Month: March 2016

There once was a Texan named Cruz.

His wife has been much in the news.

He really looked pissed

When a rag said he kissed

Several women.  Here’s hoping he sues.

 

Ted Cruz, chick magnet?  Not bloody likely.

                    Bernie Can’t Fail

How’d you get so old and angry?

You’ve become a really big leftie.

To the bankers you’ve been really nasty.

Bernie can’t fail.

 

First you must deal with Wall Street.

Then the rest of the right you must defeat.

You’ll have the whole country at your feet.

Bernie can’t fail.

 

You went to the voters

To realize your dreams

‘Cause what you need, you get from them.

First, they doubt

But they know what you’re about.

Bernie can’t fail.

 

Bernie can’t fail . . .

 

Parody of “Rudie Can’t Fail” by The Clash.

I love Ireland; it’s a wonderful country.  (The Cromwell for whom this blog was named was not Oliver.)  That said, I’m not much enamored of its creation myth, for the following reasons:

1.  There is a modern, and uncomfortable, analogy to the leaders of the Easter Rising.  Suicide bombers–think about it.

2.  The obvious, and intended, analogy to the crucifixion is obnoxious.  Christ never killed anybody.

3.  Under the circumstances, the execution of the ringleaders by the British was perfectly understandable.   It might have been, and probably was, a political blunder, but with thousands dying every day in Flanders, how would you expect the government to react?

4.  The Easter Rising made the creation of a single unified Republic less, not more, likely in the long run.  The Protestant reaction to what was perceived as an appalling act of treason during wartime was completely predictable.

On a much more positive note, I consider the continuing existence of Northern Ireland to be an unnecessary anachronism, due to the evolution of the Republic into a more secular and multi-cultural country and the fact that both the UK and the Republic are EU members.  I think there is a reasonable chance we will see a united Ireland in my lifetime.  And that will be a good thing.

I couldn’t write about the Easter Rising without including a limerick.

 

The painful creation of Eire.

It’s not all that one could desire.

It started with blood

Soldiers stuck in the mud

And innocents caught in crossfire.

Let’s assume, for purposes of argument, that Trump will have the nomination in hand before he goes to Cleveland.  His tax cut plan is impeccably PBP,  his views on Obamacare have evolved to the point that a Dickensian villain would weep with joy, and his position on illegal immigration deviates from the GOP mainstream mostly in tone, but there is no denying that his opinions on trade, entitlement cuts, and foreign policy are extremely heterodox.

What will the GOP platform look like?  Will the establishment fight to the death over entitlement cuts, or example, or will it surrender temporarily and let Trump be Trump?

The convention will be fascinating even if it isn’t brokered.

The GOP Speaker Paul Ryan.

For a civilized party he’s cryin’.

He thinks Trump is crude

But to stop him is rude.

And so, moderation is dyin’.

         Bombers in Brussels

Bombers in Brussels again.

You know that we’re far from the end.

The battle will rage on and on

Till all of those bastards are gone.

 

Go on with your life as before.

Concede that we’ll have plenty more.

But time will not be on their side.

They’ll run out of places to hide.

 

They can’t win unless we overreact and assist with their recruiting.  The hard thing is to avoid lashing out indiscriminately.  The President, fortunately, is aware of that.  President Trump would be a whole different story. . .

Most pundits assumed the Trump phenomenon would eventually run into a ditch, based on the fate of the fairly similar Pat Buchanan campaign (remember “peasants with pitchforks?”) in 1996.  It hasn’t happened, and here’s why:

1.  The problems created by globalization and technological change are much worse now than they were in 1996.  Chinese imports and Indian call centers were just a blip on the radar during the Buchanan campaign.

2.  Trump isn’t a culture warrior.  His lifestyle prevents him from moralizing about the sixties, which increases his pool of potential voters.

3.  The GOP establishment was discredited by George W. Bush.  No elaboration required.

4.  The white working class Reactionaries have become Republicans.  What is happening now is essentially a hostile takeover of the GOP by people who prefer swaggering government to limited government.   The likelihood of the creation of a third party is increasing by the day.

In a campaign replete with inane ideas, Ted’s support for the gold standard may well win first prize.  It is a bogus solution to a non-existent problem, for the following reasons:

1. The ostensible reasons to use gold are to strengthen the dollar and prevent inflation.  The dollar is extremely strong right now, and inflation is below the Fed’s 2% target.
2.  If you are really concerned about the dollar and inflation, you just raise interest rates.  Relying on the gold standard essentially means that interest rates and the money supply are dictated by random events, not by the needs of the economy.
3.  There is no basis in American history for the conclusion that economic growth was more stable under the gold standard than under the current regime.

There once was a Texan named Cruz.

His monetary views are obtuse.

He wants to use gold

I’m reliably told.

I guess he thinks old news is good news.

Our local newspaper ran an article yesterday about the results of the Florida primary  that focused on the residents of a mobile home park.  According to the article, the residents were angry that the out-of-state owner had let the park run down, so they voted in large numbers for Trump, who presumably promised to make their park great again.

You can snicker at this if you want to (I certainly did), but I think there is a larger truth in this fairly ridiculous story that needs to be recognized.

In all likelihood, the park residents were Democrats until the 1960’s and 1970’s, at which time the party started to evolve from a more class-based organization into a coalition of victims.  They loved Reagan, who exuded strength, talked trash to the rest of the world, and identified with their values.  They ultimately became Republicans, but despised George W. Bush for his recession and his unsuccessful and unnecessary war.  They hate Obama for being too “urban” and for, in their eyes, showing contempt for them and their values.  In short, they are just generally angry about the state of the country (including their park), and they don’t really identify with either party, because they don’t want either big government that sides with people they perceive to be their enemies, or limited government that works primarily for rich people;  they want swaggering government that understands their frustrations, protects their interests, and kicks butt abroad.

Hence the popularity of Trump.  I mention Le Pen in the title of this post because you are going to see the same phenomenon in France in 2017.  Le Pen is going to tell the electorate that Sarkozy led them into a recession, and is a tool of the Germans, while Hollande has done nothing to improve the situation, and so the only way out is to vote against the two failed establishment parties and for her.  I will be very surprised if she doesn’t win the most votes in the first round, and her chances of winning will be similar to Trump’s.

So, the GOP’s options are now effectively limited to a dangerous small government ideologue and an unprincipled adventurer with no obvious core beliefs except in his own right to rule.  Now you know how the Federalists felt when they had to choose between Jefferson and Burr in 1800.

You can’t make a plausible argument that Sanders is more qualified to be President than Clinton, so the only reason to vote for him is his agenda.  The agenda, in turn, has no future unless millions of disaffected voters can be persuaded to vote, not just for Sanders himself, but for left-wing Democrats at all levels of government.  Hence, the need for the “revolution.”

The Sanders campaign scrupulously adhered to this approach in its early days; most notably, he declined to comment on the Clinton e-mail issue, because he knew it wouldn’t advance the “revolution” in any way.  Now, however, in the face of levels of turnout that prove that the “revolution” simply isn’t happening, Sanders is starting to become less of a “revolutionary” and more of a conventional left-wing Democratic candidate.  He still isn’t saying much about the e-mails, but he is taking shots at Clinton for actions taken by her husband in the 1990’s, among other things.

None of the new attacks on Clinton are personal or gratuitous, but they don’t advance the “revolution;” they are only designed to get Bernie elected President, which isn’t going to happen.  If Bernie is really serious about the “revolution,” he needs to change the focus of his campaign to encourage votes for Democrats who share his agenda at the congressional and state levels.

 

The Democrat candidate Sanders.

To white working men he panders.

He lacks ammunition

For a war of attrition

Like trench warfare battles in Flanders.

There is plenty of skepticism about the partial Russian withdrawal from Syria. Given Putin’s history, the skepticism is obviously justified, but the Russian intervention was not a secret and appeared to be successful, so it is likely that he is telling the truth.

So, why withdraw now?  Or, to restate the question, what exactly are Putin’s objectives in Syria, other than his obvious interest in maintaining his military and diplomatic asset there?

I can see four possible reasons for the withdrawal, which are not mutually exclusive:

1. He is paying an unacceptable price for the intervention at home.  I would like to think that was true, but I don’t see any evidence to support it.

2. He is sending a message to Assad that he only maintains his position at the sufferance of Russia.  There is every reason to believe that Putin doesn’t trust Assad, and in any event, the Russians are in a struggle for influence with his Iranian backers.  There is at least an element of truth to this one.

3. Putin really wants a diplomatic solution to Syria, albeit one that protects his interests and maintains at least some semblance of the regime in power.  If so, that would be very encouraging, as we have no compelling interest in reducing Russian influence in Syria.  The ideal solution to Syria was always a compromise in which Assad left power in favor of a more acceptable member of the regime who could do business with both the moderate rebels and the Russians.

4. Putin is concerned that if he goes too far, the Turks will send ground forces into Syria.  At some point, that is likely to happen, particularly if the Russians start getting too close to the Kurds.  Stopping now eliminates the potential for a confrontation with the Turks, and possibly all of NATO, that would be extremely dangerous for all sides, but particularly for the Russians.