Month: January 2019

Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, the main event was the first day of AG confirmation hearings. Barr came across as a reasonably thoughtful, occasionally slippery, mainstream Republican with decent professional ethics–not a Trump stooge or a fascist. Most of the questioning, as usual, was fairly inept.

He will undoubtedly be confirmed. Should he be? After all, in today’s world, even a mainstream Republican could be a threat to our civil liberties in some circumstances.

If I were on the committee, I would vote no. The combination of Barr’s obvious eagerness to please the GOP establishment, his record of support for expanding executive power, and Trump’s willingness to push the envelope could make him very dangerous in an emergency, or what Trump says passes for one. That’s what really troubles me–not what he may or may not do with the Mueller investigation.

On the plus side, at least he’s better than Whitaker.

The government has predictably suffered a defeat of unprecedented magnitude on the proposed Brexit deal. Under normal circumstances, May would resign. But these are unusual times, and it makes perfect sense for her to stagger on.

Now the power shifts to Corbyn. If he can bring himself to support a second referendum, he has a fighting chance of getting enough defections from supporters of Remain to bring down the government and force a general election. If he can’t, the confidence motion will fail, and the most likely outcome will be the chaos of no-deal. He thinks that will benefit him in the long run. I say he’s wrong.

Stay tuned tomorrow. It will be an interesting day, to say the least.

Tucker Carlson’s now-famous monologue, in which the Socrates of Fox News suggested that the usual GOP cocktail of tax cuts for the rich, reductions in social programs, and deregulation might not be the solution for struggling rural communities, has provoked both positive and negative comments from the right. Reformicons and their allies generally agreed, while the National Review crowd howled; the latter take the position that the plight of white workers is vastly overstated, and to the extent that it exists, it is their own fault, and government cannot and should not fix it.

And the GOP claims the Democrats are sneering elitists!

Analyzed in terms of the four factions, Carlson is proposing that the Reactionaries reject the economic program of the CLs and the PBPs in favor of one that directly assists white workers. Since the foundation of the GOP since Reagan has been a bargain in which the PBPs get tax cuts and deregulation, this is a very dangerous development for the right, and the Democrats would be wise to exploit it.

When asked about a potential O’Rourke candidacy, Donald Trump responded to the effect that one should win something before running for president. Much as it pains me to admit it, I think there was a kernel of truth in that statement. I suspect Beto may think so, too; it appears to me that he never planned to run, but that he is being dragged into the race by well-meaning, but misguided, activists who see him as an Obama successor.

The presidency is the most important job, and the hardest, in the world. It is not enough to be bright and charming and to have enviable political skills; you need a steel backbone, good judgment, and the ability and willingness to persevere during difficult times. To me, that means the job qualifications must include some substantial accomplishment, or at least evidence that the candidate has overcome some serious adversity in his or her life.

Most of the likely candidates for president on the Democratic side have met this test in one way or another. Biden and Warren meet it in spades. I’ve reviewed Beto’s biography, however, and I just can’t see anything in his record that gets him over the hurdle. Unless I’m missing something, then, I really don’t think he should run–at least, not yet.

The career of a typical rock star can be divided into four seasons, as follows:

1. SPRING: Armed with talent, a chip on his shoulder, and an invincible desire to be rich and famous, our hero storms the world and demands to be heard. Against the odds, the world starts to listen.
2. SUMMER: Our hero is the man of the hour. Everything he says and does is subject to intense public scrutiny. He quickly concludes that fame and fortune aren’t all they were cracked up to be, and is crushed by both his own and the public’s expectations.
3. FALL: The public has moved on and found new idols. No longer captive to outsized expectations, and with plenty of money, our hero experiments with a variety of genres and sharpens his craft. He will never again be the center of the universe, but he still has plenty that is worthwhile to say.
4. WINTER: Death or endless nostalgia tours. It’s hard to say which is worse.

Elvis Costello entered his autumn phase about 35 years ago. He has collaborated with a wide range of artists, from the Brodsky Quartet to Questlove, ever since. He was the host of a wonderful interview series called “Spectacle” on TV. He has dabbled in movies. Once an enfant terrible, today he is almost universally admired. He’s married to a beautiful and brilliant jazz singer. Life is good.

His new CD, “Look Now,” has been described by critics as his best work of the 21st century, which it is. The comparisons to “Imperial Bedroom,” to me, are inaccurate; “Imperial Bedroom” was full of anger and self-reproach, while “Look Now” is more rounded and matter-of-fact. The analogy to “Painted from Memory,” on the other hand, makes sense, given that Burt Bacharach collaborated on both. The best songs on “Look Now,” however, are much better than the best songs on “Painted from Memory.”

To me, the highlights of “Look Now” are two collaborations with Bacharach that were apparently supposed to be part of a musical that hasn’t seen the light of day. “Photographs Can Lie” is a gem of a song that would hold up next to Bacharach’s hits from the sixties and seventies. “He’s Given Me Things” sounds like a prequel to “I Want You;” it’s vivid, mournful, and kind of creepy. It concludes with lines that sound like a warning that extends beyond the boundaries of the musical:

“He’s got an awful lot of money/The past can be bought, and then erased.”

Let’s hope not.

I addressed the issue of the ballot question in my last post. Here are the other objections to the second referendum, and my responses:

1. IT CAN’T BE DONE BY THE MARCH 29 DEADLINE. But the EU has already said that there is no legal obstacle to an extension.
2. IGNORING THE WILL OF THE VOTERS IS UNDEMOCRATIC. Why would the outcome of a second referendum, this one with the stakes much clearer, be less “democratic” than living with the results of the first one?
3. A SECOND REFERENDUM WOULD DIVIDE THE COUNTRY. Sure, and it’s totally united today. What the government actually means by this is that the advocates of remaining will cause less trouble if they are disappointed than the Brexiteers. That is no basis for making policy.

If you’re familiar with the HGTV program “International House Hunters,” you know that the buyers are confronted with three choices, and their first task is to eliminate one. In a nutshell, that is one of the objections to the second referendum; there are three choices, and the British public is not accustomed to that.

In my opinion, there are two fair ways to structure a referendum to deal with the three option problem. They are:

1. Have a single ranked preference vote with remain, the May deal, and no-deal as the options. This has the advantage of only requiring one vote, and it ultimately results in a majority in favor of one of the alternatives. The down side is that the British people aren’t accustomed to ranked preference voting. But really, how complicated can it be?
2. Rerun the first referendum question. If remain prevails, nothing more needs to be done. If leave wins, have a second round pitting the May deal against no-deal. This approach avoids the novelty of ranked preference voting, but it could involve multiple votes, which should be avoided, if possible.

The option that does not work is having a first round with just the May deal and no-deal, because supporters of remaining would be able to vote tactically to help their cause. That wouldn’t be fair to the leavers.

As to the other objections to the second referendum, tune in tomorrow.

The world according to David Brooks:

“Back in the seventies, when the government was run by Democrats, business was overregulated and overtaxed, and the people suffered. Fortunately, St. Ronald came to the rescue. Supported by his trusty sidekicks, St. Milton, St. William, and St. Margaret, they cut taxes and unleashed the power of capitalism. Freedom and prosperity reigned, and the people were happy.

But somehow it all went wrong. The left, with its secularism and relativism, was largely to blame, of course, but the capitalists lost their moral compass, too. Growth slowed, inequality soared, and communities withered. Today America is spiritually sick, and an inept, corrupt white nationalist is president as a result. I’m not sure how to fix that, but if I write about it enough, maybe someone will think of something.”

To which I say: LOL.

Do you remember Milton Friedman thundering about the moral responsibility of corporations? Do you recall Reagan banging on about the need for a strong safety net? What about all of those articles in the National Review that insisted we needed to protect the American worker from the effects of creative destruction? And everyone remembers Mrs. Thatcher’s quote about society prevailing over the individual, right?

Well, of course not–none of that happened. The libertarianism that Brooks decries was at the heart of Reagan/Thatcher ideology, and it was obvious from the beginning; you do, in fact, remember Gordon Gekko and “Wall Street.”

It gets worse. Sure, Reagan was an altogether more attractive figure than Trump. Yes, he was a small government idealist, and he traded more in hope than fear. Yes, he was willing to raise taxes, as well as cut them; it was his successors who turned tax cutting into a religion. Yes, he wanted to tear down walls, not build them. But Reaganism was Trumpism in embryo. It was Reagan who made the GOP the swaggering, tax cutting, socially reactionary party that it is today. It was Reagan who created the bargain that has been the foundation of the party for so many years: tax cuts and deregulation in exchange for reactionary judges and welfare cuts for “those people.” Gingrich, Ryan, Bush 43, and Trump all believed in the bargain, and it paid off at the ballot box, thanks mostly to the votes of the people in red states who are suffering today.

What we are seeing today is the convergence of many factors: the power of creative destruction, which is a feature, not a bug, of capitalism; the impacts of globalization and technological change; the advent of the internet and Fox News, which have damaged national unity; and the failure of the federal government, due mostly to the efforts of the GOP, to maintain an adequate welfare state for the benefit of the victims of economic evolution. Blue states, in general, have prospered, and levels of crime and divorce are down; it is only the areas that were left behind economically that have turned into the Brooks dystopia.

How does it get fixed? You start by throwing off tired Reaganite economic theories and making the welfare state more effective; the benefits of that will be felt mostly by red state residents, whether they appreciate it or not. One hopes that the debates within the Democratic Party over the next few years will move us in that direction.

In 2009, Barack Obama gave a speech at Cairo University in which he acknowledged that the Iraq War had damaged America’s image and interests in the Middle East. He made it clear that America had no quarrel with mainstream Islam, but that we would resist extremists, and that we were entitled to help from the locals. He also indicated that America was willing to talk to Iran. In general, the speech was well-received in the Islamic world.

Yesterday, Mike Pompeo made a speech in which he attempted to repudiate everything Obama had said in 2009. Pompeo’s position is that, by definition, American interventions in the Middle East are always good, because America itself is good, which presumably means that the Iraq War was a rip-roaring success. Sunni autocrats are also a force for good; human rights issues in the countries they rule don’t matter. All of the evil in the region is attributable to Iran, including, counter-intuitively, the impacts of the Sunni extremists in IS. America will consequently resist Iranian attempts to expand its influence anytime, anywhere.

Today, we learned that American troops are already starting to leave Syria. Trump has also made it clear in the past that Iraq was a mistake. I guess someone didn’t get the memo.

None of this makes any sense at all. If you can figure it out, you’re smarter than I am.

Jeremy Corbyn clearly hopes that the Brexit mess will drop power in his lap. He might be right, but it won’t be automatic, and he needs to play his cards properly.

Here are three Brexit scenarios, and the likely results:

1. THE MAY DEAL IS DEFEATED, CORBYN PROMISES A SECOND REFERENDUM, REMAINER MPS ABANDON THE GOVERNMENT, AND HE WINS THE ENSUING ELECTION. The first part of this is virtually assured; the rest depends on Corbyn’s willingness to support the second referendum. His party supports it overwhelmingly, but he clearly has reservations. Will he change his mind? TBD.
2. THE MAY DEAL IS SOMEHOW APPROVED BY PARLIAMENT, AND THE BREXITEERS LEAVE THE GOVERNMENT. Neither part of that is at all plausible.
3. THE MAY DEAL FAILS, THE UK CRASHES OUT OF THE EU WITHOUT A DEAL, CHAOS ENSUES, AND THE VOTERS RETALIATE AT THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. This could happen, but there is no guarantee that the no-deal option will be as catastrophic as most experts think. Furthermore, the Conservative Party will no longer be divided by Brexit at the next election, the chaos will almost certainly be over, and the voters may have their minds on something else by then.

Donald Trump once said, probably correctly, that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing some of his voters. Chief among them are white evangelical Christians. While some pundits tried to argue shortly after the election that Trump’s supporters were only nominal Christians, the data do not support that position; subsequent surveys have shown that Cruz voters actually have a better opinion of him than his own primary voters.

This isn’t because members of the religious right have any illusions about his character; it is because they think their values are being threatened to the point where their only alternatives are King Cyrus and the Benedict option. That sounds ridiculous to me, and probably to you, but while there certainly is reason to doubt their intelligence, there is no reason to question their sincerity.

So how can the Democrats peel off some of this group? Realistically, they probably can’t. For the sake of the peace and unity of the country, however, the nominee would be wise to make a display of being sympathetic to them, and to try to reassure them that their values are not under attack.

YOU’LL NEVER WALK ALONE

When you walk through a storm

Hold your head up high

And don’t be afraid–we’re with you.

At the end of the storm

Is a golden sky

And a presidency born anew.

________________

Walk on through the wind

Walk on through the rain

Though the Democrats covet your throne.

Walk on, walk on

With hope in your heart

And you’ll never walk alone.

You’ll never walk alone.

Parody of “You’ll Never Walk Alone” by Rodgers and Hammerstein

It’s fair to say that Donald Trump’s model for international decision-making isn’t a UN meeting–it’s the scene in “The Godfather” in which the heads of the five families reach an agreement on the dealing of drugs. In Trump’s view, international law is a bad joke, our “allies” are only out to screw us, thugs are everywhere, and nothing but money and power matter. In the end, the rich, the strong, and the shrewd always prevail.

While this is a gross oversimplification of how the world works, it isn’t completely wrong. There are plenty of thugs out there, starting with Putin. The Democratic nominee needs to be someone with the street smarts and the backbone to handle them.

And so, I would suggest that you impose the following test on each of the candidates: if he or she is president, and Putin shows up for a meeting an hour late, and with his dog, will he or she know how to handle the situation?

Joe Biden passes this test. Bernie Sanders fails it, due to his 70’s era phobia about using American power. As for the rest, it’s TBD. That’s the great virtue of the endless campaign; we learn a lot about the candidates in the process.

The urban/rural split is hardly unique to 21st century America. Jefferson made it the centerpiece of his political philosophy in the 18th century. Stuart historians talk about a religious, political, and cultural battle between the court and the country that ultimately led to the English Civil War. The Paris Commune was essentially a civil war between Paris and the surrounding rural areas. The Brexit vote generally pitted London against the rest of the country. It happens.

What sets America apart from other western countries is a federal system that effectively maximizes the clout of rural areas at the expense of urban residents. This effectively means that the GOP begins every election with an enormous structural advantage, which it then amplifies through gerrymandering.

Nothing remotely resembling the “revolution” is ever going to happen without the support of rural voters. How can the Democrats win a respectable percentage of them? By supporting free trade, and by making a big, sincere display of appreciating rural values. Will that happen? I see no sign of it, and none of the likely candidates is an obvious champion of rural values (oddly, given her fairly hardscrabble Oklahoma background, Warren has a better chance than most), but we’ll see.

A: One GOP President called for a wall to be torn down; the other to build one.

Q: Who are Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump?