Month: April 2016

Forget the Benghazi circus; the broader Libya question is the one that matters.  It reflects on Clinton’s ideology and judgment, and it has implications for future military interventions abroad–after all, there are plenty of people who think that Libya should be used as a template for Syria.

The issue needs to be broken down into a number of questions, posed chronologically:

1.  Was it a mistake to respond militarily to Qaddafi’s threat to massacre his opponents?  It is important to remember that the impetus for the intervention came from France and the UK, not from us.  Realistically, could we have refused assistance to our allies, and so facilitated the massacre of civilians by a man with so much blood on his hands, including ours?  In some ways, that would have been worse than Suez.  I don’t see it.

2.  Was it a mistake to change the nature of the mission to an effort to impose regime change?  Your first inclination is to say yes, but what was the alternative?  You can imagine trying to mediate an agreement with the government, but could you reasonably expect to make a lasting power sharing deal with a man like Qaddafi?  I don’t think so.  The lesson here is that purely humanitarian efforts inevitably become exercises in regime change when the existing regime is incapable of muting its behavior or sharing power.

3.  Could an acceptable political solution have been imposed on the parties immediately after the fall of the government?  It was tried.  The problem was that there were too many groups running around with too many guns to find a solution.  My best guess is that a quick political settlement was only possible with an occupation, and that was never in the cards.  Now, the process is going to be slow and painful.

There are lessons here even for purely humanitarian interventions.  As for the ultimate question, I would have to say that if history stopped today, both the Libyans and the West would have been better off leaving Qaddafi in power, but the entire story hasn’t been written yet, and the situation is more hopeful today than it was six months ago.  It is possible that when all is said and done, we will view the intervention as a success.  Or not.  We’ll see.

One of them is an ill-tempered old white guy who takes immense pride in being a winner; the other is running for President.  Can’t tell the difference?  You’re not the only one.

The real question is why is Trump more qualified to be President than Knight?  If being a winner is what it’s all about, wouldn’t you rather have the guy who won three NCAA titles than a guy who builds high rises and golf courses?

Douthat is a conservative Catholic, so it is no surprise that he has feet in two of the GOP camps:  the Christian Democrats and the Reactionaries.   He has been the most visible (and perhaps only) proponent of a CD/Reactionary coalition, whose policies would include the following:

1.  Strict limits on immigration, to increase wages for domestic workers.  This is a concession to the Reactionary position, as it is the antithesis of Christian charity; but then, he basically thinks Pope Francis is a heretic.
2.  Tax cuts and government programs tailored to the needs of working people, not the wealthy.
3.  Increased federal government activity on social issues, including, but not limited to, banning abortion.
4.  Skepticism about military interventions abroad (another departure from CD orthodoxy).

Douthat doesn’t have any use for Trump’s strong man act or for his apparent racism, but he was clearly hoping that the Trump candidacy would demolish the previous consensus in favor of supply side economics and military interventions and thus clear the way for the creation of his dream coalition.  All of those hopes are in ruins now, and Douthat has become a man without an ideological home; the WSJ has ripped him for questioning the standard PBP position on tax cuts for the rich, and the Trump and Cruz campaigns have no interest in his coalition.  To make things worse, the Reactionaries that he was relying on to regain control of the party from the PBPs have been exposed as self-interested proponents of racist, swaggering government.  Where does he go from here?

Here’s my suggestion:  England.  Move to the land of Evelyn Waugh and vote for Brexit.  It’s his spiritual home.

I predicted this in a post back in December.  It makes perfect sense.  The real question now is does it matter?  Probably not, but we’ll know more after Indiana.

All jocularity about Sarah Palin aside, Trump really needs to pick a running mate who:  (a) improves his relationship with the GOP establishment; (b) has executive experience on the state and federal levels, so he can actually run the government on a day-to-day basis while the Trumpster is off making his amazing deals; and (c) understands the workings of Congress.  In other words, he needs someone like Dick Cheney, although preferably without the evil, which he can provide himself.

Chris Christie’s name has been mentioned, but he doesn’t really meet all of these criteria.  In light of the upcoming showdown in Indiana, I would suggest Mike Pence as a plausible candidate.

Ted’s hopes rest in the Hoosier State.

He’s hoping Trump’s boasting will grate.

The ads won’t be fair.

Will Knight throw a chair?

Will StopTrump arrive way too late?

It depends on the issue.  Here is my analysis:

1. Social issues:  Anti-Trump, without a doubt.

2.  Immigration:  He sold out his Conservative Libertarian allies for votes on this issue.  Trump Lite.

3.  Free Trade:  See #2 above.  Trump Lite.

4.  Economic Policy:  While both Cruz and Trump support huge tax cuts for the wealthy, they do so from a different philosophical perspective.  Ted also wants to bring back the gold standard.  He’s clearly the more extreme candidate on these issues, so call him the Anti-Trump.

5.  Entitlements:  Ted hasn’t seen an entitlement cut he didn’t support.  Anti-Trump.

6.  Foreign Policy:  Both candidates have strong isolationist streaks, but Ted hasn’t questioned the value of NATO, threatened to bring troops back from South Korea and Japan, or suggested imposing a huge tariff on Chinese goods.  Anti-Trump.

On balance, I would say he’s more Anti-Trump than Trump Lite, but it’s fairly close.

There once was a Texan named Cruz.

He and John Kasich did choose

To pull off a deal.

The brass ring one would steal.

The other, alas, will still lose.

This should have happened about two months ago.  The questions now are, is it too late, and will their respective voters respect the deal?

It should help Cruz quite a lot in Indiana, particularly if Kasich makes a serious attempt to sell it to his supporters.  I think it is too late to make a difference in tomorrow’s primaries.  On the whole, it is going to come down to California, and what happens with the unbound delegates.

To the extent that Trump resembles any of our past Presidents, it would be Jackson:  an angry, racist, economically illiterate populist.  It is only fitting, then, that Trump reacted to the change to the $20 bill by calling it the product of political correctness.

Of course, the big difference between the two is that Jackson actually was a certified kicker of British and Native American butt, whereas Trump builds high rises and golf courses and sells wine and steaks.  In other words, Jackson rode a horse, not a golf cart.

Sanders and Corbyn obviously have a lot in common;  both are unreconstructed lefties from the 70’s who have succeeded in persuading at least some of the public that their very old fundamentalist ideas are new and fresh.  Corbyn won, however, and Sanders won’t.  Why the difference?

In a nutshell, Labour voters view Blair and Brown as being sellouts, American puppets, and failures, whereas a large majority of Democrats think the Clinton and Obama presidencies were successes.  Anti-establishment politics consequently have a greater cachet in the UK than they do among American social democrats. That is, until Corbyn is viewed as part of the establishment himself, but that will take time.

The Democrat maverick named Bern.

To the left his whole party he’d turn.

Inspired by Labour

He’d return the favor.

Old lefties, they never will learn.

 

More on Bernie and Jeremy tomorrow.

Let’s face it:  the difference between Assad and Sisi is one of degree, not type.  And yet, we kind of support the one, and insist on the removal of the other.  Why?

Largely because degrees matter, and Egypt, as the larger country, is a more important ally in the struggle for stability in the Middle East.  That said, we can’t possibly give the regime a complete embrace without either looking delusional, compromising our values, or both, so we need to make it clear to the world that any assistance we give the government is based on our self-interest, and not on any judgment about the quality of the regime.

The great would-be pharaoh named Sisi.

Obama, he thought, was too prissy.

He’s no democrat

Rule of law’s falling flat

He makes Assad look like a sissy.

2016:  Trump thrives, and Prince and Bowie die.  How low can it go?