Pun Salad

Mr. Ramirez makes a good point. New Hampshire is getting the point too. A recent story in NHJournal: Sununu Signs Law Ending Voting Without ID. Governor Sununu seemed wobbly on the issue a few months ago, but came around. And some people…

BREAKING: NH Governor Sheds His Moderate-GOP Sheepskin and Reveals Himself As Another MAGA Wolf, Signing Voter Suppression Bill; As Lawsuits Get Prepared, Granite State Voters Can Only Respond By Ensuring MAGA Kelly Ayotte Gets Nowhere Near NH Governorship https://t.co/6hlkFtAk1B

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) September 12, 2024

… were not amused. I think Seth had to clean the spittle off his laptop screen after that.

What say we look at the betting odds?

Completely obvious armchair analysis (imagine me stroking my chin): "The bettors seem to think the outcome is close to a coin-flip. Kamala's still a slight favorite, but Trump did some catching up this past week."

Also of note:

• Somebody's been reading their Isaiah Berlin. Robert Tracinski writes perceptively on a word much used and abused: Two Freedoms.

  The Democrats, as improbable as it may seem to some of us, are trying to steal the issue of “freedom” and claim it for themselves. Here is how a Washington Post report describes Kamala Harris’ entry at last month’s Democratic National Convention:

  Harris on Monday took the stage for a surprise appearance to the rousing beat of Beyoncé’s “Freedom,” her campaign’s unofficial anthem. She was preceded onstage by a nearly three-minute hype video set to the same song, with the narrator promising “freedom from control, freedom from extremism and fear.” Together, the night’s speakers referenced “freedom” more than 100 times. And on Wednesday, the convention’s entire program will be dedicated to the theme “A Fight for Our Freedoms.”

  “Freedom” is literally the campaign’s “Message Imperative #1.”

  Consider the Sept. 10 presidential debate. Amid the widespread discussion of Donald Trump’s disastrously undisciplined performance, it was easy to miss something more substantive. A search through the transcript of the debate reveals that Harris used the word “freedom” four times, most of them in these two passages. “I think the American people believe that certain freedoms, in particular the freedom to make decisions about one’s own body, should not be made by the government.” And: “I will be a president that will protect our fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right of a woman to make decisions about her own body and not have her government tell her what to do.”

  How many times did Trump use “freedom”? Zero—and this is typical of his speeches. It’s a shocking reversal from the past 50 years, when Republicans from Ronald Reagan through the Tea Party movement practically trademarked the word.

  A cynic might say that Kamala's "freedom" also includes the government's freedom to take more money from people it doesn't like, and give it to people they do like.

• Pander bears know what works. Noah Rothman has (I think) a forlorn demand: We Must Break the Cycle of Pandering. (Gifted link, my last one for September!)

  America’s two major political parties have a contemptuous view of their voters. Their respective stewards don’t think you’re capable of holding two thoughts in your head at the same time. They believe you are allergic to the concepts of tradeoffs, unintended consequences, and delayed gratification. Populist Republicans congratulate themselves on cracking American democracy’s code by promising the public expensive new services and costly protectionist schemes that shield uncompetitive industries from the ravages of the market, all while reducing the tax burden on the majority of taxpayers. Democrats long ago perfected this irresponsible appeal to the electorate. So, an unquestioned consensus has now formed around the need to promise voters the world on credit.

  What has this gotten the two parties? Parity. Neither party commands the affection of its voters. Each thrives on its constituents’ distaste for the other guys. This formula has failed to expand either party’s coalition, but it’s the only formula they’ve got. Thus, in the effort to cobble together the barest of possible majorities, our presidential aspirants are furiously improvising.

  Donald Trump and his party codify whatever ideas pop into his head on the campaign trail as inviolable tenets of modern Republicanism. No taxes on tips? Sure. Erase the tax liability on overtime wages and Social Security benefits? Why not? Restore the state-and-local tax deduction which he himself repealed? If that’s what it takes. Republican efforts to outbid Democrats haven’t produced results because the GOP is only imitating a tactic its opponents have refined to an art.

  Kamala Harris assumes the voters she needs won’t understand that a $25,000 credit to assist first-time homebuyers will just increase the price of housing. She hopes they are unacquainted with the scarcity and illicit markets encouraged by price-gouging restrictions. We can cap the cost of child care and boost domestic manufacturing through subsidization, she promises.

  That's a long excerpt, and I heartily recommend the rest. Noah's pissed at the candidates, but also at the voting public, which (generally) shows no resentment at being obviously lied to.

  Sneak preview: Katherine Mangu-Ward's editorial in the current issue of Reason is headlined "The Coming Vindication of the Double-Haters"—people who can't stand either candidate. Looks as if it's coming out from behind the paywall on Tuesday, and I'll link to it.

  Vindication of my double-hating will be nice. But also cold comfort.

• Another word-counter. Cato's Tad DeHaven (like me) deploys his browser's control-F functionality: Summarizing Harris’s Policy Book with a Word Count.

  The first word that pops out when looking at the table of contents is “lower,” as in lower costs for Americans, which Harris is promising to do for, well, just about everything. Indeed, “lower” and its related variants like “lowering” show up almost 40 times. I recommend reading my colleague Ryan Bourne’s book, The War on Prices, to understand why one should be wary of politicians pursuing such a seemingly noble cause.

  The big winner is “invest” and variations like “investments,” which clocks in at almost 70 times. Sometimes, grandiose adjectives are added to describe these “investments,” like “historic” or “largest.” When politicians say “invest,” it’s almost always a euphemism for spending more money via taxes and federal debt. Sure enough, that’s the case with Harris’s policy proposals. Other words that politicians euphemistically employ so they don’t have to say “spending” are “support” and “strengthen.” The former (and its variants) clocks in at almost 30 times, the latter more than 20.

  Some words and phrases tellingly don’t make an appearance. Searching for things like “lower spending,” “cutting spending,” and “reduce spending” (and variations of) turns up zero results.

  DeHaven and I didn't search for the same words and phrases, but that's OK.

• Beware of politicians wearing lab coats. Jonah Goldberg looks at Kamala's recent pledge to "engage in what Franklin Roosevelt called 'bold, persistent experimentation'": The Bold and the BS.

  First, let’s discuss this “bold, persistent experimentation” thing. There are few supposedly glorious lines from American civic history that annoy me more than this. It comes from FDR’s Oglethorpe University Commencement Address in 1932. Then-presidential candidate Roosevelt said:

  The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach.

  Now, as political boilerplate amid of a deep and lasting depression, I think this was forgivable campaign rhetoric. The problem is that progressives have made this bold, persistent experimentation thing into a kind of catechism for their governing philosophy. And it’s garbage.

  If a doctor were stumped about why you had a seething pain behind your right eye, I doubt you would be all that reassured if he said, “Huh. I’m out of ideas for what this could be. Let’s try some bold persistent experimentation and see what works. Let me get my drill.”

  The role of government is not to conduct a science experiment with people’s lives and livelihoods. The scientific method is great, but it’s great at science. Like in a lab, with petri dishes full of flan or lab animals. But citizens—and, yeah, taxpayers—aren’t spores or pink-eyed rats.

  I am in wild agreement with Jonah here. His article is Dispatch-paywalled, but an excellent example of why you should subscribe.

  He goes on to note that progressive "experimentation" never seems to test "less government" against "more government". Not to mention: no control groups, no reproducibility efforts, no peer review. I'd say it's what Feynman dubbed Cargo Cult Science, except that it doesn't seem to even meet that low standard.

• Trump continues to remind me not to vote for him. From National Review's recent The Week:

  “It should be illegal, what happens,” said Donald Trump at a Pennsylvania rally. What was happening? People were criticizing the Supreme Court. “These people should be put in jail, the way they talk about our judges and our justices,” said the Republican standard-bearer and former president. This is an extraordinary opinion, in light of our system. Elsewhere, Trump said that if he came up short on Election Day “the Jewish people would have a lot to do with the loss.” This pre-blaming, or scapegoating, is a little jarring. In a particular pitch to women, Trump said, “I am your protector. I want to be your protector. As president, I have to be your protector.” Moreover, “women will be happy, healthy, confident, and free. You will no longer be thinking about abortion.” Meanwhile, Trump has been hawking a new coin, with his image on it—cost: $100—and also hawking a new Trump-family cryptocurrency (World Liberty Financial). This campaign is Republicans’ to lose, and if they lose there will be no mystery about how.

  Yep, still unacceptably awful.

• And in case you missed this… Steven Greenhut notes another bit of obviousness: Trump's and Vance's Attacks on Haitian Immigrants Reveal a Complete Lack of Decency.

  Sen. Joseph McCarthy rose to prominence in the 1950s as he leveled wild allegations about communist infiltration in the U.S. government. Communism was an international threat at the time—and some sympathizers had indeed gained positions of power—but his recklessness turned into a witch hunt that destroyed lives and ultimately undermined the cause he was touting.

  His popularity collapsed precipitously after an exchange during one hearing, where he accused U.S. Army attorney Joseph Welch of having a colleague with communist ties. In one of the most famous—and effective—retorts in political history, Welch said: "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…Have you no sense of decency?"

  The last sentence has become a common retort whenever one's political opponents become unhinged. It's one that sprung to mind as former President Donald Trump and his vice presidential pick, Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio), have continued to repeat baseless claims about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. As Trump said during his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris: "They're eating the dogs, the people that came in, they're eating the cats."

  Have you no decency, sir? Are there no limits to your cruelty or recklessness? Are you unconcerned about the impact of such allegations on the individuals and families who live there—or the resulting bomb threats and disruptions after you spewed such falsehoods? And why has Vance doubled down on this nonsense even after these stories have been debunked?

  I'm not a fan of playing the McCarthy card, but this is one of those rare instances where I'm OK with it. And I think Trump's and Vance's behavior is significantly less decent than Tailgunner Joe's.