts. Our initial focus is on U.S. House races, where candidate quality and governing approach can vary widely and where elections can influence the overall direction of policy.
The order in which endorsements are issued is driven primarily by practical considerations. We are starting with candidates for whom sufficient information is available to make a clear assessment, including incumbents and well-established challengers. In many races, particularly those involving newer or lesser-known candidates, we will defer judgment until more information is available.
In some cases, we expect to endorse candidates in primary elections where there is a clear contrast between a governing-oriented candidate and a more ideological alternative. In others, our focus will be on the general election. We will also take into account the structure of each race, including the presence of independent or third-party candidates and the likelihood that those candidates can compete effectively.
We support efforts to expand voter choice and improve electoral competition, including independent candidacies where they have a credible path to success. At the same time, we believe it is important to consider the likely impact of each vote on the final outcome, particularly in races where non-competitive candidates may influence the result without a realistic chance of winning.
Our endorsements are intended to be transparent, consistent, and grounded in a realistic assessment of both candidates and electoral dynamics. We welcome feedback as this process continues and encourage readers to share their views through the feedback links on each endorsement page. We expect that our approach will evolve as we apply it across additional races.
We reject the increasingly common practice of supporting extreme candidates in the opposing party’s primary in the hope that they will be easier to defeat in the general election. While tactically tempting, this approach contributes directly to polarization and dysfunction.
At the same time, we recognize that voters—particularly independents—often face imperfect choices. In some cases, strategic voting may be appropriate: supporting the candidate who is most likely to produce a better governing outcome, even if that candidate is not an ideal match with my policy preferences. This differs from “sabotage” strategies: the goal is not to weaken the opposing party, but to improve the quality of the likely winner.
In open or semi-open primary systems, this logic may also influence which primary a voter chooses to participate in. Even for voters who typically lean toward one party, if their preferred primary is effectively decided while the other party’s contest is competitive, it can make sense to vote where the outcome is still in doubt—particularly when doing so may help a more moderate candidate prevail over a more extreme alternative.
Support for Bipartisan Problem-Solving
We place a high value on candidates who demonstrate a willingness to work across party lines.
Membership in the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus is a strong positive signal. While not a guarantee of alignment with our views, it reflects a commitment to negotiation, compromise, and governing—qualities that are essential to a functioning democracy.
Ideological Alignment and Its Limits
We are less likely to support candidates closely aligned with highly ideological factions.
Membership in the Freedom Caucus is a strong negative signal. Alignment with more ideological factions on the left is also a negative factor, including candidates supported by organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America or the Working Families Party.
At the same time, labels are imperfect indicators. The fact that some members belong to both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus illustrates the limits of ideological labels and the importance of evaluating governing behavior.
Endorsements and Political Incentives
Endorsements provide useful signals about the coalitions a candidate depends on.
A Trump endorsement is viewed as a negative factor in our evaluation, reflecting alignment with a style of politics that we believe has contributed to increased polarization and institutional strain. That said, we also recognize political realities: in some districts, such endorsements may be effectively required for electoral viability. Our evaluations will take this context into account.
Similarly, endorsements from organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America or the Working Families Party are viewed as negative signals, reflecting alignment with policy approaches that we generally believe move away from economically efficient or politically sustainable outcomes.
Demonstrated Independence
We place significant weight on demonstrated independence.
Candidates who show a willingness to depart from their party leadership—particularly when it reflects a willingness to support moderation or bipartisan compromise—provide a strong signal of a governing mindset. While such votes can carry political risk, they are often essential to producing durable policy outcomes.
A Pragmatic, Case-by-Case Approach
No single factor determines our endorsements.
We evaluate candidates holistically, considering:
Their policy positions
Their demonstrated willingness to govern
The political realities of their district
The likely consequences of their election
In some cases, this may lead us to support candidates who are imperfect but represent a clear improvement over the alternatives. In others, we may decline to endorse at all.
A Note on the Current Environment
I have found it increasingly difficult to identify candidates in the House—and among those running for it—who consistently reflect a moderate, centrist approach. This is not a criticism of any one individual so much as a reflection of the incentives embedded in the current system.
Rising polarization has narrowed the space for pragmatism, while partisan redistricting has made many districts effectively noncompetitive in general elections. As a result, primary elections often become the decisive contest, where more ideologically committed voters play an outsized role. In those environments, candidates who emphasize moderation or compromise often struggle to gain traction, while more ideologically driven candidates can succeed.
I find this trend troubling and, at times, disheartening. A system that makes it harder for pragmatic, solutions-oriented candidates to emerge is one that struggles to produce effective governance. The struggle to bring moderation and reason into our politics can seem increasingly quixotic, but it has also become increasingly important.
Our Objective
Our objective is not ideological purity. It is progress—incremental, durable progress toward a more functional political system.
If enough voters and organizations reward cooperation, pragmatism, and good-faith governance, those behaviors will become more common.
That is the incentive structure we aim to support.
I have been trying to make sense of the recent use of tariffs by the Trump administration. The stated objectives shift from day to day—protecting American industry, punishing adversaries, raising revenue, or forcing concessions from allies. Sometimes the tariffs are imposed. Sometimes they are threatened and withdrawn. Sometimes they are increased, and then partially reversed.
At some point, it becomes difficult to argue that this is strategy rather than improvisation.
The details change, but the underlying issue does not. We have handed a great deal of authority over trade policy to the President of the United States. That authority was granted with an implicit assumption: that it would be exercised in good faith, with discipline, and with some degree of consistency.
That assumption now appears to be breaking down.
The Original Logic Behind Delegating Tariff Authority
The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate trade. Over time, Congress delegated a significant portion of that authority to the President. There were good reasons for doing so.
Trade negotiations require:
speed
flexibility
and a degree of confidentiality
It is difficult to negotiate complex agreements through a 535-member legislature. So Congress created mechanisms that allowed the President to negotiate and, in some cases, impose tariffs under specific statutory authorities.
The expectation was not that the President would act unilaterally without constraint. It was that he would act:
within a defined framework
with a clear objective
and in a manner broadly consistent with U.S. economic and strategic interests
In other words, the system assumed competence and good faith.
This Is Not Entirely New
It would be a mistake to pretend that this problem began in 2025.
Presidents of both parties have stretched the statutory authorities governing tariffs. Democratic administrations have also used trade tools—antidumping rules, targeted tariffs, and “national security” justifications—in ways that expanded executive discretion.
But there is a difference between:
stretching a tool and
using it as a general-purpose instrument of economic policy
What we are seeing now is not simply an extension of past practice. It is a step change in both scope and unpredictability.
Tariffs as a Tool vs. Tariffs as a Weapon
There is a legitimate role for tariffs.
They can be used:
to respond to unfair trade practices
to enforce agreements
or to address genuine national security concerns
But there is a difference between using tariffs as a tool and using them as a weapon of general economic policy.
When tariffs are applied broadly, unpredictably, and without a clear framework, they create uncertainty. Businesses do not know:
what their input costs will be
where to invest
or how long current conditions will persist
This is not a subtle effect. It is the primary effect.
Incentives Matter
If firms believe that tariffs will:
appear suddenly
change frequently
and be driven by short-term political considerations
then they will respond accordingly.
They will:
delay investment
shift production in ways that are not economically rational
or demand higher returns to compensate for policy risk
This is not a failure of the private sector. It is a predictable response to unstable policy.
Erratic tariff policy is, in effect, a self-imposed tax on investment—and one that falls most heavily on long-term planning.
The Problem of Using Tariffs for Everything
Tariffs are now being used—or threatened—to achieve a wide range of objectives:
reducing trade deficits
pressuring allies on unrelated issues
influencing domestic political outcomes
and reshaping entire supply chains
No single policy tool works well when applied to every problem.
Using tariffs this way blurs the line between:
economic policy
foreign policy
and domestic politics
It also makes it difficult for other countries to interpret U.S. actions. Are tariffs a negotiating tactic? A permanent shift? A political signal? Increasingly, the answer appears to depend on the news cycle.
The Erosion of Predictability
Markets can adapt to almost any policy, good or bad, as long as it is stable.
What they cannot adapt to easily is unpredictability.
When tariff policy becomes:
highly discretionary
personalized
and subject to rapid change
the result is not simply higher prices. It is a reduction in the willingness to commit capital.
Over time, that matters more than any individual tariff decision.
Congress and the Problem of Delegated Power
Congress delegated tariff authority to the executive branch for practical reasons. But delegation always carries risk.
It works when:
the executive branch operates within understood norms
and when Congress is willing to reassert its authority if those norms are abused
If neither condition holds, the delegation becomes something closer to an abdication.
We are now in a situation where:
the scope of presidential authority is broad
the use of that authority is increasingly aggressive
and congressional oversight is, at best, inconsistent
That combination should concern people across the political spectrum.
A System Built on Assumptions
The American constitutional system relies heavily on informal constraints:
norms
expectations
and assumptions about behavior
When those constraints weaken, the formal powers written into law become far more consequential.
Tariff authority is a clear example.
What was intended as a flexible tool for advancing U.S. interests can, under different assumptions, become a mechanism for imposing broad and unpredictable economic costs—both at home and abroad.
Conclusion
The debate over tariffs is often framed in terms of whether they are “good” or “bad.” That is not the most important question.
The more important question is how much discretionary economic power we are comfortable placing in the hands of any President—and what happens when that power is exercised without discipline or consistency.
If the assumptions that justified delegating that power no longer hold, then the structure of the system—not just the current policy—deserves a second look.
Click on the link to see CIVPAC’s position on the broader issue of Trade Policy.
I have not been posting much this year. Every time Trump, or members of his administration, take some bizarre position, they either reverse directions in a day or two or advance some even more bizarre position a day later that diverts my attention. Sometimes, I think he seems evil. At other times, I think he is just stupid. Often, he seems petty and vindictive. On many occasions, he appears to be cognitively impaired. But as I search for a unifying principle to explain his actions, and those of his administration, I keep coming back to the simple question: What would Vladimir Putin want?
Putin’s View of the World
Vladimir Putin has a world view stuck somewhere in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, in which Russia is a great power that shares the world stage with other great powers. In his view he should be allowed to control, either directly or indirectly, all of Eastern Europe, much of Central Europe and perhaps Western Europe, too. The United States can, in return for deferring to Putin in Europe, control the Western Hemisphere. China, in Putin’s mind, is entitled to control Asia and the Western Pacific.
Trump’s Apparent World View
Donald Trump seems to share Putin’s world view. His “peace” proposals for Russia’s war against Ukraine lean heavily in favor of Russia’s long-term objectives. His efforts to undermine NATO, by waffling about America’s commitment to the organization and to Europe’s defense, fit nicely into this interpretation. His saber rattling about Greenland and Canada, alienating our NATO allies, and his intervention in Venezuela, including a stated intention to run the country, are spot on in reflecting the kind of division of world power that Putin envisions.
The Make America Small and Mean Spirited Movement
The net effect of all of this is to take America from a respected world leader to a greedy regional power. It is the opposite of making America great. Sadly, Trump is not alone within his administration, or the MAGA movement in general, in following this path. JD Vance, who I once had high hopes for, has embraced this world view. Pete Hegseth has tilted America’s vast military power away from the support of our allies and toward an aggressive, and most likely illegal, attempt to impose Trump’s will within the Western Hemisphere.
The tilt towards Putin-friendly positions in foreign policy is fairly obvious, but it does not stop there.
Immigration
America, unlike Russia, has been a much admired country. This is in part because of our role in defeating the Axis powers in WWII (in which the Soviet Union, admittedly, played a role), rehabilitating post-war Europe with the Marshall Plan and successfully containing the Soviet Union until it collapsed under the weight of a bankrupt political and economic system. It is also because we used to embrace values that others admired: constitutional democracy, including freedom of religion, speech, and of the press, and the rule of law (including relatively limited corruption).
JD Vance has asserted that being an American is not, principally, about embracing these values but rather about a shared culture and history. By this line of reasoning new immigrants, even legal ones who have been here for a generation, can be viewed as less than fully American.
Almost all developed countries face a demographic decline that threatens their economic and political stability. America, because it used to be an attractive place to emigrate to, was far less at risk to this phenomenon than Russia. The Trump administration, through its campaign against illegal immigrants and by its anti-immigrant rhetoric, has signaled that America is not a welcoming place to new immigrants (legal or illegal). With that door closed we begin to look more demographically threatened, just like Russia.
Trade Policy
The benefits of trade are well established. Russia, by virtue of its aggressive military actions, has been repeatedly sanctioned and has had much less access to the benefits of trade. They have, for example, had to sell their oil at steep discounts to distant countries. Trump’s on again/off again tariffs have limited America’s access to the gains from trade, a sort of self-imposed sanction. Pushed hard enough, they could hurt America as much as Western sanctions have hurt Russia.
Civil Discord and the Challenges of True Democracy
Trump, through his rhetoric and actions, has enraged Americans on the right against their fellow citizens: through false claims about election fraud and exaggerated claims about the damage done by illegal immigration. He has enraged the left and the center, by the head spinning, more or less daily violations of political norms, including threats to use the military against U.S. citizens and his wholly unnecessary use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to intimidate whole communities. Through his outrageous and repeated lies and misinformation he has made civil debate increasingly difficult, since he has armed his supporters with their own set of Trumpian “facts.” I can only imagine the delight that this gives the likes of Putin and Xi, since it demonstrates the weakness of true democracy. Why should the Russian or Chinese people long for democracy when Trump makes American democracy appear to be a sham and does everything he can do to make democracy itself appear synonymous with chaos.
Climate Change
Climate change is generally thought to adversely affect the entire world. But the impacts are not uniformly harmful. Russia has vast territory, in Siberia, that is largely uninhabited and under-developed because it is too cold. Russia’s northern ports and sea lanes are often impassible because of ice. It does not take much imagination to see that Putin would applaud Trump’s denial of climate change and Trump’s efforts to undermine attempts to combat climate change. Maybe Trump’s seemingly nutty attitude toward wind turbines has an actual rational intent. Russia is also almost totally economically dependent on the export of oil and gas. What could be better, from Russia’s point of view, than to have America work hard to slow the transition away from fossil fuels?
Elections
For many years Russia, under Putin, has held sham elections in which the outcome is never in doubt. Trump, with his false, and often ridiculous, claims of voter fraud has created the impression among his supporters, and perhaps others around the world, that America is no different from Russia. I can only imagine the pleasure it gives Putin every time Trump repeats his malign claims about American elections.
The next time you encounter absurd behavior from Trump, you should ask yourself . . . What would Putin want?
At first, some of Trump’s proposed cabinet appointments seemed plausible; Marco Rubio for State, and Elise Stefanik for the United Nations. I have reservations about both of these appointments based on their weakness on American support for Ukraine, but that is part of Trump’s world view so we had to expect that his appointments would share it. His proposed appointment of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General, Tulsi Gabbard as National Intelligence Director, and Robert Kennedy as Secretary of Health and Human Services are appalling. Matt Gaetz is a distressing choice as nominee for the crucial position of Attorney General. My suspicion is that Trump was frustrated by the ethical qualms of his first two Attorneys General, Jeff Sessions and William Barr. These men may have had unimpeachable conservative credentials, but they failed the test of unquestioning loyalty to Trump. I suspect that Trump thought, for some reason, that Matt Gaetz would have lower ethical standards. Can’t imagine why he would have thought that. Tulsi Gabbard is thought of, in some circles, as a Russian dupe or asset. Those are pretty serious charges, which may or may not be true. Why would anyone who was suspected of Russian sympathies be nominated to the role of National Intelligence Director? Not surprisingly, Russia has already praised both the Gaetz and Gabbard nominations. Kennedy is notorious for spreading disinformation about vaccines. So does that make him the logical choice for Secretary of Health?
Why Would Trump Nominate These People?
I think part of the reasoning behind these nominations was simple payback. Gabbard and Kennedy allowed Trump to say that former Democrats supported him, so pay no attention to those notable Republicans who were endorsing Harris. I also think that all three of these nominations are meant to shake the tree of the federal professional workforce. I suspect that there are many senior and mid-level professionals in the federal government who will retire or resign from their posts rather than report to these people. The result could mean a rapid and voluntary evisceration of the “deep state” that Trump despises so deeply. I also think that Trump feels that by nominating some extremely outrageous people he can deflect attention from what would otherwise be controversial but not absurd nominations. He may be right about that. In addition, Trump may also be testing just how far he can push the Senate. Finally, all of these nominations will endear Trump to Putin. If the Senate says “no way,” as I sincerely hope they will, Trump can say to Putin that he tried.
Many Republican Senators may feel like caving to Trump because they fear being primaried during the next election cycle. I would remind these folks that a third of the electorate is centrist. If they cave to Trump on these absurd and dangerous appointments, they will face near certain defeat in the general election. Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, they should do the right thing and reject these nominations. They could have avoided this dilemma by voting to convict Trump during the impeachment trial, but they chose the “safe” path. The point of having power is to use it when it matters. It mattered then and it matters now!
Trump 1.0 vs. Trump 2.0
Some of my friends held their noses and voted for Trump, because “the Democrats were so much worse.” They often said “how bad can he be, we already had four years of Trump.” To those folks I would like to note the difference between these nominations and Trump’s nominations during his first term: Jeff Sessions and William Barr at Justice vs. Matt Gaetz; Dan Coats vs. Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence; and Tom Price vs. Robert Kennedy for Health and Human Services. None of these first term nominations would have been my choice for these positions, but none of them are as bad as the current slate. I would hope that after the euphoria of success wears off, a feeling of regret will overcome the “how bad can he be” Trump supporters.
Other Nominations
As time goes on, I am confronted with other controversial nominations that deserve comment. Among these are: Mike Huckabee for Ambassador to Israel; Stephen Miller, Deputy White House Chief of Staff for Policy; Tom Homan as “Border Czar”; Lee Zeldin at the Environmental Protection Agency; Steven Witkoff as Special Envoy to the Middle East; John Ratcliffe at the CIA; Pete Hegseth at Defense; and Kristi Noem at Homeland Security. All of these nominations deserve a separate focus. Each is troublesome in its own way. Some do not require Senate confirmation. I will attempt to comment on them in subsequent posts.
If you have a reaction to what I have said above or have something that you would like to add, please comment at the bottom of this post.
There is no area of Trump’s second term in office that worries me more than his impact on U.S. foreign policy. Trump’s tag line on this is “America First.” It is not clear at all that this tag line really helps explain his positions, since in my view many of them run starkly counter to long-term U.S. national interests. I will take them one at a time. The key areas include: Ukraine, NATO, Israel, and Taiwan.
Ukraine
Trump claims he will end the war in Ukraine even before he takes office. What I think he means is that Trump’s obvious antipathy to aiding Ukraine will force them to accept Putin’s terms for ending the conflict. Putin will, of course, demand control over all of the Ukrainian territory he currently occupies, and demand guarantees that Ukraine will not seek to be admitted to NATO and possibly even the European Union. If Putin gets that agreement, he will merely pause the conflict until he has time to rearm and then proceed to swallow the rest of Ukraine when he gets the chance. The only alternative for Ukraine to retain notional independence will be to become a vassal state like Belarus, doing Putin’s bidding and selecting leaders he approves of.
NATO
The only difference between the various Eastern European countries that were once part of the Soviet Union, or part of the Warsaw Pact, and Ukraine, is that many of these states now belong to NATO. Putin has indicated a desire to directly or indirectly regain control over these countries and enlarge the Russian Empire. Trump has indicated a willingness to withdraw from NATO and has invited Russia to attack those members who are not living up to there defense expenditure commitments. The best face that can be put on these comments from Trump is that they are transactional and meant to force these countries to increase their defense expenditures. The worst face is that he really wants to see the collapse of NATO and is indifferent to Putin’s ambitions in Eastern Europe. In some ways it does not matter what he really wants. His words weaken the alliance and tempt Putin toward further aggression. In the absence of a firm commitment on the part of the U.S. to the NATO alliance, we can expect some of those states to hedge their bets and accommodate Russian ambitions. This is a nice example of why the business skill of extracting financial concessions in negotiations with people you never have to do business with again is a poor training ground for foreign policy.
Israel
The current conflict in the Middle East between Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran gave Trump a wedge to weaken the Democratic Party. Putting aside the strategic and humanitarian issues, the conflict created domestic political problems for Harris and the Democrats. Voters of Palestinian descent were a key voting block in Michigan and Michigan was important, if not essential, for a Harris victory. Members of the Progressive Left also had outsized sympathy for the Palestinian cause. American Jews have traditionally been loyal supporters of the Democratic Party. It was difficult for Harris and the Democrats to give full throated support for Israel without offending Democrats sympathetic to Palestine. It was also difficult for Harris to empathize with the Palestinian cause without offending American Jews. In the end, she tried to thread the needle, which satisfied few. Trump, for his part, was able to embrace Netanyahu’s moves without reservation which made him appear more authentic, even to those who did not care about the issue.
I am not smart enough to know what the right strategy is for Israel. I do know that unquestioning defense of Israel’s actions regardless of the humanitarian consequences will adversely affect America’s position with other countries from Pakistan to Indonesia. It is not at all clear to me how Trump’s position on this issue squares with the “America First” tag line.
Taiwan
During the Nixon administration the United States agreed, as a part of improving our relations with China, to accept the notion that there is only one China, thereby abandoning our support for the Chinese Nationalists. The Chinese Nationalists had fled to Taiwan at the end of the Chinese Communist Revolution and still claimed authority over China. Adopting the one China policy implicitly accepted that Taiwan was a part of that one China. Since that time, we have maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity,” not committing ourselves to intervening to preserve Taiwan’s independence, but leaving that possibility open. We have simultaneously armed them, which makes an attempt by China to seize Taiwan by force very costly. Taiwan has prospered in the meantime and has become crucial to the world’s supply of computer chips.
The sad thing is that conflict here could have been avoided. China took control of Hong Kong in 1997, when Britain’s long-term lease of the territory expired. At that time, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) promised a “one-country, two systems” policy in which Hong Kong would retain a significant degree of autonomy over its economy and internal affairs. Xi Jinping found this unacceptable and Hong Kong has been stripped of all autonomy. If the CCP had been willing to honor the agreement, it is very likely that they could eventually have persuaded Taiwan to accept a peaceful re-unification, which would have benefited both countries economically. Sadly, this did not happen.
Trump, not surprisingly, views this situation as a transactional opportunity. He wants Taiwan to pay the United States for continued support. I am not sure what this means exactly. I am also not sure who Trump wants them to pay and for what. They already pay for the weaponry that the U.S. supplies them. Perhaps Trump wants a contract in which Taiwan pays for insurance, in the form of a Treaty, that requires the U.S. to protect them from a Chinese invasion in the future, in exchange for billions of dollars today. Given Trump’s record in business transactions, I don’t think I would enter into any agreement with him to do something in the distant future in return for something today. Also, given Trump’s willingness to undermine the longest and most successful military alliance in history, NATO, I think I might find the proposed transaction unattractive. But maybe that’s just me.
If you disagree with me about any of this or would like to add something, please post a comment at the bottom of this page.
Donald Trump has proposed a wide range of economic policies during his quest to be re-elected. It is hard to know which of these to take seriously and which were just campaign rhetoric. (The same could also be said for Kamala Harris.) For now, I think we need to assume that he was serious about all of them and evaluate their consequences. It appears that he is likely to have a Republican Senate and House. You might think that the filibuster rule will prevent some of his proposals from becoming law, but many of them can be passed through reconciliation which is not subject to the filibuster rule. In addition, Trump has argued in the past that Republicans should dispense with the filibuster rule, if they get the chance. He also has considerable latitude as President to pursue some of these policies without congressional approval. He also transformed the Supreme Court during his first term in office and is likely to face a sympathetic audience there, if there are conflicts about the range of his authority.
Tax Policy
Trump has proposed a number of tax cuts which include excluding tip income, overtime pay, and Social Security income from taxation. He has also suggested removing the cap on deductions for State and Local income taxes, a move that is not popular within his own party. He would like to extend those portions of his 2017 tax cuts that are about to expire and he hopes to further reduce corporate income taxes. He plans to replace the lost revenue from these tax cuts with increased revenue from across the board tariffs of 10% to 20% on all imports and 60% tariffs on imports from China.
Immigration
Illegal Immigration
Trump has proposed a mass deportation of all illegal immigrants. His own VP, JD Vance, has attempted to “sane wash” this proposal by suggesting that they would start with those who have criminal records. It is certainly the case that the federal government does not have the manpower or the facilities to round up, detain, and process 10 to 15 million people (Trump claims it is 20 million). Trump has suggested using the U.S. military to assist in this mass deportation. My own view is that this violates the 1878 Posse Comitatus law prohibiting the use of the military to enforce domestic law, but this Supreme Court might disagree. In any case, that law does not restrict the use of the State National Guard units with the consent of the governor in question. This clearly poses a problem for Trump in California and New Mexico, but not so much in Texas. Trump may also face resistance from the home countries of illegal immigrants that may refuse to accept them back. In that case, Trump would have to fund and create long-term detainment facilities. Putting aside all of the logistical and humanitarian aspects of mass deportation, it has major economic consequences. The construction, agriculture, and home care sectors are heavily reliant on this labor force.
Legal Immigration
Trump also appears, based on his previous administration and rhetoric, to be unsympathetic to legal immigration. This has major consequences for the technology, finance, and medical sectors.
Outsourcing
Trump appears to oppose the technological outsourcing of labor, although this conclusion requires some reading between the lines. If you restrict imports, reduce the labor force through significant deportation, and restrict technological outsourcing, you will definitely raise domestic wages and prices. There will be some winners here, but the American consumer will almost certainly be worse off and the economic growth rate in the U.S. will decline.
Inflation
None of the above policies have to increase inflation. As Milton Friedman said, inflation is “always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” This requires some explanation. It does not mean that price shocks like the pandemic supply disruptions or aggressive fiscal policy play no role in igniting inflation. It does mean that if the central bank, or in the case of the U.S. the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), chooses to, it can prevent these factors from causing sustained inflation by restricting the rate of growth of the money supply and raising interest rates. In general, these shocks “cause” sustained inflation only if the Fed accommodates them with loose monetary policy. This is what happened in the mid 1970s following the oil price shocks and in 2020-2021, as we began to emerge from Covid.
Donald Trump has said that he wants to play a role in setting monetary policy. Political involvement in monetary policy generally means looser monetary policy. In the presence of the supply side constraints and the fiscal stimulus from tax cuts mentioned above, we are likely to see significantly higher inflation. How high the inflation gets depends on how far he pushes these agenda items.
The one thing that could mitigate the inflationary impact of these proposals is the revenue raising impacts of the tariffs. This will offset the fiscal stimulative effects of the tax cuts. There are many negative consequences to the tariffs, but in this context they help soften the impact of the tax cuts on inflation.
Do you have a different perspective or something to add? If so, please leave a comment below.
Donald Trump is a widely unpopular and flawed Presidential candidate. He just won re-election despite his offensive rhetoric, criminal convictions, and condemnations from many senior officials who had served with him during his first term. He won not just the Electoral College, by a substantial margin, but for the first time, the popular vote. The popular vote victory ran counter to the predictions of most national polls but arguably within the the margin of error, although just barely.
There will be a lot of finger pointing within the Democratic Party over this defeat. Most of the culprits deserve to have the finger pointed at them but, in my opinion, some don’t.
Joe Biden should have accepted his own declining capabilities as a candidate and bowed out earlier. I suspect his reluctance was partly because he was boxed into supporting a Kamala Harris candidacy and he knew she had significant liabilities. For that he has no one to blame but himself, for selecting her as his running mate in 2020.
Kamala Harris lacks the political skills of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, or even a Pete Buttigieg. When a difficult question is posed to her, she stalls and tends to fall back on platitudes unrelated to the question. Clinton, Obama and Buttigieg see the trap hidden in the question and deftly use the opportunity to make a related point that at least appears to be answering the question. Harris’ lack of skill in this area might come from her experience as a prosecutor and Senator. In both cases, she was always the one asking the difficult questions. She also had baggage from the 2020 primaries that was used to brand her as a far-left liberal on immigration and other issues. She re-enforced this impression by embracing the policies of the Progressive wing of the party on anti-gouging (price controls), and soaking the rich and corporations, i.e. making them “pay their fair share.” The bounce in the stock market after the election suggests that many thought these proposals would adversely affect valuations and, therefore, the value of 401(k)s and IRAs owned by many who do not view themselves as rich.
The Biden/Harris administration made some mistakes. They waited too long to address the illegal immigration issue. They were too sloppy in the choice of fiscal tools to address the Covid induced recession, leaning on spending that stimulated demand in the face of disrupted supply chains. They relied on unpopular and inefficient regulatory methods to promote a response to climate change, pushing the transition to EVs faster than the market could accept. They also used this legislation to reward favored groups like labor unions, undermining the claim that climate change is an existential issue and, rightly, acquiring Elon Musk’s opposition. But the worst thing was that Harris refused to acknowledge that mistakes had been made and offer a better path forward.
Many, including myself, would respond to these observations by saying Trump was so much worse. That may be true, but he had the benefit of being out of power.
What Can We Expect from Trump 2.0?
Trump not only won the Presidency, he also appears likely to have a Republican Senate and a Republican House. By virtue of his previous term in office, he has also transformed the Supreme Court so that it is likely to be sympathetic to his actions. He has learned from his first term in office to select aides who value loyalty to him above any other duty. In the case of aides who require Senate confirmation, he may well avoid what little constraint a Republican Senate would impose by appointing people as “acting” officials. All that being said, I fear we are likely to see a fully unrestrained Trump. What might this mean?
Foreign Policy
Trump is likely to favor unrestrained support for Israel and Netanyahu in the conflicts against Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. Where that will lead, no one knows.
He is likely to abandon support for Ukraine, or at least limit it. This might cause European countries to step up their aid to Ukraine. More likely, it will force Ukraine to negotiate an unfavorable settlement with Putin, which will give Putin time to rearm and attempt to seize all of Ukraine at some future date. In the meantime, Trump will probably undermine U.S. support for NATO, or even withdraw from it. If that appears to be happening, Putin will likely wait for it to occur before expanding his aggression to include NATO countries. Sadly, some NATO countries may respond to weak American support for NATO by accommodating their domestic and foreign policies to Russia, a process sometimes called Finlandization. (This is a reference to Finland’s method for dealing with threats from the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War.) Some might even “voluntarily” withdraw from NATO. Trump will claim “victory” for the brief period of peace that will accompany this pause in active conflict.
I am not sure what to expect with respect to Taiwan. Some in the Republican Party, like Vivek Ramaswamy, favor abandoning it. I would watch who Trump appoints as the Secretary of State and Defense for hints about the direction the Trump administration will take.
Tax Policy
Trump tossed out plans for tax cuts like candy on Halloween during the campaign. These proposals included excluding tip, overtime, and social security income. He has also suggested lifting the cap on state and local tax deductions and lowering the corporate income tax . All of these are ill advised for many reasons, not the least of which is the impact on the deficit. He has suggested that he would replace this revenue with hefty, across the board, tariffs on imports. Most economists agree that these tariffs will result in higher domestic prices, lower growth, and higher unemployment. They might well spark a round of retaliatory tariffs and a global recession. The best that can be hoped for here is that he gets some push back on these from Congress. Given the hold Trump and Trumpism have on the Republican Party, at this point, I would not count heavily on Congressional restraint.
Immigration
Immigration is, and has been, a signature issue for Donald Trump. He claims to want a mass deportation of illegal immigrants and a virtual sealing of the border against new illegal immigration. He might favor using the U.S. military to assist in this, despite the constitutional problems associated with that. The consequences for the economy if he succeeds in this effort would be dire in the agricultural, construction, hospitality, and home care sectors. If he gets push back, he is likely to just be far more aggressive in deporting or confining illegal immigrants with criminal arrests or convictions. He is also likely to be far more restrictive with respect to legal immigration, with negative impacts in the technology, medical, and finance sectors.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
I suspect that DEI programs within the federal government will disappear during Trump 2.0. He may go further and attempt to use the power of the federal government to discourage these programs in academia and the private sector. The Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action will probably facilitate efforts to limit the scope and effectiveness of DEI programs and the Trump administration will probably use that decision to accelerate the decline of DEI. While the motivation for DEI programs may have been noble, they have sometimes resulted in reverse discrimination or just become too offensively preachy to be effective. It will be interesting to see if dismantling these programs has a measurably negative effect on diversity in the workplace.
What is a Centrist Independent to Do?
Where to go from here for centrist independent voters depends on the reaction of the Democratic Party. In one scenario, the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party successfully persuades Democrats that they lost because they did not go far enough left. I am sure Sanders, Warren, and AOC and the rest of the “Squad” will argue this point of view. In another scenario, the Democratic Party places the blame on having gone too far left in its policy positions and offering candidates tied to far left positions.
If the first scenario happens, independent voters should start a third, centrist party, or try to turn “No Labels” into one. That party should offer centrists from both parties and thoughtful progressives a better alternative to long-term Trumpism. Progressives would be welcome but not the far-left policy positions that currently cripple the Democratic Party. There are risks to this solution, but an even more “Progressive” Democratic Party would have little chance for electoral success and would generally support bad public policies. The upside is a viable, centrist party that could govern long-term with a super majority.
In the second scenario, centrist independent voters should become active in the Democratic Party and attempt to pull it toward the center. This, too, could result in a super majority party capable of governing in a centrist fashion for the indefinite future.
In either case, I see no future in which an even more left-wing Democratic Party returns to power for an extended period of time.
Those are my views this morning. If you disagree, or would like to add something, please comment below.
New Mexico poses a problem for Republican candidates. No Republican has represented New Mexico since Pete Domenici retired in 2009. As we all know, that was a different Republican Party. But then again, the Democratic Party has changed a lot since then, too. Nella Domenici is Pete Domenici’s daughter. She has had a career as CFO of Bridgewater, a very large hedge fund.
Abortion
New Mexico has a very liberal law on abortion. Nella Domenici, Pete Domenici’s daughter, has pledged to honor that law by not voting for a national abortion ban, if she is in the Senate. Martin Heinrich points out that Republican control of the Senate virtually guarantees that the Majority Leader in the Senate will favor a national abortion ban. You don’t have to doubt the sincerity of Domenici’s promise to imagine that a Republican Senate, if combined with Trump as President and a Republican House, would result in legislation that restricts various reproductive rights but stops short of an outright ban. In addition, Domenici leans heavily on support of contraception to make abortion less common. Her arguments are good, but many Republicans are antagonistic to financial support for contraception through the ACA (Obama Care). I doubt that a Republican Senate would support her on this issue. I would give this issue to Heinrich, mostly because Domenici is handicapped by the (R) after her name.
Energy and Climate Change
Domenici, rightly, points out that dealing with environmental issues requires making tradeoffs between protecting the environment and protecting the economy. She plays the usual Republican trick of avoiding discussion of climate change and recasting the issue in terms of “clean” air and water. I don’t think it is possible to reasonably discuss the tradeoffs between protecting the environment and the economy if you treat climate change as something that cannot be named (e.g. Voldemort in Harry Potter). She blames Heinrich for the closure of a coal-fired power plant. Heinrich rightly points out that coal is now losing in the market place to other forms of energy, including natural gas, solar, wind, and more recently modular nuclear. I am no fan of the heavily regulatory approach adopted by the Democrats on this issue, but Heinrich and the Democrats get the nod for being willing to openly discuss it.
Election Denial
Domenici states unequivocally that Trump lost the 2020 election and condemns the events of January 6. On this she deserves credit, since so many of her party lack the courage to do so.
Shortage of Doctors in New Mexico
New Mexico has a particularly difficult time attracting and keeping doctors and other medical professionals. There are a number of reasons for this: the large proportion of the population on medicaid, the high caps on malpractice lawsuits, and the low level of assistance on the repayment of student loans. I am generally unsympathetic to claims of shortages in any market, since prices generally adjust to eliminate the shortages.
All of the problems generally cited for New Mexico’s doctor shortage could be adjusted for by changes in physician compensation, were it not for the outsized role of the government in the physician compensation system in New Mexico. New Mexico is a poor state with a large portion of the population living below the poverty line and eligible for Medicaid. This provides a nice illustration of why Medicare and Medicaid can work in a mixed system with a high proportion of the population on private insurance. The privately insured patients pay enough to physicians and hospitals to cover overhead (including malpractice insurance) and Medicare and Medicaid pay enough to cover the marginal cost of treating those patients. When the proportion of patients paying through Medicare or Medicaid becomes too large in relation to the private sector, physicians and hospitals cannot cover their fixed costs and they move or shut down. This is true in many places in the United States. New Mexico stands out only because of the high poverty rate. This is why “Medicare for All” is problematic. In a “Medicare for All” system that used existing standards of compensation, there would be a national shortage of physicians and hospitals that would require the rationing of care. Avoiding that shortage would require a dramatically more expensive system per patient, and overall. For a longer discussion of this issue, see the CIVPAC policy position on medical care.
Nella Domenici attributes the problem to the Democratic Party’s support from the Association of Trial Lawyers. This may be true in part, but the core of the problem is New Mexico’s high poverty rates and the Medicaid compensation system. A solution might be to tie physician and hospital compensation under Medicaid (and maybe Medicare) to the proportion of their patients that use government provided insurance. Neither candidate seems to have a handle on what to do about this issue.
Right to Work Laws
Right to Work laws limit the ability of unions to compel workers to join the union and pay dues in unionized companies. New Mexico is not a Right to Work state. In fact, New Mexico passed legislation, in 2019, that forbids local governments from enacting Right to Work laws. Martin Heinrich attacks Right to Work laws based on workplaces issues, like excessive overtime, that are now regulated by OSHA. Domenici defends Right to Work laws as necessary to attract new businesses to New Mexico. This is a state level issue over which U.S. Senators have limited impact, but pro-Union legislation is a hallmark of the Democratic Party and you can expect both of these candidates to follow the party line on this issue. I would, therefore, give this issue to Domenici. For a longer discussion of this issue visit the CIVPAC policy position on Labor Unions.
Immigration
This issue is important in New Mexico, but the debate between the candidates mirrors the national discussion. Domenici criticizes the Biden administration, and by association Heinrich, for their failure to limit illegal immigration. Heinrich criticizes Trump, and by association Domenici, for their reluctance to support the bi-partisan legislation to, belatedly, do something about the problem. This is a complicated issue but the mass deportation approach pushed by Trump, and by association Domenici, is both inhumane and economically disastrous for the United States, so I give the issue to Heinrich.
The Endorsement
This is an interesting contest because of some of the issues it raises. Absent Donald Trump, Domenici might be a reasonable candidate to consider. Sadly, this Republican Party is not her father’s Republican Party. I, therefore, endorse Martin Heinrich for the U.S. Senate from New Mexico.
This Senate seat from Michigan is open as a result of Debbie Stabenow’s (D) retirement. Elissa Slotkin is a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official and a three-term Congresswoman. Rogers is a former FBI agent and seven-term Congressman.
Abortion
Rogers is solidly anti-abortion, but has pledged that he would not vote for national anti-abortion legislation. Slotkin, who is solidly pro-choice, has said she does not trust Rogers on this issue, given his record. One does not have to doubt the sincerity of Rogers’ pledge to realize that there are any number of proposals restricting reproductive rights that may confront the Senate, short of an outright ban, that Rogers could be expected to support given his record. I would give this issue to Slotkin.
Electric Vehicles and the U.S. Car Industry
This is a hot button issue in Michigan for obvious reasons. Rogers asserts that Electric Vehicle (EV) mandates have hurt U.S. car manufacturing. Slotkin asserts that there are no EV mandates and that she opposes EV mandates. She also supports subsidies for the U.S. auto industry to compete with China in the production of EVs. The truth is that there are no nationwide EV mandates (California is another issue.) Having said that, the Biden administration has pushed for tighter fuel efficiency standards and subsidies that favor EVs. The right solution on this issue is to have a uniform carbon tax and allow consumers and manufacturers to decide how to adapt to it. That could mean just driving less, driving more fuel efficient gas powered cars, driving hybrids (including both plug in or non-plug in versions, and driving EVs. Neither party or candidate supports this approach. What we don’t need are regionally different and constantly changing regulations that whipsaw manufacturers. I view this issue as a toss-up.
Foreign Conflicts
Both of these candidates favor continued support for Israel. Slotkin sides with the Biden administration to lean on Israel to accept a ceasefire if that is accompanied by the release of the hostages. Both favor continued support for Ukraine, although Rogers’ defense of Trump’s comments about not defending NATO countries is not helpful. Rogers also suggests that the aid to Ukraine should be a loan, which is problematic given Russia’s destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure. Both support continued support for Taiwan. Rogers wants to restrict that to weaponry. Slotkin suggests that she would support the use of U.S. troops to defend Taiwan. These are complicated issues. Both of these candidates are serious people. My concern is that Rogers will feel an obligation to Trump, based on Trump’s endorsement of Rogers. For that reason and because of Rogers’ less than full-throated support for Ukraine and NATO, I would give this issue to Slotkin.
Immigration
Slotkin appears to have taken the immigration problem seriously before the Biden administration turned to it. She has proposed a number of solutions to enhance Homeland Security against potential threats from illegal immigrants. Rogers opposed the bi-partisan legislation to strengthen the border, presumably to gain Trump’s endorsement. Rogers does oppose mass deportation and the direct use of U.S. troops at the border. Both of these candidates are better on this issue than their national standard bearers. I would view this issue as a toss up, were it not for Trump’s endorsement of Rogers. Based on that, I tilt toward Slotkin. I hope that Republicans recognize that a Trump endorsement is a solid negative for centrist, independent voters.
Tariffs
Rogers supports Trump’s across the board tariffs on imports. The vast majority of economists agree that this will raise domestic prices, lower economic growth and employment, and likely engender retaliatory tariffs and potentially cause a global recession. Slotkin favors more focused tariffs like the one on Chinese EV’s put in place by the Biden administration. While I generally favor free trade, I recognize that protectionist tariffs are popular in Michigan. On this issue, I give the nod to Slotkin because the across the board tariffs are such an unambiguously stupid idea.
Inflation
Neither of these candidates addresses the issue of inflation in a serious fashion. During the Covid pandemic, the U.S. and our peers in the G10 faced a hard economic decision. The U.S. chose to avoid a deep recession by aggressive fiscal spending, some of which began during the Trump administration. The Federal Reserve Board (Fed) initially accommodated this aggressive fiscal policy by maintaining low interest rates, as did many other central banks. The Fed eventually realized that the inevitable inflation was not going to be a temporary blip and raised interest rates to curtail inflation. The net result for the U.S. has been a more shallow recession, higher economic growth, and higher employment than our peers within the G10. We did have a somewhat higher level of inflation, but only modestly so. The correct question to ask voters is not are you better off today than you were before Covid, but are you better off now than you would have been under a less aggressive fiscal policy? Our experience relative to that of our peer countries suggests that the answer is a resounding yes.
Were there excesses in some of the specifics of the Biden administrations’ policies? Yes, but the broad policy was very effective. Some of the credit for this goes to the Fed, and the Biden administration deserves some credit for not attempting to interfere with the Fed when it increased interest rates. Trump, and by association Rogers, deserves discredit for suggesting that he would try to play an active role in monetary policy. Generally speaking, political involvement in monetary policy leads to greater inflation.
Slotkin, and the Democratic Party, suggest a variety of things to address inflation that have nothing to do with inflation and some of which might be counter-productive. To her credit, Slotkin opposes the subsidy for new home purchases proposed by Kamala Harris. To her credit, Kamala Harris, and by association Elissa Slotkin, has indicated that she would respect the independence of the Fed. On balance, I would give this issue to Slotkin. I wish her rhetoric and that of the Democratic Party reflected a better understanding of the issue.
The Endorsement
On balance, I have to endorse Elissa Slotkin for the Senate from Michigan. But, I would like to hear these two debate the issues in a post-Trump/Harris world.
If you are interested in seeing a current summary of the official Centrist Independent Voter endorsements in the 2024 Senate races, click here.
