Month: February 2016

The Chinese economy for thousands of years has been based on intense collective agriculture.  Their culture, as you would expect, reflects that;  family and community ties are very strong, and the interests of the collective are placed before the individual, even in their names.   Will any of that change with the explosive growth of cities, and, if so, how?

The migration of younger generations to cities inevitably will lead to a fraying of ties between the generations, and to more emphasis on individual preferences and freedom.  Some elements of the culture, such as the food, language, literature, and history, will not be impacted by this change, but rituals relating to ancestors will become less prominent, informal controls on individual behavior previously imposed by the community will have to be replaced by more formal mechanisms, and the government will have to create an effective welfare state in lieu of relying on the community to take care of its own.

There once was a Texan named Cruz.

Right-wing Christians were his votes to lose.

As long as he lives

He’ll continue to give

Them an offer they cannot refuse.

GLENDOWER:  I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

HOTSPUR:  Why, so can I, or so can any man.

But will they come when you do call them?

From Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part I

 

After Ted’s victory in Iowa, he called for the continuing support of three groups: conservative Christians (Reactionaries, in my terminology); Tea Party Republicans (Conservative Libertarians); and “Reagan Democrats” (a species that no longer exists–they have long since become Reactionaries).   The striking thing about this coalition is how narrow it is;  it can’t comprise more than half of the GOP, to say nothing of the much larger electorate in the general election.  Most notably, there was no shout out to business interests, who have always been the bedrock of the GOP.

If Cruz is serious about winning, he must believe one of two things:

1. There is an enormous pool of disaffected evangelicals who will rise to fight under his banner in both the primaries and the general election.  New Hampshire will give us a better idea if this is true or not, but so far, I have seen no evidence of it (i.e., like Glendower’s spirits, they won’t come when called).
2. He can win the GOP nomination if he wins the states with large numbers of evangelicals and Trump and Rubio split the rest.  This is a possibility;  it is, in fact, my prediction, but you wouldn’t want to bet the ranch on it, because there are too many things that could go wrong.  In order to win the general election, he would then have to benefit from some sort of national catastrophe.

If I were Cruz, I would be furiously sucking up to businessmen at this point in order to expand my base, but that doesn’t appear to be part of his DNA–at least not in public.

One final suggestion to Cruz for a campaign slogan:  “God built this.”  Catchy, no?

 

 

The senator from my home state

Looked forward to last week’s debate.

He committed a gaffe

Everybody just laughed

And now he’s not feeling so great.

This is the first of a series of posts on China in honor of Chinese New Year.

Confucianism is a collection of ideas about ethics that dates back over 2,000 years.  The ideal Confucian world looks back to a golden age, not forward, and emphasizes stability, harmony, social rank, and deference.  Communism, by contrast, is a pseudo-religion based on “dialectical materialism” that views revolution as the mechanism whereby mankind will progress from a dreary present characterized by conflicts between classes to a future golden age of complete equality.

Mao, for perfectly understandable reasons, viewed Confucius as a despicable reactionary;  his successors, however, see clear benefits to an ideology which encourages stability, and thereby props up their regime.  As a result, the current government is severely conflicted about Confucius.  Can the two ideologies be harmonized?  People can overlook a lot as long as things are going well; when push comes to shove, however, the answer will be no.

Gaffes are only memorable when they feed into a popular narrative.  For example, the Chevy Chase impression of Gerald Ford was completely unfair, but it was consistent with the widely-held opinion that the man was mentally slow, so it stuck.  Similarly, the Rick Perry “oops” moment confirmed the popular opinion that Perry was a doofus, and thereby pushed a teetering campaign over the edge in 2012.

The argument against Rubio has always been that he is inexperienced and lacks fortitude:  when the going gets tough, he runs for a water bottle.  His New Hampshire talking point episode feeds right into that.  As a result, he is going to wear this mistake for the rest of the campaign, and, frankly, he deserves it.

That said, I think it is worth examining the talking point itself in more detail. Basically, what Rubio is saying runs something like this:

1. The greatness of America lies in the fact that even a bartender’s son, like me, can become President.
2. Anyone who fails in this country, therefore, is completely responsible for his own fate.
3. Therefore, anyone who proposes to use the government to redistribute wealth from hardworking people to help the poor is acting in a way that is fundamentally un-American, and is practically a traitor.

This is Sarah Palin territory, and I find it deeply offensive.  If it is just a tactic designed to poach votes from Trump and Cruz, I think it will fail;  why should anyone vote for Cruz Lite when you can have the real thing?  If he really means it, on the other hand, he isn’t fit for service in government at any level, much less the Presidency.

 

 

Loser:  Marco Robot Rubio.

Winners:  His competitors.

                    Super Bowl 50 (Not L)

I remember number one.

Back then it was kind of fun.

Now the thing’s so overblown.

Pregame antics make me groan.

Talking heads drone on and on.

Non-stop hype from dusk to dawn.

So much posing and b.s.

Nothing exceeds like excess.

 

The game itself should be OK.

Looking forward to Coldplay.

Marvel at the skills of Peyton.

Don’t see why some people hate him.

When it’s over, Cam should dance.

Broncos barely stand a chance.

Celebrate, and then it’s done.

Next year’s number fifty-one.

 

A few weeks ago, I posted a column in which I explained that Sanders and Cruz agree on one fundamental proposition:  the existence of a large group of disaffected voters (the poor and evangelicals, respectively) who would tip the scales in a general election.  Today, I pose the same question for Sanders and Trump:  where do they agree, and why are they wrong?

The answer is free trade agreements.  Both candidates agree that they have been a disaster for the American worker.  Sanders would attribute this failure to the pernicious influence of plutocrats on the political system, while Trump would say that it was the product of incompetent negotiators from both parties.

There is no doubt that globalization has had a huge impact on American workers. However, most of the job losses can be assigned to countries with whom we do not have free trade agreements.  Protectionism is an extremely inefficient way of saving jobs lost as a result of lower labor costs abroad; the better policy approach is to tax the beneficiaries of free trade agreements to strengthen the welfare state to help their victims.

As I noted in October, the worst case scenario for American policy in Syria would be to have the government and its allies crush the non-ISIS opposition forces, thereby forcing us to choose between ISIS and Assad.  Government successes on the ground over the last week or so suggest that this scenario is a very real possibility.  The only clear way to avoid it is to impose a no-fly zone over areas controlled by reasonably friendly non-ISIS forces.

              Granite State

The Granite State primary’s next.

Who will rise up to the test?

Will Trump’s campaign pull away?

Will Jeb survive another day?

 

Does Clinton have her race in hand?

Will this be Bernie’s final stand?

What about our friend Ted Cruz?

Everyone thinks he will lose.

 

I would bet on Bern and Trump.

Jeb and Christie’s chances slump.

Marco does well, so they’ll say.

Cruz will fight another day.

While all of the three principal GOP candidates believe in talking trash and increasing the defense budget, there are significant differences among them that can be plotted on a graph with one axis running from active to passive, and the other from interests to values.  How would that look?

Marco Rubio has shown himself to be a neoconservative sympathizer throughout the campaign.  If elected, he will use American power, or at least the threat of it, aggressively to promote American values throughout the world; there would be a renewed emphasis on human rights in places like China and Cuba.  He would be in the active/values quadrant of the graph, next to George W. Bush.

Donald Trump appears to believe that we have no permanent friends in the world, only permanent interests.  His idea of foreign policy is purely transactional, and is based solely on interests; he thinks even our so-called “allies” screw us over on a regular basis.  He would be placed in the active/interests quadrant.  The only analogy that I can think of is Richard Nixon.

Ted Cruz, for all of his bluster about destroying ISIS, is a small government conservative at heart.  He would increase the defense budget in order to protect the heartland and withdraw from the rest of the world to the maximum extent possible; there would be no nation-building under his administration.  He therefore belongs in the passive/interests quadrant, along with (he would hate this) Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.

I’m hoping that, after the GOP field has been winnowed out, the three remaining candidates can have a genuine debate on the merits of their respective approaches.  It would be enlightening.

Reactions to tonight’s New Hampshire debate:

1. Listening to Bernie Sanders demonize Wall Street bankers is almost as tiresome as listening to Trump talk about illegal immigrants.
2. I wish someone would tell Bernie that:  (a) while money frequently makes a difference in our political system, campaign contributions are a small part of  a much larger issue, which mostly revolves around effective lobbying; (b) red states are not red because billionaires make huge campaign contributions to GOP candidates; and (c) even if you incorrectly assume that contributions are responsible for all of our political ills, it would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of Citizens United, and he can’t possibly get enough votes for that, even if the “revolution” is a success.
3. When Bernie described his “revolution” for the umpteenth time, he said that the inevitable surge in voter turnout would help Democrats hold the Senate and regain governorships; he did not, however, say that control of the House was attainable. If that is the case (and it is), then how will it be possible to pass his agenda?  His omission was effectively an admission that the revolution won’t happen.
4.  Clinton opposes the TPP for reasons smacking of political opportunism.  Sanders, on the other hand, rejects free trade out of principle, which is actually worse. Sanders and Trump are in fundamental agreement on this point.  Perhaps someone should remind him that the manufacturing jobs lost to China and Vietnam were not caused by a free trade agreement.
5. Fees paid to Clinton for speeches made when she was out of office did not, and could not, come with a quid pro quo other than the speech itself.  Sanders and his supporters have the burden of showing that some other consideration was anticipated and given.  I haven’t seen any evidence of it.
6. Pragmatism and inauthenticity are not the same thing.

So now we’re in the Granite State.

Trump isn’t feeling too great.

Christie and Bush

Need a really big push.

Without it, their hopes terminate.

Several weeks ago, I suggested that it would be a shrewd tactical move for Bush and Cruz to collaborate to take down Rubio and Trump, respectively.  I don’t think that happened; however, today’s NYT has an article in which it is made clear that the Christie and Bush campaigns are working together against Rubio. You could call it the Governors’ Alliance.

Bad feelings will abound when this is over.