The longshoreman strike is a great example of why you need a functioning president at the top of the executive branch.
There has been a lot of gobbledygook from leftist circles over the past several months that Biden’s inability to carry out the functions of the presidency is not a crisis because for the most part government runs on its own. They say, sure he’s not up to another four years but let’s not go crazy and start thinking about invoking the 25th Amendment forcing him to resign; we’ve got smart people in government and can get by.
Well the two arguments against that are the natural entropy of government and the ability to deal with crises. In both cases, someone needs to have both the legitimacy and incentive to knock heads and take the risks needed in a leader; as the sign on Truman’s desk said, “The Buck Stops Here.”
We’ve been skating on thin ice for a while regarding possible labor unrest across various critical parts of our transportation network and the longshoreman strike couldn’t have come at a worse time for the Biden Administration. The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) has maximum leverage given its ability to shut down the ports in the eastern half of the country, at a time when the economy is especially vulnerable and during the final month of an election when the Democrats need union support in a tight election.
The last thing the Democrats need is the economy to go into a tailspin. The second-to-last thing they need is the labor unrest that would stem from invoking Taft-Hartley and breaking the strike.
Outside of the danger to the economy and people’s livelihoods, there is something almost entrancing about the cartoon villainy of ILA President Harold Daggett, who has threatened to cripple the economy if his demands aren’t met regarding pay and automation. You can argue that long-term he is being foolish because he’s converted a viable threat in-being into a dangerous threat in fact — the best threats you can have are the ones you never have to state let alone use.
It also doesn’t help that the productivity of US ports is among the lowest in the world. In the world of tight supply chains and container shipping, inefficiency in port operations has the same effect as a tariff on the cost of goods. To paraphrase William J. LePetomane, Daggett and the ILA need to protect their phony baloney jobs. I’m as nostalgic as the next guy, but not for that ’70s vibe of unions using extortion to protect their cushy way of life.
So basically our cartoon villain Daggett has thrown down the gauntlet and challenged the feds to come get him. The problem in the executive branch is that anyone can make a decision and get it implemented under Biden’s signature, but there has to be somebody willing to take the risks and the heat to see that decision through and that’s where the buck stops. Somebody needs to not just broker across the various interests in any administration but to make the decision stick. There’s only so much our 21st Century version of Edith Wilson, Jill Biden, can do.
Like Zelensky and the mullahs, Daggett knows that a Republican victory will undercut his leverage so he’s in a use-it-or-lose it situation. If Biden does nothing, the economy tanks. If Biden breaks the strike, he weakens a valuable base of support for the Democrats right before the election.
From the Middle East to the Atlantic-Gulf Coast ports, the consequences of the Biden puppetry are coming home to roost.
Side note. It’s a shame Jen Psaki is no longer in government so that when the inevitable shortages from the ILA strike occur she can poo-poo us about “the tragedy of the treadmill that’s delayed.”
Biden
Bombing the Houthis
The Nasrallah strike, now this.
So far, contra the fears of many of us, the country best exploiting the power vacuum in Washington has been Israel.
For the Want of a Ship…
Priorities. Three data points.
First, remember this story from last month? Navy to Sideline 17 Vessels Due to Manpower Shortages.
So this an example of why the Navy is standing on the edge of a death spiral. We don’t have enough manpower to crew the ships we have, which means we need to take ships out of service, which means we put more pressure on the existing fleet with extended deployments, which means more problems with retention and recruitment. Rinse and repeat. When you see stories like the USS Eisenhower going on a nine month deployment through July of this year, this is the sort of thing that burns out crews and the fleet in general.
Second, I saw this story today, ”US Navy Replenishment Ship Sustains Damage While Operating in Middle East.” That replenishment ship was the only oiler in the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group which is currently operating near Oman in order to deter Iran. That oiler is now out of action and is being towed back to Dubai. There are no other oilers available in the fleet and the Navy is scrambling to find commercial vessels to service the Lincoln strike group.
A military force is only as good as its logistics and no oilers means the Lincoln strike group becomes a coastal force, tethered to ports for replenishment.
Of those 17 ships the Navy wants to take out of service? Two replenishment vessels and one oiler.
Third, Jill Biden reveals $500 Million Plan That Focuses on Women’s Health at Clinton Global Initiative Oh, really? Tell me more, like what problems are going to be addressed and where’s that money coming from?
First lady Jill Biden is unveiling a new set of actions to address health inequities faced by women in the United States, plans that include spending at least $500 million annually on women’s health research.
Biden was making the announcement Monday while closing out the first day of this year’s Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting in New York.
The additional government spending will mainly come from the Department of Defense…
So when we don’t have enough men and ships for the fleet, the Department of Defense is going to spend nearly $500 million annually on women’s health research? Not HHS or NIH?
Also, why announce this at the Clinton Global Initiative, that well-known personal slush fund for the Clinton crime family?
Did I mention the Clintons gave Joe an award?
Bet you that $500 million could have staffed those 17 ships they are taking off-line, maybe even built a new oiler.
Priorities.
Visible Signs
My daughter and I have done a handful of long road trips over the last few years, especially after Texas sensibly lifted the most onerous COVID restrictions. For many of these trips we preferred to take country roads; various two or four-lane routes which meandered through miles of Texas back country, hopscotching past small ranches and passing through small towns of varying degrees of prosperity. One thing we often noticed in passing was a scattering of Trump banners, many of them weathered and obviously left over from the 2020 campaign. It was a hard-fought campaign; obviously many Trump supporters out here in flyover country remained sore about the steal. Also rather obviously, residents in rural Texas aren’t worried about random retaliatory vandalism to their property or vehicles by displaying such political partisanship.
Best Eaten Cold
Revenge, as the old saying has it, is a dish best served cold. And revenge may not be the only – or the most dangerous – platter best dished up chilled. That would be the dish of anger – that ice-cold, sullen reservoir of fury in the hearts of every right-of-center, non-elite, law-abiding flyover-country middle American with Tea Partyish inclinations … a dish of anger ready to serve up in the wake of a just-barely unsuccessful political assassination attempt this last weekend.
You see, there is a considerable difference between hot fury and cold. Hot fury is impulsive, immediately violent, reactive and more often misplaced. It’s the unthinking destructive fury of the mob, lashing out indiscriminately. Cold fury, on the other hand, does not manifest itself in such spectacular fashion. Cold fury is focused, calculated, unspectacular; it takes its time, waiting for the optimum moment. Cold fury usually can’t be appeased, once unleashed. As I wrote some time ago, regarding the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance –
“The image of a “vigilante” most usually implies a disorganized mob; lawless, mindlessly violent, easily steered but ultimately uncontrollable. The Vigilance Committee was something much, much worse than that. They were organized, they were in earnest, they would not compromise – and they would not back down.”