Trump supports nuclear proliferation, which makes sense: it’s sort of a global equivalent of the Second Amendment. After all, nukes don’t kill people; people kill people.
I think we should all sign the petition permitting everyone at the GOP convention to carry guns. They would be doing us a big favor if they used them, and it would be great TV, just like the Trumpster himself.
Both Trump and Cruz argue whenever possible that they are engaged in a battle against “political correctness.” Their ostensible point is that the nation cannot hope to win a battle against its enemies if it is ideologically indisposed to even name them correctly.
The voters, of course, understand perfectly that Trump and Cruz are really saying that their perceived domestic foes–African-Americans, Hispanics, uppity women, Muslims, gays, et. al.–are eroding traditional forms of authority and need to be put in their place. The paradox is that even Trump and Cruz are afraid to put the issue in such bald terms for fear of creating a backlash, so they frame the battle much more obliquely. The battle against PC, therefore, is itself PC.
Rosenthal has a column entitled “What Does Donald Trump Want?” in today’s NYT. He doesn’t specifically allude to it in the body of the column, but anyone who has seen “Key Largo” will observe the similarity to a question asked about the gangster Johnny Rocco, and the answer in the movie is eerily appropriate: “More.”
It depends on the circumstances. In peacetime, assuming free trade is more or less the norm, it is hard to see much of a benefit to the dominant country. During wartime, if you can’t maintain supply lines between the dominant country and the empire, it has no great value. However, if you are at war and have control over the sea, the empire can be a critical source of manpower and raw materials; the British experience during World War I proves that.
Yesterday
All those Muslims seemed so far away.
But those bombers are all here to stay.
Oh, I believe in yesterday.
Look at me.
We’ll build a wall to keep them out, you’ll see.
We’ll waterboard and torture gruesomely.
We’ll fight the war aggressively.
We no longer win.
It’s a sin.
But two can play.
I’ll turn it around
Make those clowns
Beg for yesterday.
Yesterday.
Where there’s a winner, there’s a way.
I’m gonna kick their asses, come what may.
Cause I believe in yesterday.
Parody of “Yesterday” by Paul McCartney.
An important part of American exceptionalism is the belief that liberal democracy will work everywhere; in other words, limited government, freedom of the press, checks and balances, due process, etc. are, and should be, universal. That doctrine has a really poor track record in many parts of the world, most recently in the Middle East, but we expose ourselves to charges of hypocrisy if we don’t adhere to it. As a result, our imperialist efforts in the recent past have typically focused on replacing tyrants with more acceptably democratic leaders, not on taking and exploiting territory, and our political arrangements typically run afoul of the local political culture and therefore collapse after we leave.
A few questions for Cruz:
One can only draw the following conclusions from this ridiculous idea:
There once was a Texan named Ted.
He’d single out Muslims, he said.
Our sage Constitution
Defiled by pollution.
On this, he and Trump are in bed.
Rubio, like Cruz, desperately wants to be President. Who would be in a better position to pick up the pieces in 2020 after a GOP implosion in 2016 than a still fairly fresh young face who could say he told us so?
In honor of the return of “Empire,” this is the first installment of a mini-series on empires this week.
When you look at a globe and understand just how far India is from the UK, and how much more populous, the notion that the smaller country could rule the larger seems utterly preposterous. And yet, history doesn’t lie. How could this happen?
The key to being a successful imperialist is for both the vanquishing and the vanquished party to believe very firmly that the civilization represented by the imperialist is superior. It also helps if the subject society is politically divided, and the imperialist can play indigenous parties off against each other; that is the reason India fell completely within the British Empire, and China did not.
Empires typically begin as commercial ventures, but end up being justified as an effort to share the benefits of civilization with the natives. When the subject population no longer believes in the superiority of the imperialists, the empire is doomed.
For my money, The Economist is the best news magazine in the world. However, it has a clear agenda supporting limited government, free trade, and technological change, so it is suspiciously convenient that a lengthy article in this week’s edition finds that the principal driver of US inequality is not globalization, technological change, and the demise of unions, but increased rent-seeking that should be addressed by a blast of pure capitalism. If you dig further and ask the right questions, the argument pretty well dissolves into vapor.
The position taken in the article essentially is that the rent-seeking is the product of several phenomena: too much protection to intellectual property; effective lobbying beyond the resources of most companies; barriers to the entry of professions; and inadequate enforcement of antitrust law, leading to oligopolies. I don’t exactly disagree with the analysis, but it doesn’t explain either stagnant wages or increased inequality, for the following reasons:
1. Inequality, while a problem, is not the major issue facing the American workforce–the real concern is stagnant wages. I addressed this in a series of posts last year.
2. Stagnant wages and increased inequality are issues throughout the West, not just in America. Are we to believe that substantially different cultures and political systems have all suffered from the same rent-seeking problem? Isn’t it more plausible to say that the problem is caused by common experiences with globalization and technological change?
3. Rent-seeking has nothing to do with lost manufacturing jobs and lower wages. The percentage of manufactured goods made in America, relative to the entire world, is about the same as it was 20 years ago, but the number of jobs supported by those goods is far smaller. Increases in productivity since the 1970’s have not in any way been matched by increases in wages. These are undisputed facts. What do they have to do with rent-seeking?
4. Where are the higher wages in the protected industries? In the ordinary course of business, you would expect wages in the businesses protected by “moats” to rise steadily if the problem is rent-seeking. In the case of tech businesses, they have, but that is due to the structure of those businesses, which employ a relatively small number of highly skilled workers. Otherwise, the article does not address this issue, and I am not aware of any evidence which suggests that wages for rail and airline workers, for example, are skyrocketing.
5. Let them be hairdressers! Removing the barriers to entry in a variety of occupations is probably a good idea, but increasing competition among hairdressers is not going to make much of a dent in either inequality or the stagnant wage problem. At best, it provides an entrepreneurial opportunity for the unemployed and underemployed; it won’t help the soon-to-be-unemployed Carrier workers very much.
6. Where is the right-wing “revolution?” The agenda that is implicit in the article would involve lots of deregulation at the state and local levels, amendments to and more enforcement of existing antitrust statutes, changes to federal intellectual property law, and limits on lobbying that go far beyond overturning Citizens United. The last is completely impractical, and the rest are not significant parts of the platform of any of the remaining candidates–Cruz would be the closest.
Again, I’m not saying I disagree with this agenda; I would just say that the real sources of the problem are globalization, technological change, and the demise of unions, and nothing proposed in the article is going to help very much.
Douthat portrays Cruz, not as a convinced hard right-wing ideologue from birth, but as a grimly ambitious and charmless man who coldly embraced the GOP counterestablishment only after the regular establishment rejected him. From everything I have seen and read, this rings true, which is why I said his floor as a potential President was Richard Nixon in a post several months ago.
His dirty tricks on the campaign trail sound familiar, too. Call him Tricky Ted.
There once was a Texan named Cruz.
Of self-serving drive he’s accused.
It looks like he’s fixin’
To be Richard Nixon.
No wonder his party’s confused.
They may be old, but Mick and Keith have a lot more juice left than Fidel and Raul.
Bernie Sanders wears his idealism on his sleeve, but it stops at the water’s edge; there are times when his views on foreign policy mirror those of Trump and Cruz. How do we account for that?
I think his fixation with Henry Kissinger provides an answer to that question.
I was too young to be involved with the agitation over the Vietnam War. Both then and now, I viewed the war as a dreadful policy mistake that was driven by the misconceived idea that all Communist countries in Southeast Asia had consistent interests. The student opponents of the war, however, took that argument several steps further, and contended that the war was actually immoral, and part of a piece that included interventions to hobble or topple legitimate left-wing governments all over the world. This line of reasoning conveniently merged the war opponents’ self-interest with the inevitable American desire to moralize, and its logical conclusion was that idealism and the refusal to exercise power abroad were one and the same.
I never bought that part of the argument, but Bernie clearly did, and he never got over it, even though the world is a completely different place than it was in 1970. That is why he talks about Kissinger and the 1950’s coup in Iran rather than Bosnia or Rwanda or Darfur.