Month: March 2017

If you’re a GOP House member, and you vote for ACHA, you are accepting the abhorrent principle of a health care entitlement program while depriving thousands of constituents, many of whom voted for you, of their insurance. Expect to see their faces in TV commercials for the next two years. If you vote against ACHA, on the other hand, you are damaging the credibility of your party leader, violating a very public campaign promise, and facing the possibility of a primary and some really nasty Trump tweets.

Yeah, it sure sucks to be you today.  Poor baby.

The euro had the effect of bringing down transaction costs, but mostly it was intended to be a symbol of the inevitable progress of the EU towards “ever closer union.”  As a result, when it became clear around 2010 that the euro was actually reducing growth and splitting the EU between north and south, the leadership logically should have gotten rid of it.  But nooooooo!  Having invested so much political capital in the creation of the euro, the leadership decided that saving it was an end in itself, even if doing so would defeat its original purposes.  And so the euro stumbles on today as a reminder of what could have been, but isn’t.

The story of AHCA is somewhat similar.  The bill doesn’t decrease the number of uninsured or reduce medical costs.  It leaves the entitlement in place, thereby offending the HFC, but reduces its value, except for wealthy people.  Poll after poll shows that it is a political disaster for the GOP.  It almost certainly can’t pass the Senate in anything like its current form.  And for all this, Trump and Ryan are determined to force a vote later today.

Why?  There is only one reason.  Trump sold himself to the American people as a dealmaker and a winner.  Having foolishly attached his name to the bill instead of staying above the fray and letting Ryan twist in the wind, he thinks he has to have a victory in order to maintain his credibility with the public, to say nothing of his mighty self-esteem.   Never mind what the bill actually does to Trump’s core supporters, or the rest of the American people;  the objective, pure and simple, is to be able to declare victory.

That’s pathetic.

 

I have a theory (I’m guessing it isn’t original to me) that our culture is an endless cycle of classical and baroque phases.  By “classical,” I mean simple and clean; by “baroque,” I mean complex and moody.  In visual terms, classical means the use of unadorned straight lines, and baroque means the use of curves and adornment; the one reflects the male physique, and the other the feminine.  The analogy to yin and yang in Chinese thought is obvious.

Applying this idea to American and British pop music over the last sixty years or so, and admitting that my knowledge of the music of some eras is limited, here is what you get:

1.  The predominant pop music of the fifties was a reflection of the times;  a generation that had survived the Great Depression and World War II, and was living under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust, was understandably both hopeful and world-weary.  You can hear this in many of the songs of Frank Sinatra.
2.  The rock and roll of the late fifties and early sixties was extremely simple and testosterone-driven and was thus, in its way, “classical.”  As the rock bands actually learned how to write and play, however, the music became increasingly baroque, and the performances evolved into something far more elaborate. Think of the differences between the Beatles singing “She Loves You” on the one hand and “Sgt. Pepper,” “Tommy,” and “Hotel California” on the other.
3.  The baroque and allegedly overblown rock music of the 1970’s caused the pendulum to switch back.  As a result, you had three new and different kinds of direct and simple and thus “classical” pop music:  disco; punk; and rap.
4.  Today, it is obvious that the predominant tendency (notwithstanding “classical” groups like the xx) is baroque.  Rap has become much more complex, and taps into a variety of emotions, not just anger.  Anyone watching a typical concert video or the Grammys will be struck by how elaborate the presentations are;  Exhibit “A” is Beyonce’s presentation at the Grammys last month.
5.  The scene is therefore set for another swing of the pendulum to neo-folk or neo-punk or some kind of new “classical” form of popular music.
6.  The worm has already turned in our politics.  Late Obama was elegant, world-weary, and baroque, but Trump is the political equivalent of a punk rocker: inarticulate; incapable of expressing any emotion except anger; profane; outrageous; and indifferent to conventional opinion and values.

And thus, the title of this post:  Trump is the Johnny Rotten of American politics.

My wife and I have been binge-watching episodes of “Escape to the Country,” a British TV program about people moving from urban areas to the countryside. The homes have plenty of character, the views are spectacular, and we’re learning lots of new British English in the process.

It occurred to me today that HGTV should make a similar program for the Trump era called “Escape from the Country.”  Naturally, it would be about Americans fleeing Trumpworld and buying real estate in Canada.

Any takers?

The GOP Speaker named Paul.

A disaster he’ll try to forestall.

Will he round up the votes?

Will the sheep beat the goats?

It appears that his back’s to the wall.

The NYT ran a brief article roughly two weeks ago about a new Chinese government initiative called “Made in China 2025.”  The gist of the program is that the government intends to eliminate virtually all high tech imports from China by 2025 by making hundreds of billions of dollars of cheap loans to Chinese companies to create and acquire new technology in the identified fields.

I know that Trump only likes to read bullet points and watch TV, but one hopes that one of his advisers managed to get him to read the article, because “Made in China 2025” sounds like a blatantly protectionist program.

Let’s face it:  “socialism with Chinese characteristics” means, in practice, a state capitalist, mercantilist economy, not a true market system.  Chinese companies doing business abroad are operating, in the final analysis, as the agents of their government, and not vice-versa.

It makes sense for a government which asserts the ultimate right to control every facet of life and which puts the highest priority on national strength and stability to view trade as a zero-sum game.  Our system, which is run for the benefit of individuals, not the government, is fundamentally different, so Trump’s mercantilist views on foreign policy are a horrible mistake.  That said, he isn’t wrong about the nature of the Chinese system, and we are burying our heads in the sand if we treat China as just another market economy.

In other words, we cannot and should not try to emulate the Chinese system, but our response to it needs to be based on its actual characteristics, not propaganda or wishful thinking.  Chinese claims to be standing up for an open global economy should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

The situation with North Korea is essentially similar to one of those ubiquitous crime dramas in which the bank robber holds people hostage, and the police have to figure out what to do.  Can they devise a way to arrest the bank robber without putting the hostages at risk?  Answers vary from movie to movie.

In this case, the hostages are millions of South Koreans and Japanese who are threatened by North Korean military retaliation in the event of an American air strike.  How much value will Trump place on the lives of foreigners in the era of “America First?”  If he really means it, not much, which should worry the hell out of the South Koreans and Japanese.

Beholden to few in the GOP leadership, determined to maintain his freedom of action, and desperate for popularity, Trump saw that he had an opportunity to rule as a man above party, and he seized it.  His inaugural speech was a well-received plea for unity and hymn to America’s greatness.  His first big policy initiative was a well-constructed infrastructure program acceptable to both parties.  He increased funds for immigration enforcement, but stopped talking about the wall.  His Obamacare replacement program was a genuine attempt to create a universal catastrophic health care system.  His tax cut plan, contrary to expectations, actually was skewed towards the middle class.  His popularity soared accordingly.

None of this happened, of course, but the point is that Trump didn’t have to be a bumbling hard right Republican president.  That he is one today is the product of a series of conscious decisions on his part, as well as his own moral and intellectual weaknesses.

About two weeks ago, I posted a column in which I discussed the points of friction between the PBP and Reactionary groupings within the Trump Administration, and how the great man would attempt to keep the peace.  The “budget” (given its level of detail, it is more like a manifesto), however, requires Trump to take sides.  At this point, who is winning?

Here are the principal issues, and where the factions stand:

1.  Social Security and Medicare cuts:  Loved by PBPs and loathed by Reactionaries.  Advantage:  Reactionaries.

2.  Immigration enforcement:  A threat to business interests, but demanded by Reactionaries.  Advantage:  Reactionaries.

3.  Defense increases:  Reactionaries like the idea of an increased defense budget even if they have no idea how the additional resources will be used.  Advantage:  Reactionaries.

4.  Cuts to the arts and sciences:  PBPs like watching “Downton Abbey.”  Advantage:  Reactionaries.

5.  Cuts to agricultural programs:  These are of minimal interest to PBPs, but have a substantial impact in rural areas.  Advantage:  PBPs.

6.  Cuts to regional development programs:  A small part of the budget, but important to Reactionaries.  Advantage:  PBPs.

On the really important items, then, the Reactionaries are winning.  The big ticket item for the PBPs, however, is the tax cut.  They can probably tolerate a Reactionary agenda in other fields as long as the tax cut has plenty of goodies for business.  How will that turn out? TBD.

The two predominant conflicts in today’s American political scene are between capital and labor, and between proponents of open and closed economic systems. Here is what that looks like in graphic form:

                             Open                    Closed

Capital               Bush                     Trump

Labor                 Obama                  Sanders

The Capital/Open quadrant represents the establishment Pro-Business Pragmatist wing of the GOP:  it firmly supports the mobility of capital and high levels of immigration, along with the usual regressive tax cuts and deregulation. Politicians in the Capital/Closed quadrant (i.e., Trump) oppose immigration and the free movement of capital, but support regressive tax cuts and business deregulation. The Labor/Open quadrant is the mainstream of the Democratic Party;  politicians in this quadrant support free trade deals, but also push for more progressive taxes and an increase in the size of the welfare state.  Voters in the Labor/Closed quadrant, represented by Bernie Sanders, share Trump’s views about free trade deals, but also support progressive taxation and a larger welfare state.

These are the battles that will be fought both between and within the two parties for the foreseeable future.  Expect to see them on display on a daily basis.

Much has been made of Tillerson’s decision to limit press access during his trip to Asia.  Some of that can be attributed to a degree of natural caution, given his lack of experience as a major player on the diplomatic stage, but I think there is more than that going on here.  I strongly suspect that he is giving the Chinese the message that they have x number of days to get their North Korean client under control or military action will ensue, and he quite understandably doesn’t want to read that in the newspaper.

Assuming that I’m right, how will the Chinese react?  Will they view it purely as standard negotiating tactic from “The Art of the Deal,” and disregard it?  Even if they take it seriously, do they have either the will or the practical ability to bring North Korea to heel?  I’m not optimistic on either score.

“The leader of the free world meets with Donald Trump.”  Yep, that sounds about right.

I’ve read the order.  While the plaintiffs made a variety of constitutional and statutory claims, the order focuses solely on their First Amendment argument. The decision relies very heavily on statements made by Trump and his principal surrogates during the campaign and shortly thereafter to show that the primary purpose of the new travel ban is not “secular.”

Does it please me to see Trump, Giuliani, Miller, and the rest being legally skewered by their own irresponsible public statements?  Yes, indeed, it does. That said, I have some legal concerns about the weight that was placed on comments made during the campaign.  I think Trump has a decent argument that the decision drifted too far away from the actual text of the order, and that an appellate court should reach a different conclusion.

Which is just another way of saying that the Trump campaign should be taken neither seriously nor literally by the judicial system.

Will the EU even exist in 2020?  That depends on the outcome of the French election.  I’m not making any predictions at this point.

Assuming, for purposes of argument, that there still is an EU in 2020, it will be looking for leadership.  As I noted yesterday, it is highly likely that the Germans, having been burned over the last several years, will prefer to play a more supporting role.  Their most plausible successors are:

1.  The Franco-German alliance is revived after a Macron victory.   The EU seems to work better when the French and Germans are collaborating as equals. The French provide a bridge between German austerity and south European poverty.  This is the best case scenario.

2.  Someone from the EU itself steps up to the plate.  Just who that would be is unclear to me.

3.  Nobody takes charge.  The EU, buffeted by nationalism everywhere, slowly descends into irrelevance.

The Holy Roman Empire, which the EU resembles in many respects, withered away after the Thirty Years’ War as a result of nationalist pressures and its own inability to maintain order.  Scenario #3 is a recipe for the same outcome.

 

Crooked Hawaiian so-called judge shouldn’t take my campaign statements seriously or literally.  Makes me look like a loser.  Bad!