Month: May 2016

There was been much discussion recently about how the Democrats should view what Ross Douthat cleverly referred to as the “Trumpenproletariat.”  From a practical perspective, any attempt to reach out to Reactionary working class white men results in a much larger loss of minority voters during the primaries. In the final analysis, that is the reason the Sanders Revolution had no chance.

Will it ever be possible for the Democrats to win the allegiance of these Reactionaries without losing their core supporters–in other words, to make the Democratic Party a class-based party, rather than a coalition of victims?  Maybe, but not for the foreseeable future.

There once was a woman named Hill.

The Bern keeps on fighting her still.

She’s already won

But he claims he’s not done.

It just means we’ve more time to kill.

 

The GOP nominee Don.

The prize is now his, fairly won.

He’ll go to the ‘land.

We won’t give a hand

To foes of whom we’re none too fond.

The new President of the Philippines, by all accounts, is a tough-talking nationalist with a dubious record on human rights, an attitude about Americans, and a plan to make amazing deals with the Chinese.  The analogy to Trump is obvious.  How do we deal with this situation?

Roll with it.  Our interests in the Philippines and the South China Sea are in peace, stability, and the freedom of navigation, not in containing Chinese expansion for its own sake.  If Duterte can lower the temperature in the area by accommodating the Chinese in a way that his countrymen can tolerate, so much the better for us; we have no good reason to press an aggressively anti-Chinese agenda on anyone in this area.  If not, which seems more likely, he knows where to find us.

His reaction perfectly encapsulates the reasons why we can’t possibly elect him in November. It is inappropriate for the US, or any other government, to express opinions about the cause in public until the investigation is at least reasonably complete.  For all we know, it could be a pilot suicide situation.

Just because we won’t have the excitement of a contested convention doesn’t mean there won’t be any drama.  Here are some of the questions to be answered in Cleveland in July:

1.  Who will appear with Trump on the podium?  This decision is going to be excruciating for Trump’s opponents, and it will be based primarily on self-interest, although there will be a moral dimension for some of them, as well.  On the one hand, for, say, Cruz and Rubio to refuse to join in a gesture of party unity will offend millions of Trump supporters and the GOP brass, will cast them into the wilderness in the event he wins, and will expose them to future allegations that their failure to support the ticket cost Trump the election.  On the other hand, appearing with Trump after making pointed statements about his unfitness to be President will make them look weak and hypocritical, and will forever make them accomplices in Trump’s obnoxious nativist agenda.   My guess is that tribalism will ultimately prevail.

2.  Will we see major battles over the platform?  There will be some of that, but I don’t think Trump really cares about the platform:  after all, his personal awesomeness is his platform.   He will simply ignore anything the party says that is inconsistent with his message.

3.  Who will be his VP?  I have written about this on previous occasions.  He needs an establishment figure with executive experience who can run the country while he is off making his amazing deals.

4.  How will Trump’s reality TV experience impact the convention’s production values?  Trump thinks conventions are boring.  Count on him to do everything he can to turn the show into “Celebrity Presidential Apprentice.”

5.  Will there be violence in the streets in Cleveland?  Since the outcome of the convention is already known, the danger of this is limited to the usual class of Trump protesters.  I don’t think it will be a big story.

6.  Will we have a reprise of Clint Eastwood and his chair?  No.

 

 

Trump is the closest thing to a pure Reactionary candidate we have seen in my lifetime, although his position on tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation is PBP-friendly, and his interest in social issues is glaringly muted.  How will the different factions respond to him as the nominee?

1.  The Conservative Libertarians are a relatively principled group who will have enormous problems with a number of Trump’s positions.  Many of them will vote for Gary Johnson.
2.  The Reactionaries are, of course, a solid block for Trump.  A few religious conservatives will be appalled by him and will stay home in November.
3.  Most PBPs will support him.  Some women who are turned off by his attitudes towards women will vote for Clinton, as will a handful of businessmen with strong vested interests in free trade.
4.  Most of the Christian Democrats will vote for Clinton.  Some of them will leave the party permanently.  The few that stay and support Trump will do so primarily based on his opposition to abortion.

The Trump campaign is based on two essentially contradictory propositions:

1. I can get things done because I am a dealmaker with few ideological interests other than in making America rich and powerful again; and
2. I am a strong man who kicks the butt of America’s enemies, both foreign and domestic, without making any apologies.   A true strong man, of course, doesn’t have to make deals; he simply imposes his will on his adversaries.

The issues that has been raised by many commentators is whether Trump can pivot to the center in a manner similar to his GOP predecessors in order to win uncommitted moderate voters.  The reality is that the situation is more complicated than that;  the more precise question is whether Trump will emphasize the dealmaker or the butt-kicker from here on in.

Here are my predictions:

1.  The emphasis in the general election campaign will be on Don the Dealmaker.  He is a harder target for Hillary than Don the Wallbuilder.
2.  Expect to see some evolution (or, if you prefer, flip-flopping) on issues like the minimum wage and huge tax cuts for the wealthy.
3. He won’t disown his previous comments on illegal immigrants and the wall, but he will spend less time on these issues.
4. Since social conservatives have nowhere else to go, he will present himself as a moderate on issues such as LGBT rights and abortion.

In short, you won’t see a “pivot” so much as a change of emphasis to the black box who operates outside of party and gets things done.

Last week’s cover of The Economist featured a cartoon of Donald Trump as a circus performer riding a fairly surly-looking  (GOP) elephant.  Given that Ringling Brothers just retired their performing elephants, the cartoon seems unusually appropriate.

There once was a Donald named Trump.

His poll numbers were in a slump.

He says he’ll beat Hill

But I don’t think he will.

She’ll give his backside a good thump.

I had some technical problems posting while I was on vacation, but now I’m back.  I will be focusing on the conventions and the general election this week, but I thought it would be appropriate to start by reviewing my predictions for the primaries and drawing any necessary conclusions.

I was right about the Democrats.  In spite of all of the furor about Sanders, I said from the beginning to the end that he had no effective route to the nomination, and he didn’t.  The only remaining question is whether his ideas will continue to influence the party through the convention, the general election, and thereafter. My guess is that he will have less influence on the Democrats as they move ahead than you might be tempted to think, as much of his support is simply a negative reaction among some voting groups to Hillary’s “corruption,” but, of course, that remains to be seen.

My record on the GOP was mixed.  I was right to ignore the Carson and Fiorina boomlets, and all of my scenarios had either Trump or Cruz, the last two standing, ultimately prevailing, which isn’t bad.  On the other hand, I did say Cruz would win, and that was obviously a mistake.  I made two significant miscalculations about the process:

1.  I thought Cruz would win the Deep South and carry that momentum to the nomination.  His social conservatism seemed to be a great fit for the South, but it proved to be no match for Trump’s nationalism and bigotry.  We learned quite a lot about the priorities of a large number of Reactionaries along the way.

2.  I thought Rubio, not Kasich, would be a factor in the race through the primaries in the Northeast.    I don’t think anyone could have predicted that Marco would have fallen so far, so fast.

The general election will be a completely different animal.  Much more on that later in the week.

 

I’ll run the show in Cleveland town in late July.

The land where teams and dreams always come home to die.

We’ll go in with a roar, but leave there with a sigh.

I’m sitting here and wondering what went wrong and why.

 

My thing is making cuts to help the upper classes.

It doesn’t mean a thing they don’t help out the masses.

I don’t really believe Trump would work to pass it.

A divided GOP will make us look like asses.

 

I’ve got the blues.

The Presidential blues.

For all I hear and see

We’re really going to lose.

They asked me twice to run

But I always refused.

Now Trump will have control

And I’ll just be old news.

Reactions as follows:

1.  I have to assume that Cameron was consulted and either acquiesced or actively encouraged Obama to give the speech, which inevitably was viewed as a crude attempt by a foreigner to interfere in British affairs in some circles.  Since Obama is reasonably popular in the UK, it was probably a risk worth taking.
2. The referendum has powerful international implications, so it was not inherently wrong for an American to talk about it in public.
3. Putin and Marine Le Pen support Brexit, which pretty much tells you all you need to know about its merits.
4. I have written about the impact of Brexit on the UK in the past, so I will not repeat myself.  From the perspective of American foreign policy, any measure which leaves the EU weaker and more protectionist is a serious mistake.
5. The euro has been a disaster for the EU.  It was conceived less as an economic tool than as a symbol of increasing political unification, but saving it has become an end in itself and has thus (ironically) made nationalism the flavor of the month. That said, the EU remains, in the big picture, a success story, and the only beneficiaries of efforts to weaken it are noisome right-wing populists and the Russians.

Update:  Trump says he supports Brexit.  Need I say more?

                        The Trumpster Walks Alone

So now the Trumpster walks alone.

The race is finally over.

The PBPs just watch and groan.

Reaction is in clover.

 

He’ll tell us to prepare to win.

All deals are on the table.

But patience will be running thin.

His powers are just a fable.

 

So next time that he’s on TV

To sing his siren song

He doesn’t care for you and me

So please don’t sing along.

The Texan named Ted now is done.

I can’t say it’s been really fun.

I picked him to win.

While second’s no sin

I’d rather that he would have won.