The Age of Incompetence

Dec 27, 2016 J. Bradford DeLong

Donald Trump clearly has not taken any lessons from George W. Bush's presidency. He knows that he is the star, but he also wrongly believes that he has the knowledge, intelligence, and temperament to be the boss.

BERKELEY – On January 20, 2017, US President-elect Donald Trump will take office having received almost three million fewer votes than his opponent; and he will work with a Republican Senate majority whose members won 13 million fewer votes than their Democratic opponents. Only the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Paul Ryan, has any claim to represent a numerical majority of the 55% of Americans who voted on Election Day 2016.

Trump will also begin his presidency with an approval rating below 50%. This is unprecedented – or “unpresidented,” as one of his semi-literate tweets put it (before he deleted it) – in the history of such ratings. The government of the world’s oldest democracy is, in fact, not democratic. Also unprecedented is the fact that so few members of the president-elect’s own party, and none of the Democratic opposition, consider him to be qualified for the duties of the presidency, apart from serving as Cheerleader-in-Chief.

Of course, the Trump phenomenon has been gestating for a long period. With the honorable exception of George H.W. Bush, who had the requisite knowledge, intelligence, temperament, and values to serve, the last time a fully qualified Republican was inaugurated was in 1957. No one denies that Richard Nixon had the knowledge and intelligence to be president; but most people will admit that his temperament and values left something to be desired.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

J. Bradford DeLong

Writing for PS since 2002
226 Commentaries

J. Bradford DeLong is Professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He was Deputy Assistant US Treasury Secretary during the Clinton Administration, where he was heavily involved in budget and trade negotiations. His role in designing the bailout of Mexico during the 1994 peso crisis placed him at the forefront of Latin America’s transformation into a region of open economies, and cemented his stature as a leading voice in economic-policy debates.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 27 Comments on this article

carmen nazabal Jan 15, 2017

Obama won the Nobel award just by winning the elections and Trump has been demonized just by winning the elections
Is Obama using deodorant axe or what?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Val Mackenzie Jan 8, 2017

Yes, it's going to make great reality tv.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christine Constable Jan 7, 2017

The Author doth protest too much. There are many elections where the popular vote winner does not win the election, twas ever thus and has more to do with partisan concentrations and constituency boundaries than any nefarious attempt by the candidate to seize power. I am sure had the Democrats won the author and his ilk would have swept that detail under the carpet. As to intellectual suitability for President, there have been many politicians who have lacked that, but won their position through charisma or being able to connect to the populace I am thinking of Ronald Reagan once lambasted as being simply an "actor" but who, in the end turned out to be one of the best Presidents the USA ever had.

The author should have more faith in his own political system to know that the wishes and desires of one person, even if he is the President can be checked and balanced by the corpus of the US political system, Obama himself found out exactly how impotent he was without the support of the wider political franchise and as a result was able to achieve very little while pinned to the floor by objectors.

I am sure for many people Trump was not an ideal candidate, but as the US have not put financial limits on their campaign funding it stands to reason very rich people are the ones who appear as Presidential candidates, hand wringing that Trump made it is pointless, if people like the author object to that kind of politics then the obvious needs to be done and financial limits have to be imposed.

Ever so often I think it is good to shake up the complacency of the politicians. Who across the board have demonstrated poor leadership; lack of vision and governance which has simply not met the objectives of the people. If in the USA like the UK you have a cosy cabal of two parties who basically are the same with pretences to either the left or the right, but rarely change the game, then it stands to reason the populace gets bored; disenchanted or devious and seeks to upset the apple cart. This happened in the UK with UKIP who, despite not having any Parliamentary seats managed to get the country out of Europe (a fantastic feat of political skill) and in the US appealing to the dispossessed and the left behind Trump, despite being a billionaire made middle America believe in him - his success says much about the failure of mainstream politics to govern in the interests of all, and more particularly the state of the Democrats that the poor in America did not believe Democratic rule would improve their situation. I spoke to some black friends of mine about the election and was surprised to learn that they had voted for Trump and their reasoning was interesting. Firstly they said just because we are black does not mean we automatically vote Democrat, in fact as black business people we identify more with Trump than with Clinton. Secondly, they look at Trump's business success and said if he can do that for himself, imagine what he can do for America. People like the Author might scoff at that but what Trump gave people was hope, hope things would and could change, hope that he will be a strong leader and will challenge the deathly status quo and hope that his unorthodox approach as a business man might actually be more successful than the fiddling creeping administrative politicians that have hitherto done little to lift the USA in the eyes of the electorate and the world at large.

Being a critic is easy, sniping from the side lines, never having to prove YOU can do a better job, I think we should give the guy a couple of years at least then have this conversation.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kerry Pechter Jan 4, 2017

Reality is like a disco ball; it has many facets, each one offering an undistorted reflection back to a particular viewer in a particular position. The Trump victory could be seen been as the reversal, after 150 years, of the outcome of the Civil War. It's been framed by Jane Mayer as the capture of the government, after a 30 year campaign, by the Koch brothers. It is many things but all of them unfortunately are probably bad. You don't want a drunk at the helm of the Exxon Valdez.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Josh Speed Dec 30, 2016

When you say qualified, do you mean this:
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Is there some formal training or testing that our President has to complete before he can even run?
I think it's been made clear in the Constitution what the qualifications are.
- Val Mackenzie Jan 8, 2017
  
  He acts as though he didn't even finish high school.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
tom bergerson Dec 28, 2016

Brd Bitter Betty DeLong. How tired is this popular vote crying. Trump won according to the rules. Grow up. And if he fails spectacularly he will be replaced. Not like the guy from his ideological camp made for great economic progress lo these last 8 years. Otherwise his ideological successor would have won despite her quasi-criminal past.
- Val Mackenzie Jan 8, 2017
  
  I think the point is not if he really did win or not. It's how spectacularly is he going to fail and how many millions of people's lives will he destroy while he is in power.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mark St. Angelo Dec 28, 2016

I think that a call to "constantly remind Senate Republicans that they speak for 13 million fewer voters than the Democrats do" is one of the most useless pieces of advice that has been printed here on PS. No Senator, Democrat or Republican, cares whether he/she received fewer votes than a Senator from a different state, and no Senator from a state with a small population is going to be persuaded to change his/her vote on any bill by the fact that a Senator from a state with a larger population takes a different position.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
G. A. Pakela Dec 28, 2016

The proof will be in the pudding, so to speak. If Trump's economic policies lead to four years of higher growth his foreign policy diffuses the tension with Russia, a nation armed to the hilt with nuclear weapons, and he finds a way to bring the mullahs of Iran to end their campaign to produce nuclear weapons, than we shall have to remind you in four years of your words.
- Mark St. Angelo Dec 28, 2016
  
  There are far more pressing problems for the US than reducing tension with Russia and preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
  Developing a strategy for dealing with China, for example, is more important than reducing tension with Russia, and putting an end to strife caused by radical Sunni Muslims is more important than preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
  
  As for Trump's economic policies, the proof will, indeed, be in the pudding. Trump will be taking office at a time when the US stock market will be close to its highest level in history. Feel free to base your investment strategy on the assumption that it will continue to go up. I, for one, won't be joining you in that regard.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Aale Hanse Dec 28, 2016

For a supposable intelligent person you have put forward a dumb proposal as a solution to the problem. Next I expect you will ask the disenfranchised voters to wear yellow shirts while they turn the next 4-8 year into a circus -- as if that is going to be a happy exit for them.
How many times do we have to say it: Trump is not the problem, he is the symptom of a greater problem.
- Kerry Pechter Jan 4, 2017
  
  He was the symptom of a problem. Now he is a problem.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
ezra abrams Dec 28, 2016

"So, what should the millions of Americans who now fear for the future do? First, we can work at the state level"

I wish you had spent more time on this and less on history
Perhpaps in the future you, and Project Syndicate, and other sane people, can spend a lot less time criticizing trump and a lot more time on ways to fight back
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Nelson Dec 28, 2016

"He seems unaware that his campaign is over, that he could fail catastrophically and permanently in his new role, and that it is in his own interest to ensure that his proposals are sound, not just as slogans, but as actual policies that will keep the US safe and create prosperity."

I think this is a misreading of both Trump and (more importantly) his supporters. They want a President who BEHAVES is a Joe Sixpack manner: with swagger and lots of zingers. They do not understand policy, they do not understand the consequences of policy, and they are quite able to BELIEVE more in a fantasmatic American Greatness than the disastrous reality that Trump will likely bring.

Trump will continue to lie to them, explaining for example why the destruction of Medicare and Medicaid are NECESSARY, and in fact the fault of the Democrats. They will believe whatever he tells them.

The Trump Presidency will be reality TV, where everyone is phony, and everyone knows it, but everyone believes it all anyway. His supporters will be eager participants.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke Dec 28, 2016

Economics: Two ages of scientific incompetence
Comment on Bradford DeLong on ‘The Age of Incompetence’

Bradford DeLong comments on the incompetence of US presidents from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump. DeLong is an economist and economics is supposed to be a science and ― this got lost entirely in the Age of Incompetence ― genuine scientists keep out of politics because they know that politics and science do not mix, never have, and never will.

Economists habitually ignore the separation of politics and science. They claim to do science since Adam Smith/Karl Marx, what they in fact have done is what Feynman famously called cargo cult science or, more specifically, political economics.

Political economics is agenda pushing and has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years. Economics is a failed science. The four majors approaches — Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism — are mutually contradictory and materially/formally inconsistent. Until this day, there is NO scientifically valid economics.

Political economists are incompetent scientists and have made economics a fake science.* DeLong is a prominent representative of this aberration. He is out of science, his contributions to economics are rubbish, and his comments on politics are sitcom stuff.

Incompetent economists are as much a menace to their fellow citizens as incompetent presidents.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

* For details see cross-references Incompetence
http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2015/07/incompetence-cross-references.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stephen Morris Dec 28, 2016

"The government of the world’s oldest democracy is, in fact, not democratic." The United States is not, never has been, and was never intended to be a Democracy. We know that from the mouths of the very men who drafted its anti-democratic constitution:

"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well-born; the other the mass of the people … turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the Government … Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy."(Alexander Hamilton, Speech to the Constitutional Convention, June 1787)

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. "(John Adams)

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." (John Marshall)

"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship." (Alexander Hamilton)

"…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." (James Madison, Federalist No. 10)

One might ask just how many democracies Madison and his colleagues had examined in coming to these sweeping conclusions, or how many other systems of government had not eventually been “violent in their deaths”. But it is clear from their language that they regarded “democracy” as something to be avoided at all costs. And they went about doing just that.

The modern Orwellian use of “democratic” to describe non-democratic government arose only in 1798, paradoxically as a response to Hamilton’s pejorative use of the term against Jefferson’s “Republican Party” (the so-called “Democratic Republican Party”, not to be confused with the modern Republican Party).

In response to the Republicans' claims that Hamilton's Federalists harboured aristocratic attitudes, the Federalists in turned tried to brand Jefferson’s followers as “Democratic-Republicans”, the worst slur they could think of. But the Republicans countered by simply adopting the label as part of their official name.

And so, ten years after ratification of a deliberately non-democratic constitution (in the historical sense), a political party can be seen appropriating the title “Democratic” safe in the knowledge that there was no real threat of actual democracy.

This strategy has been used ever since. The German Democratic Republic (the former East Germany) was in fact a police state. Likewise, to this day the brutal North Korean dictatorship chooses to style itself “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.

Just because an Elite chooses to style its regime “Democratic” doesn’t mean that it's actually Democratic.

And we know with some confidence what the citizens would prefer if ever they were given a free choice in the matter.

To begin with, we know from our Game Theory that citizens' consent for non-democratic "elective" government can NOT be inferred from their strategy of sullen acquiescence. That would require demonstrating that citizens are not acting under conditions of Prisoners’ Dilemma in the face of entrenched political parties and other powerful elite interests opposed to genuine Democracy.

We know from work such as that of Bower et al ("Enraged or Engaged? Preferences for Direct Citizen Participation in Affluent Democracies", 2007) that:

a) in almost all countries a clear majority of respondents agree or strongly agree with the statement “Thinking about politics in [COUNTRY] . . . . Referendums are a good way to decide important political questions”;

b) in countries where there is no outright majority support, a strong plurality of respondents agree or strongly agree (with some having no view); and

c) support is STRONGEST in that country (Switzerland) where people have the MOST experience of such decision-making.

We know from the historical record that in the few cases where citizens HAVE been given a free choice in their system of government (half of US states, German lander, a handful of other jurisdictions) they almost invariably vote for genuine Democracy with the right of recall, veto, initiative and referendum.

(Admittedly in the United States, the democratic States must still operate under the anti-democratic provisions of the Federal constitution and its Supreme Court which - in the name of the "Rule of Law" - insists that Money is Speech and overturns attempts to regulate the role of money in the democratic process. But that's hardly a shortcoming of Democracy.)

Finally, and most importantly, we know that where citizens DO enjoy truly democratic rights they NEVER vote to repeal them, even though it's a straightforward process to initiate a referendum for that purpose. (And indeed in some jurisdictions the attempt has been made . . . and defeated at the ballot box!)

Unlike the system of elitist elective government, genuine Democracy demonstrates the ongoing consent of the citizens being governed.

The last great wave of Populism (that's big-P Populism, not the pejorative small-p populism) in the early 20th century had the legacy of introducing Democracy to almost half the US States.

So, If you want to address the democratic shortcomings of the United States' system of government in the current Populist environment, perhaps a good first step would be to . . . . . campaign for the introduction of Democracy!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Francisco-Javier Alejo Dec 28, 2016

F.J. Alejo, Dec. 27, 2016
Mr.Trump has'nt shown any degreee of undertanding the strcture and dynamics of the modern international system as well as the fragility of its present condition. Former presidents Nixon, Reagan Bush the elder, Clinton and Obama clearly unstood that a prime responsability of the US President is to ensure peace and security for the modern imperial system commanded by the US. This cannot be done by instantanious reactions to whatever happens and least of all by bullying every body around.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hugh Thomas Dec 28, 2016

Perhaps for the authors benefit we should rename the article 'the Age of Churlishness' for the quality of the article which I would expect to read on facebook but not here. Before posting my comments may I also point out that I am a simple observer of American politics and not a voter; and frankly I thought neither candidate worthy of leading the worlds largest economy!

The articles principal theme is more about the authors view on the flawed democracy of the American electoral college voting process than anything else. This has little to do with Trump, he didn't create the voting system and to be candid many western countries have Gerrymander voting systems, if I take an extreme case like Australia where voting is compulsory it is not unusual for the candidate with the highest national primary vote to not become the Prime Minister (their version of President). I may even dare to say that perhaps Trump showed greater competence than his rival in the fact that when realizing he was lagging in the polls his, or his teams, recruitment of some of the best data analytic scientists to understand the electrical college voting system rewarded him rather well.

There are some further sub-themes in the article; and the analogy to Hollywood has its place. The American popularist culture for example is exemplified by the fact America has a Presidential Election and not a General Election like most Western countries. Certainly the other G20 countries are not preoccupied by the individual in the running to lead the country in the same way as the USA; most political commentary would be around 'x' party's' view on a policy versus 'y' party's', not one Presidential candidate called the other a name! There is a wonderful irony to calling it a Presidential election however as it is far from ever being 'presidential' by nature. As to Trump's qualities and experience to be President, well let history decide as we have had what appear to be well qualified leaders be dismal in reality and there have been less qualified that have surprised.

My final comment does become a little personal, how can arguably one of America's better Universities for Economics have a Professor whos economic wisdom and guidance is around how to block policy (whether good policy or not). America, and perhaps many western economies are now in policy hiatus. Theoretic and perhaps academic rigor seems to be sadly channeled to defeating the system not fixing the problems. As an Economics Professor (and not a Sociology or English literature Professor) perhaps your efforts should be directing the thought process to why America hasn't had a significant and sensible change to the Tax Act for 25 years, or will the USA economic public debt be it's down fall, or if you do want to introduce social economic comment relevant to your next President, can an arguably successful businessman apply the practices that built his empire to running a country, I doubt he can but I will put faith in the system to provide appropriate checks and balances. I will however watch with interest.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Dec 27, 2016

J. Bradford DeLong braces for an "age of incompetence" under Trump, which makes total sense to anybody, who has a modicum of intelligence. No doubt the author's views will be immediately dismissed by Trump's voters, who refuse to learn anything that is hostile to their beliefs. Before they triumph they have to bear in mind that their number makes up just 62,979,879 (46.1%) of popular votes. Even though the presidency is decided by electoral votes, Hillary Clinton won more - 65,844,954 (48.2%) - than Trump.
Given the US population of 324,118,787 as per 2016 census, Hillary Clinton's popular votes would amount to 45.5% of the total population, while Trump's merely 41.6%. The same logic applies for the GOP controlled House and Senate. Republicans are well-advised to be humble and not haughty. In order to heal the wounds of division, they need to reconcile and reach out to the Democrats, instead of this Us versus Them rhetoric.
Indeed, "Trump will also begin his presidency with an approval rating below 50%." Perhaps less than 40%, because many, who voted for him, did so following their "lesser of two evils" instinct - they didn't like the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. It's very true that few Republicans and no Democrats "consider him to be qualified for the duties of the presidency, apart from serving as Cheerleader-in-Chief." His diehard supporters within the white middle class will soon be bitterly disappointed that he won't bring jobs back.
In fact Trump lacks "the requisite knowledge, intelligence, temperament, and values to serve" the presidential office. According to the author - with the exception of George HW Bush - "the last time a fully qualified Republican was inaugurated was in 1957," when Dwight D. Eisenhower took office. Former GOP presidents - Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush - didn't have what it takes to be "fully qualified". Gerald Ford wasn't elected. He was Richard Nixon's vice-president and succeeded him in 1974, due to the Watergate scandal. And he was beaten by Jimmy Carter in 1976.
The author says, Trump obviously hasn't learned from GW Bush. He is seemingly "unaware that his campaign is over." The fear that "he could fail catastrophically and permanently in his new role" is justified. It is wishful thinking to expect him to "ensure that his proposals are sound, not just as slogans, but as actual policies that will keep the US safe and create prosperity."
Tens of millions of Americans fear the harm Trump will do to the country, after seeing what a bunch of people he wants to appoint. The checks and balances of the US system will partially constrain him, but they need to "work at the state level to try to neutralize any Trump policy initiatives that are flawed or infeasible." This requires a cooperation between "Democrats and principled Republicans in state legislatures.... to keep tax revenues flowing and to fund the many spending programs that are in the American interest, regardless of what is happening in Washington, DC. And they should promise each other that, regardless of who comes to power in 2021, they will not hold each other liable for acting as disruptors today."
Given the fact that Republicans have "13 million fewer voters than the Democrats" the author urges Americans to be vigilant and keep an eye on the GOP. Let's hope that there are enough Republicans, who are aware of their electoral shortfalls, to generate a sense of humility and put their partisan interests aside, for the good of the country. They will do "a disservice to the country" if they continue "to show unconditional partisan support for an administration that is so obviously unfit."
- ezra abrams Dec 28, 2016
  
  This cconstant liberal denigration of Trump voters is both stupid and counterproductive
  Yes, some of them are stupid and racist etc
  But many are not; it would be more productive to ask how was it possible for HIllary to fail at jobs ideas so badly that people voted for Trump, whom they clearly don't like - his own voters don't like him, yet many are so desparate for change, any change, that they were willing to a take a chance
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Morgan Dec 27, 2016

The world is full of problems and The Donald will bring some light relief to a very troubled world. He is not the first idiot to hold the office of president of the United States of America as your reference in your article to the comments made by Margret Thatcher about the cowboy president. Many thousands of comedians around the world were in tears when George W. Bush left office but they are for now at least, smiling with the thought of the presidency of the Donald.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Dec 27, 2016

The author of this article keeps on repeating the 3 million votes, as if he was present during their casting and counting. Popular votes mean nothing and not only in the US but also in many other western countries. Therefore, he and others better start thinking about a new and universal and fair voting system that is democratic and meets people's expectations and this before thinking about TTP, TTIP, etc.....
- M M Dec 29, 2016
  
  David, Thank you.
  Mark, Research well your question, and you will get your answer.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- David Lloyd-Jones Dec 29, 2016
  
  Mark,
  
  Canada, and any Parliamentary democracy.
  
  A Prime Minister, chosen by a Governor-General, need only gain the support of a coalition in the House. Such a Prime Minister's own party would usually, but not necessarily, be the largest part of that group, but need not be a Parliamentary majority.
  
  -dlj.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Mark St. Angelo Dec 28, 2016
  
  In what other Western nation(s) is it possible for someone to become the leader of the country without winning, either individually or on a party basis, a majority of the votes?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Dec 27, 2016

DeLong needs to remind himself that the President is not the government. The Constitution ensures that, and the Republicans already have Paul Ryan to guide domestic policy. They need to find an equally competent set of hands to guide foreign policy on a day-to-day basis. Trump's presidency will put congressional leadership (and judicial leadership) to the test. Let's see how they do.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.