Month: November 2018

As I’ve noted many times before, Donald Trump is a one-trick pony; the only thing he knows how to do is mobilize his base.  His tactic is to trigger overreactions by the left, and thereby persuade white workers to choose him over the Democrats even though many of them have doubts about him.  It worked in 2016, when Hillary Clinton, with a trunk full of baggage, was the nominee.  It did not work in 2018, when he was essentially running against Mr. or Ms. Generic Democrat.

It appears from an article in yesterday’s Politico that some of the putative candidates are falling into Trump’s trap by doubling down on identity politics.  If the Democrats’ ultimate objective is just to have a more woke electorate, that is probably a sensible tactic.  If, on the other hand, the idea is to, like, win the 2020 election, it is suicide.

The Democratic Party is primarily an identity party.  It has always, however, had a white male working class component, as well.  The Democrats cannot win national elections without winning over a reasonably large number of these people.  Many of them are genuine reactionaries, and are out of reach, but the rest of them are swing voters.  Identifying them, and not Trumpism, as the enemy, would guarantee failure in 2020.

The irony is that, given the probable number of female and minority candidates in the 2020 primaries, it is doubtful that basing a campaign on vilifying white “deplorables” will be a winning tactic even in the southern primaries, let alone the general election.

Most of the concern about the Whitaker appointment has focused on what it means for the Mueller investigation, for obvious reasons.  Democratic control of the House, however, effectively means that Trump can’t just make Mueller vanish into thin air.   One way or another, the Russia investigation will continue until it reaches an appropriate conclusion.

Trump has made it clear that he thinks the DOJ should protect him from legal jeopardy and prosecute his enemies.  His false statement about not knowing Whitaker was undoubtedly intended to send a message that Whitaker has to do his bidding to keep his job.  There is no reason to doubt he will try.

The real issue here is whether Whitaker will start sacking career prosecutors and replacing them with ambitious Trump loyalists with no professional ethics, and, if he does, whether the House will do anything about it.  If my worst fears on this point are realized, we are well on our way to becoming a banana republic.

Back in the day, when there was no expectation that the government would guarantee you a living, if the jobs dried up in your community due to conditions beyond your control, you couldn’t afford to sit and complain about it;  you just moved on.  You had no choice.

Today, reactionaries complain bitterly about the welfare state and how it provides a “hammock” for lazy people (in their eyes, usually minorities).  Those reactionaries, however, live disproportionately in areas in which mining and manufacturing jobs have been lost or devalued due to technological change and globalization.  They yearn for the good old days of hard work and high wages, not government handouts.

That is the reactionary paradox;  reactionaries portray themselves as rugged individuals, but they frequently rely on the welfare state that they so despise to get by, and they demand government action to get their old jobs back instead of learning new skills or moving to the new jobs.

If the UK has a program similar to SNL, they really need to cast John Cleese as Jacob Rees-Mogg.  He would be absolutely perfect.

Every time I see JRM, I think he should be back fighting in the ditch with A.J. Balfour in 1911.  Now that’s what I call old school!

On a more positive note, it probably takes some courage in today’s world to openly present yourself as an upper-class twit.  And he’s definitely less creepy than Ted Cruz.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, Brexit deal blues.

You have to be aware of it; it’s all over the news.

No one likes my Brexit deal; I think I’m going to lose.

I needed everybody’s help, but the Brexiteers refuse.

 

The EU just won’t help me out; it’s really been a slog.

Like walking on the moor at night, avoiding all the bogs.

Our country is divided, and my party’s in a fog.

I thought Corbyn was the worst, but now I’ve got Rees-Mogg!

 

I’ve got the blues.

The Irish backstop blues.

I did my best to save the deal

But I know there’s no excuse.

As to who could follow me

I really wouldn’t know.

It’s been quite an adventure.

More like a horror show.

Brexit

Son of Grexit

Son of Frexit . . .

—From a speech in “Equus”

I don’t know if the government is going to survive after last week.  It’s pretty clear, however, that May’s Brexit deal isn’t going to get through Parliament.  Then what?

If May remains in control of the issue, her subsequent failure to renegotiate better terms with the EU is going to be viewed as a “stab in the back” by the Brexiteers.  Why not give them control of the issue?  Let Davis or BoJo go to Brussels with the authority to make whatever better deal they can, and see what happens.

Then, when they inevitably come home empty-handed, the fantasy of a cherry-picked deal will be extinguished, and the logical next move is the second referendum.

On the woman called Queen of the May.

Her leadership’s finally in play.

Her new Brexit deal

Didn’t have much appeal.

And the Brexiteers stand in her way.

In the last edition of The Economist, the Bagehot column suggests that British history is viewed very differently by adherents of the left and right.  While the”Waterloo” side sees it as glorious, the “Peterloo” side sees it as nothing more than a series of attempts by a bloodthirsty ruling class to impose its will on the masses, both at home and abroad.  This division was, of course, reflected in the Brexit vote, and bedevils the British political system today.

The column is generally consistent with several of my posts from a few weeks ago in which I discussed how identity politics have come to the UK, and how the left-wing position is being manifested in  “millennial neo-classical” architecture and the theater.  I disagree on one point, however; while it is certainly true that Jeremy Corbyn (a reactionary in his own way) sees the dispute as being grounded in the class struggle, I think the wider British public sees it more in terms of national identity.  The essence of the issue is imperialism, not the class struggle, which is less prominent in British politics than it was in Margaret Thatcher’s day.  If I were writing the column, therefore, it would have been entitled “Amritsar v. Waterloo,” not “Peterloo v. Waterloo.”

Different massacre, less catchy title, but similar idea.

As I’ve noted in several previous posts, many reactionaries view guns, not as objects, but as symbols of independence, strength, virility, and traditional values.  Almost as icons, you could say.  That makes it difficult to have even a reasonable conversation about regulating them, much less to get legislation through the system, even though every poll I’ve ever seen shows strong national support for controls at a national level.

The Realo position on guns is to support additional controls, but at a state and local level.  Bernie Sanders has historically been a Realo on this issue; he views gun control as an unwelcome distraction from the “revolution,” which is directed at Wall Street, not serial killers.  The Fundi position, of course, is to promote the strictest regime possible at the federal level.  In spite of a wave of massacres over the last decade, it has accomplished essentially nothing.

Barring the abolition of the filibuster or a huge blue wave election, there is no  prospect of any really meaningful action on guns in Congress in the foreseeable future.  Nevertheless, you can expect the Fundi position to prevail during the primaries, due to the strong emotions understandably raised by the issue, and the Democrats’ chances of winning the Senate to diminish as a result.

Reactionaries dream of recreating a glorious past that only exists in their imagination.  They think it can be done purely as an act of will.  They are contemptuous of experts.  Finally, they blame evil outsiders and traitor elitists when they fail.

And they do inevitably fail, since they are swimming against the tide of history.  The question in a democratic system then is, what comes afterwards?  There are only two possibilities.  Either the liberal democratic system holds, and the left comes in to clean up the mess, or the Reactionaries turn into fascists and completely reshape the system in order to hang onto power.

Those are the stakes between now and November, 2020.

Lyin’ Eyes

City boys just seem to find out early

The world is just a nasty, lonely place.

He’ll get rich, and he won’t have to worry.

And everyone in town will know his face.

 

The first step is construct lots of new buildings

And every single one will bear his name.

Then he’ll ghost a book and buy casinos.

His wealth exceeded only by his fame.

 

No one said this process would be painless.

He’ll have to screw some folks along the way.

The world only rewards those who are ruthless

And strong enough to fight another day.

 

(Chorus)

You can’t trust your lyin’ eyes.

‘Cause the truth is in disguise.

I thought by now you’d realize

You can’t afford to trust your lyin’ eyes.

 

Wealth is not enough, so power beckons.

He’ll run to be the leader of the land.

The truth will be a casualty, I reckon.

He’ll have the base eating out of his hand.

 

The country’s split in two over his antics.

He lies and lies; the base just doesn’t care.

The opposition’s getting kind of frantic.

But checking facts just seems to lead nowhere.

 

(Repeat chorus)

 

Parody of “Lyin’ Eyes” by Don Henley and Glenn Frey.

At some point during the 2020 primaries, a debate moderator is going to ask a question about reparations.   The white candidates will all express their solidarity with African-Americans, but will not support reparations.  Cory Booker will say that his trust fund plan is a better, color-blind way of addressing wealth inequities resulting from race.  The spotlight will then turn to Kamala Harris.  Her response will, to a large extent, shape both the primaries and the general election.

It will be tempting for Harris to support reparations.  It would set her apart from the other candidates and endear her to many liberal activists and African-Americans.  It would help her in her quest to win the nomination.  If she were to be nominated under those circumstances, however, the GOP would hammer her mercilessly on the issue during the general election, and appalled white swing voters would turn away from the Democrats.  It would be pure electoral poison.

So which will she choose?  I have no idea.  My guess is we’ll know in about a year.

Theresa May has her deal with the EU, but she got it by caving on the backstop.  She has survived thus far by kicking the can, but a decision can no longer be avoided. Will she be able to sell the deal to the Cabinet and Parliament?  This time, I think not.  We’ll find out later today.

The Realo/Fundi and class/identity splits do not overlap;  they are the x- and y-axes on a graph.  It is perfectly possible for candidates to land in any of the four quadrants.  That said, Fundi positions tend to line up with class on economic and welfare state issues, but with identity on social justice issues.

Immigration is a good example of the latter.  The Fundi position on immigration (i.e., to abolish ICE and have essentially open borders; anything else is racism) is completely associated with identity, and is diametrically opposed to the interests of the class group, many of whom believe, as Trump does, that immigrants depress wages and steal the jobs of the white working class.  Bernie Sanders, to cite one prominent example, has said that open borders are a Koch brothers fantasy.

The Fundis will find that open borders may sound great to immigration activists, but not to the vast majority of Democratic voters, let alone the entire American voting public.  It’s electoral suicide.  One has to hope that the Realo position of enforcing the law, but working for a compromise that provides a reasonable path to citizenship and a landing place for genuine refugees, will prevail in the primaries.

The Realos almost prevailed during the Obama years, since all of the GOP factions except the Reactionaries are open to reform.  The problem was timing; by the time the immigration bill passed the Senate, the GOP controlled the House, and the Hastert Rule prevented a vote on the Senate compromise.  It is perfectly possible that a similar bill could get through the system after 2020 if the Democrats have control of both houses.

On the 45th President Trump.

The election made him quite a grump.

He’s pissed at his staff.

Wants to split wheat from chaff.

So then who will be next to be dumped?