Last week she had a proposal to introduce 'corporate citizenship,' which is a more interesting idea than NRO gave it credit for being. It's not actually dissimilar from Trump's own idea that corporations like Harley Davidson should show special loyalty to America. The details need to be worked out, but it sounds like a point of commonality -- at least potentially.
This week she has a proposed lifetime ban on lobbying by high Federal officials, as well as other reforms. Again, not a terrible idea in principle; details need work, but in principle it's bold but not outrageous. Also, again, similar to Trump: "Drain the Swamp!"
Sadly, there will be no compromises nor useful discussions between these camps. They are intent on running against each other, not working together. But maybe these ideas will get sharpened against each other in the 2020 race, and leave the winner with a mandate to do something on them.
6 comments:
There may be something in the 'US Corporate Citizenship' idea, but there are also traps, which the advocates don't mostly seem to comprehend.
There are very few products made by US corporations for which there are not competitive products made by non-US companies. If the US corporations are under certain constraints which raise their costs significantly, then their products will carry a cost penalty relative to those made by non-US companies that are not under these constraints. Yet I've frequently heard the argument made that 'American companies should be stopped from offshoring production and jobs.' It should be obvious that this can work in practice *only* if it is coupled with some form of significant tariffs.
Sadly, there will be no compromises nor useful discussions between these camps. They are intent on running against each other, not working together.
It's not that symmetrical. Trump has had the Senate (and, I think, House) Progressive-Democrats over to discuss various matters on which the two parties could have worked together. He even reached a tentative agreement on immigration with Schumer until Schumer walked away from it.
The Progressive-Democrats in the Senate came out against Trump's nomination for the Supreme Court even before Trump had said Kavanaugh was his nominee, and after that nomination even more Progressive-Democrats said they wouldn't vote for him even without reading his record.
House Progressive-Democrats refuse to discuss potentially bipartisan issues with Republicans, even though Republicans are willing (not 100% willing, true).
It takes two to discuss, two to work together. Progressive-Democrats are willing only for monologues and diktats.
Besides, with the soul of the Progressive-Democratic Party being the likes of Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Elizabeth Warren, and the heart of the Party being Andrew Cuomo, all of whom want to destroy America (though that's not their claim)--how do you discuss, how do you work with, your enemy?
Eric Hines
I hate to say it, and I don't mean it, but the thought of 9mm words comes to mind.
I mean, it may work just as I suggested: they won't cooperate because they intend to run against each other, but they'll debate the ideas in 2020. During the course of the debate, the ideas are likely to converge somewhat as each tries to capture the parts of the other's version that is winning voters. After the election, the winner has a mandate to do these things in some form that lies between the two ideas as they stand today.
It's messy, and it's not bipartisan, but it's functional.
Trump originally ran on high taxes for the superrich and greatly reduced immigration - which was exactly what Bernie Sanders was running on. Both moved.
Well, OK, but on the other hand Trump picked up 'drain the swamp' late, right at the end of his campaign. If he doesn't follow through on it, the swamp will eat him yet. But if he does, it might do both him and the nation a great deal of good.
Warren bothers me because she spent most of her life being a fraud. It's hard for me to think that someone who got to her late adulthood that way is going to straighten out and fly right. But things like that do happen, if rarely; and these ideas, including her version of 'drain the swamp,' are not silly.
Post a Comment