Month: September 2016

As I’ve noted previously, Erdogan puts a much higher priority on crushing the Kurds than he does on defeating IS, which creates a serious conflict with American interests.  I have to assume he takes that position because he believes that IS is an ephemeral problem, while the Kurds will always be there.  If so, he’s probably right.

Due in part to this divergence in interests and in part to his apparent desire to chip away at liberal democracy, Erdogan is flirting with Putin.  Given that the West has far more to offer him than Putin does, one imagines that his ultimate objective is to use Putin as leverage to get a better deal (i.e., extradition of Gulen, less criticism on human rights, and more sympathy with his Kurdish problem) from the West.

Unfortunately for him, the West has options, too.  The NYT ran an article a few days ago in which it was revealed that Obama is considering sending more weapons to the Kurds.  Articles like that don’t appear for no reason;  it was a clear attempt by the Obama Administration to send a message to Erdogan that he shouldn’t try to push us too far.

In all likelihood, when it is all said and done, the parties will muddle through, and both sides will get a little bit of what they want.  The only thing that Putin can give him in the long run is support for his strong man routine, which doesn’t exactly pay the bills.

The Economist ran a short but interesting article a few weeks ago in which America was reimagined as a parliamentary system.  The article divided what I would call the Reactionary faction of the GOP into two parties:  the “Christian Coalition” headed by Ted Cruz; and the “People’s Party” headed by Trump.  That obviously raises a question about my description of the GOP factions:  should the Reactionaries be kept as a single grouping, or divided in two?

I think the events of the last few months have proven me to be correct.  The Christian right has embraced Trump regardless of his colorful personal life, and the Cruz speech at the Republican Convention did not go over well with the rank and file.  In the final analysis, Christian or not, they are all just reactionaries.

A word now on next week’s debate.

We’ve only a few days to wait.

If Trump wins with lies

Countless people will die.

Will that make America great?

As we know, Trump didn’t invent Trumpism; it has existed in Europe for decades.  Today, from Brexit to Duterte, you see evidence of it all over the world. Here are my observations:

1.  Trumpism operates differently in presidential and parliamentary systems.   In Europe, virtually every nation has an anti-immigrant party which gets a fairly stable percentage of the vote, but never dominates the legislature, and is rarely included in the government.  As a result, the problems these parties create are chronic, but not acute.  In the US, the situation is the opposite;  by suddenly taking over one of the existing parties in a two-party system, reactionaries have created the possibility of wielding power with only the law and the judicial system to check them.  In parliamentary terms, it is as if the Conservatives and UKIP were running as a single party, with the UKIP leader as the choice for PM.  It would never happen, but the Brexit vote shows the potential result if it did.

2.  There is an analogy in the French system.  It is widely assumed (in my opinion, incorrectly) that all respectable opinion will coalesce around the moderate right-wing candidate after Le Pen gets the greatest number of votes on the first ballot in 2017.  Clinton is attempting to do the same thing by reaching out to old school Republicans and emphasizing the unpredictability and dangerousness of a Trump Administration in her campaign.  Will it work? That remains to be seen; some prominent GOP members are publicly supporting Clinton, but the vast majority have fallen in line behind their tribal leader regardless of their concerns about his ability to function as President.

3.  Where does Duterte fit in this?  Like the US, the Philippines were enjoying reasonably strong growth, but they elected a thug whose coarseness and disdain for opposition and due process are clearly reminiscent of Trump’s.  On the other hand, Duterte doesn’t have much to say about immigrants, which obviously sets him apart from Trump and the European anti-immigrant parties.  I think his success is due more to a new world-wide impatience with the democratic process that I will address in a subsequent post than to the anti-globalist zeitgeist.

There has been plenty of debate recently about whether false equivalence exists, what it means, and what obligations the MSM have to avoid it.  It does exist, and here are my thoughts about it:

1.  It is mostly a TV news phenomenon.  To illustrate it, imagine what happens on a typical day:  there will be one story in which a reporter shakes his or her head with wonder about some new outrageous statement from Trump which indicates that he plans to violate the Constitution, or blow up the world, or whatever; and then a second, equally long story in which another reporter comments on Clinton’s e-mail for the five hundredth time and makes note of her trust issues.  To the casual observer, and most are, this sends the message that the two candidates have essentially the same liabilities, which isn’t true.

2.  In print, it is just bad journalism.   The side-by-side problem doesn’t really exist in print;  here, the issue is whether the publication in question feels compelled to identify nonexistent scandals, to draw unwarranted inferences, or to blow facts out of proportion simply because it has previously run similar stories about the other candidate.  The bogus stories about the Clinton Foundation would meet this description.

3.  Gentility isn’t the issue.  Personally, I don’t care if the NYT uses the word “lie” to describe Trump’s false statements as long as the scope and nature of the untruth is exposed in the article in question.

During the Cold War, when the USSR truly was an existential threat to our country, we felt compelled to ally ourselves with a wide range of right-wing dictators.  We provided them with economic and military assistance, but we didn’t typically give them any kind of a public embrace.  They were, in short, a necessary embarrassment.

Unlike the USSR, ISIS is not an existential threat, but it presents enough of a problem that we have been required to behave in somewhat the same manner towards unsavory regimes, such as Egypt’s.  Donald Trump wants to take that to a new level, however;  strong men are his favorite kind of leader, and you could expect him to behave accordingly if he is elected President.  You can even imagine him sending American troops to prop up the Egyptian regime in the face of a genuinely popular uprising on the basis that any alternative to the status quo will inevitably be worse for American interests.

Leaving aside the inconsistency of that approach with American values, there are times when it fails, and with catastrophic results.  If you don’t believe me, just ask the Shah of Iran.

You can find reactionaries in every part of the country, of course, but they dominate the political landscape in four areas:  Appalachia; the Deep South; the Great Plains; and the Mountain West.  Here is my analysis of what motivates them on a geographic basis:

1.  Appalachia:  Rural Lifestyles and the “War on Coal”:  There was a time when the principal social division in these areas was between  coal mine owners and miners, the latter of whom were reliable Democratic voters, but no longer. Today, primarily as a result of economic forces, but partly due to environmental regulations, the industry is struggling, and capitalists and workers alike blame the federal government.

GOP candidates for office in Appalachia show respect for rural values and lifestyles and make bogus promises to revive the coal industry by eliminating regulations.  The Democrats consistently nominate candidates for President with no ties to or sympathy with rural lifestyles (guns, in particular) who promise handouts to the afflicted.  It is no wonder the GOP message sells better.

There aren’t enough African-Americans living in these areas to be a political threat, so I don’t think you can attribute the changing political climate to racism. The trend was clear even before Obama was elected, and in any event, his race was only part of an intellectual package that is unequivocally “urban.”

2.  The Deep South:  Racism:  In the Deep South, on the other hand, in addition to the painful history, there are enough African-Americans to be a threat to the white political establishment.  The result of the GOP primaries tells the story here;  Ted Cruz, who ran as a limited government/fundamentalist religion reactionary, was decisively beaten by Trump and his white nationalist supporters.

3.  The Great Plains:  Right-Wing Religion:  The Great Plains were Cruz country during the primaries, and for good reason;  the area is not struggling economically, and African-Americans and Hispanics do not present any sort of a threat to the establishment.  It’s all about conservative Christian values here; farmers credit God and themselves when they prosper, and blame the government when they don’t.

4.  The Mountain West:  Rugged Individualism and Federal Lands:  These are overwhelmingly rural states in which large areas are owned by the federal government.   Friction between ranchers and environmentalists, with the federal government caught in the middle and pleasing no one, is a major theme here.  As with the Great Plains states, race and globalization are not factors in this area.

 

The GOP nominee Don

Wants all Syrians here to be gone.

His son has made light

Of their undoubted plight.

He wants them less hither, more yon.

In response to comments I receive fairly frequently:

1.  WordPress is responsible for the format of my blog.
2.  I’m not on Twitter.
3.  If anyone wants to communicate with me directly, my e-mail address can be found on a post entitled something like “On the Origins of this Blog, and its Rules.”
4.  For all of you who have said kind things about my work, thank you.

It can be hard to believe at times, but in 1960, the vast majority of the people I have identified as reactionaries were Democrats, and the GOP had a reasonably legitimate claim to be the “Party of Lincoln.”  Obviously, times have changed. How did it happen?

It happened in stages, as follows:

1.  The Sixties:  The Civil Rights Movement, Culture Wars, and Vietnam:  Democratic leaders were responsible for a massive escalation of the Vietnam War, but the rank-and-file had turned against it by the end of the decade.  Nixon continued the war (at least for a while), embraced the “Silent Majority,” and promoted “law and order” against the claims of the counterculture and African-Americans.  The identification of the GOP with white racism, conservative cultural values, and a militaristic foreign policy began here, although the trend did not become irreversible until later.

2.  The Eighties:  Reagan, the Religious Right, and Swagger:  While Reagan did little to push the agenda of the religious right, he made the tie between them and the GOP explicit for the first time.  His swaggering style remains an essential part of the GOP brand to this day.

3.  The Nineties:  Rise of the Conservative Media:  Right-wing radio, cable channels, and internet sites reduced the effectiveness of nonpartisan gatekeepers and permitted reactionaries to live in an information bubble.  While Clinton, due to his unusual background and political skills, managed to win a few states in the Deep South, by 2000, the electoral map had ossified:  Al Gore, a Southerner running in a time of peace and an economic boom, could not win a single Southern state.

4.  The 21st Century:  Failure of the GOP Elites; Globalization Bites; More Culture War Losses:  The GOP establishment lost credibility with reactionary voters as a result of the failure of the Iraq War and the Great Recession.  The election of an African-American President with little apparent sympathy for rural lifestyles and values polarized the voters to an even greater degree than before.  Job losses in traditional industries, wage stagnation, and growing inequality due to globalization and technological change made things even worse for white workers.  And then there was gay marriage. . .

When you add Trump’s celebrity and unusual talents to this stew of racism, frustrated cultural conservatism, overt nationalism, and elite failure, you wind up with the poisonous mixture that is being offered to us today.

 

Reactionaries think so, but you would have a very hard time finding an objective basis for that opinion.  Unemployment is below five percent; the market is over 18,000; inflation is basically nonexistent; we’re not engaged in any large scale ground wars anywhere in the world; crime is far below its previous peak; and the rates of divorce, teenage pregnancy, and substance abuse are stable at worst. And yet, the far right-wing press tells us that the apocalypse is at hand, and that Trump is our only hope of avoiding it.  What is going on here?

I will be discussing this issue from a variety of angles this week.  The bottom line is fairly simple, however;  some elements of white Christian America view themselves as a severely oppressed minority in a country run by and for foreigners, people of color, atheists, and gays.  In their view, this is the last chance of the traditional rulers of the nation to take their country back from a government which (with the aid of big business and the MSM) not only does not represent their interests, but actively works against them.

            Sympathy for the White Man

Please allow me to introduce myself.

I’m a man whose time has passed.

I ran the world for a long, long time.

Made some money, and kicked some ass.

 

I was around when men were owned.

Ruled the roost in my home, too.

Under attack now on every flank

And I don’t know what to do.

 

Good to meet you.

Hope you heard my plea.

The one thing you can do for us

Vote for the GOP!

 

Stuck around in Selma

When some black folks started calling for a change.

Killed some leaders and some followers

As the nation screamed with rage.

 

I ran the land; kept the whip in hand.

Now I’m on my knees; time to take a stand.

 

Good to meet you.

Hope you heard my plea.

The one thing you can do for us

Vote for the GOP!

 

Parody of “Sympathy for the Devil” by the Rolling Stones.

My wife and I spent the last few weeks watching all three seasons of “Borgen,” a Danish TV drama about the triumphs and travails of a female politician who becomes prime minister, runs a reasonably successful government, loses the subsequent election, retires, returns to politics as the head of a new party, and becomes the kingmaker in the next Danish parliament.  It is the best TV program on politics I’ve ever seen;  the characters are well-rounded and sympathetic, and most of the plots are credible (there are some gratuitous soap opera moments in the last season).

Here’s what I took away from it:

1.  Being a successful politician is hell on your personal life.  There are so many loyalties to juggle:  to your own vision; your spouse; your children; your party; and your country.  It isn’t easy to live any kind of a normal life.

2.  Being a successful politician requires a wide range of unusual personal qualities.  These include empathy, judgment, charm, intelligence, and ruthlessness, not necessarily in that order.

3.  Making meaningful change is difficult.  There is always a crise du jour to distract you from your program.

4.  Electing Donald Trump would be the equivalent of voting the fictional Danish “Freedom Party” into power.  Or, to use a real world analogy, it would be as if UKIP replaced the Conservatives as the principal right-wing party in the UK.

5.  If Hillary Clinton had half the charm of Birgitte Nyborg, the election would already be over.  No elaboration necessary.

The entire world will have to deal with the effects of climate change, but it will affect different areas in different ways.  Here are my predictions:

1.  Parts of the Middle East and North Africa may well become uninhabitable.  As a result, the refugee problem for Europe will get nothing but worse.
2.  China depends heavily on water from rivers that are fed by glaciers.  This is going to be a huge issue for the Chinese government.
3.  Russia may actually benefit in some ways from climate change.  If there is any silver lining in their dark cloud, that is probably it.
4.  The EU countries are willing and able to deal with climate change.  In some cases (The Netherlands), they are old hands in adapting to sea level increases.  The EU will consequently have a competitive advantage on this point.
5.  The US is able, but currently not willing, to address the problem.  In the short run, it will primarily be a state and local government issue.  In the long run, the evidence will compel the GOP to change its stance, but we are definitely behind the curve.

The United States has always protected South Korea against North Korea, even though North Korea did not present a direct threat to us, because South Korea is a nation with whom we have shared values.  While we undoubtedly have the capability to annihilate the North Korean regime, we have never attempted to do so, because North Korea could inflict untold damage on South Korea while the fighting is ongoing.

By all accounts, the North Korean government is making progress in its ability to deliver a nuclear weapon that can reach the US mainland.  They might well reach that threshold during the first few years of a Trump Administration.

To Trump, South Korea isn’t an ally;  it is an economic competitor that “beats us at trade” by selling us exploding phones, while benefiting from our military protection.  We have no moral obligation to consider the well-being of such nations;  it is, of course, “America First.”

Do you think President Trump would be deterred by the prospect of millions of South Korean dead if he believed a preemptive attack on North Korea was necessary to prevent them from building a weapon that could reach the US?

You can see where this is going.  As John Madden would say, “BOOM!”

If you live in South Korea, and you’re not worried about this, you’re making a mistake.