Month: October 2018

It started with Mitt Romney, not Trump.

Romney repeatedly and blatantly lied about the impacts of his tax plan during the first debate with Obama in 2012.  Obama struggled to deal with it, the comments of fact checkers after the debate didn’t help, the polls tightened, and everyone agreed that Romney won the debate.  From that, the GOP clearly learned that lies can be sound political strategy.

Lies are, in fact, the basis for innumerable GOP commercials on pre-existing conditions.  Will they work?  We’ll find out next week.

Having concluded that the public would no longer buy “Climate change is a Chinese hoax” or “I’m not a scientist, man,” the GOP is starting to revise its message slightly.  Is the party still in denial?  Here is a comprehensive list of the new responses, and my reactions:

1.  Temperatures have increased, but they could change back.  Who knows?  (Trump):  There is absolutely no evidence that a reversal is possible in the foreseeable future.

2.  Temperatures have increased, but no one knows exactly how much of the increase is attributable to human activity (Trump and others):  The exact percentage doesn’t matter.  If you accept that climate change is real and will have a hugely negative impact, you need to take positive steps to address it, regardless of the cause.    Logically speaking, a small gap in your knowledge isn’t a justification for doing nothing.

3.  Temperatures have increased, but taking action to mitigate the problem will wreck our economy.  It simply isn’t worth it.  (Trump, Marco Rubio, and others):  You can argue about the wisdom of some of the German efforts to support renewable energy, but you can’t say they wrecked their economy.  Supporting anachronistic, dirty energy sources over clean ones will damage business in the long run.  Finally, we’re already paying for mitigation in the form of natural disaster cleanups;  it’s just a question of whether you do it before or after the disaster.

4.  In the long run, we’re all screwed, so party on, dudes!  (EPA):  This is inconsistent with data which show that any effort to reduce the damage will help.  It is also the very negation of truly conservative thought.  Edmund Burke would be rolling over in his grave.

The bottom line is that the new positions are not technically “denial,” but they’re just as irresponsible.

 

If you thought the last two years were bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

Some elements of the future can be predicted fairly safely.  For example, it is virtually certain that the remaining “adults” in the administration will leave after the midterms, and that the beast will be unleashed to an even greater degree.  On the other hand, Trump’s relations with Congress cannot be predicted until the results of the election are known.  A third group of issues, however, is independent of the outcome of the election, and TBD:

1.  How will Trump react if the market crashes?  This is likely to occur at some point in the next two years.  My guess is that he will be unable and unwilling to reassure the markets; instead, he will spend his time and energy attacking the Fed and trying to spread the blame, which will only make things much worse.

2.  Is there an off ramp for the trade wars?  As I’ve noted before, it appears that he is looking for a fundamental change in the way the Chinese do business in lieu of just accepting some measure of managed trade for a cheap “win.”  Will that continue, or will he change course?  That remains to be seen.

3.  Where are we going with North Korea?  It’s pretty clear that Trump doesn’t want war in Korea.  What we don’t know is how long we can keep up the posture of bogus negotiations as a solution to the problem.  In the meantime, the rest of the world has lost interest in enforcing sanctions.  Whether we have another crisis is probably up to Kim, who is certainly capable of creating one at a moment’s notice.

4.  When is the war with Iran?  Trump apparently believes that sanctions will bring Iran to its knees.  When they fail, he will be left with the options of going to war or backing down.  With Netanyahu and MBS whispering in his ear in favor of a brief and brutal war for regime change, which do you think he will choose?

5.  What happens to Mueller and our constitutional rights?  Once a new Attorney General is in place, all hell is going to break loose, particularly when the Iran war begins.

 

Prior to Trump’s inauguration, I indicated that there were three extremely important known unknowns about the way he would run the government.  They were:

1.  Which economic scenario (“Funhouse Reagan,” “Reverse Robin Hood,” or “Trade Warrior” combined with one of the other two) would we experience?
2.  How much damage would he do to our constitutional rights?
3.  Would his foreign policy be completely unconventional, or just a more blustery, unilateral version of the GOP status quo?

As we approach the midterms, the record on each of these is decidedly mixed, as follows:

1.  The predicted tax cut has blown up the deficit and provided an unnecessary stimulus to the economy, as per “Funhouse Reagan.”  Trump has made some efforts to cut spending and has grumbled about deficit deals which accomplished little to shrink government, but the desire is still there.  “Trade Warrior” began this year; its impact on the economy has been limited to date, but the next set of Chinese tariffs, if they are actually put in place, could be a different story.
2.  Trump has attacked the judiciary, undermined the credibility of law enforcement, profited from business deals in office, refused to release his tax returns, complained that the Attorney General is not doing enough to protect his interests and prosecute his opponents, called for changes to libel laws, and repeatedly blasted the media as “enemies of the people.”  On the other hand, he hasn’t ignored court orders, fired Mueller, or made any serious attempt to weaponize law enforcement–yet.
3.  His treatment of our allies as ungrateful competitors, his enthusiasm for Putin, his trade wars, and his treatment of Kim were unconventional.  He also went where no GOP president would go previously and recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  He has no interest in serving as an honest broker in the Middle East.  On the other hand, his desire to confront Iran and China are well within the GOP mainstream.

Where do we go from here?  See my next post.

A madman just killed lots of Jews.

An act for which there’s no excuse.

The president said

He regretted the dead.

How many more lives must we lose?

Fictional account inspired by an article in today’s NYT.

Kavanaugh enters a hall at Georgetown Prep.  He is greeted by a member of the administration, who is, of course, a Jesuit priest.

JP:  Mr. Justice, welcome home!

K:  It’s always good to be back here.  They understand me here.

JP:  I imagine it’s a relief to get back to red America after swimming in the blue sea.

K:  As Sarah Palin would say, you betcha.

JP:  Does the place still look the same?

K:  Well, you taught me that the truth was immutable.

JP:  I’m not sure Pope Francis believes that.  Well, make yourself at home.  We’re always happy to see you here.  He wanders off.  Kavanaugh sees his old friend PJ.

K:  How are you doing, man?

PJ:  What’s up, Bart?  We were worried about you during those hearings.

K:  Piece of cake.  Those Democrats are really dumb.  They couldn’t touch me.

PJ:  Yeah, they just looked and sounded like a bunch of people who were bitter they couldn’t party the way we did in high school.  They don’t understand how hard we worked to get to where we are today.

K:  There’s something to that.  Where’s Judge?

PJ:  He’s trying to stay out of public.  He’s been shaken by the whole FBI thing.

K:  Sorry about that.

PJ:  Good thing he has such a bad memory, eh?  Kavanaugh winces.  Oh, I guess I shouldn’t talk about that.

Kavanaugh sees Squi.

K:  There’s a sight for sore eyes!

S:  Mr. Justice!  Tell me, were you really as pissed off as you appeared to be?

K:  Well, part of it was real, but part of it was for Trump.  He let me know that he wanted someone who could fight for him.  I did my best to look the part.

S:  Well, you convinced just about everyone.  Congratulations!  How do you feel about being played by Matt Damon on SNL?

K:  At least it was a real movie star, not Alec Baldwin.

S:  What’s Trump really like?

K:  He’s like us during our high school years, except he doesn’t drink and he never got over himself.

S:  How’s life on the Supreme Court?

K:  The office space and the gym are great.  The rest of the justices are surprisingly friendly.  Roberts told me to keep my head down and to stay off Fox News for a little while.

S:  How long?

K:  I’ll play that by ear.

S:  What’s the statute of limitations on the administrative state?

K:  A few years, at most.

A student approaches them.

STUDENT:  Justice Kavanaugh, do you have any advice for me?

K:  When the priests tell you that your past follows you forever, believe them.  I’m living proof of that.  He signs an autograph and leaves the room.  The student and the priest remain.

STUDENT:  Father, he lied under oath about stupid stuff like “boofing” and the “devil’s triangle.”  Why are we sucking up to him?

JP:  Because he’s the fifth vote to get rid of abortion on demand in this country.

STUDENT:  Isn’t that a little bit cynical?  Does the end justify the means?

JP:  We Jesuits have always know how to get along with the powers that be to get what we want.  It’s our birthright.  It’s like oxygen to us.  They leave.

Imagine that you are a middle-class African-American.  You have a reasonably good white collar job and a steady income, but little wealth, for historical reasons.  For political purposes, with whom do you most identify:  white middle-class people or less affluent African-Americans?

Voting patterns indicate the latter, and with good reason.  That illustrates why the Democrats cannot make their pitch based solely on class.

Throughout most of its history, the Democratic Party was a logically improbable coalition of southern whites and northern workers, most of them were either immigrants or the direct offspring of immigrants.  The two disparate groups were brought together by a common adversary:  northern Protestant businessmen and farmers.  As a result, there were always elements of both class and identity within the party, but the identity part predominated.

As the party slowly came to embrace the aspirations of African-Americans, who were denied any meaningful role in politics between Reconstruction and the 1960’s, the southern whites moved away and became Republicans for cultural, not economic, reasons.  The party has consequently remained a coalition of victims, but one united in opposition to the rule of white Christian men, not just businessmen and farmers.  The swing voters today are middle-class white women and white working men, both of whom have either economic or identity ties to both parties.

The bottom line is that the Democratic Party has always had both class and identity components.  It cannot afford to renounce either if it wants to be successful on a national level.

 

Let’s be honest about this:  Donald Trump has a daughter and a son-in-law who are Jewish, he’s never said anything negative about the Jewish religion, he is a strong supporter of the current Israeli government, and I very much doubt that he considers himself to be anti-Semitic.  Nevertheless:

1.  He hates “globalists,” a term that applies easily to Jews;
2.  He openly advocates violence against his political opponents;
3.  He swaggers and champions gun rights;
4.  He has refused to condemn members of the alt-right in the past;
5.  He has identified prominent Jews as guilty individuals in his conspiracy theories; and
6.  Whatever his actual sentiments, there is no doubt that anti-Semites have felt empowered by his presidency.

And so, can he escape blame for this latest massacre?  I think not.

It was widely reported that Mitch McConnell recently said the GOP would be looking at entitlement cuts during the next Congress.  A fact-checker for the WaPo, however, says that McConnell went on to insist that any such cuts would require bipartisan support.  Should we take comfort from that?

In the long run, quite the opposite.  By way of background, while the GOP rank-and-file clearly don’t support entitlement cuts, the leadership does.  That is a product both of CL ideology and the wishes of the donor class.  A few prominent GOP members (Paul Ryan, mostly) have made their reputations for honesty by being open about this;  the rest rely on spin and lies to square the circle with their constituents.   It is doubtful that many of them can be trusted to vote properly when push comes to shove.

McConnell’s comments suggest that he understands this, and has a different, long-range plan;  he wants the Democrats to share the blame for the cuts.  No Democrat is going to want to cut Social Security or Medicare, so they will have to be tricked or coerced.  How can that be done?  By waiting for a funding crisis to come and then refusing to raise taxes to resolve it.  The cuts will then come by default or as part of a package to save the program that will have bipartisan support.  Either way, blaming the Democrats will make sense to the electorate.

It seems unlikely that Labour’s unexpectedly good showing in the last election was attributable to a wave of enthusiasm for Jeremy Corbyn’s anachronistic Marxist views.  In reality, it was due to:

1.  Theresa May’s weaknesses as a campaigner;
2.  General weariness with austerity; and
3.  Widespread opposition to Brexit among young people.  As we have seen in this week’s posts, this is a form of identity politics.

Will Corbyn grasp the opportunity to turn Labour into a more identity-based party, similar to the Democrats in the United States?  Don’t hold your breath.  Like Bernie Sanders, Corbyn views racial and cultural divisions as a form of false consciousness driven by the class system.  He doesn’t really oppose Brexit, or even care about it; he just wants the issue to cause the government to implode and drop power in his lap, so he can bring back the “glory days” of the late seventies, or even the late forties.

If you think that sounds ridiculous, you’re right.  Corbyn is a reactionary in his own way; his vision of a UK run by and for a militant working class makes as much sense as trying to revive the British Empire.

Our beloved government has put out a publication which essentially says that universal health care is the first step towards totalitarianism.  It sounds like a Ronald Reagan speech about the horrors of Medicare in the early sixties.

In order to accept this argument, you have to agree with the following premises:

1.  The US health care system is overwhelmingly based on free market principles;
2.  The US system gives better value for money than government-run systems all over the world; and
3.  Canada and European countries, even those with conservative governments, are on the slippery slope to Maoism.

I suspect this last point would come as a surprise to May, Merkel, and Macron.  And if you buy into the argument, you are another m-word–a moron.

As you would expect, British and American reactionaries have plenty in common.  Both are intensely suspicious of foreigners and oppose large scale immigration.  Both long for a mythical period in the country’s past and want to stop the clock at that point.  Both are extremely proud of their country and its history, in spite of its mixed record, and view political correctness as an affront to themselves and their ancestors.  Finally, both groups are disproportionately old.

There are differences, however.  British reactionaries are unlikely to be fundamentalist Christians.  Their hostility to foreigners is slightly less tinged with racism.  And, unlike in America, British reactionaries can be found in large numbers in both parties;  they just look backward to a different golden age.

One other major difference:  I would much rather spend time with a nice old lady in a cathedral than a guy driving a pickup truck with a Confederate flag and an NRA bumper sticker.

The conventional wisdom is that midterm election results don’t reflect the condition of the markets.  And, in truth, the markets will in no way influence the vast majority of voters on this occasion, either.  So why do they matter?

They matter because, while Trump has firm control of the CL and Reactionary factions of the GOP, and has long since lost the CDs, the PBPs are still in play.  Their loyalty to him is purely transactional.  If it appears that an unchecked Trump is going to cost them money over the next two years, they will have no reason to go out and vote for GOP candidates, and some of them probably won’t.  In districts that are up for grabs, that will make a difference.

James Baker has advocated in the NYT for the use of the Bush administration’s response to Tiananmen Square massacre as a precedent for dealing with the Khashoggi incident.  Baker is a reasonable man with vast experience, and his views deserve to be taken seriously.  However, I think he is missing some of the important nuances of the situation in his analysis.

Baker argues that the US has always backed Saudi Arabia because it is a force for stability in the Middle East.  That is a half-truth, just as it would be a half-truth to say that Pakistan is a force for stability in its neighborhood.  Yes, the government traditionally has said the right things about terrorism, and has made some genuine efforts to prevent it.  On the other hand, the Saudi government has consistently acquiesced to, and on occasion has openly promoted, efforts to spread its radical interpretation of Islam throughout the world.  The consequences were inevitable; as I’ve said on many occasions, if you take any given terrorist act and go back far enough, you will almost always find a link to a Saudi-backed madrassa.

That was then, and this is now.  Whatever you might think of MBS, you can’t call him a force for stability–he’s a revolutionary.  He has flexed the country’s muscles abroad in a way that his predecessors never did, typically with disastrous results.  Baker’s argument about “stability” consequently holds little water in today’s environment.

Trump’s objective should be to encourage Saudi liberalization without writing a blank check for the country’s foreign adventures, which are in no way in our best interests.  Will that happen?   Don’t hold your breath.