Month: March 2019

There has been a lot of chatter about the Electoral College recently, most notably by Elizabeth Warren. Prompted by the “undemocratic” outcomes in 2000 and 2016, the gist of it is that the winner of the popular vote deserves to prevail–period. Is the argument well taken?

When you break it down, you quickly realize it is actually two different questions:

1. Is it appropriate to organize the presidential election on a state-by-state basis?
2. If so, does the current system have an inappropriate bias in favor of rural states, and can it be fixed?

My responses are as follows:

1. Any system other than a single national plebiscite which ignores state lines runs the risk of having an “undemocratic” result. You could justify that on the basis that “We the people,” not “We the states,” ratified the Constitution. The Constitution, however, contemplated a very significant role for the states. Members of the House and Senate are chosen in elections organized within individual states. All powers that are not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states. I think it is difficult to argue that a state-by-state election is inappropriate.
2. That said, the current system clearly is weighted in favor of rural areas. There is no policy basis in our system for that. You could eliminate the bias simply by removing the 100 votes that are attributable to senators; that way, the allocation of electoral votes would be based purely on population. That would be a much fairer system.

As noted above, an Electoral College with the Senate votes eliminated could still lead to a result in which the popular vote winner loses. However, rural and urban votes would have the same value, and that would be a significant improvement.

The Fed, like the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the military, is designed to be a nonpartisan entity. To the extent that these institutions are run by and for politicians, we are in deep, deep trouble.

Stephen Moore is nothing more or less than a right-wing political hack. He is perfectly capable of taking completely inconsistent positions on monetary issues simply based on who is in power. That is potentially an enormous problem.

If Moore is confirmed, he is going to be voting based on Donald Trump’s approval ratings, not on any kind of reasonable ideology on monetary policy. You can easily imagine him demanding lower interest rates during a Republican administration and higher rates during a Democratic administration regardless of the underlying conditions. You can even, with no trouble, imagine him deliberately sabotaging the economy under a Democratic president in order to impact the next election.

This is a very serious issue that will probably fly under the radar, given everything else that is going on right now. We can only hope that there are enough principled GOP senators to vote against his confirmation. That sounds like spitting in the wind.

As I’ve noted many times before, Barack Obama believed in the Pax Americana, but he wanted it on the cheap. He would only support American military interventions if he had a plausible path to success and a reasonable exit strategy, and if all other means had been tried and failed. His critics, and some of his friends, called this “leading from behind.”

Bernie Sanders takes Obama’s reluctance several steps further; he rejects the entire notion of the Pax Americana. If he is elected, he will cut the defense budget significantly, because he has no interest in making America the policeman of the world. He will rely on diplomatic efforts and, if absolutely necessary, economic sanctions to enforce international norms. In other words, we will operate less like America, and more like the EU.

Can this work? Will terrorists and international thugs be deterred by diplomacy and moral force alone? Will Putin and Xi feel emboldened to take greater risks, knowing that nothing stands in their way but sanctions and speeches?

As you can tell, I have my doubts.

The release of the Mueller report reminds me of the death of a terminally ill patient–everyone expects it, but it’s still a shock when it happens. One way or another, it’s going to change the political landscape for the next few weeks, and probably well beyond that.

There are a variety of scenarios here. My guess has always been that both sides will be able to spin the conclusions, and no one’s mind will be changed. We’ll see.

On the Fed nominee Stephen Moore.

He’s the man that Paul Krugman abhors.

He’s dumb as a rock

So he plays well on Fox.

Herman Cain is the next through the door?

Donald Trump believes that America has no friends and allies–only economic interests and competitors. He has made it clear repeatedly that he despises the EU, that the Germans are every bit as bad as the Chinese, that the ultimate yardstick for international relationships is our trade deficit, and that NATO should be operated as a protection racket.

These ideas are outside of the mainstream of the GOP, let alone the country as a whole, so the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is, will reverse them if elected. The absurd steel and aluminum tariffs will disappear. There will be no more discussions about tariffs on foreign cars. Calls for increases in the defense budgets of EU countries will be much more muted. Things will go back to the way they were, with some scar tissue remaining on both sides.

Some trade issues will be more complex. I anticipate that all of the Democratic candidates will oppose the USMCA on the grounds that it does not do enough to protect American labor; there is no obvious political down side to attacking Trump from the populist left. That issue, one way or another, should be resolved before the 2020 election, and I would anticipate that Democratic nominee, if elected, will not seek to relitigate the matter. If, for whatever reason, it has not been resolved, things could get a bit awkward with Canada and Mexico.

There will be calls from Japan, Vietnam, and Australia for the US to join the son-of-TPP. There are very good economic and geopolitical reasons why that should happen. Will it? Unfortunately, probably not, but one can always dream.

If, as everyone suspects, Biden decides to run, this is what I would tell him:

1. DON’T APOLOGIZE TOO MUCH: Some of the things you said and did years ago were considered perfectly appropriate then, but not now. Ask the American public to look at the entire record, and in context– not just a few isolated episodes here and there. Tell them it’s a positive record, and you’re proud of it, even if you did make some mistakes along a 40 year road.
2. MAKE IT ABOUT OBAMA’S LEGACY: Sanders and Warren essentially believe that Obama was a failure. The base doesn’t agree. Use that to your advantage.
3. TALK UP YOUR EXPERIENCE: You’re the only one running who has dealt with Putin and Xi. That matters, even in an election that will probably focus on domestic issues. Don’t let the voters forget it.
4. LEAVE YOUR OPTIONS OPEN ON A SECOND TERM: You might well decide to leave after a single term, and it’s ok to put that on the table during the campaign to address the age issue, but don’t commit to it–just keep it as an option after your first two years.
5. REMEMBER WHO YOUR VOTERS ARE: You’re not competing with Sanders and Beto for young activists; don’t try. They get all of the attention, but there are plenty of older folks out there who admire you, and they vote.
6. FOCUS ON GETTING RID OF TRUMP, NOT THE POLICY AGENDA: That’s what the public really wants.
7. DON’T BE AFRAID TO BE REAL ABOUT PROGRESSIVE POLICIES: A lot of what you’re hearing from the more leftist candidates is practically impossible. Make that case clearly to the American people, and don’t apologize for it. Realism and honesty are not shortcomings.
8. PICK A YOUNG RUNNING MATE, BUT NOT RIGHT AWAY: You want your running mate to be your political heir. It’s way too early to say who that should be.

You might think I would be violently opposed to Trump’s latest effort to promote his buddy Bibi, but I’m not. The Golan Heights have enormous strategic importance to the Israelis, and the folks to the north are about as cute and cuddly as the White Walkers. Unlike the hapless residents of Gaza, they actually are an existential threat to Israel. And so, if Trump wants to recognize that in public, that’s fine with me.

Theresa May apparently made a speech on TV last night in which she postured herself as the authentic representative of the people against a confused and recalcitrant Parliament. That would make perfect sense if she, like an American president, had a direct mandate from the public. In a parliamentary system, however, it is a deeply weird argument that is likely to offend her colleagues without persuading anyone.

But what do I know? I don’t even get the idea of voting for something that you know will leave you worse off than you are today, and that, in the final analysis, is what Brexit is all about.

Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia” had diplomatic and military components, but its centerpiece was the TPP, which was designed to have significant geopolitical as well as economic consequences. He never succeeded in selling the TPP to his own party, and Trump immediately repudiated it. American policy towards China today is mostly characterized by capriciousness and an absurd fixation with our trade deficit.

How would the 2020 Democratic nominee change this state of affairs? I see no evidence that any of the upper tier candidates have given serious consideration to China other than as a human rights violator and a source of cheap manufactured goods. The Chinese challenge goes far beyond that. One hopes that we will see a greater degree of sophistication from the candidates as the campaign progresses.

David Brooks says it’s Cory Booker’s moment because he’s a healer, not a fighter. Is Brooks right?

You need to keep in mind that this is the pundit who kept insisting, against all of the evidence, that Barack Obama wasn’t trying hard enough to work with the GOP during his first term. That aside, my reactions are as follows:

1. Trumpism is the enemy, not just Trump himself. As a result, civility doesn’t represent unilateral disarmament; it is actually the best way to fight back.
2. For a variety of reasons, the Democrats would be wise not to try to demonize the GOP or its followers.
3. That doesn’t mean they have to be naïve about the legislative process if they win the election. Mitch McConnell is going to be every bit as obstructionist as he was in 2009. Not demonizing the GOP doesn’t mean having an unreasonable expectation of bipartisan cooperation.

As for Booker himself, I’m keeping an open mind. He’s clearly qualified for the job, and he has some reasonable and interesting ideas. Whether he is the right man at the right time remains to be seen.

Donald Trump announced his plan to invade Canada at a rare news conference yesterday afternoon. He gave a variety of rationales for the invasion, including: Justin Trudeau had just pissed him off too many times; the invasion and subsequent annexation would eliminate our trade deficit with Canada; take the oil! take the oil! take the oil!; keeping the Stanley Cup in the US in perpetuity would help make America great again; every president is entitled to one foreign adventure; and annexing Canada would reduce America’s average daily temperature and thus help fight global warming, if it really exists.

Attorney General William Barr announced that, as a wartime measure, the internet would be censored, all TV networks except Fox News would be shut down, war opponents would be sent to Guantanamo Bay, and habeas corpus would be suspended. When asked about this, he explained that Lincoln had done more or less the same thing during the Civil War, and Trump was ten times the man that Lincoln was.

Twelve Republicans in the Senate formally complained about the invasion and the censorship, but their objections were ignored. The remainder privately expressed serious reservations about it, but chose to stay silent in public for fear of offending the base.

We can’t possibly have a second referendum, says Theresa May. We would be disrespecting the wishes of the British people! It would be undemocratic!

Well, if that’s the case, what’s up with the multiple MVs?

Barack Obama didn’t see any meaningful moral difference between the Iranian and the Saudi regimes, and he could not imagine any American interest in taking sides in what amounts to an Islamic civil war. Freed to some extent from dependence on the Saudis by fracking, he hoped to chart a middle course between the two countries. The Saudis hated him for it.

Ironically, Donald Trump, whose foreign policy has been purely transactional in virtually all other respects, went all in with the Saudis. For a variety of reasons, few of which are defensible to the average American, he gave MBS a blank check. The latter repaid him by committing murders, kidnapping a head of state, imprisoning female activists, and engaging in a brutal and inconclusive war in Yemen. Congress, including Republicans, howled, but Trump was undeterred. After all, they were selling us oil on the cheap! Right? Right?

Well, not exactly.

The Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, is almost certain to revert to the Obama model if elected. Saudi Arabia is too important to be ignored, but we don’t need to be writing them any more blank checks.

I’ve never interviewed Elizabeth Warren, and I probably never will. But if I did, it would go something like this:

C: Is this the very kitchen table where you did the David Leonhardt interview?

W: Yes, it is.

C: Where’s Bailey?

W: He’s at the vet today, I’m afraid.

C: That’s disappointing. He looks incredibly cute in his pictures.

W: Maybe next time.

C: OK. I’d like to start by asking the obvious question: why should people vote for you instead of one of the other clearly qualified Democratic candidates?

W: I’m the right person at the moment. The biggest problem facing this country is the little guy being screwed over by the big guy. From my academic work on bankruptcy to my books to my work as a senator, I’ve made trying to help the average person my life’s work. It’s a calling.

C: So if we were facing World War III, you would look at it differently?

W: Let’s just say I wouldn’t try to run as Winston Churchill.

C: Most of my questions today are going to revolve around the relationship between your candidacy and two other famous Democrats.

W: I bet I can guess which ones.

C: The first is Hillary Clinton.

W: Bingo on that one.

C: I’m sure you know that a lot of Democrats are afraid you’re not electable because you look and sound too much like Hillary. How do you respond to that?

W: I’m not going to say anything bad about Hillary. Bless her heart, she has always fought for the right side, and she basically ran a good campaign. But she had a lot more scar tissue than I do, and a lot more baggage. The e-mail thing obviously didn’t help. Neither did her obvious ties to Wall Street. She was the wrong person at the wrong time–that’s all.

C: What’s your theory on what happened in 2016? Was it some sort of massive counterrevolution, or was it a fluke based on Comey, e-mails, and the public being tired of Democrats?

W: Some of both. I think part of Hillary’s problem was being identified too closely with the establishment, and having small ball solutions to equality problems. For all that, however, she still would have won without Comey and the e-mails.

C: So you think you differ from her in that you don’t have as much baggage, and you don’t play small ball?

W: Something like that, yes.

C: That brings us to the other prominent Democrat.

W: Let me guess–Bernie Sanders.

C: Two for two. Let me start by saying that, from a wonk’s perspective, you have been absolutely crushing it. You should be way ahead. And yet, Bernie is far ahead of you in the polls. Why do you think that is?

W: Name recognition. People obviously remember him from 2016.

C: But you’re also a well-known national figure. That can’t be the only reason. Don’t you think there is something else going on?

W: Like what?

C: People just relate to him better than they do to you. It might be sexism. It might be the idea that you patronize people, and he doesn’t. I’m not saying that’s true, necessarily, but it could well be a common perception.

W: I have to hope that the American people are better than that. If they aren’t, we’re all in trouble.

C: Bernie calls himself a socialist. Do you think that’s accurate?

W: By the dictionary definition, definitely not. He doesn’t support widespread nationalizations. He wants a larger and better welfare state, less inequality, and more control of business. For that matter, so do I.

C: You have been careful to call yourself a capitalist. Why the difference?

W: First of all, I truly do believe in capitalism. Second, the word scares the hell out of a lot of Americans. It’s a tactical mistake to use it.

C: Do you think it is a distinction with a difference?

W: Yes. It’s not just semantic. Bernie views things through an ideological lens. I’m more data driven. We’re both determined to make America work better, but I relate more to FDR making capitalism succeed, and Bernie wants to make America look like Denmark.

C: In a tactical sense, you do agree with him on the “revolution,” don’t you?

W: If what you mean by that is a class-based appeal to people who either haven’t voted in the past, and to people who don’t vote their economic interests, yes. We can’t win and get a truly progressive agenda through the system without it.

C: Do you view the wealthy as your enemies? Take, for example, Michael Bloomberg. He’s a social liberal, and he’s spending a fortune to elect Democrats. Should he be viewed as a bad guy?

W: Here’s one of the areas in which I don’t agree with Bernie. Bernie would see him as a class enemy, period. To me, there’s nothing wrong with being a successful capitalist. Unlike Trump, Bloomberg actually built his own empire, and has done a lot of good with it. I think we as a nation should celebrate that, not condemn it. That said, I also think we need to limit his wealth to avoid corrupting the democratic process. That’s a practical, not a moral, judgment.

C: The other side of that coin is what we call the white working class. How do you plan to appeal to the kind of people that Hillary called “deplorables?” They violently disagree with you on values issues–how can you possibly change their minds?

W: It’s a tough issue, no doubt. I think the key is to avoid playing small ball on economics, and to offer them something they genuinely think would significantly improve their lives. That’s the only hope.

C: Thanks for your time. I’ll be back next week to ask you about some of your specific policies.

W: I’ll try to have Bailey here next time.