Month: August 2019

For Xi Jinping, Hong Kong is the land of no good options. If he does nothing and lets the situation fester, his colleagues may think he’s a wimp (never a good look for a strongman), and people on the mainland may start to get ideas about the feasibility of political reform. If he sends in the PLA, on the other hand, all the pandas and kung fu movies in the world aren’t going to erase images of students being shot down in the streets, and Hong Kong’s credibility as a bridge between capitalism and communism, which still has value to China, will be shattered. What should he do?

For now, the answer seems to be to hope that the excesses of some of the protestors will turn public opinion against them. That could work, but it will take some time. In the interim, Xi could help himself by emphatically reaffirming his commitment to the previous workings of “one country, two systems” and by telling the Hong Kong government to completely shelve the extradition bill. After all, it was the government that was the aggressor here, not the protestors, so calling for a return to the status quo ante wouldn’t make him a wimp.

“Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!” That famous line from “Godfather III” pretty well summarizes Vladimir Putin’s upcoming dilemma, which is highly appropriate, given the nature of the Russian regime.

If Xi were to die tomorrow, the Chinese Communist Party would have no trouble replacing him. Putin, on the other hand, is the indispensable component of his kleptocratic government; he is the one who hands out the goodies and balances the interests. Everyone beneath him does his bidding and fights for his favor. He has no real ideology (other than expanding Russian power, of course) and no obvious successor. When he goes, there will be battles for wealth and power that will range throughout the entire country, with no predictable outcome in sight. Anything could happen, including a new push for genuine democracy. How can he avoid that?

I doubt he can, but my guess is that he will use Deng as his model, and maintain ultimate control of the government even after he formally relinquishes power to his handpicked successor by retaining some sort of minor office and keeping in touch when crises occur, as they inevitably will. There is no guarantee that will work, however; successful strongmen are a tough act to follow. Just ask Maduro.

Boris Johnson’s government has a majority of one. An election looms. Should he go now, or later?

If he calls a snap election, he gets the maximum benefit from the “Boris bounce.” Barring massive tactical voting from Remainers or an implausibly strong showing from the Brexit Party, he is likely to win a large majority, given his ability to rally the troops against Corbyn’s extremism. He will then be in a position to push his cherished no-deal Brexit through Parliament without causing a constitutional crisis.

The second option requires him to jam no-deal through the system regardless of the clear sentiments of the existing Parliament. It will involve a constitutional crisis, and probably embarrass the monarchy. He will then own both the crisis itself and the many problems that will arise from no-deal. His chances of losing after a chaotic Brexit are much higher.

To me, this is a very simple decision. It appears, however, that Boris values Brexit more than stability, the constitution, or even success at the polls. That’s both dangerous and logically absurd.

Elizabeth Warren’s many left-wing fans find it self-evident that their candidate is the most intelligent of the lot (probably true) and that her innumerable plans are just the ticket to fix our “rigged” system (a far more debatable point). In their view, concerns about Warren’s viability as a general election candidate are merely inherently sexist “likeability” questions that should be dismissed as a matter of principle. Moderates within the party are therefore urged to get with the program, check their male privilege, and support the best qualified person for the job.

It’s not that simple. The issue isn’t “likeability;” it’s identity politics. And Warren is a potential disaster in a general election in which identity will undoubtedly play an enormous role, given the nature of the Trump presidency.

The question for each candidate is whether he or she can mobilize or sway enough votes to win in 2020. If you view the election as primarily an exercise in base mobilization, why would you choose an elderly white woman over a younger person or a minority, given that these are the two categories of voters whose levels of participation are most easily raised? If, on the other hand, you think the real task is to win over likely swing voters, such as Never Trumpers, white male union members, and moderate suburban women, why would you pick a righteously angry female law professor from Harvard whose views can be easily (if not exactly accurately) described as socialism? And that doesn’t even count her “Pocahontas” red privilege episode.

Yes, Warren is a good debater. Yes, she would likely make mincemeat of Trump on the issues. Yes, given the constraints under which she would be operating, she could be a reasonably good president. But no, that doesn’t make her a winner in 2020 unless the electorate can be persuaded to vote their economic interests instead of their identities, which is incredibly unlikely.

The radical right incumbent won a plurality (not a majority) by appealing to two groups. First, he convinced business interests that he was the only thing standing between them and extreme leftists. Second, he promised his base that he would make his country great again by standing up to foreigners, promoting traditional cultural values, and rooting out ethnic enemies within the state.

Is it Germany in 1933 or America in 2020? Time will tell. One thing is for certain; there is an antecedent for the tax cuts for social conservatism bargain, and it isn’t pretty.

So Modi has turned Kashmir into a vast open air prison–and to what end? To throw red meat to his base? To piss off the Pakistanis? To show Trump who’s the boss in this neighborhood? To put an end to political violence in Kashmir? Good luck with that, seventy years after the partition.

You can’t solve deep-seated political problems in a truly democratic system with pure repression. Frankly, I can only see two models here, and both are troubling. One is Xinjiang, with the surveillance state and the Uighur camps. The other is the West Bank. Is that what India really wants?

In spite of their obvious conceptual and rhetorical differences, there are points of continuity between the two on foreign policy, as follows:

1. NORTH KOREA: Obama built a coalition, but it didn’t change Kim’s behavior. Trump first threatened nuclear war, then decided to rely on personal charm. That hasn’t worked either. ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
2. IS: The Trump secret plan turned out to be the Obama plan. It succeeded. ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
3. AFGHANISTAN: Both men battled the blob to withdraw. Neither has succeeded to date. ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
4. SYRIA: Neither man wanted to make much of a commitment to help the rebels. Now the question is, who wins the peace? ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
5. RUSSIA: Russian adventurism in Ukraine took place during Obama’s watch, not Trump’s. On the other hand, Trump is doing nothing we know of to deal with ongoing Russian cyberwarfare efforts, and he usually appears to be at odds with his own government. ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
6. IRAN/SAUDI ARABIA: Obama built a coalition against Iran, negotiated the nuclear deal, and refused to underwrite Saudi ambitions. Trump scrapped the deal, isolated America diplomatically, and gave MBS a blank check. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
7. CHINA: The “pivot to Asia” was based on the TPP. It could have worked. Trump has relied upon bluster and tariffs, which won’t. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
8. RELATIONS WITH ALLIES: It isn’t clear that NATO can survive another four years of Trump. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
9. LATIN AMERICA: Obama re-established diplomatic relations with Cuba. Trump tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the Venezuelan regime. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
10. INDIA: Both presidents moved slightly towards India. Trump probably doesn’t even know where Kashmir is. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.

There you have it! Not as lopsided as with domestic policy, but Obama is a clear winner here, too

Regime change is hard. If you don’t believe it, just ask the people of Iran and Venezuela.

There are significant similarities between the two. In both instances, Trump has applied the maximum possible economic pressure. In both cases, he appears to expect and want a negotiated solution, albeit one that gives him everything he wants. In neither case has it worked; the result has been widespread misery, but no progress. And in both situations, the regime has retaliated, but not to the point of provoking war.

There are differences, too. Trump’s emotional investment in Venezuela is more limited. America has more diplomatic support on Venezuela than on Iran. The Venezuelan regime is far less competent than the Iranian government. Finally, Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon, and abuts the world’s economic lifeline. The dangers inherent in an Iran war are consequently much higher.

At this point, neither Trump nor the Iranians have succeeded in accomplishing their objectives. An impasse, however, cannot last forever. The Iranian government is not going to collapse without a military push. The ultimate choice for Trump will be war or an embarrassing failure.

Donald Trump has enough of a record as president at this point to compare it to Obama’s. On domestic issues, the competition is lopsided, as follows:

1. THE ECONOMY: Obama and his team saved us from a second Great Depression. Unemployment was slightly over four percent by the time he left office. Trump gave us an unnecessary stimulus and promised it would lead to an investment boom. It didn’t; the growth rate, after a temporary improvement, has returned to a normal roughly 2.5 percent. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
2. INEQUALITY: Obama taxed the wealthy. Trump gave them a huge tax cut. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
3. CLIMATE CHANGE: Obama’s investments in clean technology are a frequently overlooked part of his legacy. Trump thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
4. NATIONAL UNITY: Obama did his best to be a unifying figure, even though right-wing media successfully overcame him on that point. Trump exposes and exacerbates our divisions every day; it’s the only way he knows how to operate. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
5. EDUCATION: Obama’s Race to the Top program had some benefits, and he pushed for transparency and reasonable controls on for-profit providers. Trump hired Betsy DeVos to enable profiteers and fraudsters and make life harder for students with mountains of debt. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
6. CORRUPTION: Obama ran a remarkably clean administration. Trump? Not so much. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
7. IMMIGRATION: Obama’s efforts at bipartisan comprehensive reform nearly succeeded, but ran afoul of a GOP majority in the House. Trump’s antics on immigration have led to nothing but a national disgrace. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.

You get the picture. Tomorrow, I will post on foreign policy, where the two legacies are more mixed.

On the Democrat candidate Liz.

Her campaign’s producing some fizz.

But Biden awaits.

He’s barring the gate.

In the end, will she master the quiz?

The concept: In theory, the “revolution”: persuading millions of reactionary workers to vote their economic interests over their cultural prejudices. In reality, hope Warren destroys Biden, inherit the latter’s voters through identity politics, and pray for a recession in 2020.

The challenge: Persuading America that he is really FDR and not Henry Wallace.

The prognosis: The American Corbyn has hit his ceiling. There simply aren’t enough Bernie bros to win the nomination, let alone the general election. Chances of success: 10 percent.

By “the field,” I mean Bullock and Klobuchar. No one else merits any discussion.

The concept: Moderate, qualified Biden replacement with a history of winning in rural areas can beat Trump in 2020.

The challenge: Why won’t anyone look at me?

The prognosis: Either could win a general election, and their chances will improve if they can get on a debate stage with fewer candidates. For the most part, however, it is all steak and no sizzle, which is a loss to the Democratic Party and the nation. Chances of success: 5 percent.

Tucker Carlson says white supremacy is a “hoax.” He essentially thinks that white supremacy is synonymous with Nazis, who would have trouble filling a phone booth in this country, so where’s the problem?

If you deconstruct it, here is his line of thought:

1. America is a white country, settled by white Europeans, with a white culture.
2. People who are not of white European stock cannot possibly assimilate here.
3. We white people have an obligation to protect our culture.
4. Therefore, keeping non-white people out is just a matter of self-preservation.

It’s about culture, not biology; we have no problem with non-white people, just as long as they don’t mix with us and mongrel up our way of life. Therefore, we aren’t white supremacists.

The problem, of course, is that #1 is only partially true, #2 is not true at all, and #3 and #4 must fall for being based on bogus premises. And Carlson and his reactionary ilk, with their fixation on protecting white European culture, are actually white supremacists, whether they acknowledge it or not.

Candidates, pundits, and debate moderators have identified the continuing existence of private insurance as the core issue dividing fundis from realos on Medicare-for-all. The real question is much broader than that–it is risk aversion, as shown in the following questions:

1. I SAW WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE ROLLOUT OF OBAMACARE. I’M OLD AND SICK, AND I CAN’T AFFORD ANY INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE SAME THING OCCURS ON A FAR GRANDER SCALE WITH THE NEW SYSTEM? I would love to reassure you on that point, but, hey, to err is human. In the long run, the inevitable administrative problems will be resolved, but in the long run, we’re all dead.
2. I’VE BEEN PAYING INTO MEDICARE MY WHOLE LIFE. HOW DO I KNOW THAT MY TAX MONEY WON’T JUST BE SHIFTED TO PAY FOR MILLENNIALS WHO NEVER PAID A DIME INTO THE SYSTEM? That isn’t Bernie’s plan, but once the process starts, you can never really know for sure where it will end.
3. I DON’T TRUST THE GOP. HOW DO I KNOW THEY WON’T CUT THE QUALITY OF CARE TO FINANCE SOME NEW TAX CUT? That would be risky and unpopular, but let’s not pretend it couldn’t happen. The NHS gets cut occasionally, and the GOP historically gets away with hurting its constituents for the benefit of the donor class by ratcheting up the culture war.
4. I HAVE EMPLOYER-BASED INSURANCE. HOW DO I KNOW THAT MY EMPLOYER WILL ACTUALLY USE HIS SAVINGS TO INCREASE MY WAGES? That’s the theory, but it actually depends on how much bargaining power you have. If we’re in a recession, or your job can be shipped overseas, there are no guarantees you will see any of that money, and you could wind up worse off financially, after taxes, than you are today.
5. IS A SYSTEM WITH FEW OR NO CO-PAYS TRULY REALISTIC? The Sanders proposal is much more generous on co-pays than other existing single-payer programs. Based on that, you can probably count on them to be increased significantly over time.

The bottom line is that the public has plenty of good reasons to be concerned about the government’s ability to deliver on Bernie’s promises. That’s the hurdle he has to overcome; it isn’t that everyone is in love with private insurance.

The concept: Biden without the baggage. He’s a younger, more vigorous replacement if Biden falters.

The challenge: To be the one who picks up the pieces for realos if Warren destroys their champion. He’ll have lots of competition, including Harris and Booker.

The prognosis: Mayor Pete has plenty of intellect, but no swagger. It’s amusing to think of him ripping Trump a new one in Norwegian at a debate, but it won’t happen, because he just doesn’t have a strong enough presence. Chances of success: 5 percent.