Month: September 2015

Don’t be the one in the middle.

It was always clear that Putin was escalating in Syria to protect Russian strategic interests there and to impress the Russian people with his virility.  Based on today’s news reports, it would also appear that he may have a larger aim–to force the US and its allies to back Assad by wiping out the non-ISIS opposition.

If what we are seeing today becomes a pattern, it may well be necessary for us to get international support for a no-fly zone over at least some portions of Syria that are held by parties other than the government and ISIS.  That would force the Russians to choose to actually fight ISIS (which would be a plus), to risk a confrontation with superior US-backed forces, or to withdraw.

There once was a Donald named Trump.

His poll numbers were in a slump.

He offered a tax cut

To placate the rich, but

It won’t get him over the hump.

Having spent the last few months playing the populist and flipping the bird at the PBPs, Trump has apparently decided to reunite the Reagan Coalition by proposing a plan that differs from the Bush plan only in its details.  Will the WSJ gods be appeased?  I think not.

At the beginning of the 2012 campaign, I predicted the GOP race would turn into a battle between Romney and not Romney, and that not Romney had slightly more votes, but would only prevail if the votes went to a single person.  My prediction essentially turned out to be correct.  The not Romney vote was split between Gingrich and Santorum, and Romney won.

Based on his record, Rick Perry was the strongest Reagan Coalition candidate in the race in 2012, and he should have won the nomination.  In retrospect, Romney’s gambit of attacking him from the right on immigration was the masterstroke that divided the Reagan Coalition and ultimately resulted in Romney’s victory.

While the characters in the 2016 race may seem eerily familar (suggested title for the revived musical–“The GOP At Sea”), the dynamics are different, for the following reasons:

1.  Jeb! clearly believed that he, like Romney, would be the undisputed master of the CD and PBP factions when he decided to enter the race.  Rubio’s decision to run, and early success, means that he will have to fight for those votes, probably for the entire duration of the campaign.  That in turn improves the chances of the winner of the Reagan Coalition subprimary and increases the likelihood that the party will go into the convention without a clear leader.
2. The faithful are even angrier than they were in 2012, which makes the nomination of an outsider more plausible.
3. Trump drew the correct conclusions from Romney’s success on immigration, and has flourished as a result.  He has more staying power than his 2012 partner in outrageousness, Michele Bachmann, and has exposed the party’s fault lines at every turn.  Since he is self-financed, he will likely be a factor, even with diminished numbers, until the end of the race.

I can guess the finalists at this point, but not the winner.  This is going to be fascinating.

 

The ex KGB man Vlad Putin

Made a big speech at the UN.

He offered a deal

But the West didn’t feel

It was likely to stop all the shootin’.

The ex KGB man named Vlad

Insisted on backing Assad.

So the populace fled

Those who stayed wound up dead

And the rest of the world’s really mad.

It occurred to me over the weekend that, to a large extent, the characters in the 2016 GOP race are reprising roles created by different candidates in 2012.  Consider the following:

2012                        2016

Uncharismatic governor        Tim Pawlenty             Scott Walker

Underperforming governor   Rick Perry                   Jeb Bush

African-American                     Herman Cain             Ben Carson

Libertarian                                 Ron Paul                     Rand Paul

Mouth that Roared                   Michele Bachmann   Donald Trump

Social Conservative                  Rick Santorum            Mike Huckabee

Congressional Bombthrower   Newt Gingrich           Ted Cruz

While many of the roles are similar, the script appears to be significantly different.  That will be discussed in a post tomorrow.

Christie’s pitch to the GOP electorate consists of two nearly, but not quite, mutually exclusive concepts:

1. I have governed successfully in a blue state by making deals with Democrats.
2. I kick liberal butt.

This was always going to be a very difficult tightrope to walk, even under the best of circumstances.  Then the evidence started pouring in that perhaps New Jersey was not as well-governed as he suggests, and Trump has outswaggered him at every turn.  As a result, his campaign is on life support.

I have to admit, the thought of him engaging in chest-bumping with Vladimir Putin has some appeal, but it isn’t going to happen.

The great would-be emperor Xi

Arrived in the land of the free

To talk with our leaders.

“The Chinese aren’t cheaters,”

He said, a bit facetiously.

Carson isn’t going to be the nominee–he has way too little experience to run a successful nationwide campaign.  He is extremely important to the GOP faithful, however, because, in their eyes, his presence in the race proves two things:

1.  The GOP is not a racist party.
2.  Their success in life was due solely to their own hard work, not to any advantages provided by birth.   Yes, maybe some people start a bit behind, but if they’re not lazy and shiftless, they can make it, too.  Look at Ben Carson–he did it! So don’t ask me for money for free stuff for the poor;  what they need is tough love, not a government hammock.

Our efforts to isolate Cuba over the last fifty-odd years have had the following impacts:

1.  We have provided a built-in excuse to the Castros for their economic failures;
2.  We have actually isolated ourselves, rather than the Cubans, diplomatically in  Latin America; and
3.  Our citizens have been deprived of valuable business and cultural opportunities.

There is no evidence with which I am familiar that suggests that these negatives were offset by human rights improvements on the island.  As a result, then, it is fair to say that the policy has been fully tested over a long period of time, and is a complete failure.

President Obama clearly views things this way, and wants to normalize relations as quickly as possible.  The hope obviously is that diplomatic and economic engagement will ultimately bring improvements to the system in Cuba, but whether it does or not, the immediate objective is to eliminate the down sides to the current policy that are identified above.

Marco Rubio’s objection to normalization is that we are not getting enough human rights concessions in return.  In other words, he apparently believes we should continue to shoot ourselves in the foot until the Castros pay us to stop.  As a negotiating tactic, this reminds me of the scene with the newly-appointed sheriff and the white lynch mob in “Blazing Saddles,” with the exception that the Castros aren’t nearly as dumb as the mob.

There once was a Speaker named John.

Who struggled to keep the lights on.

The Tea Party said

Our trust in you is dead

Is all hope of compromise gone?

When Boehner starts looking for a lucrative lobbying job, he can put “cat herder” on his resume.

As everyone who reads Douthat’s column and blog in the Times knows, he is a conservative Catholic who believes that Benedict was unjustly maligned in the press and views Francis with a large degree of suspicion.  I obviously have never met either individual (I doubt Douthat has, either), but my take on the two is as follows:

Benedict strikes me as being sort of a cross between Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor and Dick Cheney–a man who went through the motions of claiming to love God and mankind, but whose real love was the rules, which he enforced with great enthusiasm (he is German, after all).  He then felt sorry for himself when he was criticized for it.  Can you imagine him, in a different time, burning heretics?  You bet you can.  You can practically smell the burning flesh on him.

Francis doesn’t come across that way at all.  His love of God and mankind are conspicuously genuine.  He has doubts about his own wisdom.  He enforces the rules because it is his job, not because he gets a special kick out of it.  Instead of drawing lines in the sand to keep unworthy people out, he erases as many as he can to bring people in.

Oh, and one additional note for Ross–it is clear that you are a Catholic because you are a conservative, and not the other way around.  If you ever have a chance to read this, you might want to ponder the implications of that point.

 

Ross Douthat has a lengthy posting in yesterday’s times in which he reflects on the papal visit and muses about whether we are a Christian, a post-Christian, or a secular country.  I don’t disagree with many of his observations, but I don’t think he has a firm grasp of the Christian/post-Christian/secular issue, so I am here to help him out.

There are three ways of viewing the issue:

1.  There is no doubt in my mind that the American public still has a profound respect for Christian traditions.  They are so intertwined in our culture that we barely even notice them except on special occasions.   Since the Pope, regardless of who he is, embodies Christian tradition, any papal visit is bound to be greeted with enthusiasm.
2. It is also clear to me that the American public still embraces Christian ethics involving person-to-person conduct.  You don’t realize how profound the conflicts are between pagan and Christian ethics until you have made an effort to immerse yourself in pagan culture.   Francis, with his emphasis on simplicity, modesty, and open-mindedness, does a far better job of displaying Christian virtues than his predecessor–hence his greater popularity.
3. Christian doctrine on other (particularly metaphysical) issues is a different story.  The differences between Christian doctrine and the views of the American public go far beyond the nearly sublime inanity of Catholic positions on sex and contraception.  Does anyone really believe the the majority of Americans believe that:

a. By virtue of the Apostolic Succession, a priest has the magical power to turn bread and wine into the body of Christ?

b. The statements in the Book of Genesis regarding the origins of the universe, the beginning of life on earth, and the fall of mankind are true, even in a metaphorical sense, given the state of the empirical data?

c.  Salvation is in any way dependent on upon compliance with cultural norms established by a small group of people in the Middle East thousands of years ago?

d.  The nature of God was firmly identified for all time at a meeting that took place over a millenium ago?

Just to name a few.  The answer to that question is “Not bloody likely.”  And so, in response to the initial query, I would say that the US remains a Christian country in many respects, but is post-Christian in others, and the papal visit has no long-term implications for the credibility and popular acceptance of Christian doctrine.

There once was a pontiff named Francis

Who took pro-environment stances.

While he drew a large crowd

And the public was wowed

On his doctrine, I don’t like his chances.

Republicans are getting the day off.  They will be back tomorrow.

“I’m a scientist, man.”