That I am a Philadelphia Eagles fan is no surprise to my friends, and perhaps those who routinely read my blog. So the controversy surrounding the Tush Push should be familiar.
But for those who are not football fans, the Tush Push could be construed to be some type of reference to gay sex. As to whether there is a bit of latent homosexuality embedded in a sport like football, with all the references, the gang tackling, the piles of men upon men during many plays, that is a different topic for another day.
The Tush Push I am referencing, concerns a play being successfully used by the Eagles to gain a yard or two, especially on third and fourth down, in which the offensive line is arranged very close together, and low, the quarterback leans in even more closer to the center than usual, and one or two other players stand close behind the quarterback. At the signal to hike the ball, all the offensive linemen plow forward and down, the quarterback propels himself in an almost perpendicular line behind them, while the two players behind him push forward, often by applying thrust to his behind. The Tush Push.
Suffice it to say, it is very successful, so much so that the owners of the teams voted this past off season to outlaw it. Fortunately, for the Eagles, the effort fell two votes short and did not pass, providing us with another year of people complaining about the play.
Anyone who has watched football over the years, knows that a quarterback running or diving straight ahead behind his line has been a staple for decades. All teams have used it, most still do. So, one can say that the Eagles version is just that, a version of the quarterback sneak.
What is different however, is that the Eagles have Jalen Hurst behind center, a man who has the leg strength unlike any quarterback who has come before him. His weight lifting prowess, especially lifts which rely on strong legs, is legendary. That is why other teams struggle to imitate the play as the Eagles execute it.
All that being said, it is also true that the NFL is a reactive sport, in that when something is successful, especially on the offensive side of the ball, the specialists who coordinate the defensive side of the sport, are generally quick to react, quick to find a counter. We saw that with the RPO, run-pass option play, that, while still being used by some teams, was initially unstoppable.
It amuses me to think that the play needs to be outlawed, that some defensive strategist will not come up with a solution that will be quickly copied by everyone else, although I would bet that next year the rules will be changed to counter its success, perhaps as simple as making it a penalty for an offensive player to push the quarterback from behind at the time of the snap of the ball.
Regardless, as this season progresses, the Eagles would be foolish not to begin developing plays which look like a tush push, but become something different. We saw that earlier in the year when Hurts stepped back and executed an underhand toss to our star running back who went around the left side, untouched, into the end zone. In other words, we need to be both ready for next year's rule changes, and begin to fool defenses this year as they continue to try new ways to stop the play.
In addition to pulling out and running a run play to the outside, perhaps a quick pass play to a receiver who breaks out of the mass of humanity before a defensive player can react.
Or simply, line up everyone in a tush push formation, then quickly spread out the formation as if you are going to run a standard play, only to have the QB return right behind the center at the last instant to execute a traditional quarterback sneak.
In other words, the Eagles need to adapt now, to avoid the eventual formation contrived by some defensive coordinator which stops the play, or the owners change the rules making the play, as it exists, illegal.
So, what does the Tush Push have to do with tariffs?
If you follow the news, you may be aware that last week a TV ad was run by the Ontario government which featured the words of Ronald Reagan trashing the idea of using tariffs. Immediately, our thin skinned president called it fake news and announced a 10% increase in tariffs on Canada. You know, a purely economic decision.
Now, as is the case of practically every advertisement you might see on TV, whether for toothpaste or cars or beverages, there is some truth to the words you hear, some exaggeration, some lies by omission, and some outright non-truths.
In this case, it is true that Reagan said all the words featured on the ad in a radio address he did in 1987. He did not believe in using tariffs in the long run to address economic disparities between countries, in general. However, he said those words during a speech in which he was defending the application of tariffs on Japan to counter their exporting low cost automobiles into America. He defended that action as a way to give American car companies the time to reduce their own prices, and/or make their cars more attractive if even slightly more expensive. His goal was to temporarily provide them relief, not give them reason to continue to make cars that were too expensive or just not popular.
Of course, all of this is lost on Trump but that is no surprise as his actions belie so many of Reagan's beliefs, as a conservative, simply because, Trump is no conservative.
I often joke that Bill Clinton was the best republican president of my lifetime. I say this because of a number of laws that were passed during his two terms, but none demonstrate it more that NAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement, which took effect on January 1, 1994, was a pact between the United States, Canada and Mexico, and was an extension of the agreement between the US and Canada which was negotiated by Reagan and signed in 1988.
NAFTA was an extremely bipartisan bill. It received 234 votes in the House, 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. In the Senate it was 61-38, with 34 GOP and 27 votes for its passage. You could even say it was more popular with Republicans than Democrats, even though there was a Democrat in the White House, although, as I said earlier in this post, a president from the Democratic party with Republican leanings.
Has there been such a vote, with such agreement (and disagreement as there was a similar breakdown between the parties in who voted no) in history? Certainly, in today's world where bipartisan is defined as two or three, perhaps even as many as half a dozen defections from one party to support a bill authored by the other party, something with that dynamic could not occur.
You see, for all of my life, free trade has been a foundational tenet of the conservative mindset, and therefore the GOP. That is why I say that Trump is no conservative, at least not on that subject, as he has enacted tariffs against virtually all of the world, or at least all of the countries that actively trade with America.
What boggles my mind is that it was corporations that took advantage of trade pacts like NAFTA, or Trump's version called USMCA, by sending jobs offshore to countries with lower standards of living, lax environmental rules, and little to no worker protections. In fact, as I have stated before, so often this offshoring of jobs was defended by conservatives who claimed that consumer prices in America stayed low while workers in those poorer nations were able to earn better wages by working to make products for America.
Both of which are true. It is undeniable that the standard of living has increased in many Asian countries due to American companies manufacturing products there and clearly cheap products are being purchased in America at an incredible rate. Can you say WalMart?
Still, there is a long term price for such short term thinking, and so Trump is correct when he says we should make more things in America, but wrong when he blames other countries, and then enacts tariffs to punish them for "robbing" us. We may have been robbed, but it was by the large corporations that sent the jobs overseas, not the countries who allowed them to provide jobs to their workers. In fact, one could even say that by allowing American companies to provide these jobs, they were merely following a Make (fill in the country) Great again. They didn't care about Americans losing their jobs, only that their workers were employed. Vietnam First, one might say.
And, of course, the corporations didn't care either because that business model was profitable, very profitable.
However, and this is the link to the Tush Push, countries, like defensive coordinators, adapt. If a tariff is punishing an industry in their country, they counter with their own tariffs. Or find another source for their products. That is the essence of what Reagan was saying in that radio speech. That, in the long run, tariffs are bad for the global economy in that it creates reasons for even more tariffs, which keep the cycle going. A cycle that results in higher prices for everyone.
Sadly, Trump is not capable of adapting. He is the tariff president, proudly proclaims so, and will not back down. He may resort to signing as executive order to counter the negative consequences of his actions, but will never admit that his policies are wrong.
My fear is that the world is starting to learn how to interact with Trump, how to outmaneuver him as they stroke his ego with platitudes and concessions that were in their benefit to begin with. Trump starts a trade war, other countries react, then negotiate with him to return to the status quo while he pretends that he accomplished something. He is like the arsonist who sets a fire then takes credit when he puts it out.
A good example of that is the controversy surrounding soybean purchases from US farmers by China. In the announcement from the White House, the administration reported that China would be purchasing 12 million metric tons of soybeans for the remainder of 2025 while praising Trump's use of tariff threats to solve this crisis for the farmers who were afraid that their soybean crop would rot in the fields and silos.
Unfortunately, even with this big purchase, this year China will only have purchased a little over 18 million metric tons of soybeans, well short of the 28 million metric tons which has been averaged the last five years, and will mark the lowest amount of soybean purchases since 2018.
And why did China cease its purchases? As a reaction to Trump's tariff war!
So, at least for the soybean farmers, things are worse. As to whether there might be gains in some other areas, such as rare earth metal sales, it remains to be seen how things will wind up. The problem however, as Reagan stated, is that our trading partner reacted to the unilateral application of tariffs, in this case, hurting American soybean farmers. As the negotiations continue, I expect there will be compromises and concessions on both sides. That is the point of talking.
Sadly, Trump believes more in manipulation, coercion, threats, and bullying as opposed to discussion. While this has worked for him in his interactions with the Republican party, it will be less successful on the world stage, perhaps even counterproductive with China where their leader answers to no one, can even choose to hurt a part of his population to make an international point. There are not meaningful elections in China for Xi to worry about.
Their are other suppliers of soybeans, other trading partners that large economies like the EU and China can engage with to sell and buy their products.
Like the tush push, other plays that can be used to win the game. The question is, how long will the American electorate continue to believe the dual lies, that Trump is a great businessman, and that he cares about addressing the economic problems that face our country, problems that require real solutions based on actual concepts that go beyond, do-what-I say-or-else, or worse, I-know-more-about-everything-than-anyone.
I have posted with the title of economics a few times. Here are links to two of them, written in 2019.
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-womans-worth.html
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/04/debt-as-weapon.html
No comments:
Post a Comment