Below is my column in The Hill on the recent poll of university professors in this election. It speaks volumes about the composition of higher education today.Here is the column:The 2024 presidential election is shaping up to be the single most divisive election in our history. The public is split right down the middle with almost every group splintering between former president Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. There is, however, one group that seems almost unanimous: professors.
A new survey of more than 1,000 professors shows that seventy-eight percent will vote for Harris and only eight percent will vote for Trump. Other than a poll of the Democratic National Committee, there are few groups that are more reliably Democratic or liberal.
For anyone in higher education, the result is hardly surprising. The poll tracks what we already know about the gradual purging of departments around the country of conservative, libertarian, and dissenting professors.
Indeed, the lack of political and intellectual diversity may be turning some donors and even applicants from higher education. With failing revenue and applications, universities are starting to re-embrace commitments to neutrality on political issues.
Some, however, are doubling down on advocacy and orthodoxy.
In an op-ed this week, Wesleyan University President Michael Roth called on universities to reject “institutional neutrality” and officially support Kamala Harris. Calling neutrality “a retreat,” Roth compared Trump’s election to the rise of the Nazis and insisted that schools should “give up the popular pastime of criticizing the woke and call out instead the overt racism.”
He added, without a hint of self-awareness or irony, that “we should not be silenced because of fears of appearing partisan.”
In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the intolerance in higher education and surveys showing that many departments no longer have a single Republican as faculties replicate their own views and values.
So not only are professors voting en mass for Harris, Roth would have the schools themselves work openly for her election.
That ideological echo chamber is hardly an enticement for many who are facing rising high tuition costs with relatively little hope of being taught by faculty with opposing views.
There are obviously many reasons why faculty may reject Trump specifically, but this poll also tracks more generally the self-identification and contributions of faculty.
A Georgetown study recently found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools — almost identical to the percentage of Trump voters found in the new poll.
Notably, Roth acknowledged that the current lack of intellectual diversity in higher education had become so extreme that there might be a need for “an affirmative action program for conservatives.”
However, he and others continue to saw feverishly on the branch upon which we all sit in higher education in calling for even greater political advocacy.
There is little evidence that faculty members have any interest in changing this culture or creating greater diversity at schools. In places like North Carolina State University a study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 20 to 1.
Recently, I had a debate at Harvard Law School with Professor Randall Kennedy on whether Harvard protects free speech and intellectual diversity.
This year, Harvard found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.
Harvard has long dismissed calls for greater free speech protections or intellectual diversity. It shows.
The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”
Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
Consider that, according to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).
So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large and less than three percent identify as “conservative’ rather than 35% nationally.
Among law school faculty who have donated more than $200 to a political party, a breathtaking 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to democrats.
The student body shows the same bias of selection. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative. For the vast majority of liberal faculty and students, Harvard amplifies rather than stifles their viewpoints.
This does not happen randomly. Indeed, if a business reduced the number of women or minorities to less than 5 percent, a court would likely find de facto discrimination.
Yet, Kennedy rejected the notion that the elite school should strive to “look more like America.”
It is not just that schools like Harvard “do not look like America,” it does not even look like liberal Massachusetts, which is almost 30 percent Republican.
Our students are being educated by faculty taken from the same liberal elite of just 26 percent of our nation.
Some sites like Above the Law have supported the exclusion of conservative faculty. Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by arguing that hiring a conservative law professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.
The result is that law students at schools like Harvard have relatively few faculty to reflect the views of half of the judiciary and the majority of the Supreme Court.
Likewise, having a faculty that ranges from the left to the far left further marginalizes the small number of conservative students.
The impact of this academic echo chamber is evident in surveys showing that 28 percent of Harvard students engaged in self-censorship — a figure doubling since just 2021.
Given my respect for Professor Kennedy, I was surprised that he dismissed the sharp rise in students saying that they did not feel comfortable speaking in classes. Referring to them as “conservative snowflakes,” he insisted that they simply had to have the courage of their convictions.
This ignores that they depend upon professors for recommendations and their challenging the orthodoxy at the school can threaten their standing.
Moreover, Kennedy defended cancel campaigns or “disinvitations” of speakers as a form of free speech. As students see faculty supporting the cancelling of conservative or libertarian or dissenting speakers, it is hardly an invitation to speak freely yourself in class.
There was a hopeful aspect, however, to the debate. Before the debate the large audience voted heavily in favor of Harvard’s position. However, after the debate, they overwhelming voted against Harvard’s position on free speech.
It is an example of how exposure to opposing views can change the bias or assumptions in higher education.
There is little likelihood that Harvard or higher education will change. It is like the old joke about how many psychiatrists it takes to change a light bulb. The answer is just one but the bulb really has to want to change.
Academics like Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, have denounced conservative justices as mere “partisan hacks.” Other faculty have joined in claims that Trump and his supporters are “fascists” out to destroy democracy. It is only likely to get worse after the election.
The political polling of professors reflects the near complete cleansing of colleges of conservative faculty. The question is whether donors or applicants will continue to support an echo chamber that has become ideologically deafening.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
If auburn university is considered the most conservative major university, then I cannot imagine other universities.
Its constant dei and hr telling employees to rat out fellow employees speech and conversations is full on stasi scary. Not sure they’ve read history about east Germany or Russian kgb. The tell on your neighbors horror stories.
They’ve caused employees to just stop talking to minorities or anyone because it’s just possibly more trouble than it’s worth.
The dei hires are just accepted and left alone while the work gets done by the capable. They do at least hire 3 people for every one person it would take at a real for profit corporation.
Harvard must be a hellhole..
Years back Thomas Sowell said something to the effect that if you want to talk about diversity in university professors, ask how many Republicans are in the Sociology Department? That will tell you all you need to know about diversity in that university.
Throw in the news media that is greater than 80% liberal and it could be over sooner than later for Republicans/conservatives!
“There is absolutely no evidence that this [gradual purging] is occuring [sic] or has ever occurred.”
Aristotle said: “All men by nature desire to know.”
He never read some of the comments on this blog.
The Republicans are overlooking the most powerful demographic on earth. Democrat political analysts have stated that the “strategy” of calling Trump and his supporters Nazis is resonating very strongly with the all-critical “3:47 am Mail-In-Ballot” demographic. This all-powerful demographic was so important to the Democrats in the 2020 election, that if not for it, Biden-Harris would have lost. Although this powerful demographic could easily swing the election in favor of Harris-Walz in 2024, it is difficult to poll it because most of its members are deceased, imprisoned criminals, out-of-staters, illegal aliens, homeless individuals living in moveable tents, underage voters, and other hard-to-reach people. Consequently, polling this demographic is challenging but still well worth the effort. The Republicans are foolishly ignoring this critical demographic. It has been said that as the “3:47 am Mail-In-Ballot” demographic goes, so goes the nation.
Speaking of another partisan, Sallust, a partisan of Julius Caesar wrote the following:
“Namque pauci libertatem, pars magna iustos dominos volunt.
(Few men desire freedom, the greater part desire just masters.)”
Wesleyan University is now a secular institution; it’s no longer Methodist.
It is likely John Wesley would have spoken words of caution against such intemperance:
“John Wesley also lived through political storms and witnessed the very things Paul warned against. In the mid-1770s, Wesley noted that he had seen “in every county, city, town, men who were once of a calm, mild, friendly temper, [now] mad with party zeal, foaming with rage against their quiet neighbors, ready to tear out one another’s throats and to plunge their swords into each other’s bowels” (“National Sins and Miseries”). Other than the reference to plunging swords, Wesley could easily written this about 2024. Wesley observed political tumult and guided early Methodists through it, giving a road map of how to keep driving through a storm without speeding into destruction. His advice, given on October 6, 1774, was:
To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy;
To speak no evil of the person they voted against; and,
To take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side. (Wesley’s Journal)”
https://firebrandmag.com/articles/a-better-way-john-wesleys-advice-for-navigating-the-storm-of-an-election-season
John Wesley: The Man Who Saved England
https://youtu.be/UwjdD_JbOok
Michelle Obama shames men that they women’s lives mean more than theirs.
Trump’s gonna put y’all back in chains and take our uterus!
That’s a man baby!
Bannon will hold a press conference on his release from detention tomorrow, exactly one week before the election.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/steve-bannon-released-prison-days-ahead-election/story?id=115239564
According to the above report from ABC, in prison he taught classes in history and American government. He was popular with the other inmates.
Now the dems are burning ballots in the boxes in red districts.
Wow.
And you know they are Democrats because?
ATS – honestly ?
Burning ballots is election fraud.
Burning ballots in red districts is election fraud favoring democrats.
If you wish to argue that this is just some nut job influenced by radical extreme leftwing rhetoric – like Mr. Crooke – fine.
It is still fraud that favors democrats.
And just because you are free to argue – no, it is just a nut job. Doesn’t mean people are going to beleive you.
Besides – a disproportionately high number of those on the left are nut jobs.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html
Not a red district??
Kamala Harris speak the name. Alexis Nungaray. You said the border was secure. Madam you have a heart of stone. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/fcda2b08-dc1f-4ed2-98c0-cf16ecef4174
Kamala Harris told you that the border was secure. https://x.com/elonmusk
Pbinca, George-Svelaz, Gigi, and Anonymous look at the picture of alleged ballot insecurity. Those alleged ballots are enough to turn a close election.
https://x.com/SD50MNGOP/status/1847321651966595514
S. Meyer, are you expecting an armored truck? What is insecure about it? Do you think it’s been left unattended? Obviously, they were in the process of loading or unloading. Are there other people out of the frame watching?
There are going to be claims like these without any context giving gullible people an excuse to think of the worst.
You are a dummy. It was left unattended with the trunk left open. All you can do is make up stories, but you are ignorant and prove yourself stupid. This is not the only major problem that has been reported.
Still waiting for you to name the one liberal idea thats got the students crowding the universities, dunce.
I gave you 4 to chose from, or pick your own.
Certainly county transport, yes.
* Gosh George, those ballots are more valuable than bank notes. There really are bad people in the world , Georgie. Now eat your pudding.
* MAIL-IN BALLOTS. MAIL. The American people paid the postage. Mail is a federal fraud charge in addition to voting FELONY with fine and prison. It doesn’t say drop off ballots. Traceability. The USPS has received stamps, provenance and signatures of mail carriers.
Those ballots carry a debt of 33 trillion dollars with them. Very EXPENSIVE ballots for high school teachers and bar maids? There’s no traceability.
Amazon can track a 6 dollar bottle of shampoo from origin and every stop in its trek to your front door. AAA can track your driver in real time.
Perhaps these aren’t bona-fide State and federal ballots at 33 trillion dollar price tag at all. Maybe it’s the local student council election, George.
It’s a felony. That’s weighty.
George, it is possible that Seal Team 6 is just out of view. Not likely.
Do I expect an Armoured car ? Absolutely. In the 2020 presidential election $3B was spent to get 150M people to vote.
That means each Ballot is worth $20 on average. We KNOW that in Michigan in 2020 that Ballot Harvestors were paying $300/Ballot.
We Know that people were being paid $10/ballot just to deposit ballots in ballot boxes.
So every single Ballot is the equivalent of atleast a $20. And in critical places like swing states more like $1000.
So Yes they should be transported in Armoured cars.
Further while State laws do not typically require the transport of Ballots in Armoured cars – they do require a chain of custody the same as evidence in a criminal case. If a defense attorney came to court with a Photo like this of the prosecutors evidence – the case would be dismissed.
If you want people to trust the outcome of the election,
Conduct an election that people can trust.
In person voting,
on election day
With ballots never leaving the precinct,
Counted on election day
in the precinct.
under the watchful eyes of the public and press.
With the press conducting exit polling on election day,
That because voting is only on election day provides a highly accurate check of the election itself.
Some people will cheat – no matter what.
Some people will never cheat.
Some people will only cheat if they do not think they will get caught.
We can do nothing about the first group.
We need do nothing about the 2nd.
The third is the problem. A problem that you deal with by conducting elections where if you commit fraud, you will likely get caught.
George,
There are TWO independent factors to election integrity.
The first is conducting an election such that fraud is incredibly difficult and those who engage in it will likely get caught.
The 2nd is even more important. It is conducting elections such that the people trust the results.
I know this is hard for those of you on the left to cope with – but near supermajorities of people do not trust the results of the 2020 election. Do they think Trump won ? Some do, some don’t. Do they beleive that DVS rigged the election or it was all done over the internet from foreign countries – few people beleive that – though even more do not beleive DVS rigged the election, but they would like to KNOW that was not the case rather than just beleive it. But the majority of people beleive correctly that the 2020 election was not conducted such that we can trust the results.
In much of the country we did butter in 2022 – but in AZ and NV and a few other places we did FAR worse.
We appear to be doing better in 2024 than in 2020 – but we are still FAR away from an election that people are going to trust.
You can make excuses over this photo. You can assume facts not in evidence such as that someone is out of frame watching.
Though you ca not prove that.
What you can not fix is that most people see this photo and go “Oh $hit!”
If you want people to trust the results in 2024 – you need to conduct the election so that peopl need not rely on speculation that Seal Team 6 is just out of frame.
You do not win trust by saying “trust me”.
You earn trust by openly conducting yourself such that people can trust you.
This is not that.
License plate?
Are you another dummy, or do you put no effort into your remarks? The license plate is on the back hatch door that swings up. The bottom of the license plate edge is visible, but its numbers are not visible.
All talk. No effort. No knowledge. That is all we get out of you, anonymous idiots.
* Your manners are exquisite, Meyer. The person may have other photos and the FBI or any high schooler in India can enhance the boxes reading bar codes if any. The cracker jack FBI is on it in between nursing babies and only if it’s on flat land.
Thank you for your civil post. Your manners give brutes a bad name.
“* Your manners are exquisite, Meyer. “
Yes, they are, but I do not believe in good manners when dealing with dishonest people with no integrity. That type of person doesn’t understand the typical pleasantries and has to be treated with what he accustomed himself to.
Have manners and take a name, or don’t talk because a name common to many means one is a weasel and wants to provide himself protection at the expense of others.
WE ARE WAITING FOR PROFESSOR TURLEY TO FINALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE COMMENTS COUNTER.. ‘THE TROLLING MASKED ‘ANONYMOUS’ FROM THE DARKSIDE LOVES TO ACT LIKE A VERBAL TERRORIST, MAKING SNIPING REMAKRS TO EVERYTHING SO THAT OUT OF 10 SLOTS, THEY ALWAYS HAVE AT LEAST 8 OF THEM SO NO ONE CAN SEE WHO ELSE IS SPEAKING…
* Photo was taken in Edina Minnesota, Hennepin County. Approx 90% white Caucasian. Average income approx 200, 000.
Do not have break down on party affiliations. Probably careless democrats.
* Edina , Minnesota 😂 Tim Walz and Amy Klobuchar. The photo is in Hennepin County.
Yep. They’re secure
Because narcissists are gonna narcissist
Washington Post in Turmoil After Opting Against 2024 Presidential Endorsement
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/washington-post-in-turmoil-after-opting-against-2024-presidential-endorsement-22431abd
Thousands of Washington Post readers have canceled their subscriptions. Staffers have gone public with their outrage. Owner Jeff Bezos is under scrutiny.
As if Bezos GAF. The Left are a depraved,soul-less lot
It looks like Bezos may have been red-pilled. He now apparently wants more conservative writers.
https://nypost.com/2024/10/28/media/washington-post-owner-jeff-bezos-wants-conservative-writers/
At a rally last weekend Elon Musk said he had been red-pilling his previously woke friends. This could be an example.
Maybe, or maybe he is tired of hemoraging 200M dollars for a paper that left wing nuts have taken from one of the most prestigious in the nation to barely better than the national enquirer.
Bezos is motivated by something, Billionaire media moguls are either motived by MONEY, or by prestige.
Owning WaPo is no longer worth burning $200M/yr.
I would note that Billionaire owners, Media company shareholders – myriads of sources have told the woke left media “get your act together, and remember, this is a business, not a welfare for woke journalists, Make Money or lose your jobs”
What is surprising is that it has taken so long to deliver that message.
Breaking: The shooting of a Jewish man in Chicago, accompanied by “Allahu Akbar!” is by man who entered the US illegally under Kamala’s open border.
https://thenationalpulse.com/2024/10/28/breaking-chicagos-allahu-akbar-gunman-is-illegal-migrant-who-entered-under-kamalas-open-border-rules/
Kamala-Biden’s open border is the greatest crime ever committed against America. And she now wants to be potus? Absurd!
Is Kamala going to offer up bail for this shooter like she did before? Did she force the victim to have a Covid shot before allowing him into the country?
* A nation is like a house. You clean it. You sweep it and clean out the demons. You leave and come back to 7 demons have taken the place of 3 you threw out.
* Jesus Christ
It applies to any criminals and ignorant people that go unchecked. It’s ignorance and a fundamental lack of simple sociological understanding of morals.
Christ was not voodu. He was a practical, truthful, very unusual person. Christ is so much smarter than this illegal ignorant Muslim criminal.
* Harris is an immoral, ignorant criminal.
She’s also incredibly low IQ. Have ever heard her struggle to form a logical thought? Not a pretty sight.
Professor Turley,
As a Harvard student over a decade ago, I would have completely agreed with your opinion in this post. Professors were overwhelmingly liberal, but I learned to disguise my true beliefs by simply adopting the professor’s perspective on papers.
Unfortunately, the rise of the MAGA movement in the GOP has clearly shifted the two-party system. Back then, the two parties both had viable policy platforms. Now, the GOP is openly anti-intellectual. It rejects science and research openly. Further, the party no longer recognizes legitimate policy positions grounded in actual political or economic theory. For example, you cannot legitimately write an economic policy paper that tries to make a case for massive tariffs on all foreign goods as a way to fight inflation. This fundamentally differs from a paper assessing the merits of Keynesian economic theory, for example.
If it is impossible to write a paper espousing the intellectually moribund state of the MAGA-infused GOP, then why would you expect to see professors that would openly support such political beliefs? How does a pro-tariff > low inflation professor exist? What “research” can he or she conduct to support this absurd position?
This is akin to professor believing 2+2 = 5. This is not a matter of political opinion. It is simply wrong. While I have fundamental disagreements with the Democratic Party’s positions, at least they are legitimate policy positions.
^^ Paid DNC troll. Ignore. ^^
I wish I were paid. That would be news to me.
What is true is that whoever educated you – owes you your money back.
The Dunceocrat isn’t necessarily a paid DNC troll. Most Dunceocrats will work for nothing at their goal at destroying America.
If someone can find me an economic research paper that shows how massive tariffs on imports reduces inflation, please share.
Otherwise, you have to agree with the above.
Virtually everything in “the above” is a flat-out lie, the exact opposite of the truth. Pure gaslighting, and projection. The burden is not on disbelievers to disprove ridiculous gaslighting, projection, and lies. When you make ridiculous claims the burden of proof is on you.
P.S. You have no clue as to the purpose of tariffs. They are used as inflation reducers, but as negotiating pressure, to ensure and even playing field, to foster jobs and manufacturing at home, which creates jobs and wealth. With more wealth, the effects of inflation are blunted.
They are not used as inflation reducers. They are a tax that ultimately gets passed to consumers via inflated prices
A real Harvard grad would be able to discern a typo from the context. Obviously I meant “not used.” But can you name a single tax that has as its purpose to reduce inflation? Or are you one of those psycos who think a nation can tax itself to prosperity?
What is a psyco?
All taxes get passed on to consumers as inflated prices. The more direct the tax is the more efficient it is and the LOWER the inflation. BTW there are plenty of economic papers on that.
Which raises the most important point of all. Reality is that free markets are INHERENTLY deflationary.
Again there is massive evidence in REALITY of that.
Even in the inflationary world foist on us by Central banks and keynesians.
Free markets are STILL on net DEFLATIONARY.
In REAL DOLLARS nearly all goods and services have declined in price over time. Though the very best way to track prices in NOT in real dollars but in hours of media wage labor expended to purchase something.
in many instances prices have declined in nominal dollars.
If you are going to try to make sophisticated claims about economics, it would be helpful if you knew what you are talking about.
You clearly have a very shallow understanding of the basics of economics – way too much keynes which I doubt you understand, and Way to much Smith.
Beyond that you are pretty much clueless about how money works – which is incredibly important if the topic is inflation.
As Freidman – who won his Nobel for Monetary theory noted “Inflation is ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE a monetary Phenomena”. ‘
Free markets – even slightly free markets are mildly deflationary. That is an absolute requirement for rising standard of living.
A rising standard of living is the ability to consume more for the same amount of human effort.
That can only occur with DEFLATION – more specifically with an increase in the efficiency of production such that more value is produced with less human effort.
If Standard of living is rising – Real Dollar Deflation is occuring. In many cases nominal dollar deflation is occurring – atleast in some parts of the market.
My understanding of Inflation is it is a surplus of liquidity in the market. The market is now a global market where foreign countries thrive on the fiat currency, the dollar. Tariffs imposed on importation of foreign goods allows fair competition for domestic products while capturing currency back to government. Government then has the ability to either remove this currency out of the market and/or pay down debt. By removing currency from the market they reduce liquidity of the market thereby making the dollar stronger and reducing inflation. Historically reducing liquidity in the market was by increasing the prime interest rates however with the current debt that is suicidal. Tariffs may be exactly what is needed.
Define massive tariffs. Then tell us what tariffs, or the threat thereof, are designed to do.
You demonstrate that you dont even know what inflation is.
Why dont you tell us what happened to the last round of Trump tariffs, dum dum?
What do you think inflation is dum dum? It’s too much cash available in the market place as I stated. Tariffs are tariffs, YUGE!
There was no significant inflation when the government used tariffs rather than income tax. There is no better truth than history. Your rhetoric is empty. You should not associate with adults because when you do, you sound stupid.
Check out import substitution industrialization in Latin America in the 1980s. That is the model that Trump wants to adopt for the USA in the 2020s. What you get is high inflation Argentina. That is not a good future for America.
Did you look up the words and misuse them in your argument? Look at tariffs in the US based a productive nation, Stop acting like the four-year-old that mimics what he hears.
Praytell, how is ISI misused? ISI was popular in Latin America as a way to artificially support domestic industrialization, so that Latin American manufacturing would not have to compete with foreign competitors. This led to hyperinflation as it drove up the cost of everything in these countries. This is the model Trump wants to use…
The US has not used massive tariffs like those proposed by Trump for almost 100 years. If you think 1930s USA is a better comparison to the international marketplace than 1980s Latin America, please tell me how you come to that conclusion.
To find one of your favorite sources, here is the Heritage Foundation in 2017 making the same point.
https://www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/import-substitution-made-countries-such-argentina-poorer
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/opinion/paul-krugman-aluminum-steel-trade-tariffs.html
Everyone from Paul Krugman on the left to the Heritage Foundation on the right agrees with this comparison.
Try learning your history. The 16th Amendment occurred in 1913, so why are you pointing to 1930 and making yourself look stupid?
I should also have said your application is faulty and that using a quote to explain yourself means you don’t understand what you said before. It is also doubtful that you know the significance of your citations.
“There was no significant inflation when the government used tariffs rather than income tax”
According to David Stockman, at that time, Federal budget was on the order of 3% GDP. Might not be an apples to apples comparison…
“According to David Stockman, at that time, Federal budget was on the order of 3% GDP. “
I don’t trust any of your facts, but assuming the number is correct, that tells us that the federal budget is playing a part.
Why do we bother with this idiot Mr. Meyer?
There are many reasons, but the reasons have little to do with the idiots. It sets the record straight for those who don’t know better and tells others to become better informed. Is it a waste of time? Probably, but I have worked all my life, so I have plenty of time to waste. I continue to work even though I do not need the money because that is my way of life. That work leaves me more to give away. Talking to idiots permits me to do what I couldn’t do when involved in making money to enhance my standard of living.
At our age, I try not to waste any of the time I have left in this world. Our story sounds alike, although I don’t think there is much hope for recapturing America without a major blood donation by our citizens.
The critical time was Obama’s second term. At the time, I said if Obama won the second term, America would be doomed because of the damage he would do and the fact that Americans could not see the writing on the wall if they voted for Obama to have a second term. Trump can slow the slide, but we would need multiple terms of good Presidents to get us back to where we were. We have the talent.
If someone can find me an economic research paper that shows how massive tariffs on imports reduces inflation, please share.
You want to start your argument at the END with inflation today? That’s a feeble as Harris attempting to appear genuine.
No: you and your Harvard intellect need to begin at the start of the inflation story at the beginning of Harris/Biden presidency, not the end. I always suspect those who want to skip to end of a story before they start their quacking are dishonest as hell.
Explain how the magnificent economic policies of Bidenomics didn’t have the slightest thing to do with producing the wild inflation of the last four years? Sound policy? Please share – get all the help you want from Larry Summers while doing so…
Larry Summers sends stark inflation warning to Joe Biden
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/26/economy/inflation-larry-summers-biden-fed/index.html
Conversely, transferring billions of dollars of student debt from those students onto the backs of taxpayers – most who made their way in life by other means than college via student loans?
Sound economic policy – please share!
Or if you want to avoid discussing the changes in inflation over the last four years and skip straight to how to fix it, then assure us where the economic research can be found to support the Harris/DNC “Opportunity Economy Plan”.
To me, it looks like the DNC/Harris’s poor little Free Money Fairy is going have very tired wings spending years throwing around free taxpayer money to the selected Identity Politics groups. As if she/her/they isn’t already exhausted from the last four years.
For bonus points, you can explain to the lowbrow audience here (that you hold in such patent Harvard contempt) what school of economics you Harvard Democrats found “Trickle Down Economics” that you’ve been bugling in outrage about since Reagan.
Or what percentage being paid by The Evil Rich will finally satisfy you that they’re ‘Paying Their Fair Share!(TM)’.
Yet again: if it quacks like a Marxist duck… then it’s probably a Marxist Woke Useful Idiot waddling past while dropping a load.
I’m not an economist but I did stay at Holiday Inn Express last night. I just read that the government takes in about $4.2T a year in taxes while they spend approximately $6.4T a year. Resulting in an approximate $2.2T annual deficit. We’re at $35T national debt at the moment, with the prime rate the interest on that debt is about $1T per year. So if these idiots from Haaaaavad, Yale and Columbia with their economics degrees have delivered us to this debt, why would you expect them to give the straight scoop on inflation? The more readily available cash in the economy, the lower the value of that dollar goes and the higher the inflation will go. Obama’s quantitative easing for eight years pumped Trillions into the market, Biden pumped a few trillion into the market due to COVID to artificially replace the impact on a depressed economy. The printing money bill is coming due who ever wins. I believe the best thing they can do is whittle down debt, bring manufacturing jobs back, reduce regulation. This along with some other key measures begin lowering inflation and make the dollar stronger. Restricting foreign trade through tariffs in a limited manner would put money back in OUR economy which in turn could go toward paying down debt. A stronger dollar will mean more goods for your dollar and that allows adjustment to be made throughout the economy.
The entire 19th century. Not an economic research paper, just Actual Reality.
But reality Trump’s academic research papers ALL THE TIME.
Libtard pretending to be a moderate democrat. Last week he was a Reagan Republican.
You arent fooling anyone, Lawn Boy.
You have Bill Nye the Science Guy. We have Elon Musk. I’ll risk the anti-intellectualism.
Anonymous saw a teachable moment: As a Harvard student over a decade ago, I would have completely agreed with your opinion in this post… Unfortunately, the rise of the MAGA movement in the GOP has clearly shifted the two-party system. Now, the GOP is openly anti-intellectual. It rejects science and research openly.
Ah yes! The Harvard intellect, science, and research that has informed the world that males can menstruate and give birth (Tim Walz is already addressing that in high schools’ boys bathrooms).
While I have fundamental disagreements with the Democratic Party’s positions, at least they are legitimate policy positions.
Like deserting thousands of Americans and American allies in Afghanistan to be hunted down and murdered – while allowing the Taliban terrorists to walk in and pick up billions of dollars worth of modern military equipment. BTW, when was the last time CNN et al asked Joe Biden how many Americans are still trapped in Afghanistan? Or how many they have confirmed dead? Policy, right?
Like throwing the southern border wide open to criminals and drugs like fentanyl killing nearly twice as many Americans each year as we lost in the ten years in Afghanistan. Policy?
You have done a wonderful example of demonstrating the self deluding low IQ arrogance of Harvard’s best… although I suppose your post could be the opposite of the false flag attempts that pbinca attempts regularly.
Either way, it’s logical that you would prefer to post as “Anonymous”, rather than use a unique Username.
Anonymous – much the opposite is true.
The US government/economy ran for almost 150 years on Tarrifs all of that time period with very mild DEFLATION.
That was pretty easy.
I do not have a theory for that. I do not need one. Whether it is economics or harder sciences – REALITY always wins.
I would further note that you write with some reverence about keynesian economics. But there has always been an obvious and fatal flaw in keynesian economics – the Core “equations” for Keynesian economics are not equations at all – they are implications, they go one way.
There is a Milton Friedman anecdote that may be a myth that deals with this perfectly.
“It’s said that Milton Friedman was once visiting China when he was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, thousands of workers were toiling away building a canal with shovels. He asked his host, a government bureaucrat, why more machines weren’t being used. The bureaucrat replied, “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton responded, “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, you should give these workers spoons, not shovels!””
Or as Adam Smith put it.
“consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production.”
That is why all REAL economics must focus on Supply – you can not consume what is not produced.
And what is produced to be of real value must be something that people wish to consume,
We rise standard of living by producing more of what people want and need with less human effort.
I would further note that the current economic mess was CAUSED by the combination of misguided Keynessian Stimulus, combined with the absurdity of MMT – Magical Money Theory that postulates that what has happened every single time historically that a nation has debased its currency will not happen the next time.
Do I think Tarriffs are a cure for inflation ? No. But it is not absurd to think that a Tarrif driven government is not inflationary – because history tells us that it is not. In fact history tells us that Tarriffs can be dangerously deflationary – presumably you have heard of Smoot-Hawley and the great Depression.
But what is far more disturbing is that s many intelligent people against the evidence of history do not grasp that Keynesian economics is AT BEST less of a failure than socialism, and inherently inflationary.
Import Substitution Industrialization in Latin America/India is a much better historical comparison than the US during the Great Depression.
Let me ask you a very simple question— was the international marketplace in 1930 or 1980 more similar to that of 2024?
Latin America and India are developing countries. Further they were not free markets.
Further you have not given a time period.
Regardless, the 1930’s was ONE real world example. The ENTIRE 19th Century history of the US is a far better example.
Separately – Your own claims regarding Taxes undermines your argument. Absolutely Tarriffs will cause higher prices than a country with NO TAXES AT ALL. Tarrifs will also cause higher prices on Foreign Goods.
They WILL NOT cause inflation – AGAIN Inflation is always and Everywhere a monetary phenomena.
Taxes absolutely cause inflation relative to a non-existant tax free environment. The more direct the taxes are – and Tarriffs are a DIRECT tax, they more efficient they are and the less negative impact they have.
As to comparing 1980 and 1930 – the marketplaces were radically different and incomparable.
In 1930 Britian bore most of the cost of securing international trade. In 1980 the US did.
In 1930 most US trade was with Europe and the US was a significant net exporter, in 1980 the US was a net importer.
in 1930 the US was one of the largest energy produces in the world, but energy was a far less significant part of the economy.
In 1980 the US was a significant energy importer.
I would note that the situation today is also radically different. The US was the guarantor of global free trade in 1980.
We are slowly abandoning that role today. We have by far the most powerful navy in the world today.
But we do not have a navy capable of BOTH securing global trade AND projecting power on the scale needed to contain China.
The health of the US economy is more significant to the health of the world economy today than it was in either 1930 or 1980.
One of the reasons that the predictions that prior US bouts of monetary stimulus such as during Obama did NOT cause US inflation was because it caused inflation ELSWHERE in the world. The Obama era Flareup in the mideast are the direct result of rapidly rising food prices in mideastern countries. The instability in the mideast today is similarly caused by the same inflation in global food prices – though the Biden/Harris unshackling Iran to finance terrorist proxies is certainly a contributor.
Regardless the US gets away with incredibly bad economic decisions today, because the economy of much of the rest of the world is weaker an ddependant on the US. The right like to rant about the trade deficit – but more important is the even more massive flow of Capital into the US economy from foreign sources. However bad the choices of this country and our government, the US still has the best risk/return profile in the world.
Today US trade with Europe is drying up. Europe is deindustrializing. The US is reindustrializing. US foreign policy, US Trade are shifting from centered on Europe, Russia and the mideast to the western Hemisphere, the Anglosphere and the Pacific rim.
While US china trade is slowing, US pacific rim trade is rising.
“simple questions” and generalizations are valuable – when they really are simple questions and when they are addressing FUNDIMENTAL underlying principles.
You made a broad claim that Tarrifs are inflationary – That is TRUE – if and only if the comparison is to an economy and government with little or no taxes. Separately the EVIDENCE is that when Tarrifs were consequential – for over a century in the US that period was DEFLATIONARY.
Are there many other factors in play ? Certainly. But YOUR broad generalization is absolutely False.
As to comparing the international marketplace in 1930, 1980, and 2024 – the answer is there is no simple comparison.
Particularly with respect to the US.
I have addressed you idiotic claim that Tarrifs are inflationary. As well as your nonsense about keynesian economics, keynes is at best superior to Marx. Frankly there are many things Keynes is right about – but Like Marx -though less egregiously, as a complete system of Economics Keynesian economics fails – just more slowly than Marx. And it fails because of fundimental errors that are not fixable with a system that can still be called Keynesian.
Finally I would suggest more familiarity with Smith – not just because he is the father of economics, and not just because no founder of any field of science has ever be so right about so much as Keynes.
But more importantly because Smith and WON is a wonderful example of how to think critically, How to look at all the data that is available – and Smith did not have the vast rich data that we have today, and figure out what data is significant, what data will allow you to see the big picture, to make accurate broad generalizations. Marx Failed at that. Keyness did better, but still fell short.
Your busy ranting about economists who are still shilling Keynes, making appeals to experts who have been near universally wrong – for predictable reasons. and trying to make generalizations that are trivially refuted.
If your claim was Tarriffs are economically harmful – they answer is yes – ALL taxes above the low level necescary to produce ordered liberty are economically harmful. And there is massive amounts of data on that.
If your claim was The US can not likely shift to tarriff based funding of the federal govenrment without radical changes in government spending – that too would be correct.
But you did not draw Correct generalizations regarding Tarriffs.
You made arguments that are obviously false.
Which is evidence that neither you nor those you rely on are very good at critical thinking.
Smith has held up for 250 years. Marx has failed every time he has been tried an in every permutation.
Keynes almost works, but ultimately leads to the government and economic problems we see in the US and all over the world.
Keynes leads to ever growing government – though to be fair power corrupts – it is incredibly hard to thwart government from consuming everything. Regardless keynes increases the incentives for government to grow. Which Smith correctly noted is a mistake 250 years ago.
Frsh
No the democratic party positions are NOT legitimate policy positions.
A great deal of the problem in your comment is a reflection of the topic of this article.
You demand economic papers and you define legitamacy by the acceptance of something by academia.
But one of the problems of the complete dominance of academia by an ideology is the decline in challenges to the dominant position and its transformation from conclusions based on reality to conclusions based on ideology.
The US is not going to a tarrif based government funding model, because doing so would require cutting the federal government more than is politically possible – that does not mean that after the dust settled that we would not have a stronger economy.
You note that Tarriffs increase costs to consumers – DUH ? All government increases costs to consumers. Tarriffs do so relatively efficiently.
Therefore they are less inflationary.
Is that really so hard for you to grasp ?
And you are so foolish as to tout Keynes. You do know that Keynesian economics FAILED. Keynesian economists have been trying to put a band aide on it since he 70’s – without success. It remains popular in academia and government because it justifies govenrment doing what those in government so desparately want to do – spend other peoples money.
As you like economic papers – look up the work of IDEAS RESPEC #4 ranked in the world Robert Barro of Harvard who over the course of years of gathering data from all over the world has found that Government spending is between $0.25-$0.35 efficient.
That means for every $1 that government spends. $0.25-$0.35 of actual value is created.
If you do the math given the percentage of the economic that is consumed by govenrment, and the actual growth rate, that means free markets MUST generate WAY more than $1 in value for every $1 spend – otherwise standard of living would decline.
I always find it surprising that so many allegedly intelligent people can not work out really basic things.