Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Productivity in house construction should by now have leapt up considerably due to improvements in modular design.

I know there are a lot of retrograde republicans here who sniff at “double-wides” and the like, but as someone who has actually worked on stick-built homes I can say that there’s a lot that could be gained from going modular like the Japanese and Europeans have been for the last couple decades.

As for the losses in productivity, what the hell would one expect when you’re hiring illiterate Mexicans who don’t even know English measurements? the loss of efficiency could only be made up for by drastically lower wages, which are a proven fact in the construction industry.

I know that your typical UMC baby-boomer looks down on anyone who would buy anything but a house crafted by a master Norwegian carpenter (one of my first bosses, BTW), but the fact of the matter is that the rest of us would rather just have a well-designed, energy-efficient house with a yard and reliable plumbing and wiring at a decent price.

That kind of house can be manufactured regionally in a factory and then tuned up on site without the need for an overcompensated contractor with a gang of illegal laborers to do the grunt work and frequently f*** up the measurements leading to massive future expenses.

* Since this increase in construction margins is due to high immigration and union breaking, I’d assume the construction industry will continue to support high immigration levels and anti-union policies.

Remember, business interests tend to donate very generously to our politicians. When our politicians retire, they often get cushy executive jobs with the companies that donated to their campaigns. So I doubt any political leaders are going to want to upset the status quo. If immigration was restricted and construction profit margins declined, the political donations and cushy post-political exec jobs would dry up quickly.

* Let’s say you’re a Congressman/Senator/Governor/President.

You have 2 options.

1. Pursue strict immigration policies that hurt construction industry profit margins. Get no political contributions or post-political exec job.
2. Pursue loose immigration policies that help construction industry profit margins. Get substantial political constructions a well-paid post-political exec job.

Which would you choose?

This isn’t a complicated decision.

Let’s even say you get defeated in a election by an anti-immigration candidate. So what? You can retire from politics and become some type of exec or industry lobbyist. Just look at Congressman Eric Cantor, who was defeated by Brat. He’s now some sort of Wall Street exec (despite having no executive experience).

There is no deterrent.

Politicians have to have fear put into them. They need to understand that if they vote against the public interest, they will be punished. By punished, I don’t mean defeated. As I pointed out above (with Cantor), being defeated is not necessarily a negative outcome for them.
By punished, I mean that our politicians need to understand that there could severe harm to them if they vote the wrong way. Severe harm could include jail time. It could also include more severe punishments for particularly egregious offenders.

Bill Clinton deregulated Wall Street (Glass-Steagal repeal in 1999). Then he (and his wife) went on to make tens of millions in “speaking fees” (kickbacks) from Wall Street firms.

A Jew emails me: Trump faces formidable foes. His biggest enemies are the Democrats who do not accept the legitimacy of the election, which is comprised of many of the fringe groups, but plenty of mainstream ones, that make up the Democrat base. He also has a hostile press which would like nothing more than to bring Trump down. This would redeem the press which has in many ways been rendered irrelevant by Trump. But Trump also has his flank exposed because many Republicans, including never Trumpers, traditional interests in the Republican party, supporters of foreign intervention, members of the intelligence community are not only not supporting him but actively working to harm them.

It is a truism to say that Trump’s wounds were self inflicted, but the reality is that what is wounding him isn’t Trump’s gaffes. Nor is it the conflicting stories where Trump often appears to undercut his defenders after they take a stand on his behalf that are harming him. Instead Trump’s problems date back to when he first secured the Republican nomination. After having thoroughly insulted his rivals within the party and alienated many traditional Republican constituencies, while expanding his personal popularity into the white working class and middle class voters, he needed to locate mid and high level managers who would be loyal to him and run the administrative agencies and cabinet positions assuming he won. Perhaps, Trump thought that he wouldn’t win, or that if he won, the functionaries in those positions would shift their loyalty to him instead of running a guerrilla campaign. But in any event he misjudged things. I don’t think he even thought to identify career bureaucrats who he might tap to hold interim positions.

The question now is what can Trump do? The first thing to realize about Trump is that he strongly wants people to like him. In his business career, his show business career and when running for the Presidency, he has been able to find that approbation. When Trump speaks, or when one reads transcripts of interviews, it is clear that Trump can be very charming. Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist, calls him a master persuader. I am not sure that is true now, because his message when it goes out is severely filtered by the main stream media. Trump is a flatterer (and like most flatterers, is also susceptible to flattery) and is so far removed from the stereotype of the uptight wasp that he is, that he lards his sentences with over the top words of praise and love. Unfortunately, Trump, although convinced he can win over anyone on a one to one basis, is finding that reporters are friendly to him in interviews and appear to be won over, yet continue to write negative stories. This is incredibly frustrating to him because it is so foreign to his experience.

The keys to Trump’s success going forward are to implement changes that so far he has been unable to do. (1) He must find loyal and competent persons to fill unfilled government positions and replace either political appointees or career bureaucrats hostile to Trump.(2) He must engage in message discipline. This requires a coordinated effort, before speaking, among the press secretary and White House Press office, along with any surrogates Trump may have speak on his behalf, along with any appointed officials, and Trump.

Trump needs his press secretary to gain greater access to Trump’s meetings and policy sessions. Trump needs politically savvy aides with relationships with elected officials. As an example he needs someone who knows the legislators as well as Steve Miller knew Jeff Sessions. Trump is willing to use a charm offensive on legislators, but he needs greater intelligence on them. What made LBJ the master of the Senate (and later when he became President) was his astounding knowledge about what motivated the legislators to whom he applied the Johnson “treatment.” He would mix praise, appeal to patriotism, party or local political interests, he would cajole, threaten, charm, manipulate them because of his longstanding relationship with them. Trump may have this ability when he was dealing with local elected officials to get a project approved, but he needs more of it to get to the congressmen and senators. What Trump should have done, was have a trusted aide go to each of the committee chair and ranking minority member for each committee and subcommittee in the house and senate and ask them and their staffers to explain what the committee does, and how it can operate more efficiently, and get more of its legislation through with the understanding that Trump would help them and that he might call on them for assistance as well.

Trump wanted to be bipartisan but the Democrats have forced him into being one of the most partisan Presidents ever. The key to bipartisan support can only come if Trump understands their needs and wants and can supply some of them. You cannot assume you can find common ground. First you have to see if finding common ground is possible and good legislative relationships creates the foundation for that. Perhaps this outreach would be unsuccessful, but the aides would at least know where the problems lie and how the system works.