Month: July 2016

The Trump coronation drags on.

They finally anointed the Don.

Ben Carson was weird;

Chris Christie was cheered;

All Cleveland can’t wait till they’re gone.

The convention has rolled through day two.

The Melania gaffe’s in the news.

Some love from the kids

But the show’s hit the skids

With conservatives singing the blues.

Paul Simon’s “The Werewolf” would make a perfect soundtrack for yesterday’s events at the Republican Convention.  Listen to it and try to tell me I’m wrong.

The GOP delegates know

How to put on an angry white show.

For strength is the answer.

They’ll cut out the cancers

And tell the whole world where to go.

Day one of the Cleveland convention.

The mood is of pure apprehension.

The speakers talk tough

But it isn’t enough

We also require comprehension.

I will leave the irony of her plagiarism to other commentators.  My question is simple:  would an average American woman listen to a speech from a glamorous and absurdly wealthy ex-model with a Slovenian accent and say to herself, “That’s me up there!  She understands me and my struggles!  She feels my pain!”

I have my doubts.

Yes, no, and maybe–it depends on the issue.

Yes, in that I can’t imagine a future candidate relying so heavily on the trappings of celebrity and ignoring the nuts and bolts of a conventional campaign:  a solid ground game; fundraising; a genuinely professional staff; etc.

No, as to the coarseness of the campaign, the extreme position on immigration, and the neo-isolationist foreign policy.  Remember, Mitt Romney ran on “self-deportation” in 2012;  Trump simply picked that up and lifted it to a new level. We are seeing campaign commercials for candidates for state offices who are talking about the wall.   This part of Trumpism isn’t going away anytime soon.

Maybe, on entitlements and protectionism.  These are Trump’s biggest heresies; they pit a large percentage of the GOP electorate against the leadership and the donor class.  I don’t know how that story ends yet.

Florence Welch had me from the first few notes of “Ceremonials.”  Mostly, it’s because I’m a sucker for great operatic pop;  after all, I’m also a huge fan of The Who, Bruce Springsteen, and U2.  The more I learned about her, however, the more she resembled my mother as a young woman:  brilliant; passionate; otherworldly; and courageous enough to live her life with her heart on her sleeve in a world that runs on irony.  She even performs in her bare feet!  Her music makes my mother’s absence easier to bear.

Flo is a tremendous singer, particularly in her lower register.  She is a good, but not great, writer.  As a performer, she has improved by leaps and bounds over the years;  if you watch tape of her from 2010, she’s probably singing off-key, but she fixed that problem years ago, and today, she’s nothing short of amazing on stage.  Her energy is off the charts, and the overall effect can be euphoric.

By contrast, the first time I listened to Lana Del Rey’s “Honeymoon,” I thought it was music to commit suicide by.  The characters in the songs are so filled with ennui, they can barely summon the energy to take drugs and go to parties.  The package is so downbeat, I can’t imagine hearing it live.  It just wouldn’t work.

On the second listening, however, it became clear that the characters in the songs were personas, and that the songs themselves were memorable and well-crafted. On the third listening, I started to become aware that most, if not all, of the songs were inspired by Hollywood movies, and that the plots were both dark and vivid. In that respect, the record is extremely, and admirably, ambitious.

Both Flo and Lana wrote and performed songs for “The Great Gatsby.”  I can remember reading comments at the time in which their respective fans were talking trash to each other about the quality of their work.  The great thing about music, however, is that you don’t have to choose:  you can enjoy them both, even if they are extremely different.  And I do.

                The Greatest Show on Earth

The greatest show on earth has come to town.

The one that’s light on laughs, but big on clowns.

They’re here to give the biggest one a crown.

For years to come, they’ll have to live it down.

 

Quicken Loans, the site of famous duels.

The Jordan shot–he takes Ehlo to school.

The playoff Cavs; LeBron of many tools.

The place has never seen so many fools.

Dear MC:

Greetings from Cleveland!  There’s an incredible winning vibe in this city.  Trump and LeBron:  that’s the ticket!

Speaking of winning–we need to talk.

I know, the last few decades have been tough on you.  The cost of health insurance has skyrocketed, while your wages have stagnated.  But you know who’s to blame?  The worthless, lazy, shiftless minorities who keep picking your pocket and insisting you should feel guilty!  Illegal immigrants who want to steal your job and make you speak Spanish!  Foreigners who sneer at your help and screw you over!  And uppity women who think they have a right to tell you what to do!

You have a choice:  you can align yourself with a band of losers who will take your money and call it “justice,” or you can vote for a group of winners who will protect you from the pickpockets and put the country back in safe hands again. Yes, it’s true that the rich will get a lot more out of this than you do, but at least it’s their own money, not yours.

Together, we can make America great again!

Love,

The GOP

 

As my regular Sandersday feature winds down, the question now is what impact Bernie’s campaign will have on the Democratic Party in the future.  Here are my projections:

1.  Break up the big banks!  The role of the big banks in the economy is not an issue that resonates with the average American on a daily basis.  The statute of limitations has run on this one.  Barring a new crisis and bailout, banks will not be a big issue in future campaigns.

2.  Free public college for all:  This is a really bad idea, partly embraced by the Clinton campaign (alas), that will not get through Congress.  I suspect and hope that it, too, will disappear in the future.

3.  Single-payer:  Single-payer is an excellent idea that is simply politically impossible, because it treads on too many powerful vested interests.  The best hope for a kind of single-payer system would be to adopt the public option and see if it overwhelms the competition.

4.  Expanding social security:  The Clinton campaign has accepted this in a small way.  It will be on the table in the future.

On the whole, while most of Bernie’s ideas for the expansion of the welfare state were unsophisticated or impractical, I give him credit for at least beginning the discussion.  I think the UBI and EITC expansion will be seriously debated in 2020.

I suggested Pence as a VP pick in a post back in April.  I would love to take credit for it, but somehow I don’t think Trump reads this blog.

My wife and I visited five Gilded Age mansions during our recent trip to Newport.  Two of them were relatively modest affairs that were notable mostly for their architecture and furnishings.  A third (The Elms) was grandiose, but contained several rooms that were both visually splendid and livable, an unusual combination.  The fourth, The Breakers, made more sense as a stage for over-the-top parties and events than as a place for people to live.  And then there was the Marble House.

The Marble House is a “cottage” built by one of the Vanderbilts.  It apparently was modeled after the Petit Trianon at Versailles.  It is full of very expensive brownish marble (they apparently ran out, so portions of the upstairs area are faux).  The most striking thing about the place, however, is that the dining room contains large portraits of Louis XIV and XV, and the hall has a bust of Louis XIV flanked by reliefs of his principal architect and the architect of the Marble House.

My jaw dropped at the absurdity and arrogance of this.  Could you possibly think of a more visible way of expressing contempt for the democratic values of your own country?  Even having untold millions of dollars in the America of the Gilded Age didn’t make you the heir of French royalty.  As far as I know, even Donald Trump wouldn’t make that kind of a statement.

I had to further ask myself:  what was the purpose of the house in the first place? You can obviously make a case for a medieval castle based on its military value. English and French manor houses are a slightly harder sell, but those houses also served as the headquarters for a business establishment, and they helped to overawe the lord’s tenants, so there is a functional argument for them.  The Newport “cottages”, however, didn’t serve either of those purposes, and they weren’t designed for comfortable informal living. Their only function, as far as I could tell, was to stand out in a neighborhood of similarly opulent homes, which is pathetic.

I don’t know enough about Theresa May to make a prediction as to whether she will make a good PM, but she has certainly exhibited a high level of political shrewdness to date, as evidenced by the following:

1.  Allying herself with the “One Nation” crowd puts plenty of distance between herself and George Osborne, her most dangerous long-term rival, and gives a kick to the rotting carcass of the Labour Party, which is likely to split in the next few months.
2.  Appointing BoJo as Foreign Minister may turn out to be a disaster for the country, but it is a great way to give him enough rope to hang himself.

The UK is going to have to make an extremely painful decision at the end of the Article 50 process:  does it give up the banks, its freedom on immigration, or something else?  Ms. May’s ability to deal with that issue without losing half of her party will probably determine the ultimate success or failure of her government.  Another referendum, perhaps?

 

The condition of the American economy, then and now:

1.  Globalization:  The late 19th and early 20th centuries were a golden age for globalization.  There were no ideological barriers to international trade (i.e., no Communist countries); the British Navy controlled the oceans; steamships, railroads, and canals reduced travel times; the telegraph improved communications; and refrigeration made it possible to transport food overseas. In addition, immigration was at a very high level, which helped keep wages down.  Today, the biggest issue is offshoring, which was still impracticable back in the 1890’s.  Wages for unskilled workers are stagnant due to competition from foreign workers and machines (see below), while profits have soared due to the availability of new foreign markets and reduced costs.

2.  Technological change:  The principal technological changes were in the fields of transportation and communications, and had a limited impact on existing jobs; however, improvements to agricultural machines made it possible for American farmers to reduce the number of manual laborers, thereby providing an additional pool of workers for industry. Today, the concern is whether machines using some form of artificial intelligence will provide new employment opportunities, or force people with limited skills out of the labor market altogether.  The threat of being replaced by a machine has reduced wage demands from unskilled workers in both manufacturing and services businesses.

3.  Welfare state:  There wasn’t one; the down-and-out had to rely on their families and private charities, mostly affiliated with churches.  Today, the welfare state is under threat for being too expensive.

4.  Public health and safety regulations:  To the extent they existed at all, it was on a state level.  Today, reducing their costs is one of the principal objectives of the GOP.

5.  Taxes:  The income tax was unconstitutional until 1913.  Today, of course, reducing taxes on the wealthy to the maximum extent possible is another longstanding GOP objective.

There is no mystery was to why some members of the GOP think the country started to go to hell in a handbasket when Woodrow Wilson was elected.  An America dominated by the Republican Party would look even more like the America of the Gilded Age than it does today, which is saying something.