Do Not Turn a Political Defeat Into A Disaster 1


Naked Capitalism has the very important article too subtly titled A Strategic Thought posted on December 21, 2016 by J.D. Alt

Even though the fiscal-austerity position was a political ploy, it is still very much stuck in the thinking and rhetoric of the House and Senate Republicans. If the progressives come out first, and early―before Trump has an opportunity to reframe their allegiance―the Tea-Party politicians, who built their reputations by refusing to increase the federal debt ceiling, will have no choice but to, once again, loudly denounce and denigrate the spending proposals. If that happens, it will be much more difficult for Trump to initiate the secret weapon of every authoritarian populist government around the world: giving direct cash payments, stipends, and rebates to the unemployed and under-employed voters―transforming them into vehemently loyal supporters. (This is precisely what is happening today in Poland.)

This post was preceded by a video posted on New Economic Perspectives and titled Bill Clinton’s Surplus: Not Something to Celebrate.


If people could only learn this principle of economics, we could have an historic opportunity to prevent the Trump presidency from becoming a prelude to a turn toward a disaster that happened in Germany when Adolf Hitler rose to power.

It is enough that we failed to take advantage of a possible historic opportunity when people like Elizabeth Warren failed to endorse Bernie Sanders early enough to change the course of the recent election. So here is a proposal to still snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Unfortunately, I am fairly confident that our country will miss this opportunity, too.


Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

One thought on “Do Not Turn a Political Defeat Into A Disaster

  • SteveG Post author

    If you read just the excerpt I have posted, you might get what I think is a mistaken idea of the value of Alt’s proposal. He is against using the austerity ploy to turn people against needed government spending. I think he is against “giving direct cash payments, stipends, and rebates to the unemployed and under-employed voters―transforming them into vehemently loyal supporters. ” The second part of what he is against is more “transforming them into vehemently loyal supporters” than it is against “giving direct cash payments, stipends, and rebates to the unemployed and under-employed voters”.

    At first, I was tempted to rationalize his second part by thinking that government buying needed investments in the economy was much better than direct payments to people. On second thought, both activities have their place in an overall strategic plan. Actually “transforming them into vehemently loyal supporters” wouldn’t be so bad if it were for the right reasons – having a governing strategy that works for all instead of the few..