Bret Stephens: Happy New Year, Gail. Donald Trump will be president again in a few weeks. Is there news on the horizon that gives you reason to be optimistic?
Gail Collins: Well, Bret, the holiday season is always a great time to get together with friends and family. I’m happy to look back on that. But in terms of the near horizon, I feel that he wants something more … political.
Brett: Either that, or a third season of “Squid Game.”
Gail: Besides, you’re the one who wants to discuss the possibility that Trump II won’t be the hair-pulling disaster we have every reason to expect. So remove it.
Brett: I made a New Year’s resolution to stay positive about Trump II – at least until reality hits me in the face, probably in Jan. 21. So here it is: deep cuts in wasteful government spending; the extension of the 2017 tax cuts; defunding of state-sponsored, unproductive and divisive DEI programs; completely ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions; the release of all Israeli hostages in Gaza and the end of the terror situation of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon; more domestic energy production; a truly secure southern border; the sale of Greenland to the United States – which is not a crazy idea, as long as it is voluntary – and Canada as our 51st country.
Okay, I’m kidding about Canada; I am only asking for the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. But my biggest hope is that the Democrats will face all the ways they failed last year and figure out how to be a competent opposition party. What lessons do you think should be learned?
Gail: We all know that the Key Lesson Learned is that many, many, many Americans are unhappy with the cost of living. Another quick way to improve things would be a tax cut for the middle and working class, combined with a raise for the rich. There’s no way we’re going to give everyone, including billionaires, a cut without increasing deficits.
And the money we save by not cutting taxes on Elon Musk and his friends, in part, could be used to fund programs that help struggling workers – better schools for their children, and quality education for children, saving parents from school. the never-ending problem of balancing work and childcare.
Brett: It’s good to see intellectually intelligent Democrats, like James Carville, publicly admit that all their happy talk last year about the success of Bidenomics wasn’t working with voters fed up with high prices, high rents and high financial costs. There’s as much voter anger about that, as there is anger at the way the Democrats misled the public about Joe Biden’s eligibility for a second – or maybe even a first – term.
Gail: I’m not going to divert us from one of my speeches about the many accomplishments of the Biden presidency, from access to affordable health care to the environment. Tax reform, I must admit, was not among the top 10.
Brett: The Democrats are also seen by many voters, including myself, as the party that brought us the drug problem in Oregon, the endless shoplifting in San Francisco, the crazy people on the New York subways, the millions of illegal immigrants who run into public services from Chicago to Yuma, Ariz., the teachers unions who love to protect their members rather than educating students, and a world that is more frightening today than when Biden took office. A successful Democratic Party is one that, like Bill Clinton in 1992, finds a way to stand for social order and systematic change, not disorder and decay.
Gail: I look forward to arguing with you on almost every point there. But first, I want to ask you about some of this week’s political dramas. How do you feel about Mike Johnson’s survival as speaker of the House? Although I am sure that in the next two years I will cry about Johnson endlessly, but I have to admit that I hated the idea of him being destroyed because he kept the government in charge.
Brett: I completely agree. It’s good to have something approaching order in the House after the antics of 2023. But it would also be surprising to have someone like Tom Massie, the isolationist liberal representative from Kentucky who was the only Republican to vote for Johnson, as the runner-up. He is the most powerful member of the House because he is the most likely to be a swing vote. The more divided and polarized American politics is, the more powerful figures like him become.
Gail: If there is one vote that turns up, the chance of it being a crazy person is very high.
Speaking of crazy – OK, I’ll get back to Trump. Recently there have been some harsh comments about immigrants. When a terrorist from Texas cuts down a crowded street, our future president says – wrongly – that he’s an immigrant. We have a lot of cold winters coming up, and I expect he’s going to blame immigrants for the temperature.
The new bosses will block them, unless they have some special skills that Elon Musk can use in his businesses.
Brett: We’ll have to give the rest of the conversation to Elon. I would just like to point out that I was against Musk before it got cool.
Gail: You and I agree, I think the economy would have a negative impact if there were no immigrants to do the work they do, whether it is a high-paying job or a low-paying job. I recently spoke with a teacher whose school has a leaky roof because the leadership can’t find someone to fix it – without a team of immigrants who have all the necessary skills and enthusiasm.
What will the next administration do? Any predictions on how it will work?
Brett: Immigrants are both a testament to America’s greatness and a large part of what makes America great: It is to our credit that millions of people want to come here; and it is a credit to them that they bring great energy, ambition and imagination to the economy.
But another big part of what makes America great is the law, and it’s unfair that many people ignore it to get here. I am not in favor of deporting more illegal immigrants. But we need to secure the border, know who is in the country, we need them to pay fines as punishment for breaking the law, quickly deport anyone with a criminal record, and create better incentives to encourage screened immigrants to come here legally. Do you disagree?
Gail: We would let anyone come in for the weekend and stay.
I’m kidding. If we had an incoming president who wanted to make the immigration system better, you and I would be ready to argue about sensible ways to tighten the rules. But forgive me for not having hope.
Bret, one big story next week is Jimmy Carter’s funeral. I’m a bit of a fan. What do you think of our former president?
Brett: He must not speak ill of the dead. What made you a fan?
Gail: However, he wasn’t really perfect. But I would say that fighting discrimination as the governor of Georgia and leading on environmental issues like climate change puts him above most other major politicians. And his later years working for world peace earned him a Nobel Prize – and he set a good example for his handiwork to provide housing for the poor.
Brett: Everything is true. He was honest and sincere and lived according to the values of his faith, which is more than can be said by some who would follow him. And, as a bonus for people like me, he deregulated the airlines.
Which reminds me of something very familiar: What do you think about the congestion pricing laws that went into effect in lower Manhattan on Sunday?
Gail: It’s clearly a good idea in principle – make it less expensive for people to drive into Manhattan, and use the revenue to improve mass transit services. Gov. Kathy Hochul, a former backer, shot down the more expensive plan, perhaps to appease Democrats in the suburbs. Now the election is over and common sense can rule.
But I haven’t had a car in years – he’s a driver who lives outside the city. Give me yours.
Brett: To me, it seems like another discussion going on that sounds good in theory – encourage people to use mass transit; reduce smog and road congestion; use the money to fund public infrastructure – but it will be another tax that will fall heavily on working-class people who, for one reason or another, need their cars in Manhattan. Fareed Zakaria had a scathing column last week in The Washington Post pointing out that New York’s state budget is twice that of Florida’s, and taxes are much higher, but it’s hard to argue that New Yorkers are getting more for their tax dollars. Maybe the government should pay less tax and govern better, rather than constantly raising taxes in a way that drives people out of government.
Gail: We need more time to make a true New York vs. Florida. Debate comes to us like leaves falling from palm trees. I’m looking forward.
Brett: Either way, I’ll keep driving into town. I will also continue to urge our readers not to miss the best journalism of the week, which leads me to CJ Chivers’ long, important and spinning report on the Ukrainian battles against the Russian invasion force. In addition to serving as a terrific window into the future of war, it contains some of the best prose I’ve read anywhere in a long time. One example:
Prorok flew a second quadcopter, which carried a severed anti-crew unit salvaged from a Soviet-era cluster bomb. He guided it to the tree line and searched, a mechanical vulture looking for weak men, then slowly guided it under the green canopy of the Ukrainian spring. With the second pass, a slightly injured Russian appeared on the screen. Hearing the drone, he left his peers and bolted. Prorok chased him for about 20 meters, fired several shots, then turned and buried the nose of the drone in the dirt. “I hit two meters away from him with those heavy weapons,” he said. “That’s guaranteed to kill.”
Ernie Pyle and Martha Gellhorn are 21st century peers. Glad you wrote to us.
Source link
