So Trump won big last night, nine out of twelve states that voted on Super Tuesday. Marco Rubio pressured Trump in Virginia and Minnesota, but ultimately couldn’t pull it off in Virginia. And Cruz pulled off wins in Texas and Oklahoma.
In response, Scott Sumner posted his third or fourth rendition of ‘Trump is a bad guy’ on The Money Illusion, complete with graphic detail. I won’t go into the details of those posts here. If you want to know what Sumner thinks of Trump, go have a look.
Sumner is hardly alone in the anti-Trump sentiment, and he’s putting into print what a good number of people are already feeling. Though I question what purpose posting it serves and the wisdom of doing so in a way that forecloses the possibility of an out when we market monetarists need to be doing the best we can to influence the formation of policy in the future that just perhaps would take the edge off the anxiety average people are feeling. After all, I’d at least like to hope that Sumner’s position at Mercatus is good for something besides what is good for Sumner. What that something might be after everything has been said and done, and if Trump ends up triumphant is hard to predict. But it’s difficult for me to imagine Sumner getting anywhere with ultra-sensitive Trump-bots after the time he has spent on his soapbox – a moment on the lips and a lifetime of rejection. He certainly has a right to criticize Christie for putting his own needs before the country, but I wonder if he took a look at himself while he was writing it.
For my part, over the years I have done a lot of dirty work when it comes to saying what needs to be said, tearing down policymakers and politicians who deserve it. They can do nothing to me that hasn’t already been done and it provides a healthy release of righteous indignation as I approach it from the position of having almost nothing left to lose.
But it is no wonder to me how I ended up that way, with almost nothing left to lose. It’s been all over the financial news media outlets and in congressional testimony for years, the inflation nutterism and bubble and economic freedom fear mongering, the false narratives about the financial crisis and false choices about monetary policy and accountability of monetary policymakers that appear to be a part of a grand political consensus among the elites across both parties – to fear inflation and bubbles more than they fear the rabble who are more or less victimized by that kind of policy irrationality. Year after year the political consensus about monetary policy has been the unwavering root cause of economic grief for people who have to work for a living, a group of people in which I am included.
After everything has been tried to persuade the current order that they have been driven by unfounded fear to victimize the very people they are supposed to serve and deeply anger their own voters as a result, I am convinced that the only way out is to chance a stripping away of the old order, too many who are concerned only about themselves and their donors, because it is what is preventing appropriate change.
It’s very much true that stripping away the old order is a risk. There is absolutely no guarantee that the old consensus will be replaced with something better. But after personally tasting from the bitter cup provided by the old order as a member of the Bernanke Fed’s sacrifice ratio I am not compelled toward feeling any sense of allegiance to it, either. I actually feel relieved that karma might be more than some abstract concept.
With that in mind, I have no trouble at all that the elites feel threated. They should. I don’t particularly have a problem with Trump being the one to threaten them, either. Talk is talk, while doing is something else.
What I do have trouble with, however, the sort of backward tendency of some to support elites who have been anything but just in their actions while condemning talk. Perhaps it’s just one more way the world has been turned upside down that I probably should have gotten used to by now.