Month: November 2018

I have made references to “banana republics” in several recent posts.  What exactly does that term mean?

A “banana republic” is a country with a liberal democratic constitution that is not, in practice, a liberal democracy, because its politicians do not observe unwritten norms and practices that are essential for liberal democracies.  In a banana republic, the government of the day does not recognize the legitimacy of opposition, the judiciary, media, and law enforcement are highly politicized, and power is based on proximity to the leader, not institutions.  Politics are a zero-sum game.  The government does not accept any obligations to respect the legal rights of the opposition, which, in turn, is determined to take power at almost any cost.  The system is consequently both tyrannical and unstable.  Economic growth is limited as a result.

You can think of a banana republic as a sort of halfway house between a liberal democracy and a fascist state.  It can become a liberal democracy if the politicians decide it is in the country’s interests for them to observe the spirit, not just the letter, of the constitution;  on the other hand, if the leader of the day is strong, talented, and ruthless enough to completely crush the opposition, the country can become completely fascist.

Think about this the next time you read a column defending Trump’s violations of unwritten norms because they are not enshrined in the constitution.

A large and growing number of Democrats are considering running for president in 2020.  Who should run, and who should stay home?  Here is my analysis, with the likely candidates in alphabetical order:

1.  Joe Biden

Is he qualified?  It would be hard to imagine anyone with better qualifications than Biden.

Is there a unique rationale for his candidacy?  He can appeal to white working men in a way that none of the other potential candidates can.  He also stands for a return to decency, competence, and moderate politics.  There will be a market for that during the campaign, even though he will probably get lost on stage with the others.

Can he win?  Absolutely.

Should he run?  If his heart is in it, yes.  Age and gaffes are an issue, but not standing next to Trump.

2.  Michael Bloomberg

Is he qualified?  Yes.  His tenure in NYC speaks for itself.

Is there a unique rationale for his candidacy?  He would be the only vocal advocate for business on the debate stage.

Can he win?  No chance, and he has to know it.  His reason for running would have to be simply to pull the party back into the center.  I don’t think even that would work.

Should he run?  No, but I would much rather see him run as a Democrat than as an independent.

3.  Cory Booker

Is he qualified?  Yes.  Any reasonably experienced US Senator meets the standard.

Is there a unique rationale for his candidacy?  There is no other potential candidate in this list who comes across as Obama Lite–cool, cerebral, optimistic, and inoffensive.  Hey, it worked twice before.

Can he win?  Yes.  He can appeal to all segments of the party, and will not be too threatening to white America.

Should he run?  Sure.  Why not?

4.  Kirsten Gillibrand

Is she qualified?  Yes, just as Booker is.

Is there a unique rationale for her candidacy?  Not really.  She would split the MeToo vote with the other female candidates.  To my knowledge, she doesn’t really have anything else to say.

Can she win?  I don’t see it.  MeToo is not exactly a winning slogan with white working men.

Should she run?  She would be wasting her time and her few donors’ money.

5.  Kamala Harris

Is she qualified?  Same as Booker.

Is there a unique rationale for her candidacy?  Yes.  She is more likely (and better positioned) to embrace pure identity politics than any of the others.  She is also smart and charismatic.

Can she win?  Only if she figures out a way to communicate with white swing voters without losing her base support from women and minorities.  That’s TBD.

Should she run?  Yes.  She figures to play a prominent role in the campaign.  At worst, it’s good practice for the future.

6.  Bernie Sanders

Is he qualified?  Same as Booker.

Is there a unique rationale for his candidacy?  I guess you could say that being the only seventies leftie with lots of stupid ideas about spending money sets him apart from the others, if not in a good way.

Can he win?  The GOP would eat him for lunch.  By the end of the campaign, you would think Maduro is his running mate.

Should he run?  Feeling the Bern once was enough.  He succeeded in moving the center of the party to the left; he should quit while he’s ahead.

7.  Elizabeth Warren

Is she qualified?  Same as Booker.

Is there a unique rationale for her candidacy?  She has created one by setting out a series of leftish policy proposals that focus more on structures than ends.  Unlike Sanders, she is a radical who doesn’t insist on spending huge amounts of public money.  Unlike Gillibrand, she isn’t relying on the MeToo vote; her perspective is much broader than that.

Can she win?  She looks and sounds a bit like Hillary, but I would say yes, particularly if things get worse in the next two years, which seems likely.

Should she run?  Yes, and she clearly is.

 

This Middle Eastern country was the home of its religion’s holy places and was, therefore, unquestionably exceptional.  While it prospered, it was surrounded by hostile nations with much larger populations, and thus felt insecure.  It built up its military, murdered opponents abroad, and used its influence to make the US view it as an indispensable ally.  The Trump administration completely bought into this argument and gave it assistance against Iran and groups it perceived to be Iranian allies even when the actions in question had negative humanitarian consequences.

Is it Israel or Saudi Arabia?  You decide.

Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo responded to Russia’s naval aggression in the appropriate way–by condemning it.  Trump, on the other hand, has said little on the subject, and has suggested that both sides are at fault.

The unexplained divergence between Trump and the rest of his government on Russia has occurred so many times that it has to be viewed as a feature, not a bug, in his administration.  Under other circumstances, you would assume that it is an effort to play good cop, bad cop with the Russians; the divergence of opinions among Trump’s advisers on trade negotiations with China, for example, may to some extent be a matter of design, as it gives Trump more flexibility to strike any kind of deal he ultimately chooses.  We never make those kinds of demands on Putin, however.  So what in the world is going on here?

Let’s hope Mueller answers that question.  If he can’t, then maybe the new Democratic House can.

A:  A swaggering right-wing political operative who openly boasted about his use of hardball tactics, he persisted in denying that he provided a direct connection between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks in spite of published accounts to the contrary.

Q:  Who is Roger Stone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To the extent that Trump campaigns on anything except fear of the other, it is about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the Rust Belt.  The GM layoff announcement obviously strikes at the very heart of that message, and could cost him critical swing votes in 2020.

Trump has predictably already complained about it, just as he frequently complains about the Fed.  Will he think the base will be satisfied with mere words, or will he actually follow up with some stupid or illegal actions to punish GM for doing what it has to do?

To use Ross Douthat’s term, Trump has mostly been just a dictator on Twitter thus far, but that could change if he thinks it necessary.  As the election approaches, the pressure to produce results will probably result in more extreme behavior.  We’ll see.

Sunday’s NYT included a Ross Douthat column which contained the following related, but different, threads:

1.  Trump was just speaking the truth when he talks about partisan judges.
2.  We are currently faced with the rise of two imperial powers–the judiciary and the president.  They are likely to collide at some point, with the president of the day being the likely winner.

Is he right?  Let’s break it down a bit more:

1.  The “partisan” judiciary is not exactly a myth, but it is an oversimplification.  Most of the decisions that Douthat hates over the last fifty years were supported by justices appointed by GOP presidents.  The right has decided to make sure this never happens again by vetting potential nominees through the Federalist Society, which is what has actually changed in the process.  That said, judges don’t have unlimited authority to interpret the law as they see fit, the vast majority of cases (even those heard by the Supreme Court) have few partisan overtones, and judicial philosophy is frequently more important than political affiliation.  Even the current GOP members of the Court analyze legal issues differently, which matters more than most people think.
2. Yes, the presidency has become more “imperial” over time with regard to foreign policy.  With legislation–no.  Obama and Trump both outsourced a lot of the leadership role to various members of Congress.
3.  No, the judiciary has not become more “imperial;” it can only hear the cases that come to it.  Douthat’s view on this subject is clearly influenced by his loathing of the decisions on abortion and gay rights.
4.  Who would win a battle between the judiciary and the presidency?  That is an outcome that Chief Justice Roberts will desperately try to avoid.  He understands that public acceptance of the legal process is a norm which sustains liberal democracy.  If the process is viewed as completely partisan, and the law is just a cloak covering raw power, then the legitimacy of both the legal system and our entire scheme of constitutional government will disappear, and we will be left with, at best, illiberal democracy.   That would probably suit Trump just fine.

It’s January 20, 2009.  President Sanders has just taken the oath at a time when the American economy is leaking jobs by the millions. He notes the magnitude of the task before him, but takes grim satisfaction in the notion that the country is, at long last, ready for the “revolution.”  It’s time to show the titans of Wall Street who’s boss!

This never happened, of course.  Sanders didn’t run for president in 2008.  If he had known that the Great Recession was coming, maybe things would have been different.  As it is, he has to think that his best chance to bring about the “revolution” died when Obama was elected, because it was the last time he could have persuaded the country that Wall Street is responsible for all of our economic problems.  Obama didn’t do that;  he was trying to save the system (albeit by unconventional means), not overthrow it.

Today, the economy is buzzing on a sugar high, and the current president is the king of identity politics, which figure to predominate in the 2020 campaign.  Sanders doesn’t, in his heart of hearts, believe in identity politics, partly for good reasons, and partly not.  How can he deal with this situation?  How can he persuade African-Americans with problems with law enforcement and the judicial system that Wall Street is the real enemy, and that the white working people who protect Confederate symbols are actually their friends?

That’s his real problem, and as far as I can tell, he has no answers.  He’s really not even trying.  There are several reasons why he shouldn’t run in 2020, but that’s one of the best ones.

Batman would be pointless without opposition from cunning arch-villains.   Why would Gotham City need him in the absence of the Joker?

In a similar vein, a large part of the rationale for Trump is his perceived willingness and ability to protect otherwise helpless Americans from the world’s many bad guys.  He consequently has every reason to identify and build up a suitably scary arch-villain, but he hasn’t succeeded in finding someone to fit the bill. The public is having a hard time buying the migrant caravans as his equivalent of the Joker.  Putin, Kim, and Xi won’t work, because Trump actually likes them.  ISIS hasn’t done anything interesting recently.  Who’s left?

The ayatollahs, of course.  Look for lots of demonization in the next two years.

A:  Two important and much-discussed Trump initiatives that never really existed.

Q:  What are the infrastructure plan and the Middle East peace plan?

There was an op-ed in yesterday’s NYT by two men named Michael Doran and Tony Badran regarding the Khashoggi murder that requires an immediate response.  The gist of it is contained in the following sentence:  “Whatever Prince Mohammed’s faults may be, he actively supports the American regional order that the Iranians openly seek to destroy.”

Say what?  What American regional order?  We have spent the last fifteen years proving it doesn’t exist.

The truth is that there is no order in the region at all—just struggles for power between Sunnis and Shiites, Israelis and Palestinians, autocrats and pseudo-democrats, and, above all, between the Israelis and Saudis on one hand and the Iranians on the other.  The US has no strong, direct stake in any of these conflicts.  We just want the oil to flow and for terrorists to be kept under control.

The authors of the op-ed are clearly mouthpieces for the Israeli government, which cannot, for multiple reasons, openly support MBS.   Their job is to convince us, as they have convinced Trump, that Iran is mostly our problem, and that we need to stick with our loyal lieutenants in a battle in which they have only a passing interest.  That is pure rubbish, and we can only hope they don’t succeed.

Assume, for purposes of argument, that Trump is right, and that our foreign policy should be purely transactional–values, human rights, and international law are for chumps.  He has once again given MBS a blank check.  What do we get in return?

Low oil prices?  Historically, the kingdom does whatever it thinks is in its best interests at any given time.  Sometimes that means low prices;  sometimes, not.  Don’t count on it.

A force for stability in the Middle East?  The man who basically kidnapped the prime minister of Lebanon, started a devastating war in Yemen, and probably ordered a murder in an embassy in Turkey?  You cannot be serious!

The enemy of terrorism?  There is some hope there, but the Saudis, like the Pakistanis, have historically played a double game on terrorism.  The jury is out on this point.

A check on Iran?  That’s backward thinking.  We don’t have any great national interest in checking Iran.  We’re there to assist the Saudis in their cold war with the Iranians.  MBS, like Netanyahu, wants to fight Iran to the last American, and Trump is going along with it.

Arms sales and investment?  Is the most powerful nation in the world really selling its military and diplomatic support for a few billion dollars and a handful of jobs building weapons?

The bottom line is that we can’t realistically ignore the Saudis, but we don’t have to write them any blank checks, either.  That will ultimately lead to a war with Iran that helps the Saudis and Israelis, but in no way advances our national interests.  This was supposed to be America first, remember?

Note to the reader:  I will be on vacation until next Tuesday night.  Regular postings will resume at that time.

Pro:  Talented and experienced cat herder who always managed to get the votes for Obama’s programs;  successful electoral and legislative tactician who masterminded the Democrats’ victory in 2018.

Con:  Often caricatured successfully by Republicans as a San Francisco limousine liberal who is completely out of touch with average people and threatens men;  not great on TV.

The solution:  Split the job, either temporally or functionally.  If the former, have her retire after one more year of acting as Speaker; by then, the candidates for president will be delivering the party’s message.  If the latter, let her do the inside stuff, and leave the PR to someone new.

Many of the Never Trumpers, most notably Max Boot, have looked at the current state of the GOP and concluded that the party needs to be destroyed and rebuilt  from scratch.  David Brooks, however, can’t bring himself to go that far.  His columns since the 2016 election have basically consisted of the following:

1.  Damn, I miss the golden age of conservatism!  Back in the 1980’s, the GOP was a principled small government party, not a mob of white nationalists.  Where are Reagan and William F. Buckley when you need them?
2.  The problem isn’t the GOP; it’s that America is spiritually sick.  Solutions have to be found on a state and local level by ordinary citizens, not the government.

Responses as follows:

1.  I’ve written on the relationship between Trump and Reagan on several occasions.  While it is at least arguable (and, in my opinion, probably true) that the differences between the two are more significant than the similarities, anyone who denies the points of commonality is just kidding himself.  Reagan swaggered and pandered to reactionaries, too.  The road to Trump ran through him.
2.  The “sick America” meme, ironically enough, is reminiscent of Carter’s national malaise speech.  The election of Reagan magically made the malaise disappear.  The replacement of Trump with a Democratic alternative will do the same.

Well, don’t say I didn’t tell you so.  You’re going to be hearing more of these kinds of stories now that he has a stooge as his acting AG.

The Democrats had better be keeping their eyes on this.  It’s a lot more important than Ivanka’s e-mails.  The credibility of the criminal justice system is at stake.