We set out to fill an important lacunae in the research on comparative presidentialism, to systematically consider how presidents’ direct public appeals serve as one resource among many that presidents may use to advance their policy agendas.
By looking at trade from a multidimensional perspective, we can better understand why President Trump has taken the trade positions he has and where those policies fit on the ideological spectrum. It also makes clear that trade policy is more complicated politically than often imagined, since we can’t just talk about free traders vs. protectionists, but must also consider fair traders—who are neither—and different types of protectionists.
Ultimately, today’s political agenda is largely lacking in genuine policy substance—it is almost entirely focused on the character of the President and his fitness for office. This is troubling in light of the very real problems our country faces.
Florida lawmakers did not boost their incomes while in office. Serving as chamber or party leader, or holding a seat on a prestigious committee, did not change income. In fact, being appointed to the Rules Committee — a stepping stone to become a future House leader — reduced income.
Coalitions, particularly ones where diverse groups don’t have a lot in common, are difficult to sustain. Sure, these groups are currently united in their general hostility toward racial and ethnic minorities- and their right to share their concerns over an increasingly diverse country. But, as with other movements, these groups will find that more divides them then binds them together. Factions will rise and the loose coalition of groups will fall.
To Red Pill users, Hillary Clinton would supposedly wage a “war on men,” so who better to stop this war than a man who bragged about the size of his genitalia during a political debate? When forum leaders cast Hillary as a dire threat to the Red Pill community, users responded by rallying around her enemy, casting aside years of reticence to participate in the political system.
All that said, it’s difficult to know whether we will be worse off on average if Congress eliminates the current 401(k) tax benefit, since any cost-benefit analysis depends on largely unknown future tax rates. Moreover, this is just a small part of a broader plan we haven’t seen yet, and so it’s best to withhold judgement until we can make a fair comparison between a final plan and current tax policy.