What Does Populism Mean?

There’s this word, populism, that keeps showing up. Here’s a basic definition from an online dictionary:

Populism: A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.

The word doesn’t show up in my 1980s dictionary, although Populist shows up as the name of a US political party from 1891-1904. It’s also not in the 1820s dictionary. I did some minimal research online, and definitions and examples are all over the place.

Super lawyer Robert Barnes uses the term freely to describe Donald Trump, along with others in such a category (including VP candidate J. D. Vance). I’ve noticed some anti-establishment leaders around the world, although I hadn’t attached the word to them. These would be Bolsonaro in Brazil, the entire Brexit movement (I thought Boris Johnson might be one, but he caved during COVID), a couple of Latin American leaders—Bukele in El Salvador and Milei in Argentina. There’s Meloni in Italy, and possibly Orban in Hungary. These do not necessarily represent “populist” parties in various countries, although they can. But populism seems to be more about the individual leaders than any party.

Examples are of bold, charismatic leaders, who are by definition popular. That is, the people like them, prefer them, vote for them. They are, then, democratic, in that the will of the people expresses its favor toward them. They are not installed or foisted upon the people by some behind-the-scenes cabal, or even by rising in any existing party or faction. In fact, these populist leaders seem to rise up in opposition to the powers that be. But they are not simply popular people; they are popular for what they are trying to do.

Oddly, some of the online definitions refer to them as typically authoritarian. Here’s this from a Britannica article:

In its contemporary understanding, however, populism is most often associated with an authoritarian form of politics. Populist politics, following this definition, revolve around charismatic leaders who appeal to and claim to embody the will of the people in order to consolidate their own power.

The article later lists some examples: Juan Perón (Argentina), Getúlio Vargas (Brazil), and Hugo Chavez (Venezuela). In that same paragraph it adds Donald Trump:

In the United States, according to some historians and political scholars, the administration of Republican Pres. Donald Trump (2017–21) also displayed some aspects of authoritarian populism. Among them were conspiracy mongering, racism toward African Americans and nonwhite immigrants, distrust of democratic institutions among Trump’s core supporters, and the subservient position of the national Republican Party. Perhaps the most powerful indicator of the existence of authoritarian populism under Trump was his incitement of a mob of his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election (see United States Capitol attack of 2021).

Except, at last count, every conspiracy theory attached to us Trump supporters (and anyone else who didn’t support the administrative state’s controlled narrative) has turned out to be conspiracy fact. Every example of racism was invented without actual examples—because such examples don’t exist. I’ll grant you distrust of various democratic institutions—which have given us plenty of reason to distrust them. Finally, we know that Trump did not incite a mob; the vast majority of people at the capitol on January 6, 2021, were asking for a fair look at the widespread evidence of fraud in the 2020 election, but the rioters stopped them from getting what they were asking for; and we now know the mob was infiltrated with literally hundreds of government assets. Hmm. Trump had offered National Guard and greater security simply based on the large numbers expected; Pelosi and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser refused the offer.

In short, their attempts to attach the authoritarian label to Trump—after a 4-year term in which he was for less government regulation, greater economic freedom, less foreign entanglement, etc.—is another example of their doing what they accuse their opposition of doing.

A recent example offered by the Webster’s online dictionary shows this quote from an article in Source Journal last week:

The populist positioning pitted Harris against monopolistic conglomerates, firmly entrenching her on the side of average businesses and consumers. “I believe competition is the life blood of our economy, more competition means lower prices for you and your families,” she said.

It appears the Harris campaign is “positioning” her as a “populist” to make her seem like a champion of the little people. Except, while she is authoritarian (see example here), she is—or was, until her campaign invented a suddenly “popular” version of her—vastly unpopular. It was as if she were chosen as VP as insurance that Biden would be left in to avoid having her take over. And, no, she is not in any way on the side of consumers. I think she would be hard-pressed to summon up even the most basic vocabulary for sane economic policy. She thinks taxing us on our “unrealized gains” is a good idea.

[I’m not fully going down that rabbit hole today, but here’s a good metaphor to explain her proposal, from Tom Woods’ daily email August 28:

Here's what it means (mathematical example shared with me by a friend):

(1)   January 2020, you buy 100 shares of Zoom stock at $75 per share.

(2)   That stock ends the year at $350, which means you made a gain of $27,500. But it's an unrealized gain, because you didn't sell the stock. You still have it.

(3)   Kamala would tax you 75% on that $27,500 that you don't actually have.

(4)   Since you don't have the cash to pay it (you never sold the stock, remember, so you never actually experienced this "gain"), you withdraw from your savings.

(5)   You hold the stock until August 2024, when it's only $60 a share.

(6)   You decide to sell because this is the most you think you'll ever get for the stock. You sell at a loss (remember, you bought it at $75) at $60.

(7)   Oh, and those taxes on your "unrealized capital gain"? Well, you ended up with a loss, not a gain, but Kamala keeps your money anyway.]

In short, if you want to understand actual populism today, you can’t go to the standard sources; you’ve got to ferret out the meaning yourself.

So, am I a supporter of populism—as Robert Barnes says he is? I am not. I am a skeptic. Maybe that’s a leftover suspicion of popularity from long-ago high school. Popular often meant inauthentic, unkind, and prejudicially disdainful. But, granted, popular can also mean something good, something or someone that a majority of people have discovered and express their approval of. You can’t dismiss the choices of the masses out of hand. But you also don’t have to accept them.

found on Facebook stories

One of the things about the populous is that it is susceptible to manipulation by the media. That’s what makes pure democracy so dangerous.

In our time, the current populists, particularly Trump, seem aligned with my values: I’m a constitutional conservative. That is, I want the US Constitution conserved, and its laws and principles applied as intended—as far as we can ascertain what was intended; there’s a lot of historical writings to inform us on that (The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, writings by the founders, notes from the Constitutional Convention, etc.)

That’s the standard I use for any candidate. I’ve pretty much discarded all Democrat candidates, because they do not believe in limited government, and their interference makes things worse. [While I would not have wanted RFK Jr as my president, I do see him as anti-establishment old-time Democrat, and he has, I think, integrity. We can work with such a person.] Beyond that, the current Democrat Party is unlike the sane but wrongheaded party of some decades ago, which claimed to be for working people, etc. Now they are something of a death cult, with control over the media to lie to the public to cover their real motives, which you can discern by listening carefully to what they say and what they try to do.

I haven’t written off the Republican Party as a whole. At the top, I don’t have much use for them. But at the state and local level, here in Texas, it looks to me like a majority of those active in the party support constitutional conservative principles—and we’re all about spreading that wherever we can.

So, if a populist candidate comes around—if they’re Democrat, assume they are authoritarians, since that is the standard in that party. But if they are Republican, you may have to test them somewhat deeper.

image posted by Tom Glass on Facebook

Back in 2015-16, Trump was saying things I agreed with. But I didn’t believe him. It took a couple of years of him actually abiding by the Constitution—better than I’d seen done since Reagan—and doing it under great pressure, that I finally realized he wasn’t what he’d been portrayed to be. He still may be a very rough stone, but I believe he is someone God can use for the good of our nation, and the world.

There are test questions, if you can get a chance to ask them of candidates, which I’ve shared before (2013 and 2021). But, here we are in another election season, so they might be worth repeating. These come from the Spherical Model idea that you can differentiate between freedom and tyranny in the political sphere, between prosperity and poverty in the economic sphere, and between civilization and savagery in the social sphere. I recognize some limitations to this list: you’ll hardly ever get to ask them of a national candidate, where the US Constitution is the law they need to be limited by. Maybe you’ll get lucky and ask them of a congressional candidate. But the questions will still help you get to know the mind of a more local candidate. And maybe, by listening closely to debates, press conference, and stump speeches, you might get some of these answered even by a presidential candidate. I haven’t provided the “right” answers here. Some may not have a right answer. Some definitely have a range of better answers than others. If you’re actually a constitutional conservative, you can probably imagine what those might be, so I’ll leave you to it. Or, you might want to check out the Spherical Model website and read the rather long articles there on the three spheres.

The political, economic, and social spheres of the Spherical Model

Political Sphere

·        What do you believe is the proper role of government, and what are the limits?

·        Do you have favorite portions of the US Constitution, and/or any portions that you think ought to be changed, clarified, or improved?

·        When the US Supreme Court makes a ruling that you believe is at odds with the Constitution, what do you think the executive and/or legislative branches should do in response to the ruling?

·        What do you believe is the proper balance between public safety and individual freedom, and what do you believe government needs to do to reach that balance?

·        Who are your favorite examples of a good president—since 1900—and what about them do you admire?

·        How do you define extremists, and what views do you think are examples of extreme?

 Economic Sphere

·        What do you believe is the optimum percentage of GNP that should be taken in taxes?

·        What do you believe is the government’s role in contributing to economic health? For example, if there is a sudden recession (as we were hit with in 2008), how should government react?

·        What do you believe is government’s role in the distribution of income when there’s a wide discrepancy between the poor and the wealthy?

·        What do you believe should be government’s role in charitable help to the poor and suffering?

·        What do you believe are the purposes and limits of the commerce clause of the Constitution?

·        What do you believe is the role of the Federal Reserve, and how/whether it is benefiting the economy?

Civilization Sphere 

·        What do you believe about the connection between moral values and the law?

·        Which institution is most responsible for raising a generation that will benefit society, and why: schools, government, churches, nonprofit organizations, sports teams, families?

·        Which constituency’s desires is public education best accountable to, and why: US government, state government, local government, teachers, students, parents/taxpayers?

·        What do you believe should be government’s role in homeschooling, private schools, charter schools, and school choice?

·        What do you think is government’s role in defining marriage, and why? 

 

The original list (2013) included some issue-related questions. And in December 2021 I added some new questions. Let’s see if they’re still relevant (the subpoints are my current comments):

Specific Issue Questions

·        What are your feelings concerning Obamacare, and what do you think should be done?

o   I still think it’s wrong. As with just about any program that gets passed, it’s very hard to untangle and extricate ourselves afterward. No one is talking about it this year. But we do have Kamala Harris blathering about taking away private insurance from everyone—calling it Medicare for all, although she sometimes hides from that policy statement.

·        What do you believe are the motivations of people who support traditional (man/woman) marriage and family?

o   The woke agenda is receiving a lot of pushback from people who are sick of the LGBTQ agenda being shoved down our throats. But the fight against gay marriage is pretty much lost. Now it’s a matter of keeping our children safe from the indoctrination.

·        What are your beliefs about border security and immigration?

o   This is still a huge issue. Suddenly Harris, the border czar who has done nothing but facilitate illegal entry is talking about closing the border as soon as she’s elected.

·        What do you believe is the proper role of government concerning climate?

o   This is still an issue for Dems, but it’s not gaining traction among conservatives, who view the draconian rules as more about control than climate.

·        What do you see as the US role in the world, and what is your view of the UN?

o   Warmongering Dems and Republicans are on the opposite side from the populists on this issue. Trump didn’t start any wars and got us out of some. Biden/Harris are ready to give our entire military budget to Ukraine, and they are not exactly dedicated to Israel nor exactly against violent Palestinians.

·        What are your opinions on national debt, national deficit, tax increases and/or cuts, and national budget?

o   If we could just get back to some free market principles, that would be nice.

 

New Questions This Year (end of 2021, going into 2022 primary)

·        It is likely that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade this year. How do you see Texas and the United States moving forward on this issue?

o   Something actually got done! Now it’s an issue for the states. The Dems keep claiming Trump will do more, but he has not indicated any intention of doing more at a national level.

·        In the Declaration of Independence, we dissolved political bands, not for “light and transient causes,” but for a “long train of abuses and usurpations.” Assuming that restoring and preserving our Constitution is the goal, could there be a catalyst for dissolving political bands, intended to be indivisible, and returning Texas to an independent nation? What would trigger such an action after the long train of abuses and usurpations we’re already seeing?

o   This is a Texit question. I still personally wonder what the catalyst might be. If we get through this election with a peaceful transfer of power, then maybe we won’t need to face it anytime soon.

·        One of the actual responsibilities of the federal government is protection of our national borders. When the federal government fails in that duty, what should our state do to protect our sovereignty?

o   This is another pertinent question for Texas leaders.

·        When the government deprives a person of property, such as a business, as it did during the pandemic shutdowns, what is the government’s obligation to restore that property to those who were deprived of it?

o   I’m still waiting for an answer—while the Biden/Harris administration is giving housing, income, and education to illegals. They just got shut down from using our taxes to pay off college loans (buy votes).

·        Is there anything that can/should be done about election law crimes of the past election? And what do you see as the way to restore election integrity going forward?

o   The Republicans are still concerned, with good reason. In Harris County, one judicial candidate won a lawsuit, and the judge is requiring a new election for that race; we haven’t heard when that will be. The term is now half over. And nothing was done about the other 23 or so cases from that election.

·        While conservatives generally support freedom for business, what can/should we do when large monopolies censor certain points of view on their platforms, or companies make requirements for employment or attendance based on private health decisions?

o   This is gaining in importance as the evidence of censorship and other social engineering by companies comes to the surface—along with the pressure from government on those companies.

 

 

 

Bonus Questions

Harris and Walz, image found here,
photo credit to Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Thursday night, while I was writing this, was the first interview with candidate Kamala Harris, who brought along her VP choice, Tim Walz. I won’t review that here. But in preparation, Breitbart offered “31 Questions Dana Bash Should Ask Kamala Harris, Walz in First Interview,” in categories such as the economy, immigration, freedom, foreign policy, and questions for Walz. Here’s a sampling:

17. Your party has claimed the mantle of “defending democracy,” but you were appointed as your party’s nominee despite never having received any vote as a presidential candidate in any primary. In what way did your nomination process reflect democracy?

22. Is there a fixed limit in your mind of how many U.S. taxpayer dollars should go to Ukraine, or is your sentiment “as many tax dollars as it takes?”

(for Walz) 29. You ran a hotline for Minnesotans to report their neighbors who violated your lockdown orders during the coronavirus pandemic. How is that compatible with your mantra of “Mind your own damn business?”

My guess is that Breitbart will not be tapped to host a debate or do an interview, as entertaining as that might be.

Less entertaining, but possibly effective, there’s another list, this one from Daily Mail, of 25 “Questions CNN’s Dana Bash SHOULD Ask Kamala Harris in First Interview.”   The first question is:

1.     Were you the 'last person in the room' with President Joe Biden as he prepared to enact his evacuation plan in Afghanistan, and did you voice any concerns about his strategy?

 

National Review also offered a list of questions that won’t be asked but should be, here. 

 

Ah, if only we didn’t have to invent the questions and the answers. If only real journalists could get near the candidates, as you would possibly see in a populist-led constitutional republic.

 

Irony Is Lost on Some People

While visiting grandkids a few months ago, my grandson asked, “What does irony mean?” It’s a little challenging to define simply. My old dictionary gives a couple of apt definitions, one verbal, one situational:

1.        A method of humorous or subtly sarcastic expression in which the intended meaning of the words used is the direct opposite of their usual sense.

2.        A combination of circumstances or a result that is the opposite of what is or might be expected or considered appropriate.

It’s better understood with examples—until you feel the sense of it. It’s like catching the meaning of a joke. You just get it.

The political world is giving us myriad examples right now.

I am not spending a lot of time watching the DNC convention. But I have come across the occasional clip, which, unfortunately, has confirmed my decision not to watch. We live in different worlds, with apparently different realities and truths. Ours is the one that relates to the real world. Theirs is something else, but it’s not truth or reality.

Mallory McMorrow

There was a clip I saw of a woman I do not recognize—she is Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow—scaring us with this: 

Donald Trump would be able to weaponize the Department of Justice to go after his political opponents. He could even turn the FBI into his own personal police force. That is not how it works in America. That's how it works in dictatorships.

Mallory McMorrow speaks at the DNC Convention,
screenshot from here

This was said with self-righteous indignation, without the least sense of irony. She seems to be living in a world in which the current administration has not weaponized the DOJ to go after Trump, its main political opponent, with lawfare galore. She seems unaware of the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, to settle a dispute between the US Archives and the former president’s right to possess his own documents.

She seems unaware that New York prosecutors trumped up (pun, but it’s still the appropriate word) charges of false business dealings—for getting loans based on something near to the worth of Mar-a-Lago, in which banks did their due diligence, gave loans, received payment with interest in full, and were willing to do business again, but somehow that is worth prosecuting a former president—if you’re a Democrat.

There are multiple others. And we might add that the Democrats twice impeached Trump, once even after he was out of office, without ever producing evidence of wrongdoing.

And we might also add that the secret service failed spectacularly to protect President Trump from an assassin’s bullet, which we can thank God only tore through his ear.

And the weaponization isn’t just against Trump; it’s against all his followers, who are declared domestic terrorists. The purpose of calling J6 an insurrection was to amplify the accusation against people who had no weapons and were asking for justice to be done at their nation’s capitol—the people’s house. Some of these “domestic terrorists” have been kept in jail for years, some without charges, or without hearings, certainly without their constitutional rights—because this administration found it useful to weaponize the DOJ against them.

Tim Walz

This was in contrast to the actual riots of 2020—notably in Minnesota, where Tim Walz was governor and refusing to deal with the looters and violent rioters. As a leader, he was an abject failure during that time.

And it was not to avoid being overly authoritarian, because that same year he imposed lockdowns, kept schools closed, and encouraged neighbors to report on neighbors who weren’t wearing masks or were interacting in public. ‘Cause that’s “how it works” in a Harris/Walz America.

Tim Walz gives acceptance speech at DNC Convention, image from here

I wasn’t acquainted with this man before a week or so ago, when he got chosen for the unelected Democrat ticket. But it hasn’t taken long to know all I need to.

Tim Walz lies:

·        Military record—stolen valor. He served in the National Guard. He was deployed to Italy once, in the war on terror, but did not fight in combat, although he has implied that he did. He was promoted to the rank of Command Sergeant Major, but that was contingent on training and follow through for qualification. He resigned before doing those things—just before his company was to be deployed, which he avoided. As a result, his retirement rank demoted him back to Master Sergeant. He has nevertheless claimed, multiple times in public, that he is a retired Command Sergeant Major. 

·        Drunk driving arrest. His story of the event differs from reality.  He was cited for driving 96 mph in a 55-mph zone. He claims he wasn’t drunk; there was just a misunderstanding because of a hearing problem he has since dealt with. Except, he was driving under the influence, and that’s more than 40 mph over the speed limit. He didn’t “hear” how fast he was going? This was in 1995, a long time ago, and as far as I know he doesn’t have another DUI arrest. Why not just say, “Yeah, that was dumb. I'm lucky I didn't hurt someone. I’ve made sure never to do that again”? He doesn’t own up to the mistake; he lies.

·        He has several lies surrounding the abortion issue.

o   The underlying accusation is that Trump is going to impose a blanket abortion ban on all the states—even though Trump accomplished returning the issue to the states by appointing Supreme Court justices who reversed Roe v. Wade, and he has no further stance than to allow the issue to remain with the states. The only way a ban could be accomplished would be by a decision to grant full life rights to embryos, and then imposing protections on that life, probably through a constitutional amendment process. Trump has no such plans or intentions.

o   The second accusation is that Trump intends to ban IVF (in vitro fertilization). Walz claims a personal stake here, in that he and his wife conceived their two children via IVF. That is not true. They used artificial insemination. The critical difference is that artificial insemination does not produce any embryos (fertilized eggs) outside the womb, which are subject to disposal of potential human life. Artificial insemination simply implants the semen within the woman, where the zygote is then formed and implanted in the uterus in the usual way. Pro-life groups do not find this controversial, as some do for IVF for its disposal of the extras. Trump doesn’t find either one problematic and is supportive of both. So Walz’s lie is doubly false.

o   The third accusation is that Trump will ban contraceptives nationwide. This is simply fearmongering. No one is crusading for any such policy, least of all Trump.

o   Let’s add here a detail about the DNC’s supposed care about women’s reproductive care. They have free abortions and vasectomies just outside the convention center. I gather this is in a mobile medical van or something. This is just more evidence that what they want to do is prevent reproduction, not protect the any right to reproduce, which certainly isn’t being curtailed. Add to this their support for euthanasia, and you might as well just admit the DNC is a death cult.

There were other ironic liars at the DNC convention.

Michelle Obama

Michelle Obama, in support of the idea of—something, not seeking wealth?—tells that her parents were suspicious of anyone who took more than they needed. That’s not took more than they had earned; it’s more than they needed. So, it’s ironic that she’s totally fine with their multi-million-dollar estate on Martha’s Vineyard, plus extravagant homes in Hawaii, DC, and Chicago. This is all from money they received, magically, on the accumulation of two years of Barack Obama’s Senator’s salary (currently $174,000/year; it was a bit less when Obama was a Senator) followed by eight years as president ($400,000/year), followed by seven years of a presidential retirement ($ unspecified, but mostly related to office space). Somehow getting $750,000 for giving a speech is not only not too much to earn; it’s not more than they need. But you, the American people, need much less, and they’ll decide what that amount is. And, by the way, if you’re not working, you’ll need more than if you’re working and earning, so you working and earning people will be supplying your excess to the nonworking. So, if that incentivizes you not to work, maybe someone ought to take that into account.

Michelle Obama speaks at the DNC Convention,
image found on Facebook

Here's a bonus MO meme:

Michelle Obama doesn't think four multi-million-dollar
mansions are more than they need, but you might
need to give up some of what you have.
Meme from Facebook.

Joe Biden

Biden was another liar. He brought up the long-used and long-debunked lies about Trump praising white supremacists—when we have the full recording and have produced it over and over, so we know what he really said, and Trump wasn’t unclear. They just lie.

And there was the one about saying soldiers were losers, which was debunked by all who were present when such a thing was supposedly said. It’s just another lie—and obviously out of character and not believable for anyone familiar with Trump.

You’d think, if he were, as they keep saying, “literally Hitler,” they could come up with something bad he’s actually done or said, instead of having to make up lies.

They keep claiming that Trump is literally Hitler, despite his successful four years in office with less authoritarianism than the previous administration—and certainly a lot less than the current one. Those Trump years were the good old days. The economy was even recovering from the COVID shutdown by the election, but that went south again quickly when Biden took office. And he didn’t even prosecute Hillary, despite the calls to “lock her up,” which would have been for good legal reasons, rather than lawfare.

Viva Frei, Canadian law vlogger, now moved to Florida to escape the Trudeau tyranny, happened to notice what gestures look like when you have the sound turned off. He happened to do that during Biden’s speech. It reminded him of something; what was it? Oh, yeah, literally Hitler. He put brief clips of them side by side. There’s definitely a resemblance in the nonverbals. (The clip comes up here.) 

Viva Frei notices similar nonverbals in these two speeches,
screenshot from here

Meme makers can apparently sense irony, which helps us laugh through some hard times. Here’s a response to the “joy” campaign slogan that makes no sense from these people:

image found on Facebook

 

Additional Ironies

They claim Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, but they are the party that manipulated Bernie Sanders out of the race in 2016, placed Joe Biden on the ticket against all odds in 2020, insisted that questioning the election was a crime (which they had of course done multiple times, notably in 2000 and 2016). These are the people who refused to allow a primary—even though they knew Joe Biden was suffering dementia and had no possibility of continuing for another four years. They kicked RFK Jr out of the party, and they’ve worked tirelessly to keep him off the ballot in many states. [As I write, there is news that RFK Jr has dropped out of the race and is endorsing Trump. I have friends who called this weeks ago, but I didn’t see it until this week.]

Then they reveal to the world, in a debate that looks like a setup, that Joe Biden is mentally incapacitated. Then, when an assassin’s bullet fails to kill off their opponent, they stage a coup and oust Joe Biden from the ticket (continuing to pretend he’s running the country) and coronate VP Kamala Harris without a single vote being cast for her. That’s their vaunted democracy—which they claim Trump would destroy. Ah, the irony.

meme found on Facebook

They claim that walls don’t work and IDs are discriminatory—but those are the very things they use to allow admittance to the DNC Convention.

Oh, and they call for defunding the police, but they hired extra police to protect them at their event. I’m not complaining; I don’t want violence to break out. I’m just pointing out the irony.

 

Kamala Harris has plans for day one. Um, she’s 3 ½ years beyond day one; what is she waiting for? This includes plans to secure the border, ironically.

image of Kamala Harris found on Facebook

Among her scarce policy proposals are these:

·        Raise corporate taxes from 21% to 28% (China’s corporate taxes are 15%-20%)

·        Raise capital gains/dividends taxes to 44.6% (China’s rate is 20%)

·        Impose a 25% tax on unrealized gains—that is, make a person pay for what they would owe if they sold capital even though they’re not selling it; in other words, they would be forced to sell the capital in order to afford to own the capital. And, if such a tax were paid and the capital goes down in value before the sale, they owners were taxed on money they never had; it’s not like the government would reimburse their tax payment. That would pretty much put an end to capital investment.

·        Impose price controls, she says to stop price gauging—yes, that’s what she said, instead of gouging, I guess. All economists (and all who have taken Econ 101) know that price controls lead to shortages and black markets.

·        Confiscate patents (OK, this was what she said during her extremely unpopular 2019 campaign, so we can assume she knows better now, right?) 

Trump tweeted this:

 The New York Post noticed the communism in her economic plan as well.

image found here

This next bit was pre-convention, but there were some “meet the people” moments at a Harris/Walz campaign stop that show the reality. There was a restaurant in, I think, Pennsylvania. They arranged for a private party at 4:00 PM. At 3:30 PM the restaurant closed down for their current patrons and escorted them out—even though they were watching sports on TV and had come there on purpose to do so. But, private parties happen. Oh well. Except, then there were busloads of “regular people” actors to fill the restaurant. And somewhere around 5:30 the Harris/Walz vehicle arrives and steps in to do their “meet the people” moment. They would have gotten away with this—except, the people that got ousted let people know what really happened. Not caring what the real people experience is what we’ve come to expect from Harris.

There was a second stop, I’m uncertain whether it was before or after the restaurant. The campaign vehicle stops at a Sheetz (I think that’s a gas station with a mini-mart), because Harris just had to have some Doritos. It was on video. It was staged, and stilted. Again, they can’t seem to come off as down-to-earth among the people—because they think of themselves as so elite that they cannot do more than badly imitate real people. They’re like AI writing.

 

OK, that’s more than enough examples. Those of us aware of the ironies pretty much just have to use humor to get through such times without going crazy.