Month: February 2019

AOC and her allies claim to view climate change as a crisis similar in severity to World War II. If you can rely on the predictions that I have seen, she has a case. The problem with the analogy is that the United States didn’t enter World War II until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and wildfires, freak snow storms, and hurricanes, all of which have always been with us to some degree, don’t feel like acts of war to most Americans.

The fact is that climate change is a classic tragedy of the commons, with the additional problem that most of its impacts will be felt in the future, not the present. That means it will be extremely difficult to persuade the American public to treat it as anything more than one of a number of important issues to address in the election, akin to inequality or trade policy. Video of melting glaciers, hurricane and wildfire damage, and polar bears pulling food out of garbage cans only goes so far.

I have posted on how to sell climate change to the public in the past, and I won’t repeat myself. The one thing I would add today is that, by tying the Green New Deal to socialism, AOC is making a horrible public relations mistake. If we really are facing catastrophe, she should be elevating environmental issues over every other policy concern (including inequality) and calling for a large measure of shared sacrifice. Instead, she’s uniting the right against her and treating climate change, not as an existential threat, but as a pretext to create a leftist Jerusalem. That simply will not work.

The proponents of the Green New Deal will obviously have to address transportation and building efficiency if they want the program to succeed. Dealing with new cars and buildings is conceptually simple; you just mandate green buildings and electric vehicles. But what about the tens of millions of existing cars and buildings? What do you do with them?

Retrofitting all of our existing buildings and replacing the entire fleet of gasoline-driven cars will be hideously expensive. You can try to address that problem by creating incentives through a very high carbon tax, and with massive subsidies. I cannot, however, imagine any subsidy that, in the real world, would be sufficient to compel everyone to retrofit. Most of these costs would consequently be borne by the individual owners, if at all.

That is part of the GND that simply hasn’t received enough attention to date. It isn’t enough to blame the evil fossil fuel industries for our greenhouse gas issues; the GND will require major lifestyle changes and sacrifices from the general public if it is to succeed. Is America ready for that? Not without a sales job the likes of which we have not seen to date.

The country’s right-wing government was exhausted, dispirited, directionless, and divided. Under normal circumstances, it would have been replaced by the opposition. The entire ruling party, however, was united in its desire to keep out the left, which had turned strongly towards socialism. And so the government staggered on, even in the face of looming disaster, for want of an acceptable alternative.

Is it the UK in 2019 or the US in 2020? Time will tell.

Amy Klobuchar is a nasty boss. Joe Biden didn’t believe Anita Hill. Cory Booker is far too fond of charter schools. Elizabeth Warren offended Native Americans. Bernie Sanders’ staff engaged in sexual harassment. Kamala Harris wasn’t always a perfectly progressive prosecutor. And so on.

There are no perfect candidates. Anyone with the requisite experience to be president has a record that can be used against him (or her). What’s important here, particularly during the debates, is to keep the focus on determining who is the best candidate to beat Trump and run the country, not the one responsible for the fewest heresies against the current party orthodoxy, which is very different than it was even ten years ago. Will that happen? Based on the dynamics of debates and the status of the race to date, I have my doubts.

I thought Graham Parker would be a big star back in the seventies, but it didn’t happen, even though, unlike some of his contemporaries, everyone liked him personally. There were a number of reasons for that, but the biggest one was his songwriting–it was good, but not quite good enough.

(That said, Parker is the author of my favorite first line of a pop song: “The Mona Lisa’s sister doesn’t smile.” Runner-up: “When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school.”)

“Cloud Symbols” is consistent with the rest of Parker’s career. It features more horns than guitars, and sounds somewhat similar (at least to me) to some of his early records, most notably “Heat Treatment.” It’s pleasant enough, but nothing in it is memorable. I listened to it a few times and put it away, probably forever.

Of the five old guy CDs I bought over the last two months, “Cloud Symbols” is easily the least interesting. With that, my music mini-series comes to an end.

Whether she was standing next to Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, or Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton was always the adult in the room. Don’t waste your vote on people selling irresponsible or impossible dreams, she would say. Vote for someone who knew what was possible, and would work tirelessly to deliver it.

If she had prevailed in 2016, we wouldn’t be having any discussions about socialism. Trump’s election freed the Democrats to dream, partly because he made the outlandish normal without paying much of a price for it, and partly because his tax cut proved (again!) that the GOP didn’t really care about deficits. And so, today, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is pushing programs that would blow up the deficit and interest rates and have no chance of becoming reality in the absence of the long-awaited, never-arriving “revolution.”

It’s fine to dream as long as your dreams don’t turn off swing voters and cost you the election. When it is all said and done, America will crash if it isn’t run by adults, and the Republicans steadfastly refuse to grow up, so the Democratic nominee is our only hope.

Donald Trump insists that Huawei is an agent of the Chinese government. Huawei indignantly denies it. Who’s right?

Let’s put it this way: if Huawei is not effectively an arm of the Chinese state, why did the Chinese government react as strongly as it did to Meng’s arrest, and why was Chinese public opinion so inflamed? In the final analysis, Chinese companies the size of Huawei, regardless of who owns them, cannot operate without the support of the state, and must ultimately do the bidding of the Communist Party. Period.

Pearl Harbor was the Japanese response to an American effort to limit their attempts, in effect, to turn parts of China into a colony. Today, of course, the shoe is on the other foot; now the concern is about Chinese imperialism in its near abroad. Is another war of annihilation inevitable?

No. Unlike Germany in 1914 and Japan in 1941, China is not a militaristic society. The Chinese have no interest in turning Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines into colonies, or in compelling fundamental changes in their economic and political systems; all they want is subservience in foreign affairs. Finally, the Pacific Ocean, unlike the English Channel in 1914, is very wide, so America has plenty of room to retreat, if necessary.

I can see three scenarios in the long run:

1. We reach an agreement with the Chinese on the international rules of the game. We remain competitors, but peaceful ones, and the two countries collaborate on issues of mutual interest.
2. The world is divided into spheres of influence. Japan, et. al. become Chinese vassal states. The two countries compete for the support of Australia and India. The Cold War, in effect, has returned.
3. War.

The best possible outcome is #1. The worst, obviously, is #3. My money is on #2, because, when push comes to shove, I think America will retreat instead of going to war over Asia.

Jamelle Bouie argues in today’s NYT that the Democrats should refuse to nominate Biden, or any other “moderate,” on the ground that dramatic social change only occurs as a result of conflict and confrontation with the powers-that-be. In other words, Biden won’t bring about the “revolution;” he’ll just rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Guilty as charged. Biden would undoubtedly heartily agree with his conclusion; it is the premise that is faulty. Neither 2016 nor 2018 provided any evidence for the proposition that America yearns for a “revolution.” We have problems, and we need new leadership, but the country is fundamentally skeptical of dramatic change; the “revolution,” under today’s political and economic conditions, is a pipe dream.

Bouie’s best hope for a “revolution” is a national catastrophe and a subsequent political backlash. If that is what he really wants–not a Democratic victory in 2020–he needs to buy a MAGA hat and work his butt off for Trump.

Donald Trump came to power with a strange fixation on trade deficits and the belief that all of our trade partners, including our Asian and European allies, rip us off–the Chinese were simply the first among equals. As a result, he rejected the TPP, imposed steel and aluminum tariffs on friendly countries, and called for bilateral trade agreements that were skewed to protect American interests.

The logic of “America First” is that it leaves us alone to deal with Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. It means that, when we complain about the expansion of Chinese influence in Asia through the Belt and Road program, we have nothing to offer other countries to compete with that program. It gives away our greatest weapon in the struggle to force the Chinese to play by international rules. It is just plain stupid.

Nothing illustrates the conflict between the nationalist and internationalist strains of Trumpist/Bannonist thought better than this issue. How is America supposed to prevail in the predicted monumental clash of civilizations if it continues to flip the bird at all of the countries that are ostensibly on our side?

According to the NYT, over 200 Democrats have signed on to a bill that would eliminate the Social Security deficit and permit some increase in benefits by raising the payroll tax and applying it to incomes over $400,000. Is that a good idea?

Yes and no. Yes, the objective is a worthy one. The deficit is a serious problem that needs to be fixed, and the potential political gains from protecting Social Security are obvious. Any proposal that forces the GOP to choose between donors and elderly reactionary supporters clearly has some merit. But no, the Democrats have chosen to increase the wrong tax.

The suggested payroll tax increase will: (a) effectively reduce wages at a time when stagnant wages are a huge social problem; (b) transfer wealth from struggling working millennials to more affluent elderly people; (c) increase the cost of labor, thus making automation and offshoring more attractive; and (d) force employers and employees to shoulder obligations which rightfully belong to society as a whole. In addition, I don’t see any obvious justification for the doughnut hole, which will undoubtedly be the source of GOP derision if the legislation actually goes somewhere, which is unlikely before the next election.

Whatever its political merits, this bill represents bad policy. It should be rethought as soon as possible.

Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush clearly thought that integrating China in a web of international commercial relationships would result in a country that was more prosperous, friendly, and democratic. They were right beyond their wildest imagination on the prosperity part, but completely wrong on the other two. It is clear that China has not evolved into a larger version of Japan or South Korea, and there is no reason to believe it will ever happen.

Barack Obama was warier of China when he took office, but he needed Chinese help in dealing with issues like climate change and North Korea, and he appreciated the role the Chinese played in fighting the Great Recession. Preoccupied with other crises, he repeatedly asserted America’s interest in, among other things, protecting intellectual property and freedom of navigation, but he took little effective action to change the behavior of the regime, which consequently became increasingly assertive.

Obama’s ultimate response was the “pivot to Asia,” which included military, diplomatic, and trade components. He moved a few troops to Australia, improved our relationship with India, and, above all, negotiated the TPP, whose significance was primarily geopolitical, not economic. The overall message to the Chinese was that the US would not attempt to halt China’s rise, but would create conditions on the ground that would deter Chinese aggression towards American allies in its near abroad. It was encirclement in embryo; whether the Chinese resisted or accepted the rules of the game was up to them.

Would it have worked? We will never know, because Trump has torn up the script and taken a completely different approach. More on that tomorrow.

Bernie Sanders is often compared with Jeremy Corbyn, and with good reason. How do these two geriatric lefties match up? Here’s the tale of the tape:

CORBYN V. SANDERS

AGE: Corbyn–69; Sanders–77

PARTY LEADER: Corbyn–Yes; Sanders–No

ANTI-SEMITIC? Corbyn–Arguably; Sanders–Jewish

HATE FIGURE: Corbyn–Thatcher; Sanders–Kissinger

LATIN AMERICAN LEFTIES: Corbyn–Supports; Sanders–Supports

SOCIALISM SCALE: Corbyn–7; Sanders–3

AND THE WINNER IS . . . Sanders. While neither one of them is likely to win the big prize, Sanders at least succeeded in pushing his party a bit to the left. Corbyn will probably go down in history as an inept politician who botched Brexit, to the cost of his party and his country.

Here’s my analysis of the SOTU:

1. The first and last segments–the parts that were supposed to be inspiring and bipartisan–fell flat, because they didn’t sound authentic, and Trump clearly didn’t believe any of it. He sniffled, grimaced, and inflected at the wrong times. He simply isn’t capable of delivering a convincing speech that doesn’t rely on anger and sarcasm.
2. The bridge was a series of boasts about the economy, some of which were actually true. Describing his tax cut as a “middle class” measure, however, was rich, even for him.
3. The meat of the speech, which completely undercut the ostensibly bipartisan part, was a MAGA red meat festival full of the usual Steve Miller images of rampaging illegal immigrants raping and looting their way around the country. There was some fresh material for the base on socialism, abortion, and Venezuela, but most of this stuff was just recycled from campaign rallies.
4. In the final analysis, the most noteworthy part of the speech was the threat to wage war on Congress if the House investigates him. I admit that I quite literally gasped when I heard that.
5. In the final analysis, the base will be happy, no one else will be impressed, and nothing will change.

The People’s Republic has now existed slightly longer than the Soviet Union. Does it present the same kinds of issues to the rest of the world as the USSR, and is it also doomed to implode?

No on both counts. The Soviet Union was a military and an ideological challenge for the United States. The Soviets didn’t dare use the military option against the US, and the ideological challenge faded when it became obvious to everyone, include the Soviet leaders, that communism couldn’t deliver a high quality of life for the masses. The USSR never actually built anything that wasn’t a weapon that anyone else wanted to buy, so it was never an economic threat to the US.

China, on the other hand, most assuredly is an economic rival to the US. Even if the communist regime collapsed tomorrow, the economic growth of the last 20 years would remain, and Chinese nationalism would not disappear. A dramatic political change similar to the collapse of the USSR would not, therefore, make dealing with the Chinese any easier.

The Chinese challenge is here to stay. We need to get used to it, and to figure out a way to deal with it.