Trump is eliminating lobbyists by putting them in charge of all departments.

After his election,1) it was difficult to predict what President Trump would do. In the election campaign he said everything and the opposite of everything: from a 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports to the reintroduction of the separation of commercial and investment banks, from an aggressive use of antitrust authority to the total abolishment of Dodd-Frank, the financial regulation that was enacted after the crisis. After two months, it is clear that the Trump industrial policy will be pro-business, not pro-market.

It may seem to be a nuance, but there is a fundamental difference. A pro-business policy favors existing companies at the expense of future generations. A pro-market policy favors conditions that allow all businesses to thrive without any favoritism. A pro-business policy defends domestic enterprises with favorable rates and treatment. A pro-market policy opens the domestic market to international competition because doing so would not only benefit consumers, but would also benefit the companies themselves in the long term, which will have to learn to be competitive on the market, rather than prosper thanks to protection and state aid. A pro-business policy turns a blind eye (often two) when companies pollute, evade, and defraud consumers. A pro-market policy seeks to reduce the tax and regulatory burden, but ensures that laws are applied equally to all.

Paradoxically, a pro-business policy ends up damaging not only the economy, but also, in the long-run, those companies that it had originally benefited. This matters little to its supporters, because when the chickens come home to roost they will have already grossed billions. Angelo Mozilo, founder of Countrywide, the bank responsible for a large chunk of the toxic mortgages that led to the 2008 crisis, lives happily on the $600 million he accumulated, despite the enormous damage of the financial crisis that he helped to create.

During the presidential campaign Trump used many populist themes. The first signal that his policies will be neither populist nor popular, but strictly pro-business, is his choice of Cabinet members. Trump had promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington of lobbyists. Few realized that he would do that by making intermediaries pointless, as the lobbyists themselves would be in charge of the departments: the CEO of Exxon as head of foreign policy, a former Goldman Sachs partner at the Treasury, the daughter of a ship owner for Transportation, a raider at Commerce, etc.

The second signal was the president-elect’s picks to head the most important government agencies. As the head of the EPA, Trump placed a lawyer who sued the EPA in Oklahoma for the oil industry. As the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Trump has chosen a lawyer experienced in defending companies accused of fraud and international corruption. What’s more, the new chairman of the SEC is married to a partner at Goldman Sachs, a company regulated by the SEC.

The third signal was Trump’s threat to introduce a “border tax,” another name for a tariff on imports. This tax will not only serve the protectionist desires of some parts of U.S. industries, but also provide financial resources to cover the promised reduction in direct taxation. The tax would be contrary to the World Trade Organization’s rules. However, Trump has threatened that the U.S. will leave the WTO.

The worst signal, however, comes from the way Trump has used his tweets to attack and coax American businesses. United Technologies (UT) has been praised for its decision to cancel plans to close its plant in Indianapolis and relocate it to Mexico. Apparently this decision was the result of tax benefits offered by Vice President-elect Pence, who is the governor of Indiana. In truth, the decision seems motivated by fear of reprisals on government contracts, which represent a large sum of UT’s revenues. A fear that appears justified, as Trump attacked Boeing over the cost (which he considered excessive) of the new presidential aircraft and attacked Lockheed Martin over the F-35 aircraft. Trump is probably right on both counts, and this only adds to his popularity, but a president should address these issues by following the rules and not with an execution on the public square of social media.

With this strategy, Trump cleverly uses the carrot and stick approach. When Ford was publicly commended for deciding not to build a new plant in Mexico, the price of its shares rose 4.5 percent. Softbank did even better (+ 6.2 percent) after being praised by Trump for investing $50 billion in the United States. Softbank’s motive was simple: Softbank owns Sprint, a mobile operator that would like to merge with T-Mobile in order to increase market power. The authority to permit this merger lies with the new head of the Federal Trade Commission, yet to be named by Trump. Trump’s positive tweet feeds Softbank’s hopes that the merger will be approved.

We would expect such behavior from a dictator of a banana republic, not from the President-elect of the oldest democracy in the world. The Trump presidency has begun in the worst possible way for all those who, like me, still believe in the market.

The strongest case to make for conservatives supporting Donald Trump is a modest one. It goes like this: He is a deeply flawed man who is running against someone who is even more deeply flawed. Hillary Clinton is a person with liberal instincts who has been pulled further to the left in this campaign. She is also an ethical wreck whose career is laced with ineptitude, from HillaryCare to her handling of the Libyan fiasco, the Russian “re-set,” the Syrian civil war and spreading disorder in the world. So while Trump may be imperfect, the odds of him doing some good, on some issues, are better than in the case of Clinton. He is problematic; she is worse. And so, given the choice between two massively imperfect candidates for president, we are obligated to support the one who will do the least amount of damage and perhaps, if we’re lucky, a bit of good here and there.

This is a point of view held by some intelligent and well-intentioned people. It deserves a serious response from those of us who will not vote for Trump for president. Here’s mine.

Trump’s Cynical Flip-Flops

Perhaps the place to begin is to recall what one of the chief selling points of Donald Trump was, which was that he’s not a typical politician. He “tells it like it is” and says what he means. He has the guts to do what weak, incompetent and unprincipled politicians won’t. Yet it turns out that he’s far worse on this score than the typical politician. He is much more cynical than most, and the half-life of his promises are shorter than those of any politician in memory.

Trump has flipped his view on mass deportation, visas for high-skilled workers, the Iraq War, the Libya intervention, deposing Hosni Mubarak, Syrian refugees, fighting ISIS, NATO, nuclear proliferation, banning all Muslims, abortion, the minimum wage, Obamacare mandates, gun control, taxing the wealthy, releasing his tax returns, his party affiliation, his views on Ronald Reagan (from a “con man” to the president he admires most), Bill Clinton (from his sexual predatory habits being “totally unimportant” to him being “the worst abuser of women in history of politics&rdquo, Hillary Clinton (from “probably above and beyond everybody else” as secretary of state to “the worst secretary of state in the history of the United States&rdquo, and Barack Obama (from “doing great” as president to being “probably the worst president in the history of our country&rdquo. And this is only a partial list.

In just the last few weeks, Trump jettisoned what had been a core campaign commitment: The forced deportation of all illegal immigrants in the United States. He won the Republican primary in large part because he separated himself from other candidates on illegal immigration, and he was the one who repeatedly spoke about how he, and he alone, had the guts to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. He spoke proudly of his “deportation force” idea. It was central to his appeal. Yet he tossed it aside like it meant nothing to him, before (partially) reversing himself again. His latest position is that what he does with illegal immigrants is to be determined. Keep in mind, too, that in 2012 Trump lacerated Mitt Romney for being tootough on illegal immigration (“He had a crazy policy of self-deportation, which was maniacal” is how Trump put it on November 26, 2012. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote.&rdquo So he’s been all over the map on this issue, like he has on so many others.

Limited Government, Obamacare and ISIS

Prominent conservatives have said, in an attempt to allay concerns about Trump, that he is solidly conservative on matters like the size of government and reducing the debt; repealing and replacing Obamacare; and defeating ISIS. But none of these claims withstands scrutiny.

Trump has shown no commitment to limited government. He has repeatedly stated he’s against entitlement reform, a basic requirement of those wishing to re-limit and rein in the costs of government. His plan to cut the deficit consists of cutting “waste, fraud and abuse,” the ultimate fiscal dodge. He also said he would “at least double” Hillary Clinton’s plan to spend on infrastructure – at an estimated cost of $500 billion. (Remember, too, that Trump was praising President Obama’s stimulus package in Obama’s first term when virtually every Republican, including Republican members of Congress, was criticizing it.)

As for the debt: Trump has gone from promising to eliminate it in eight years to wanting creditors to accept lower payments than they are owed, to printing more money to stave off default. His tax plan, as currently constructed, would drain trillions from the Treasury. So simply based on what we know, based on what Trump has said, there’s no chance he will reduce the size of government but will rather expand it; and it’s quite likely the debt will grow worse under Trump than it would under Clinton. Even on executive orders, he has said that he has no qualms about using this power much like Obama has done -- only his will be “better.” As Ian Tuttle put it, “Trump’s dismissiveness toward the Constitution is in excess of anything Barack Obama displayed in 2008 or 2012.”

On repealing and replacing Obamacare: This, too, is a meaningless promise. During this campaign Trump has also spoken favorably about a single-payer health care system. He has praised the Obamacare mandates. He has said he believes in universal health care coverage and that the federal government ought to provide it. Many of his views, then, have been somewhat to the left of Obama’s. (Even Obama has denied he wants a single-payer health care system.)

On ISIS: Trump talks about destroying the Islamic State. But as recently as last fall, when it was territorially at its most dominant, Trump was saying ISIS was not ours to take on – it was “not our fight” – and we should “let Russia fight it.” That is hardly taking the battle to the enemy. Trump now says he would declare war on ISIS, but he would wage it with very few to no troops. Trump’s plan to defeat the Islamic State is purely rhetorical, not real.

These are just three policy areas – I could list many others -- and they demonstrate why Trump saying something one day isn’t anything we can rely on the next day. He is as unprincipled as any major presidential candidate in the history of America.

The Supreme Court “Trump Card”

Now let me turn to the matter of the Supreme Court, which is often invoked by Trump supporters as dispositive when it comes to the case for voting for Trump over Hillary Clinton.

I will concede that the chances of Trump appointing a better Supreme Court justice than Clinton are better, but just barely. Trump’s promise to nominate a conservative on the court is as meaningful to me as his pile of other (broken) promises. He put out a list of fine judges – none of whom he probably knows anything about. It was a list prepared for him in order to pacify conservatives.

Now add to that the fact that Trump has said his liberal, pro-choice sister would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice; that he has not shown the slightest bit of interest in or knowledge about judicial philosophy; and that he believes judges “sign laws” (they don’t). The idea that Trump would fight for a conservative nominee, especially if Democrats regain control of the Senate – that he would expend political capital for a Scalia-like nominee – is fanciful. He would almost surely opt for the Art of the Deal with the likes of Sen. Chuck Schumer.

*  *  *  
Now one could concede every point I’ve made and share every concern I’ve laid out but still argue that a gamble on Trump is better that the sure liberal bet on Clinton. I agree, if that were all there was to it. But there’s a great deal more one has to take into account on the matter of Trump, and when one does the case shifts dramatically against him.

Conspiracy Theories and Crazed Staff

Start with Trump peddling crazy conspiracy theories. It was, in fact, a conspiracy theory that elevated his profile five years ago, when Trump asserted President Obama was not born in the United States and that he could prove it. That was a lie, yet Trump continued to promote it, including misleading us when he spoke about all the evidence his investigators were gathering to prove his case. Since then, Trump has implied that Obama is a secret Muslim and claimed he is the “founder of ISIS.” (Trump later claimed he was being sarcastic. As this interview demonstrates, he was not.)

Trump has also suggested Ted Cruz’s father was implicated in the assassination of President Kennedy; that Vince Foster was murdered (five separate investigations found this claim to be utterly false); and that doctors are hiding evidence that vaccinations cause autism (a conspiracy theory that, if enough people believed it, would have devastating health effects). Repeated ventures into the fever swamps is evidence of a troubled mind, something one might want to take into account when considering a prospective president.

None of this is shocking, given the type of people Trump has surrounded himself with. Recall that one of the early arguments Trump supporters made is that he would surround himself with the “best” people. But Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson has reminded us of the kind of people Trump has attracted: Corey Lewandowski, who manhandled a female reporter and whose demeaning style resulted in a staff revolt; Paul Manafort, who was paid lucrative consulting fees by oppressive governments and who resigned after reports that investigators in Ukraine were looking into millions of dollars in alleged payments to him; longtime adviser Roger Stone, a rather unhinged fellow who, among other things, has claimed Bill and Hillary Clinton are “plausibly responsible” for the deaths of roughly 40 people; and now Steve Bannon, the CEO of the campaign, who has run a website, Breitbart, that is sympathetic to white nationalism and, by Bannon’s own admission, has provided a home to the noxious “alt-right” movement.

Affinity for Dictators and Slandering America

There are a host of other concerns about Trump, including his admiration for dictators. They include:

• Vladimir Putin, of whom Trump said, “It is always a great honor, to be so nicely complimented by a man [Putin] so highly respected within his own country and beyond.”
• Kim Jong-un, of whom Trump said, “And you have to give him credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals, and all of a sudden — you know, it’s pretty amazing when you think of it. How does he do that? Even though it is a culture and it’s a cultural thing, he goes in, he takes over, and he’s the boss. It’s incredible.”
• The butchers of Tiananmen Square, of whom Trump said, “They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak.”
• Saddam Hussein, of whom Trump said, “Saddam Hussein throws a little [chemical] gas, everyone goes crazy, 'oh he's using gas!'"

Trump also has the habit of slandering America. For example, when MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Putin “kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries,” Trump replied, “At least he’s a leader.” Besides, Trump asserted, “I think our country does plenty of killing also.” And when asked if President Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey was exploiting the recent coup attempt to purge his political enemies, Trump did not call for him to observe the rule of law or standards of justice. Instead he turned on the United States. “When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don’t think we are a very good messenger,” he said. “I don’t think we have a right to lecture,” Trump said in an interview. “Look at what is happening in our country. How are we going to lecture when people are shooting policemen in cold blood?” That’s the kind of moral equivalence conservatives once criticized liberals for. (Remember Jeane Kirkpatrick’s “Blame America First” speech?)

Policy Illiteracy

On the matter of public policy, hardly incidental for a person running for president, Donald Trump is breathtakingly ignorant, and has shown almost no interest in overcoming his ignorance.

The examples one can cite are nearly endless, but they would include not knowing what the nuclear triad is or what judges do, confusing the Kurds and the Quds Force, and his contradictory views on minimum wage (wages are too high and then too low; he’s for it and then against; he favors enforcement by the federal government and then wants states to take the lead). Trump has shown he’s not capable of talking intelligently and coherently about the debt (see above), health care policy (his solution is to “eliminate lines across the states&rdquo, the main reasons for lost blue-collar jobs (it’s not because of free-trade agreements), abortion (arguing that women who have abortions should be “punished” even as he was praising Planned Parenthood), changes he would make to NAFTA (utterly incomprehensible), Putin’s aggressions against Ukraine (he wasn’t aware that any such thing had occurred until ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pointed it out to him), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (he promised to be “neutral” on it before reversing course) and forcing the military to commit war crimes (first yes, then no).

Redefining the GOP

In addition, Trump, if he were to become president, would fundamentally redefine the Republican Party in ways that are in many respects antithetical to conservatism. If he were to be elected it would mean the GOP will no longer be the home of conservatism.

Trump plays identity politics like a man of the left, and in a way that conservatives have always criticized (e.g., his comments on the Mexican heritage of Judge Gonzalo Curiel). Trump is a fierce protectionist, further even to the left on trade than Bernie Sanders is, and his policies would be catastrophic for the world economy and America’s, too. He is completely at odds with what most every serious free-market economist of the last two centuries has believed on free trade. He has repeatedly defended eminent domain. And he has a certain contempt for the First Amendment, promising to “open up” libel laws.

Trump has also shown he has neo-isolationist impulses. Sometimes in this campaign his arguments have echoed George McGovern’s “Come Home, America” rallying cry. (Trump’s comments on the uselessness of NATO and his unwillingness to honor our commitments by coming to the defense of our NATO allies were utterly foolish, given Russia’s aggressive intentions, and required him to finally walk them back.) He called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and falsely accused him of lying about WMD leading up to the Iraq War. Trump was a registered Democrat for most of the 2000s, has given money to the most liberal Democrats (Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi among them) while they were attacking the conservative agenda; and he gave six-figure contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

Trump supporters are quick to forgive him for those actions, as they are for so much else, in this case saying he was simply acting as a businessman. That explanation is itself problematic, but the evidence suggests he was saying what he believed – and if any other Republican had done a fraction of what Trump had, he would have been consigned to outer darkness. After four years of a Trump presidency, the Republican Party would be twisted beyond recognition, and in a way that would trouble any authentic conservative.

Temperamentally Unfit

Now to what may be the most important issue of all: presidential temperament. Trump defenders dismiss this concern, as if it’s simply a matter of Trump critics having delicate sensibilities, that the only problem with the former reality television star is that he is “indecorous” and says some things “awkwardly.” We just have to get over the fact that he’s a bit too “boorish,” to use a word employed by Trump supporter Eric Metaxas.

That is absurd.

Trump’s cruel and heartless comments have been well documented, including mocking a reporter with a physical disability, the grieving mother of a war hero killed in action and ridiculing John McCain’s POW years. He has also likened Ben Carson’s “pathology” to that of a child molester and engaged in sexist attacks against Megyn Kelly, Carly Fiorina and other women. These qualify as more than “indecorous” and “awkward.” What many Trump supporters are uncomfortable admitting is that while they may not be attracted to his nativism, misogyny and dehumanization of others, they are fully prepared to accept those things and, by constantly mischaracterizing and watering down his comments, defend them.

But set Trump’s rhetorical assaults aside if you want. He is also a pathological liar. “The man lies all the time,” according to Thomas Wells, Trump’s former lawyer. Tony Schwartz, the co-writer of “The Art of the Deal,” says that “lying is second nature to him.” The record supports that conclusion.

In addition, corruption has followed Trump his entire career, including his bankruptcies; his refusal to pay contractors who have done work for him; the scams (e.g., Trump University, the Trump Institute and the Trump Network); his history of being charged with housing discrimination/tenant intimidation; his use of hundreds of undocumented Polish workers and much more. (For details, see this story in The Atlantic and this Washington Post story, which concludes “you’d have to work incredibly hard to find a politician who has the kind of history of corruption, double-dealing, and fraud that Donald Trump has.&rdquo Trump is also a crony capitalist, a corrupter of our political system, par excellence.

Trump’s combination of character weaknesses – both private and public – would normally be quite relevant to conservatives. Yet some of those who have spent a career articulating the important of character, including in our public leaders, are now dismissive of those concerns.

The core issue here has to do with the most important qualities we should look for in a president – habits of mind and heart, emotional and psychological stability, equanimity and disposition. These matters are even more important than where a person checks the policy boxes. And in this respect, Trump is a genuine threat to the well-being of America. He has shown himself to be erratic, inconsistent, unstable, unprincipled, vindictive, and narcissistic. He lacks empathy and has a grandiose self-image. He is obsessive and manipulative. His former ghostwriter, Mr. Schwartz, describes him  as pathologically impulsive and self-centered. This is a very dangerous combination of characteristics to have in a president; it would not end well at all for Trump, or for our nation.

*  *  *  *

I’ve gone at length on these matters precisely because too often, Trump supporters glide over his faults, downplaying them or ignoring them, often misrepresenting the case against him. It’s always easier to battle strawmen than it is to confront actual arguments.

This is an effort to present actual arguments based on real-world facts. The cumulative case against the Republican nominee for president is, for many of us, overwhelming. (So, for different reasons, is the case against Hillary Clinton, who is an ethical wreck, untrustworthy and a woman of the left who has amassed a record of failure over her career.)

The Trump oeuvre – what he has said, and done, and shown over the course of his life and this campaign -- leads to an unfortunate but inescapable conclusion: Donald J. Trump is manifestly unfit to be president of the United States.

The  James Zadroga Act

"The children's health program (providing insurance covering 8 million kids) wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue," (Senator Ted) Kennedy said.

Nick Littlefield, a senior health adviser to Kennedy at the time, agreed.

"She wasn't a legislator, she didn't write the law, and she wasn't the president, so she didn't make the decisions," Littlefield told the Associated Press. "But we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it."

Of course, people can argue she didn't do it by herself and thus can't take credit for the program. The simple answer to that criticism is nobody does anything of value alone. If that answer isn't good enough then likely none will ever be.

http://www.politifact.com/colorado/state...ers-claim/

In 1997, Michael Wayne Haley was arrested after stealing a calculator from Walmart. This was a crime that merited a maximum two-year prison term. But prosecutors incorrectly applied a habitual offender law. Neither the judge nor the defense lawyer caught the error and Haley was sentenced to 16 years.

Eventually, the mistake came to light and Haley tried to fix it. Ted Cruz was solicitor general of Texas at the time. Instead of just letting Haley go for time served, Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court to keep Haley in prison for the full 16 years.

Some justices were skeptical. “Is there some rule that you can’t confess error in your state?” Justice Anthony Kennedy asked. The court system did finally let Haley out of prison, after six years.

Traditionally, candidates who have attracted strong evangelical support have in part emphasized the need to lend a helping hand to the economically stressed and the least fortunate among us. Such candidates include George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.

But Cruz’s speeches are marked by what you might call pagan brutalism. There is not a hint of compassion, gentleness and mercy. Instead, his speeches are marked by a long list of enemies, and vows to crush, shred, destroy, bomb them. When he is speaking in a church the contrast between the setting and the emotional tone he sets is jarring.

As the Republican strategist Curt Anderson observed in Politico, there’s no variation in Cruz’s rhetorical tone. As is the wont of inauthentic speakers, everything is described as a maximum existential threat.

The fact is this apocalyptic diagnosis is ridiculous. The Obama administration has done things people like me strongly disagree with. But America is in better economic shape than any other major nation on earth. Crime is down. Abortion rates are down. Fourteen million new jobs have been created in five years.

Obama has championed a liberal agenda, but he hasn’t made the country unrecognizable. In 2008, federal spending accounted for about 20.3 percent of gross domestic product. In 2015, it accounted for about 20.9 percent.

But Cruz manufactures an atmosphere of menace in which there is no room for compassion, for moderation, for anything but dismantling and counterattack. And that is what he offers. Cruz’s programmatic agenda, to the extent that it exists in his speeches, is to destroy things: destroy the I.R.S., crush the “jackals” of the E.P.A., end funding for Planned Parenthood, reverse Obama’s executive orders, make the desert glow in Syria, destroy the Iran nuclear accord.

Some of these positions I agree with, but the lack of any positive emphasis, any hint of reform conservatism, any aid for the working class, or even any humane gesture toward cooperation is striking.

Ted Cruz didn’t come up with this hard, combative and gladiatorial campaign approach in isolation. He’s always demonstrated a tendency to bend his position — whether immigration or trade — to what suits him politically. This approach works because in the wake of the Obergefell v. Hodges court decision on same-sex marriage, many evangelicals feel they are being turned into pariahs in their own nation.

Cruz exploits and exaggerates that fear. But he reacts to Obergefell in exactly the alienating and combative manner that is destined to further marginalize evangelicals, that is guaranteed to bring out fear-driven reactions and not the movement’s highest ideals.

The best conservatism balances support for free markets with a Judeo-Christian spirit of charity, compassion and solidarity. Cruz replaces this spirit with Spartan belligerence. He sows bitterness, influences his followers to lose all sense of proportion and teaches them to answer hate with hate. This Trump-Cruz conservatism looks more like tribal, blood and soil European conservatism than the pluralistic American kind.

Evangelicals and other conservatives have had their best influence on American politics when they have proceeded in a spirit of personalism — when they have answered hostility with service and emphasized the infinite dignity of each person. They have won elections as happy and hopeful warriors. Ted Cruz’s brutal, fear-driven, apocalypse-based approach is the antithesis of that.

CONTRARY to popular belief, the most interesting figure in Dutch ethnic relations is not the Islam-bashing politician Geert Wilders. Rather, it is a 34-year-old rapper, comedian and reality-television host named Ali Bouali, better known by his stage name Ali B. In the mid-2000s, after Mr B had a string of hip-hop hits, talk shows began inviting him to represent Moroccan-Dutch youth. He turned out to be not only funny but an absolute sweetheart. He took part in education programmes on climate change; he recorded with the country’s most successful white pop artist; he performed confessional one-man shows. During Queen’s Day celebrations in 2005, he gave the Netherlands’ Queen Beatrix an impromptu hug.

Eight years later, at the inauguration of Beatrix’s son Willem-Alexander, Mr B delivered the central musical performance directly to the new king and queen. By that time his deep eyes and comically intense stare had come to stand for the hopeful side of the Dutch integration story. He is sometimes dismissively referred to as a knuffelmarokkaan, or “huggy-Moroccan”: the Dutch idiom implies that he is both a token and the squeeze-toy version of a dangerous animal. But Mr B also uses the term lightheartedly about himself, drawing the sting.

Mr B’s best work does not involve his own music at all. In 2011 he produced a reality-TV series in which he paired hip-hop artists with white performers from the classic era of Dutch kitsch pop in the 1960s and 1970s. The result was a fusion of two musical cultures, one white and mostly working-class, the other ethnically mixed. In the most often-cited episode, the rapper Kleine Viezerik (“Dirty Little Man&rdquo collaborated with a former Eurovision contestant, Willeke Alberti. At the end of her performance he removed his sunglasses to show tears streaming down his face.

This cross-cultural appeal has made Mr B an icon in every Dutch demographic—including supporters of Mr Wilders’s Party for Freedom (PVV). He is the one prominent Moroccan-Dutch figure whom the PVV’s leaders never attack. But last year, when Mr Wilders called for “fewer Moroccans” in the Netherlands, Mr B felt compelled to ask his audiences whether they would like “less Wilders”. As Europe’s refugee crisis and the terrorist attacks in Paris increase hostility towards Muslims and immigrants, Mr B is finding it harder to stay above the fray.

In late October Mr B returned to Almere, the town where he spent his teenage years, to stage a preview of his latest one-man show, “Je suis Ali B”. Almere is a planned town 30km (20 miles) east of Amsterdam with rows of housing blocks and streets ludicrously named after cultural celebrities—Isadora Duncanweg, Lucille Ballstraat and so forth. The central pedestrian zone is a modernist playground of glass and concrete. A few hipsters fleeing Amsterdam’s high property prices have begun moving in. On a Thursday night the promenades are full of window-shoppers speaking everything from Turkish to Twi and Papiamento.

The ethnic mix largely stops at the doors of the municipal theatre. The crowd for “Je suis Ali B” is overwhelmingly white, with a large contingent of older women. Leonieke Bos, who recently retired after a career in Almere’s ethnically mixed school system, says Ali B is a role model for many of the kids she taught. “You never knew which of them were going to go the wrong way,” she remembers; the studious girl would suddenly turn up pregnant, the boy who dealt drugs would land a solid job.

Mr B must have surprised his share of teachers. He was raised by a single mother and, by his own account, spent his teen years dealing and smoking marijuana. He claims to have stolen worshippers’ shoes from the local mosque. His mother, despairing, packed him off to her family in Morocco for ten months. Mr B credits his grandmother with straightening him out. It sounds a little too comfortably like the familiar hip-hop tale of rising from the gutter. But the criminality Mr B describes among Moroccan youth is real. In 2013 just over 10% of ethnic Moroccans between 18 and 25 were suspects in a crime. That is the highest rate of any Dutch ethnic group—twice as high as those of Turkish descent and nearly five times as high as white Dutch.

Mr B plays on this background to dodge difficult political questions. To avoid taking a stand on the controversy over the racism of Zwarte Piet (a fictional black-faced Dutch character who helps St Nicholas deliver seasonal gifts), he jokes that as a Moroccan, the only thing he understands is the feeling of someone entering your house without your knowledge. But his room to finesse such issues is shrinking. In “Je suis Ali B” he describes encountering an angry fan: “If Wilders says something you never come out with a reaction; if there’s a debate about Zwarte Piet you’re nowhere to be found. You’re always hiding!”

Tears in the social fabric

Mr B is too smart to get sucked into such political arguments. His greatest strength lies elsewhere: in the power of kitsch. Over and over, the rapper has succeeded in getting white and non-white Dutch audiences to cry with each other. In May, a song he performed on a TV talk show about his relationship with his sons had the entire country weeping.

Across Europe, liberals have tried to respond to populist fear-mongering over immigration and Islam by deploying statistics and appealing to reason and abstract values. Mr B’s approach is more sophisticated: it recognises that reason is not enough. To break down prejudice and fear, you also need emotion. His empathetic moments have probably done more to promote Dutch acceptance of Muslims than any policy could have achieved.

This is not to say that the battle is being won. In “Je suis Ali B”, Mr B jokes that he and Mr Wilders have a symbiotic relationship: the more the PVV succeeds, the greater the demand for bridge-builders like himself. He must hope this is true. The PVV is polling at over 25%, its highest level ever.