Panic over women with careers.

Republicans are rethinking feminism.

Some are speaking out, worried that American men aren't really the "head of household" anymore, and that White American women aren't having babies.

Women are choosing school and a career instead of home-making.  Yikes!

Father Knows Best: Six seasons, 1954-1960

 The overpopulation problem apparently solved itself in the rich, developed world. In modern prosperous countries, women got an education and entered the workforce. Contraception became reliable, available, and inexpensive. Educated women thought of themselves as citizens and full partners in their country's economic life, not primarily as child-bearers and homemakers for a male head-of-the family. Women got liberated.

Jennifer Angelo retired after a long career as an attorney for the U.S. Postal Service. She was surprised to encounter a blunt presentation of a sentiment that is growing quietly within the GOP. JD Vance had voiced it. Christian supporters of Trump are voicing it. Charlie Kirk said it bluntly: women should find a husband. Leadership is for men -- and he said it at a leadership conference for young women. Say, what!?  Jennifer Angelo sent me her reaction.

Angelo: student days

Angelo: recent

Guest Post by Jennifer Angelo.

At the Young Women’s Leadership Summit hosted by conservative group Turning Point USA last week, Turning Point President Charlie Kirk said college was a “scam,” evidently because it costs too much and doesn’t prepare students for employment. During the subsequent Q & A, a fourteen-year-old high school freshman told him she wanted to go to college to become a political journalist and asked him to talk more about the pros and cons of college. Kirk’s response was astonishing. First, he asked how many of the young women there had the “top priority” of getting married and having children. Some number of them raised their hands. Then he said:

Interestingly, I think there is an argument to bring back the MRS. degree. Just be clear that’s why you’re going to college. Don’t lie to yourself like don’t say “I’m studying Sociology or whatever,” we know why you’re there, and that’s OK, that’s a really good reason to go to college, especially an SEC school. You will find a husband if you have the intent to find a husband at Ole Miss, or at University of Alabama or whatever.

And by the way, we should bring back the celebration of the MRS. degree. You think about it, I say college is a scam, but that is a really good reason to go to college. You have a bunch of people that are single, they’re at the prime of, let’s just say, their attractiveness, the dating pool is as robust as you’re going to find, and they all live together over a four year period. You don’t get much better than that, it doesn’t get better after college, and so yeah you could go learn some stuff that’s fine I guess or whatever, just don’t listen to your professors, but that actually was the reason a lot of women went to college in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, and worked, and marriage rates have plummeted since then.

This was Kirk’s answer to a fourteen-year-old at a Women’s Leadership Summit who asked him how college might help her become a political journalist. Think about that. Go to college, pay the massive tuition, and spend the whole time looking around for Mr. Right. Kirk later told the audience that if they weren’t married by 30, their prospects would be grim.

Admittedly, this was a meeting of young women who wanted to talk about living their lives as cultural conservatives, which starts with the premise that a woman is incomplete until she is a wife and mother. But it was also a LEADERSHIP summit. Another participant later challenged Kirk about his views on women and college, arguing that many women meet their husbands through their careers. Kirk finally backed down and admitted that the mission of the summit was “any takeaway you want to have,” a renewed sense of patriotism of “traditional norms and roles,” of “true femininity – not this toxic type.”

Why was Charlie Kirk even a speaker at this conference? He dropped out of community college after a short stay. His only qualification for leading an organization of young conservatives is that he has successfully marketed himself as a spokesman for conservative values. None of his ideas are original, in fact they are retrograde and geared toward recreating 1950s America. And yet, he was condescending and arrogant enough to stand up in front of 3,000 young women at a leadership conference and mansplain that the best reason for them to go to college is to find a husband. Today’s conservative men are so shameless, they aren’t embarrassed to say this stuff. And by the way, his claim that the “MRS” degree was common in the 70s, 80s and 90s is hogwash. It hasn’t been a thing since the 1950s and early 1960s. I went to college in the 70s and finding a husband was the last thing on my mind.

As a feminist – i.e. someone who believes in the equality of men and women – and a retired lawyer who is married and child free by choice, I obviously bristled at Kirk’s advice, which completely dismissed women’s value in the workforce. But from what I have read, the thrust of the summit, even from female presenters, was to sell these young women on marriage and motherhood as the first priority for conservative women. Career comes later, if at all. They expressed pity for single women who were “trying for the corner office.” They threatened a lonely, unfulfilled life for any woman who put her career first during her reproductive years. Yikes!

Sisterhood is powerful, and I do not judge other women’s choices. Nor do I want them to judge mine. No doubt it is hard in 2025 for a woman to choose the right path, when there is so much opportunity. When you add so-called conservative values to the mix, it’s natural that a lot of these young women would choose the “Godly” path and make marriage and motherhood their priority. Many of them don’t want to work outside the home, and I respect that. Really. But I worry about them, just as they worry about the women pursuing successful careers who may miss out on marriage. So I would ask them: Is it possible to live comfortably on one income where you want to live? Are you a natural at homemaking, or all thumbs in the kitchen? Are you confident that at 18 or 20 years old, you will choose the life partner who will truly be for life? Will you be ready to settle down at 23? If you were suddenly single, would you be able to support yourself? If, in the process of getting your MRS. degree, you excelled in your classes, do you have a plan to use your talents outside the home later in life? I hope they’re thinking about these things, and not just about putting dinner on the table for the Charlie Kirks of the world.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

What do Millennials want?

"Don't you understand what I'm tryin' to say?

And can't you feel the fears I'm feelin' today. . . 

And you tell me over and over and over again, my friend

Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction."

      P. F. Sloan, songwriter, sung by Barry McGuire, "Eve of Destruction," 1965

Boomers had their chance. We were warned.

We heard that song in our youths. The laments of the young are the same or worse now. The Eastern world is still explodin'. We can stay for more than four days in space,  but when people return it's the same old place and the same human race, and now its Trump who hates his neighbor but when evangelical Christians and TV cameras are looking on, doesn't forget to say grace.

Rick Millward is a boomer. Most of the people holding political and economic power in this country are boomers, but that is ending. It will be the Millennials' turn to hold the seats of power, but in the meantime their votes were decisive. Millward tells us that they didn't vote for Trump. They voted NO.

Millward is a songwriter, musician, and music producer. He left Nashville and moved to Southern Oregon. He performs primarily in local wine venues.

Millward

Guest Post by Rick Millward 

                            A Millennial’s View.
Botched Election. Israeli Genocide. Inflation. Student Loans. Climate.

I’m in conversation with a 30-something student, a Ph.D. candidate, self-described Progressive, a Millennial who feels, like many younger Americans, deeply disillusioned with Democrats and outright furious at Boomers. While some Democrats default to finger-pointing and blame-shifting, these younger voters reject policy nuance and strategic justifications that led to the rise of Trump and the GOP. To them, it’s not just a tactical failure—it’s a moral one. The Biden nomination was, they say, a betrayal; only Harris’s presence kept them engaged at all.

As we talk, I struggle to respond. My detailed explanations of geopolitical realities sound empty. Pointing out that Republicans are worse isn’t persuasive; they already know, but find the difference negligible. This isn’t youthful idealism. These voters came of age during 9/11, two recessions, COVID, inflation, and now see a system rigged for the wealthy.

They view Republicans as an unstoppable machine wrecking their future, and Democrats as ineffectual, if not complicit. The American Dream feels dead. Issues they care about, especially climate, are met with delay and denial. They see GOP cultural pandering around gender, performative patriotism, and religious posturing as absurd distractions, and they reject the idea that systemic racism is overblown. Their universities are compromised by investments that betray their values, all while trapping them in decades of debt. Many are incensed by U.S. support for Israel, which they equate with endorsing genocide.

Is it any wonder some are voting “against” their own interests? The shift of younger voters, especially Latino and Black men, toward the GOP may be less about alignment and more a protest vote, which in turn makes things worse. Republicans have the money; Progressives have the numbers. But numbers are powerless if disinformation overwhelms them. And conservative efforts to discredit media fuel a toxic online landscape where truth, lies, and fantasy blur.

The best arguments I muster aren’t convincing:
(1) GOP rhetoric aims to demoralize. Resisting it is essential.
(2) Being Progressive, by definition, requires optimism.

We do agree Democrats need a strategy to counter misinformation with facts, loudly and transparently. To win back youth and minority voters, they must stop taking them for granted and fully embrace issues like climate, justice, and inequality.

As we part, I’m left feeling unable to defend Democrats or my generation. The world is complex, and the torrent of disinformation favors simplicity. Still, that same difficult hope, though grim, requires that we try.

Update: Since writing this, youth support for Republicans is dropping. They’re paying attention.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

Trump and King Cyrus

Sometimes bad people do things that work out to be good.

Peace talks may begin between Iran, Israel, and the U.S.

I said may.

Religious medal: Trump and Persian King Cyrus

Let's review the bidding.

1. Israel bombed Iran. Iran bombed Israel. War.

2. The USA was helping Israel with weapons and intelligence, but was theoretically simply a supporter, not a belligerent.

3. The USA threatened Iran and gave it a deadline to negotiate an end to their nuclear program. The deadline passed.

4. President Trump authorized a massive bombardment of three nuclear material processing sites, which took place this weekend Note that these were not civilian targets, notwithstanding Trump's warning to Tehran residents to abandon the city. Trump gave lots of warning that he was considering bombing the sites the U.S. bombed.

5. Iran was furious, of course. They said they needed to retaliate. It was a matter of national pride. Iran told the U.S. that they would retaliate by bombing U.S. military sites in the region. They gave notice. American personnel left. They bombed and noted that they used only as many bombs as the U.S. used.  

In the manner of body-language diplomacy, this was a signal that Iran did not want escalation. This is a minuet: formal, structured communication. They made a face-saving, pre-announced, proportional attack designed not to injure American lives. No Americans died.

6. Trump went on Truth Social to announce a tremendous success:

Maybe things will work out. I am inured to bad news and disappointment, but I am not committed to being unhappy. Quite the opposite. I welcome pleasant surprises.  All wars eventually end, and maybe this is the beginning of the end. We have been fighting Iran for almost 50 years.

Democrats who perceive Trump as a dangerous, disgusting, racist, dishonest, felonious, Constitution-destroying autocrat will find it hard to acknowledge that Trump could possibly do something useful for the world. It would seem especially unlikely that a person so belligerent and bullying could possibly be an agent of peace. I share that opinion of Trump, but I am open to the idea that Trump could be a peacemaker. I have read the history. Theodore Roosevelt -- a president who reveled in war-making and empire -- helped negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese War in 1906 and won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing so.

Trump's character flaws are a tool. He is a narcissist who craves glory and adoration. Barack Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize. Trump has not. Trump has been open about wanting the prize. Trump would sacrifice other interests and would endure some criticism from Israel if leads toward a peace settlement in the region. It would be an achievement. He would be recognized as the hero he considers himself to be. 

Some Trump-supporting Christians acknowledge that Trump represents the opposite of Christian virtues and behaviors. They support him anyway. They cite the Persian King Cyrus, who ruled the area of modern Iran, as a Godless man who nevertheless was anointed by God to serve His purposes. They ignore Trump's dishonest grift, his adultery, his bearing false witness, his selfishness, belligerence, vanity, cruelty, and hostility to the migrant. But he supports Christian triumph. He holds up the Bible in the public square. That is what counts. 

Democrats need to be open to good news. If this works out, Democrats may need to exercise the same mental gymnastics that Trump-supporting Christians do. Democratxs may need to acknowledge he did something good. It could happen. Trump is a profound danger to our republic, but it is not impossible that his unpredictable and bellicose foreign policy bullies everyone toward a peace settlement. Very bad people, in the midst of doing very bad things, can take actions that have good results. Germany has good freeways.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

 

Thrill and dread

Yesterday was the moment of maximum thrill: 

We did it! We solved the Iran problem! We totally demolished the Iran nuclear threat! Trump is decisive and successful! 

Triumphant at Fox

Today America begins to feel twinges of dread. Questions start coming to mind. 

 

Here are mine:

1. Is it possible that no one in the Iranian military thought this attack might be coming and that the Bunker Buster bombs might work? In the face of threats from Israel and Trump, was Iran so negligent that they didn't remove everything from the obvious target? Really?

2. Isn't it likely that these attacks will have the same effect of strengthening Iranian nationalism that the Pearl Harbor and 9-11 attacks had on the U.S., and the October 7, 2023 attack had on Israel? Might this strengthen the hand of nationalist hawks inside Iran?

3. Didn't we just solidify Iran's position as the victim of American projection of strength, and therefore strengthen Iran's connection to North Korea, China, and Russia? North Korea has nuclear bombs. Even if -- IF -- we destroyed Iran's immediate ability to build one, didn't we make it far more likely that they will buy a few of them from North Korea? 

4. Didn't the U.S. just make clear to Iran and the world that the only way to keep a major power from attacking you is to have nuclear bombs yourself? We tolerate North Korea. We leave Pakistan and India alone to fight. They have nuclear bombs. Iran has oil to trade for bombs. Why wouldn't they immediately acquire them at nearly any price? And wouldn't every other country with friendships to China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, or someone else?

5. Why would we think that Iran won't retaliate asymmetrically with disruptive terror? One person with explosives hidden in a shoe has Americans taking off their shoes to board an airplane for two decades. How much cost would Americans need to endure if, from out of nowhere, two or three MAGA Republican Senators or Representatives got assassinated at one of their town halls? Or a conservative Supreme Court justice?  Imagine the scope and cost of new security systems to protect some 600 people from motivated, suicidal assassins. We assassinated their leaders, and thought it a fine idea. Might they feel the same?

Or if what if a couple of shipping containers were armed to explode when they were in New York's Holland Tunnel or Boston's Ted Williams tunnel? Or if a drone dropped anthrax over a crowd of 100,000 at an Ohio State football game? There are lots of ways to spook Americans and force us to endure enormous cost and inconvenience.

6. Trump is now saying that regime change in Iran would be welcome. I agree it would be, if Iran were to move toward a peaceful, tolerant democracy. Did this bomb lead toward that good end, or away from it?

The bombing this weekend changed the story for Trump. Three days ago the story was feckless TACO-Trump, botched immigration, a Big Beautiful Bill that was floundering, tariff chaos, and Trump losing repeatedly in court including decisions by justices appointed by Republicans. Yesterday the story changed. Trump the man-of-action, Mr. Hero, ridding the world of a dangerous Iran. 

That was a one day story.

Beginning today, we start to have questions about how this all plays out. Iran has survived fighting Greeks and Alexander and steppe warriors for millennia. This isn't over until Iran wants it to be over. Maybe they will want that. Did the bombing hasten that day? I question that.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

Easy Sunday: Scenes from the vineyard on the first day of war

Some people think my vineyard posts are a waste of time. 

That may be especially true today, on the first day of a war.

Skip this post.

The news has an ecstatic tone. We did it! We got in the first punch! They are crippled! They will slink off and comply! We have dared them not to retaliate, and we mean it!

Japan must have felt this way the day after the Pearl Harbor attack.

Amid this news, I am retreating for a day into the little problems and quiet joys of my farm. In a complicated, conflicted world, it is good for my peace of mind to deal with little problems with little solutions.

I am on my way to Portland to pick up my nephew who will spend part of the summer living at my farmhouse while he prunes my plants. He breaks the expectations about White native-born workers.  He is an excellent worker. He works hard at a fast pace. He gets up early to be in the vineyard at 6:00 a.m. to beat the heat. 

Here he is last summer, holding the tool that tightens up the trellis wires.

Here I am last summer on a hot day. I am getting too old to do hard farm work.

A big part of farming is keeping one's equipment operating.  Here is the larger of two tractors I use in the tight spaces of the vineyard. I keep the front end loader up high so it is out of the way when I am working around the vineyard. The trellis wires and post are just out of range.

Here is a detail from the above photo -- the right side of the tiller. It is missing a part -- the right skid. 

I damaged the original skid when I hit it against one of those round end posts made of recycled oil well drill pipe. Stuff breaks. Sometimes it is "operator error," like this time.  Sometimes the equipment just breaks on its own. That is farming.

I shouldn't operate it without the skid, but I had a job to do. I was extra careful not to hit anything. 

Here is what the tiller should look like. The photo is from the John Deere dealership where new ones are for sale. Frontier is a John Deere brand. This shade of green is John Deere's color. Notice the skid on the bottom and the fender flare at on the left, which is attached to the skid. Notice that this part is not on the photo above.

Unfortunately, John Deere doesn't have the skid in stock. In fact, it isn't available anywhere in the John Deere system. The parts people told me the skid is made in Italy, and they are on back order. New ones won't be made until September, and that is a "maybe." It is a $150 part, plus shipping, if and when they have it.

John Deere's trade color is green. Komatsu brand's trade color is orange. The Komatsu people have a similar, but not identical, tiller skid. The Komatsu people don't think the equipment needs that fender flare to the rear.

Komatsu had the skid available now, in a Kansas City warehouse. It costs $30, plus another $24 in shipping. I ordered one. It is painted black.

I broke the left skid, too, but fortunately John Deere people had the replacement part on hand. Here's what I did to it. You break stuff you fix stuff. Farming is an endless repeat of that. Irrigation equipment is especially temperamental.

My parents bought me a tricycle toy when I was four years old. It was a miniature version of the tractors grownups used. It wasn't as fast as a normal tricycle, but it had the traction a four-year-old boy wants when aiming for mud puddles. I loved the toy. I bought this refurbished one two years ago in an impulsive moment of sentimentality. I keep it in our living room. 

The toy imprinted the John Deere brand on me, so in adulthood I have bought only John Deere equipment.

My nephew's task will be to prune the grape plants. Mine is keeping the ground free of weeds, which I will do with the tractor and tiller. My multi-year project is to rid the vineyard of any of the puncture vine, the problem I described in former posts. To get every single one out of the field I need to keep the ground bare for another year so that I can see them to pull them before they go to seed. I'm making progress.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

Guest Post: Who is going to pick the fruit?

My conclusion yesterday: 

"The limit on Trump's behavior will not be the law or religion or the Constitution. He will stop doing things if they become unpopular, especially in red states."

Trump is on-again, off-again on how he is carrying out his plan of deportation.

Yesterday I wrote about the dilemma Trump faces doing what is popular in developing policy on foreign students at our universities. Today the subject is immigration. 

Trump is inconsistent on immigration because the MAGA voters who elected him want contradictory things. They want immigrants out and an America reserved for the benefit of established American citizens like themselves. But they also recognize they need the work that new immigrants do.

Herbert Rothschild describes these cross-currents in the public will. Rothschild (Harvard, PhD 1966) taught English literature at LSU and later at the University of Houston. All his adult life he has also been active in justice and peace work, beginning with the Civil Rights movement, the subject of his memoirs, The Bad Old Days, and later nuclear disarmament. He has continued such work since moving to the Rogue Valley in 2009. In 2021 he helped found Ashland.news after the city’s commercial paper folded. He writes a weekly column for it. With his permission I’m reprinting his latest.

GoodReads

Guest Post by Herb Rothschild

Worker Shortages force Trump to scale back deportations.

Department of Labor photo

Despite its name, reality TV isn’t reality. That truth keeps hitting Donald Trump upside his head. It changes his behavior even if it doesn’t change his personal perception that the world is still his show.

There are the failures Trump has simply ignored and moved on, such as his inability to end the fighting in Ukraine, which he boasted during the campaign that he could accomplish in 24 hours, and in Gaza (more than ever, Israel is the tail wagging the U.S. dog). Then, there are failures he has tried to depict as successes, such as his tariff negotiations and the attendance at his military parade last Saturday. Lastly, there is one he has had to acknowledge—ridding the country of undocumented immigrants.

On Thursday of last week, Trump wrote on social media, “Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace.” The next day, according to The New York Times, Tatum King, a senior ICE official, via email told regional leaders of the ICE department, “Effective today, please hold on all work site enforcement investigations/operations on agriculture (including aquaculture and meat packing plants), restaurants and operating hotels.”

With the most likely worksites off limits to raids, ICE won’t be able to make the 3000-per-day quota that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller had pressed the agency to meet. Responding to that pressure, ICE quickened its pace early this month, with arrests topping 2000 on both June 3 and 4. Those numbers were well above the daily average of 660 arrests during Mr. Trump's first 100 days back in office. That big push precipitated the crisis that persuaded Trump to rein in the agency.

Note: After I wrote this column, CNN reported that Homeland Security, the department that includes ICE, rescinded that guidance. We’ll see what happens next.

That Trump didn’t anticipate the labor shortages mass deportations would cause says a lot about the narrowness of his conceptual horizon. Republican lawmakers in Florida could have told him. In anticipation of a crackdown on immigration, last year the state legislature passed a bill allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to work 30-hour weeks. This year, there were bills to allow them to work full-time, to remove employment restrictions for certain 14- and 15-year-olds, and to allow 13-year-olds to work in agricultural jobs during the summer of the year they turn 14. Those bills, however, failed to pass.

Last June I published a column titled, “Dare we say it? We need immigrants.” Its scope was much broader than the concentration of immigrant workers in sectors like farm work, food processing, and hotels and restaurants. I discussed the demographic reality—a declining and aging population of U.S. citizens unable to constitute the needed ratio between workers and retirees. The current birth rate of all Americans is under 1.7 per woman. To avoid population decline, it must be at 2.1.

Actually, the birth rate has fallen throughout the industrialized world, with South Korea reaching the lowest rate—0.72 in 2023. In addition to the general concern the declines have caused, they are of special concern to Nativists everywhere, because immigration is the obvious fix for the problem.

For many decades, starting with a guest worker program in 1955, Germany rejected the extreme racism of its Nazi era and chose that fix. With first generation immigrants now making up 18% of its 83 million people and second-generation immigrants another 5%, Germany is second only to the U.S. in absolute numbers of immigrants. But Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open borders policy during the Syrian refugee crisis produced a political backlash. The far-right Alternative for Germany party won over 20% of the vote in this year’s national election and holds the second largest number of seats in the Bundestag. Germany has tightened its borders, even though its birthrate is below 1.4.

An alternative attractive to Nativists is to promote childbearing by the “right people,” which in the U.S. basically means white people. J.D. Vance is the most prominent pronatalist, as such folks are called, in the Trump administration (it should be noted that he doesn't mention White people, perhaps because his wife is second-generation Asian Indian). Speaking at the March for Life on January 24, Vance declared, “I want more babies in the United States of America.” Voicing his support for IVF, on March 26 Trump said, “I’ll be known as the fertilization president.”

Some of the pronatalist policy ideas floating around the administration are a $5,000 baby bonus after delivery, expanded child tax credits, menstrual-cycle education, preference for parents in Fulbright Scholarship awards, and a “National Medal of Motherhood.” Expanding the child tax credit is the only one of these proposals that would address the significant financial disincentives to bear children in today’s U.S. society, and it was Republicans in Congress in 2022 who ended the 2021 expansion that reduced childhood poverty to its lowest level on record.

Reacting to these proposals, MomsRising CEO Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, whose organization claims it advocates on behalf of more than a million mothers and families, said in a press release that they are "sheer lunacy . . . There's no question that families need policies that make it possible for moms and parents to care for their kids, go to work and contribute to their communities," arguing that affordable child and elder care, access to maternal health care and paid family leave would better encourage people to start and grow their families. Republicans, however, don’t favor such policies, and their Big Beautiful Budget Bill will exacerbate the hardships.

Trump supporters don’t understand that they face a demographic choice between what they insist on calling replacement and their gradual self-extinction. That understanding requires an objective and not even very long-term thinking uncongenial to them. Trump himself, quick to respond to warning signs that his policies aren’t working, will allow most undocumented residents to remain here. But he has made the issue of their presence so toxic that we may never adopt a rational policy about our sustainability.

 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

 

Foreign student TACO

TACO: Trump Always Chickens Out.

Trump's policy ending visas for foreign students created havoc, even in public universities in red states. So Trump changed positions. 

It was politically smart.  

Democrats who hope that Trump will self-destruct under the weight of the worst of his policy decisions will be disappointed. Trump does crazy, illegal, undemocratic, cruel things. Then, when there is blowback, he retreats. 

Trump is a narcissist. He doesn't want to be honorable. He wants to be popular. That is a plus in politics.

As recently as June 4, Rupert Murdoch's populist New York Post was celebrating Trump's position limiting foreign enrollment in American universities. 

Trump's original position on foreign students in American universities was populist "America First" red meat for the MAGA base. He said American universities should be reserved for Americans. He described foreign students in the same way he framed foreign competition in exportable goods. Why give them any benefits? He added xenophobia and fear of the "other." Those Chinese students might be spies, the students from s---hole countries degrade our campuses, and students from Muslim countries might bring hostile ideas. And there was a nice swipe at Harvard the archetype snotty elite university. Harvard howled that his visa ban was unfair, disruptive, illegal, and that it damaged the university's higher education mission. Good. The more Harvard complained, the more it pleased the MAGA base.

Visas are a matter of executive department discretion. Trump could flex muscle here with minimum interference from Congress or the courts. Trump acted boldly. The MAGA base likes seeing decisive action, that Trump can-do, "damn the torpedoes" willingness to be cruel if necessary to achieve victory for his team. American universities for Americans! 

It was good politics, until reality intervened.

Trump had the "America First" advantage backwards. American education is an export industry. Foreign students nearly always pay full-freight tuition and thereby subsidize American students. Wealthy Harvard's mission is inconvenienced, but public universities, including ones in red states, are badly damaged by that loss of full tuition students. Trump heard from them.

His new policy allowing foreign students to study here reopens the financial lifeline for universities. Foreign students will get vetted, one by one. They will need to unlock their social media accounts so that State Department employees can review them for signs of "anti-American" sentiment. This will be a subjective process. It is a win for Trump. Now he looks "reasonable."  This enhances Trump's power over university culture. The vetting sends a chilling-effect message to students. Your politics will be reviewed. Not only is Big Brother watching you, he is looking back. What incautious thing did you say, and how might it be interpreted years later by future presidents? Be very careful.

The politics of this new policy will be much better for Trump. He can argue that we don't want students here who hate America. Who can disagree with that? 

Insofar at the Trump's administration's real goal is to reduce foreign influences on our campuses, the vetting process gives Trump a powerful, if secretive, tool to reward friends and punish enemies. The vetting process will take time and staff, even as DOGE reduced employee headcount. There will be waiting lists and logjams. If California Governor Gavin Newsom wants the vetting process to proceed fast enough that students can enroll at Berkeley, maybe he had better watch his tongue.

Democrats are wise to define Trump's inconsistency as Trump chickening out. TACO. After all, Trump got the political benefit of framing his original position as Mr. Strong Man protecting America; he can endure the flip side by being described as the weak guy who caved because he couldn't stick with his crazy policies. 

But there is a lesson here for Democrats. Trump is erratic and dishonest and a danger to democracy, but there is a north star guiding his behavior. He is a narcissist. He wants to be admired. The limit on Trump's behavior will not be the law or religion or the Constitution. The limit on Trump is that he will stop doing things if they become unpopular, especially in red states.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]