“Biden gets no credit for rapid job growth, because that was just the natural unwinding of Covid-era unemployment, but he is personally to blame for every cent of inflation, which is somehow totally unrelated to that unwinding.”
Why is everyone center left having trouble admitting that Biden injecting trillions into an already decent economy cause inflation. Larry Summers called this, and sure enough it came true!
Alas, so far as I can tell (from my very limited sample of Trump voters), "it’s definitely true that if you judge him by outcomes rather than inputs and also make an exception for the bad outcomes, then his presidency was fine" is what about half the population will do. But then again, it appears people with a financial stake in Tesla are fine with giving the man leading the company into irrelevance a $47B bonus so he sticks around and launches more CyberTrucks. We live in the greatest era for grifters ever.
For some reason, this piece has brought A LOT of MAGAs and the MAGA-adjacent out of the woodwork. Who knew that so many read SB? I'm glad that their money is going to you, Matt, rather than to their idol's latest grift.
"For some reason, this piece has brought A LOT of MAGAs and the MAGA-adjacent out of the woodwork. Who knew that so many read SB?"
This post is also "unlocked" and I've speculated before that, notwithstanding that only paid subscribers can supposedly comment on unlocked posts, there is either (i) some sort of workaround that lets non-subscribers post comments or (ii) a bunch of people who see the unlocked post sign up for subscriptions just to comment on it and then, presumably, cancel their subscriptions shortly thereafter. Because, whenever Matt puts up an unlocked post, we'll suddenly get an influx of never-before-seen commenters whose comments (i) are not all consistent with the general vibe of the median or average Slow Boring commenter and (ii) make it seem wildly implausible that they are temperamentally long-time lurkers who just happened to be prompted to comment for the first time.
This piece is great for punditry and debate but not as useful for politics. How does Biden translate this into a simple and coherent pitch he can say in a sentence or two?
> A lot of what any president does is quasi-routinized appointments, and Trump did a perfectly adequate job of appointing a lot of right-wing people to various jobs.
This is not true for executive branch positions (maybe for judicial appointees, I wouldn't know). The Trump administration was statistically the slowest on record to fill political appointments, seemingly because he simply didn't care about getting it done. The administration had the highest turnover on record in both cabinet positions and other senior-level appointments. And many of the appointees it did put in place appeared to be selected for loyalty and were unqualified for, uninterested in - and sometimes openly hostile to - leading the work of their agencies.
In fact, he frequently was clear about his preferences for temporary appointments rather than normal, Senate-confirmed incumbents. We can expect more of the same from any second Trump Administration, including a rogues gallery of temporary appointments who couldn't possibly stand up to Senate scrutiny, so he won't even try.
I think an equally compelling article could be written about every single president ever, in either the positive or negative case.
Trump did a lot of things right and his bad moves look far less destructive than the lawfare unleashed by Obama in the form of disparate impact studies to demoralize police departments and school systems throughout the US. Obamacare is dumpster fire that epitomizes both the failure to understand what one seeks to control, and the naivete prevalent in all left leaning economic policies.
Biden has provided over the next full stage of national demoralization through creating an open border and a welfare state. We have seen a full step down behavioral standards and Biden administration seems to be rooting for it, while also of course demanding more and more from the parts of America that are flourishing.
The case is always there to make about whether a president is good or bad. I can't support any administration that not only tolerates but actually encourages a national lowering of standards for behavior and performance across the American population. The left is far more guilty of this.
You're right about most things, but I think Obamacare is a good thing. In general, it's worth learning from the experience of other Western countries. Just as Biden is crazy for deciding that the U.S. should have open borders and learned nothing from the damage such a policy caused to Western Europe, the Republicans were crazy for insisting that the U.S. be the only country that doesn't ensure its sick citizens can get insurance. By the way, Trump's big achievement with Obamacare is that he didn't repeal it but did cancel the individual mandate. A truly impressive achievement of his administration, contrary to the experts' expectations.
We ensured more coverage but totally distorted market and entire concept of insurance. Insurance should be a little bit of money to cover catastrophic events. Instead my family pays $24k/year in premiums regardless of whether we ever require health services. Think of all the things we could spend that on. Instead it goes to a behemoth insurance group, which pays it out to a behemoth managed care syndicate to cover treatment for our voluntarily unhealthy populace.
Obamacare wrapped more people into this scheme, made it far more expensive, less transparent, and unaccountable.
It's great that the US government spends so much money on the healthcare of it's citizens but, again, this was not well thought out, very gameable, and we aren't healthier for it physically or financially.
I don't know who Laura Kelly is. My statement that every politician is an awful person is a generalization for which there are always exceptions. Mitt Romney seems like a nice guy that is completely wooden and, quite honestly, a Mormon which makes him totally insane in my eyes.
Anyways...Trump derangement syndrome is worse than Trump himself. No one can make the specific case against him other than his "ick" factor. Relative to the vast majority other politicians he's the exact same and just as despicable.
Biden's policies are better? Most of the time nope not really.
In particular you call out the Iran policy, but Trump was right, Biden wrong on that one. Obama never should have put into place the Iran deal. And Biden shouldn't be trying to restart it. A full pressure campaign that requires Iran to NEVER get a nuclear weapon is the only acceptable policy.
Afghanistan Trump was wrong to put that deal in place, and Biden was wrong to follow through with it. And even more wrong in how it was carried out. I would strongly argue that the war in Ukraine is because of Biden's withdrawal.
Moreover, was additional deficits under Trump really good? Except for the COVID emergency package probably not. Deficits matter. As we are all going to learn REALLY soon. And definitely Biden and Co screwed up. They should have pivoted as soon as they started to see all the inflation. But they STILL haven't stopped spending even after several years of it.
This post seems to have a bit of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's not very good. I'll focus on one topic I know well: the nuclear deal with Iran.
First, the most important part was supposed to expire in 2025, so why praise it in June 2024? The issue was that Iran refused to extend it beyond that.
Second, Biden didn't have to stop enforcing oil sanctions on Iran without getting anything in return. He naively believed you can get good results from bad people with goodwill gestures. In contrast, Trump killed Qasem Soleimani. That's the difference between them. Trump may be a worse person, but he understands America's enemies better.
Trump's decisions on Afghanistan were even worse than Matt writes. The Feb. 2020 deal he negotiated with the Taliban called for a complete American withdrawal by May 1, 2021. Had Biden been forced to stick with that deadline rather than being able to extend it to Aug. 31, that would have required his team to do *everything* in just over three months from taking office, like when they were still trying to find their desks and where the restrooms were.
Of course, Trump couldn't conceive of not winning reelection but, as Matt writes, being a narcissistic sociopath doesn't earn you a mulligan. We expect our Presidents to pursue good policy, including for when they're no longer in office.
I dunno, Matt. You admitted you were wrong about Biden, so maybe Trump was the best president ever. I just don’t know what to believe anymore.
“Biden gets no credit for rapid job growth, because that was just the natural unwinding of Covid-era unemployment, but he is personally to blame for every cent of inflation, which is somehow totally unrelated to that unwinding.”
Why is everyone center left having trouble admitting that Biden injecting trillions into an already decent economy cause inflation. Larry Summers called this, and sure enough it came true!
Ho ho! More revisionist history....
Alas, so far as I can tell (from my very limited sample of Trump voters), "it’s definitely true that if you judge him by outcomes rather than inputs and also make an exception for the bad outcomes, then his presidency was fine" is what about half the population will do. But then again, it appears people with a financial stake in Tesla are fine with giving the man leading the company into irrelevance a $47B bonus so he sticks around and launches more CyberTrucks. We live in the greatest era for grifters ever.
For some reason, this piece has brought A LOT of MAGAs and the MAGA-adjacent out of the woodwork. Who knew that so many read SB? I'm glad that their money is going to you, Matt, rather than to their idol's latest grift.
"For some reason, this piece has brought A LOT of MAGAs and the MAGA-adjacent out of the woodwork. Who knew that so many read SB?"
This post is also "unlocked" and I've speculated before that, notwithstanding that only paid subscribers can supposedly comment on unlocked posts, there is either (i) some sort of workaround that lets non-subscribers post comments or (ii) a bunch of people who see the unlocked post sign up for subscriptions just to comment on it and then, presumably, cancel their subscriptions shortly thereafter. Because, whenever Matt puts up an unlocked post, we'll suddenly get an influx of never-before-seen commenters whose comments (i) are not all consistent with the general vibe of the median or average Slow Boring commenter and (ii) make it seem wildly implausible that they are temperamentally long-time lurkers who just happened to be prompted to comment for the first time.
Agreed. That makes a lot of sense.
This piece is great for punditry and debate but not as useful for politics. How does Biden translate this into a simple and coherent pitch he can say in a sentence or two?
> A lot of what any president does is quasi-routinized appointments, and Trump did a perfectly adequate job of appointing a lot of right-wing people to various jobs.
This is not true for executive branch positions (maybe for judicial appointees, I wouldn't know). The Trump administration was statistically the slowest on record to fill political appointments, seemingly because he simply didn't care about getting it done. The administration had the highest turnover on record in both cabinet positions and other senior-level appointments. And many of the appointees it did put in place appeared to be selected for loyalty and were unqualified for, uninterested in - and sometimes openly hostile to - leading the work of their agencies.
Sources for statistical claims:
https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2018/01/trump-continues-set-records-agency-vacancies/145218/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/
In fact, he frequently was clear about his preferences for temporary appointments rather than normal, Senate-confirmed incumbents. We can expect more of the same from any second Trump Administration, including a rogues gallery of temporary appointments who couldn't possibly stand up to Senate scrutiny, so he won't even try.
I think an equally compelling article could be written about every single president ever, in either the positive or negative case.
Trump did a lot of things right and his bad moves look far less destructive than the lawfare unleashed by Obama in the form of disparate impact studies to demoralize police departments and school systems throughout the US. Obamacare is dumpster fire that epitomizes both the failure to understand what one seeks to control, and the naivete prevalent in all left leaning economic policies.
Biden has provided over the next full stage of national demoralization through creating an open border and a welfare state. We have seen a full step down behavioral standards and Biden administration seems to be rooting for it, while also of course demanding more and more from the parts of America that are flourishing.
The case is always there to make about whether a president is good or bad. I can't support any administration that not only tolerates but actually encourages a national lowering of standards for behavior and performance across the American population. The left is far more guilty of this.
You're right about most things, but I think Obamacare is a good thing. In general, it's worth learning from the experience of other Western countries. Just as Biden is crazy for deciding that the U.S. should have open borders and learned nothing from the damage such a policy caused to Western Europe, the Republicans were crazy for insisting that the U.S. be the only country that doesn't ensure its sick citizens can get insurance. By the way, Trump's big achievement with Obamacare is that he didn't repeal it but did cancel the individual mandate. A truly impressive achievement of his administration, contrary to the experts' expectations.
We ensured more coverage but totally distorted market and entire concept of insurance. Insurance should be a little bit of money to cover catastrophic events. Instead my family pays $24k/year in premiums regardless of whether we ever require health services. Think of all the things we could spend that on. Instead it goes to a behemoth insurance group, which pays it out to a behemoth managed care syndicate to cover treatment for our voluntarily unhealthy populace.
Obamacare wrapped more people into this scheme, made it far more expensive, less transparent, and unaccountable.
It's great that the US government spends so much money on the healthcare of it's citizens but, again, this was not well thought out, very gameable, and we aren't healthier for it physically or financially.
So your personal behavior guy is Trump?
No I think he's an awful person. Just like every other politician.
He’s just as awful as Mitt Romney or Laura Kelly? Someone I don’t think you actually believe that.
I don't know who Laura Kelly is. My statement that every politician is an awful person is a generalization for which there are always exceptions. Mitt Romney seems like a nice guy that is completely wooden and, quite honestly, a Mormon which makes him totally insane in my eyes.
Anyways...Trump derangement syndrome is worse than Trump himself. No one can make the specific case against him other than his "ick" factor. Relative to the vast majority other politicians he's the exact same and just as despicable.
“ No one can make the specific case against him other than his "ick" factor. ”
Seriously?
Also Laura Kelly is the democratic governor of Kansas.
Yes...seriously.
Now do Biden on immigration!
“But in most cases, you would not hire someone for a job if he had no idea what he was talking about.”
This fits Biden better than it fits Trump. Accolades to neither, but c’mon.
Yet another reason to vote for trump. My dreams of being a Han Solo esc smuggler might finally come true.
Trump is bad. Agreed.
Biden's policies are better? Most of the time nope not really.
In particular you call out the Iran policy, but Trump was right, Biden wrong on that one. Obama never should have put into place the Iran deal. And Biden shouldn't be trying to restart it. A full pressure campaign that requires Iran to NEVER get a nuclear weapon is the only acceptable policy.
Afghanistan Trump was wrong to put that deal in place, and Biden was wrong to follow through with it. And even more wrong in how it was carried out. I would strongly argue that the war in Ukraine is because of Biden's withdrawal.
Moreover, was additional deficits under Trump really good? Except for the COVID emergency package probably not. Deficits matter. As we are all going to learn REALLY soon. And definitely Biden and Co screwed up. They should have pivoted as soon as they started to see all the inflation. But they STILL haven't stopped spending even after several years of it.
This post seems to have a bit of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's not very good. I'll focus on one topic I know well: the nuclear deal with Iran.
First, the most important part was supposed to expire in 2025, so why praise it in June 2024? The issue was that Iran refused to extend it beyond that.
Second, Biden didn't have to stop enforcing oil sanctions on Iran without getting anything in return. He naively believed you can get good results from bad people with goodwill gestures. In contrast, Trump killed Qasem Soleimani. That's the difference between them. Trump may be a worse person, but he understands America's enemies better.
Trump's decisions on Afghanistan were even worse than Matt writes. The Feb. 2020 deal he negotiated with the Taliban called for a complete American withdrawal by May 1, 2021. Had Biden been forced to stick with that deadline rather than being able to extend it to Aug. 31, that would have required his team to do *everything* in just over three months from taking office, like when they were still trying to find their desks and where the restrooms were.
Of course, Trump couldn't conceive of not winning reelection but, as Matt writes, being a narcissistic sociopath doesn't earn you a mulligan. We expect our Presidents to pursue good policy, including for when they're no longer in office.
really solid, clear, read.
Who is the audience for this column?