Month: December 2018

To the Democrats, the wall is an expensive, useless folly that sends a counterproductive message to the rest of the world that America is determined to keep foreigners and foreign ideas out. It is consequently an ugly metaphor for the entirety of the misbegotten Trump presidency. As an object, however, it is more silly than malignant. As a result, it can be accepted if it can be traded for something of real value, such as legal rights for DREAMERS. By elevating its importance, Trump has artificially increased its value as a bargaining chip, which should not be given away cheaply.

To Trump, the wall means solidarity with his base. Furthermore, it symbolizes the success or failure of his presidency, to himself as well as his more rabid followers. Since it was the centerpiece of his campaign, he has to have it, or what was the point of his candidacy? And he has to have it with few or no conditions, or he’s not a winner, which is one of the other principal selling points of his candidacy.

So how does this end? With a deal that Trump decides he can spin successfully as a “win” for himself and the wall. The substance of it barely matters; what actually matters is the symbol.

IT’S 5:00 ON DECEMBER 24. BOB CRATCHIT IS WORKING IN HIS CUBICLE AT SCROOGE LLC WHEN THE BOSS, IN “MANAGING BY WALKING AROUND” MODE, COMES BY.

BC: Mr. Scrooge, sir.

S: What is it (LOOKS FOR NAME ON THE CUBICLE) . . . Cratchit?

BC: Can I please have tomorrow off, sir?

S: Why?

BC: Why, it’s Christmas, sir.

S: Not in China, it isn’t. How am I supposed to compete with those people and their low labor costs if I give people free time off? As it is, things are so bad that I may have to fire the lot of you and give your jobs to illegal immigrants.

BC: Donald Trump wouldn’t like that very much.

S: Who cares? His stupid trade war is killing me. Now the markets are falling, and we’re looking at a possible recession. Don’t quote him to me.

BC: Wow, you’ve really soured on him in the last year. What about your tax cut?

S: It was a nice gesture, to be sure, but I never paid much in taxes anyway. Paying taxes is for losers like you.

BC: At least he didn’t succeed in repealing Obamacare. We couldn’t get by without it. I have a special needs child, you know.

SCROOGE PEERS INTO THE CUBICLE AGAIN AND SEES A PHOTO OF TINY TIM.

S: Is that him?

BC: Yes, sir.

SCROOGE HOBBLES AROUND THE OFFICE WITH AN EXAGGERATED LIMP.

BC: He’s in really bad shape, sir. Why are you making fun of him?

S: I don’t have time for that political correctness crap.

BC: You sound just like Trump.

S: On his more lucid days, he makes me proud to be an American again. I just wish he would have a few more of them and stop the trade war.

BC: But what about Christmas?

S: You’ll probably complain to some stupid federal agency that Trump hasn’t abolished yet if I don’t give you a day off, so you can stay home. But keep your phone on–I will send you some spreadsheets to analyze.

HE THINKS FOR A MINUTE.

S: Hey, there’s an idea! You could be an independent contractor. . .

On the ex-defense chief they call Jim.

His chances of staying were slim.

He went out with a bang.

Now Trump needs a new gang

And the future is looking quite dim.

So, in a period of less than 24 hours: our highly-respected Secretary of Defense resigned, citing irreconcilable policy differences with the president; the Dow fell another 400 + points; Trump decided to withdraw half of our troops from Afghanistan; and Fox News and the Freedom Caucus persuaded Trump to change his position on funding the government, so a shutdown now seems inevitable.

It’s just another average day for Captain Chaos. Don’t say I didn’t warn you; this is what America chose during the 2016 election. It was inevitable from the moment he took office.

A few observations:

1. If you had any lingering questions about whether Fox News runs the government, they have been answered.
2. If Trump’s initial group of advisers was the “axis of adults”, will the new one be the “circle of sycophants?”
3. Make no mistake–this is just the beginning. Trump is going to be focused solely on his re-election during the next two years, because it is the only thing that matters to him. He’s going to get more and more desperate, and his behavior will be more and more extreme. The “dictator on Twitter” is likely to become something much worse than that. The real question is, how much of the GOP will follow him?

As I’ve noted before, Trump’s outrageous tweets aren’t simply intended to blow off steam and endear him to his base; they let him dictate the terms of the debate on any given day, and they are designed to provoke a PC overreaction that can be used to persuade swing voters that, of two flawed candidates, he is the one who is most on their side. Judged on those terms, the tweets are frequently successful.

So how should the Democrats’ 2020 nominee respond? Mostly, by ignoring the tweets, staying on message, and remembering that base mobilization is not going to be a problem; the objective is to win over the undecided, and overreactions do not help.

It worked in 2018. There is no reason to believe it can’t work again, provided the nominee has the requisite self-discipline.

Ironically, the continuing presence of IS in Syria actually made Trump’s life easier; it provided a compelling justification for keeping American troops in harm’s way. Now that the “caliphate” is only virtual, a difficult decision cannot be avoided.

The decisionmaking process on this issue has been typically chaotic, but it appears that Trump has decided to bring the troops home. Is he right? Here are the pros and cons:

FOR WITHDRAWAL: The troops will not have a well-defined objective if they stay; they will be in danger from a variety of potential enemies; their continuing presence in Syria is damaging our relationship with Turkey.

AGAINST WITHDRAWAL: Leaving will damage our credibility with the Kurds and any future partners in the area, and will cost us a place at the table for future peace talks; we will be acquiescing to Russian and Iranian dominance in Syria if we leave.

This is not a simple choice; all of the arguments on both sides have merit. On balance, however, I think Trump is right and the blob is wrong. The Kurds know we have a history of selling them out; they have undoubtedly already assumed that in their decisionmaking process. Our presence in Syria, even if we stay, is so limited that we will only be at the kids’ table at any future talks. Finally, and most importantly, if there was a time to intervene in Syria, it passed years ago. We can’t really do any good at this point. It’s time to get out and let Assad, Putin, and the Iranians do the heavy lifting.

Since Trump is such a great maker of deals, maybe he can trade this for a Turkish commitment to give up buying the Russian planes.

Donald Trump long maintained that NAFTA was among the worst deals in the history of man.  He then renegotiated a small revision to it and called it the greatest thing since sliced bread.  The key change, in his eyes, was to the name.  He probably would have signed a grocery list so long as it was no longer called NAFTA.

That experience could be a template for a bipartisan legislative resolution to the ongoing dispute over ACA.  If you repeal it, re-enact it under a different name, and give Trump the credit, all of the issues would magically disappear.

If you think that’s unduly cynical, remember that just a few years ago, Mitt Romney identified Russia as our #1 foreign policy problem, and the GOP generally believed that Kim was a dangerous madman.  All it takes is a few words from the man on golf cart to change everything in the eyes of his base.

A:  Trump thought it would endear him to his base and make him look like a strong leader, but most of the public thought it was stupid and wasteful.

Q:  What is a government shutdown?

It can be hard to remember this now, but Donald Trump actually ran as a relatively moderate Republican on most of the issues.  The substance of his campaign, of course, was overwhelmed by the violence of his rhetoric on immigration, crime, and foreign policy, and his white nationalist base responded as he planned; hence, his famous comment that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue without losing his voters.

There is a bit of a lesson in his success for the Democrats in 2020.  The current assumption is that only a fundi who promises the moon and stars on spending programs will be able to inspire the base, but that isn’t necessarily correct.  It will be perfectly possible to sell a sensible center-left program to primary voters as long as the candidate opposes Trump and Trumpism in a colorful, memorable way.

In short, substance matters, but so does style.

I’ve posted several times about what a disaster it will be to have an economic ignoramus and serial liar in charge if we have a panic in the markets.  The markets run on credibility, and he’s about the least credible person on the planet.  He actually likes it that way; unpredictability is a feature, not a bug, in his administration.

But here’s some good news:  Trump’s lack of knowledge and principles will actually help if we fall into a recession.  He won’t share his party’s loathing for stimulus and soft money.  He won’t try to sell us on expansionary austerity.  He’ll just demand immediate action from Congress, and Ryan and his Austrian friends won’t be there to stop him.  And so, we’re likely to get the stimulus we need in spite of the GOP’s abysmal record during the Great Recession.

The Democrats are divided on the issue of impeachment.  Here are the best arguments on both sides:

PRO

1. Given his corruption, his incompetence, and his authoritarian personality, Trump is uniquely dangerous to the American political system.  Although there are risks to impeachment, they have to be taken, given the magnitude of the threat.
2.  There is a viable case for obstruction of justice against him.  Precedent has been established that obstruction is a legitimate legal basis for impeachment.  To do nothing is to move the bar in a negative way.
3.  It fires up the base.

CON

1. It can’t succeed, and it will lead to a backlash and political disaster.
2. Based on what we know to date, Trump’s actions were both highly improper and clumsy, but they didn’t really endanger the country.  They were only “low crimes and misdemeanors.”
3.  Normalizing impeachment will invite retaliation, paralyze the government, and further divide the nation.

This is a 60-40 situation, not 90-10.  On balance, I still think the con arguments carry more weight, but the pro arguments are too strong to completely ignore.  If Mueller has compelling evidence of a quid pro quo with the Russian government, that would change the picture, and my opinion would change.

I DON’T CARE, DO U?

Mueller’s men are everywhere.

There’s no place left to hide.

My polls are dropping by the day.

The country thinks I lied.

The Democrats control the House.

Some think I’m in the stew.

But I still run the place, you know

And I don’t care, do u?

I can start a war at will

I plan to bomb Iran.

I’ll wrap myself inside the flag

That has to be the plan.

The nation craves strong leadership

They don’t care whom I screw.

You know not to count me out

‘Cause I don’t care, do u?

Sure, it’s incredibly important to dream.  But wouldn’t it be nice if some of your dreams actually came true?

Given the obstacles created by the filibuster, the distribution of population throughout the country, the federal system, gerrymandering, the culture wars, and the Supreme Court, the likelihood of getting a “revolutionary” agenda through the system after a Democratic victory in 2020 is somewhere between incredibly small and nonexistent.  Here is a proposal for an agenda that would actually have a chance, and would do a world of good:

1.  HEALTH CARE:  Pass legislation authorizing the Obama subsidies that weren’t specifically discussed in ACA.  Approve a Medicare for More public option that is fully funded by premiums.
2.  TAXING AND SPENDING:  Repeal some, but not all, of the Trump tax cut, including the pass-through provisions and the reduction of the highest individual marginal rates.  Restore the SALT deduction.  Roll back the corporate tax cut to a more reasonable level–probably between 25 and 30 percent. Increase the estate tax.  Leave the rest of it alone.  Use the funds to fill in at least a portion of the Medicare and Social Security deficit and fund an increase to the EITC.
3. MINIMUM WAGE:  Support a small increase with regional variations.
4. TRADE ISSUES:  Sign the TPP.  Work with Europe and Japan to improve Chinese behavior.  Get rid of the Trump tariffs, if they are still in place.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:  Float a carbon tax as an alternative to some of the Trump tax cut rollback.  Otherwise, go back to the status quo ante Trump, including returning to the Paris Agreement.
6. RACIAL JUSTICE:  Support existing affirmative action programs.  Work on issues with law enforcement and the criminal justice system.
7. FOREIGN POLICY:  Restore relations with our allies.  Go back to the Obama system of working with allies to enforce international norms.
8. CLEAN GOVERNMENT:  Support Elizabeth Warren’s clean government bill.
9. SUPREME COURT NOMINEES:  Pick the kind of people that Obama nominated.
10. HEALING THE WOUNDS:  Make it clear that red culture and values are respected.

You may have heard about a controversial Andrew Sullivan column that ran in New York Magazine a little over a week ago.  It contained a number of different threads, but the gist of it was as follows:

1. People need some sort of religion to make life meaningful;
2. Christianity creates a separation between the religious and political spheres;
3.  In the good old, pre-post-Christian days, politics were less tribal, because religion was a sort of safety valve;
4.  But today, politics has become kind of an ersatz replacement religion, replacing Christianity, and has divided the country into two tribes;
5.  The right-wing tribe isn’t Christian–it’s a Trump cult; 
6.  The left-wing tribe is all about political correctness; and
7.  The two cannot compromise because, by making their opinions a form of religion, the tribes make their principles non-negotiable.

Ezra Klein, probably somewhat offended by the gratuitous reference to Vox in the column, disagrees with Sullivan.  Is he right?  Yes, and I would make the following comments:

1.  You can’t plausibly argue that Christianity has historically taken the fire out of American politics.  What about the Abolitionists?  What about the Civil Rights Movement?  What about abortion today?  People are going to take action (sometimes violent) on their strongly-held religious beliefs–it’s just natural.
2.  Sullivan follows Ross Douthat, who has consistently made the point that truly religious people on the right voted for Cruz, not Trump, during the primaries.  Unfortunately for both of them, recent surveys have shown that Cruz voters support Trump even more intensely than Trump voters.  It is consequently incorrect to say that Trump adoration has nothing to do with Christianity.
3. The connection between the Democrats and PC extremism is a caricature.  If it were true, the eight years of Obama would have been the mirror image of Trump.  That clearly isn’t true, and the mainstream of the Democratic Party is not some sort of PC cult; it makes deals and gets things done.
4. I’ve discussed tribalism in American politics numerous times in the past.  What has really changed is: (a) the red side has lost the culture war, in the minds of a majority of the public; (b) the red side feels beleaguered and victimized; and (c) the red side has Fox News to remind them how put upon they are 24/7/365.

Four likely Democratic presidential candidates have released plans to address a perceived problem with our socio-economic system.  How do they stack up?

1. THE BERNIE SANDERS MEDICARE-FOR-ALL PLAN:  Does it address a serious problem with our system?  Yes, providing truly universal coverage and limiting costs is clearly a worthy objective.  Is it plausibly financed?  No, the grab bag of taxes proposed by Sanders makes no conceptual sense and would not work.  Could it accomplish its objective?  Yes, but only if it is modified to make more financial sense, particularly by adding reasonable co-pays.  Is it politically feasible?  If the Democrats manage to blow the 2020 election, the suicide note will look like this, for the reasons set out in yesterday’s post.
2.  THE CORY BOOKER TRUST FUND PLAN:  Does it address a serious problem with our system?  Yes, at a time of declining social mobility, it would provide additional opportunities for the poor.  Is it plausibly financed?  Yes, increasing the estate tax and rolling back the Trump tax cut also helps to reduce inequality.  Could it accomplish its objective?  Maybe.  There would be issues with the administration of the program–particularly in making sure the funds were not used for improper purposes.  Is it politically feasible?  Doubtful.  Imagine the GOP commercials showing shiftless minority parents using tax money to buy drugs for themselves.  It would happen.
3.  THE ELIZABETH WARREN “SAVE CAPITALISM FROM ITSELF” PLAN:  Does it address a serious problem with our system?  Yes, it is intended to make corporations more accountable to their workers and the public than they are today.  Is it plausibly financed?  It doesn’t involve the use of large sums of public money, so that isn’t an issue.  Would it accomplish its objective?  Maybe–it is largely a bank shot effort to get large companies to increase wages by increasing worker involvement in the corporate decisionmaking process.  That doesn’t always work; it isn’t working in Germany today.  Is it politically feasible?  Warren has been very careful to portray herself as a capitalist reformer, not a socialist.  The GOP and business interests won’t see it that way; you could expect to see an avalanche of commercials about Warren and socialism if she gets the nomination.  They will probably work.
4.  THE KAMALA HARRIS “LIFT” PLAN:  Does it address a serious problem with our system?  Yes, it is intended to provide wage subsidies for struggling workers.  Is it plausibly financed?  Yes, by rolling back the Trump tax cut.  Would it accomplish its objective?  Yes, it resembles the EITC, and would be relatively easy to implement?  Is it politically feasible?  By tying the plan to work, Harris has avoided the Victorian trap.  There is some possibility a version of this plan could get votes from a few “reformicon” GOP members.

THE VERDICT:  Overall, I think the Harris plan has the best chance of success.