Month: February 2019

Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown are frequently identified as the two most electable Democratic candidates, and with good reason. Both of them are from the Midwest, which figures to be the principal battleground in 2020; both of them have consistently outperformed the other national and statewide Democratic candidates in their previous election cycles; both appear to connect well with working people; and both of them are relative moderates on issues relating to federal spending and the welfare state. No democratic socialists, they.

They differ on one extremely important point: free trade. Brown was Tariff Man even before Trump appropriated the name. Klobuchar is a free trader. Who is likely to fare better in 2020?

The primary schedule favors Klobuchar. She has plenty of connections in Iowa, which is also a free trade state. Brown’s protectionist states don’t vote until late in the game. He is likely to be done long before then.

The bottom line is that I can see a path to victory for her, but not for him.

So Sanders has decided to run. My question is, why would anyone vote for him over Warren? She’s much more intelligent; she has more than one speech; her program is as far left as his; her public visibility is about equal to his; she’s a real Democrat, unlike him; and, “Pocahontas” notwithstanding, she has much less baggage than he does, and is more electable.

I guess the positive aspect of it is that he will make it easier for a realo to win the nomination by further splitting the fundi vote. That’s a definite plus.

On the Democrat candidate Amy.

She’ll struggle with her lack of fame-y.

She’s electable, yes.

But what chance of success

If no one remembers her name-y?

Originalism is an approach to constitutional interpretation which emphasizes legislative history and text analysis over subsequent practice and legal precedent; the religious analogy would be Protestantism. Given the nature of the Second Amendment and the state of the case law, the Heller case should have been a showcase for Scalia (ironically, an unabashed Catholic) and originalism. And so it was, but in a negative way. Scalia unscrupulously cherry-picked history, disregarded the actual intent of the framer of the Second Amendment (Madison), and somehow read the language of the amendment pertaining to the militia to give the public individual rights to carry weapons which have no military utility. It is a masterpiece of judicial b.s. In the long run, I believe it will be viewed as the right-wing equivalent of Roe v. Wade.

All that said, gun control legislation is notoriously difficult to enforce, and gun ownership would be protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments even if the Second Amendment didn’t exist, so the mere finding of an individual right to own a gun in Heller is not, to me, necessarily a catastrophe. Scalia conceded that the right to own and carry a gun is not absolute, and is subject to reasonable regulation based on common historical practice. The real question, then, is what level of scrutiny will be applied to gun regulations in the future. Heller leaves that question unanswered.

It appears that an answer will be coming soon, and it doesn’t look good. The likelihood is that the next big gun case will focus largely on the ridiculous task of determining whether an AR-15 is the modern equivalent of a musket, based on the level of ownership and its destructive power. That is an inquiry which has no basis in either the text or the real legislative history of the Second Amendment. Given the ideological leanings of the current Supreme Court, bet that they will decide that the right to own a semi-automatic rifle is sacrosanct.

Bernie Sanders calls for socialism in the US and envisions a larger, more cosmopolitan Denmark. Right-wing pundits (say, Bret Stephens) see another Venezuela. Who’s right? Or, to be more precise, how do the two supposedly analogous countries differ, and which of the two more closely resembles the US?

Denmark obviously had a vastly more productive and diversified economy even before Venezuela began its descent into darkness. Venezuela relies almost totally on a nationalized oil company for revenue, which is a recipe for stagnation and corruption. Denmark has an independent central bank. I doubt Venezuela does. Denmark budgets to pay its bills. Venezuela decided to print money to pay its bills years ago, with predictable results.

The US obviously more closely resembles Denmark in every respect. The one very slight concern one would have is if, somehow, we elected a president who believed in MMT, and she succeeded in one way or another in imposing that opinion on the Fed. It’s a major stretch, but given the tone of the discussion among some Democrats today, it’s not 100 percent beyond the realm of possibility.

What would Congress look like with a parliamentary system? My guess is that it would have the following four parties, listed from left to right:

1. THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS, consisting of the fundi faction of the Democratic Party, with about 10 percent of the seats. Led by Bernie Sanders, the SD would push for the “revolution”: a dramatically larger welfare state financed (if at all) by much higher taxes on the wealthy.
2. THE LIBERALS, consisting of the realo faction of the Democratic Party, with about 35 percent of the seats. Led by Nancy Pelosi, the Liberals would support a larger, financially responsible welfare state attained through slower, more incremental change.
3. THE CONSERVATIVES, consisting of the CL, PBP, and CD factions of the Republican Party, with about 25 percent of the seats. Led by Mitch McConnell, the Conservatives would be a small government party supporting tax cuts, deregulation, free trade, and traditional social values.
4. THE PEOPLE’S PARTY, consisting of the Reactionary faction of the GOP, with about 30 percent of the seats. Led by Donald Trump, the PP would fight for tougher immigration laws, protectionism, and a smaller welfare state limited (to the maximum extent possible) to white Christian workers.

What you see from this is the key role of the Conservatives, who have a choice to tack right or left. Do they, as in many European countries, collaborate with the Liberals to keep out the PP, or do they make a deal with the PP in which they trade tax cuts and deregulation for racism and “America First?”

The latter, obviously, is exactly what has actually happened to the GOP since Reagan was elected. Will Trump’s excesses drive the kind of people who would vote for my hypothetical Conservative Party to support Democrats in 2020? Will the Democrats scare them away by adopting the hypothetical SD platform? Those are the bottom line questions that will be answered between now and 11/20.

There is a famous quote from a time in which Italian governments were notoriously unstable to the effect that the situation was desperate, but not serious. That is a pretty good description of how I feel about the emergency and the wall.

Judicial battles over the emergency powers of the executive go back as far as Charles I and the ship money case. It is likely that Supreme Court will ultimately decide this one, and that the decision will be an important precedent. And yet, this does not feel like a real constitutional crisis, because nothing meaningful is at stake. The emergency is a sham, and the wall is a joke.

The case will resemble the Youngstown Sheet and Tube case from the Korean War era, with two important differences: first, the emergency in the Youngstown case was genuine; and second, Trump’s argument will (if his lawyers aren’t suicidal) be based on a 1976 emergency statute, not on his supposed inherent rights as commander-in-chief. The first distinction works against him; the second is in his favor.

In the long run, it is the degree of deference to the executive that the Supreme Court displays in the face of the patently bogus emergency that is going to make the biggest difference in the workings of our system. There is a second, and more narrow argument, however, as to the interpretation of the relevant statutes that may ultimately determine the outcome of the case. Standing will also undoubtedly be an issue, as well.

If Obama were president, the wall would be DOA. He isn’t, so I’m not making any predictions on a winner. There is one sure loser, however–Mitch McConnell. If Trump prevails, the next Democratic president will have more latitude to ignore Republicans in Congress; if he loses, then McConnell also loses by aligning himself with him in the battle.

On the woman they call AOC.

She enraptured the land of the free.

Her hard left-wing views

Were the talk of Fox News

But they made less impression on me.

On the Democrat leader named Nancy.

Extreme left-wing views aren’t her fancy.

She rounds up the kids

Keeps control of their ids

‘Cause she knows their ideas are too chancy.

So you’re running for president–join the club! There are about twenty other competitors for the job. How are you going to beat them all?

Here are the keys to the process:

1. STAND OUT: With so many candidates saying so many similar things, this is your most difficult and important task. If you look different than your competitors, that’s a huge advantage. Otherwise, you need to do and say things to get as much attention as possible. Bashing Trump in colorful ways will be particularly helpful, and make sure to bring a large supply of zingers to the debates, which are going to be extremely important in separating the contenders from the also-rans.
2. MONEY–IT’S A CRIME: Back in the day, raising money was a relatively straightforward process. Now, you have more options: large numbers of small contributions on the internet; individual sugar daddies; personal wealth, in some cases; or sucking up to large numbers of influential rich people. The internet approach is the least risky, in terms of public perceptions, but if you can’t raise enough money that way, you’re going down the tubes. The other alternatives leave you exposed to claims about undue influence. There are no risk-free options here.
3. GROUND GAME: The ground game still matters, particularly in the first few states. Put plenty of resources into organization. That’s how Obama won in 2008.
4. ANTICIPATE AND MINIMIZE YOUR SKELETONS: You’re going to be facing ferocious attacks on anything in your record that smacks of a departure from current party orthodoxy. Be prepared with convincing responses on all of them.
5. POLICY POSITIONS: In a perfect world, this would be the most important of the five items; in the real world, it is the least important. Nevertheless, you can get some traction by taking eye-catching positions, and the support of idealistic wonks is worth something in the primaries.

In the very early stages of the campaign, where do the candidates stand? Harris wins on #1; Biden and Sanders will start out with advantages on #2 and #3 if they run; and Warren is probably ahead on #5. #4 is TBD.

CARACAS

Caracas la la la.

I lost my money in Caracas la la la.

Maduro threatened to attack us la la la.

But still my heart is in Caracas la la la.

Caracas.

________________

Living with Chavez was bad enough

But the times were not this tough.

The oil money’s squandered;

Democracy is gone;

Now the streets have erupted

And the civil war is on.

____________

Caracas la la la.

Maduro’s thugs came to attack us la la la.

The oil bosses said they’d sack us la la la.

But Donald Trump claimed he would back us la la la.

Caracas.

Parody of “Havana” by Camila Cabello and a large cast of songwriters.

Maduro and his opponents are engaged in a ferocious extraconstitutional battle for power in Venezuela. Under typical conditions, that would mean a civil war. In fact, however, there has been relatively little violence; what is going on looks more like an election campaign than a war. The pertinent questions are:

1. Why?
2. How long can this last?
3. Time is on which party’s side in this battle?

The why question is easy to answer; the opposition knows it is completely outgunned by the government in the absence of foreign military intervention, while the government is concerned that widespread violence would only encourage such intervention. I don’t know the answer to #2. As to #3, it’s a debatable point, but I think time is on the government’s side. Trump has played all of his best cards short of an invasion; if the government doesn’t fall soon, it will be increasingly able to find ways to adjust to the new economic realities created by American economic sanctions, and the opposition is bound to become exhausted sooner or later. In the absence of a tipping point caused by defections and increasing hardship in the near future, therefore, I think the odds are on the side of the government.

If I’m right, Trump will ultimately have to choose between a humiliating defeat or military action. Let’s all hope it never comes to that.

The head of state was frustrated. He thought the country’s borders needed better protection, but the legislature wasn’t being cooperative. He decided to raise the required funds by using his emergency powers.

The existence of the emergency was litigated. The head of state prevailed, but in the end, it was another step in his political demise.

Is it Trump or Charles I? Time will tell.

As I’ve noted many times before, the four GOP ideological factions don’t all agree on very much; the continuing existence of the party as we know it is grounded in a contract in which the Reactionaries and PBPs grudgingly acquiesce to the other’s principal objective (white nationalism and traditional family values for the former; tax cuts and deregulation for the latter) purely for tactical reasons. There are, however, two areas in which the factions are in complete accord. One is the need for judges who support both traditional values and limited regulation of business; the second is opposition to socialism.

Here is where the factions stand on socialism:

CLs: Ugh! Socialism means growing government to control everything! It’s the very negation of all that we stand for!

PBPs: Ugh! Socialism means high taxes and lots of regulations for business! It’s the very negation of all that we stand for!

Reactionaries: We’re not opposed in principle to a robust welfare state for white Christian workers who have earned a bit of protection from the consequences of failure and misfortune. Socialism, however, means unwarranted government interference in our personal lives, and it disproportionately benefits immigrants and lazy minorities who threaten our values and demand cuts in line. Don’t tread on me!

CDs: We’re not opposed to using the government to reduce inequality and support the poor. We’re completely in favor of a strong welfare state. Socialism, however, usually comes with a side helping of secularism and contempt for traditional values; we can’t support that. We reject materialism and the politics of envy!

And so, for the Democrats, the message is clear: if you want to reunite a badly fragmented GOP, call your program “socialism,” and you will succeed, to your electoral cost.

There are, as far as I can tell, two rationales for linking the green part of the GND with a semi-socialist agenda. One of them is romantic and ideological; the other is tactical. Both of them are wrong, for the following reasons:

1. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ARE THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF CAPITALIST GREED: But high levels of pollution, historically, has been associated with early stages of industrial development, not a particular political or economic system. Air and water pollution levels in China a few years ago were reminiscent of what one would have seen in Pittsburgh or London in the 1940s. The Chinese are starting to fix those problems only now that they have become more prosperous. It is the higher levels of income that make effective environmental remedies possible. Those are easier to come by in a capitalist system.
2. THE GND WILL CREATE LOSERS AS WELL AS WINNERS; IT IS POLITICALLY AND MORALLY NECESSARY TO PROMISE TO COMPENSATE THE LOSERS IN ORDER TO SELL THE PROGRAM TO THE ELECTORATE. Do you honestly believe that workers whose jobs are being threatened by the GND will accept the vague promise of a new job subsidized by the federal government in lieu of the status quo? And even if they did, will they always vote for their economic self-interest over their cultural values? I think not.