Month: October 2019

Yesterday’s issue of The Times featured a cartoon of Jeremy Corbyn pointing a starter’s pistol at his own head and saying “On your Marx! Set! Go!” That pretty well says it all for me.

The election will actually incorporate referenda on three separate issues:

1. The merits of the Brexit deal;
2. The conduct of the government in the process of negotiating the deal; and
3. Corbyn’s extreme left-wing platform.

It is perfectly possible–in fact, very likely–that Remain could win on the first two issues, but lose the election for the third reason. The Remain vote is certain to be split between the Lib Dems and Labour, while the vast majority of Leavers are going to vote for Boris, not the Brexit Party. Expect a smashing Conservative victory that represents the state of public opinion on Corbyn, not Brexit.

Then what? There will be big constitutional problems with Scotland and Northern Ireland. The transition period with trade and the EU will only last a year, and there is no guarantee that any agreement the parties can reach will be beneficial to either side. 2020 will consequently be a year that calls for great finesse on the part of the new government. Unfortunately, Boris is more into showy populism, flip-flops, and bluster than finesse.

This is the really tough one, because both sides perceive that so much is at stake, and there is so little middle ground. Both sides implicitly accept that the blue team has won the war, but that is where the agreement ends. To Big Blue, the righteousness of their cause is self-evident, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot, a bigot, or both. The red team, on the other hand, looks despairingly into the PC future and sees itself constantly stigmatized at best and legally oppressed at worst. A few even go so far as to predict Christians will wind up in death camps if they don’t fight back now with every tool at their disposal.

You can dismiss this as hysteria and projection, and there would be some truth to that, but the fact is that these people represent about 30 percent of the electorate, so they cannot be ignored. Given a perceived choice between fascism and annihilation, they will obviously opt for the former. In some ways, they already have, by providing unconditional support to a man who doesn’t have the vaguest idea of what it means to be a Christian just because he shares their enemies.

So what can be done? Big Blue triumphalism needs to be muted. The leaders of the Democratic Party need to make it clear, over and over again, that they don’t view Christianity as just another form of bigotry, and that they respect red values even when they don’t agree with them. It might even be necessary, for tactical reasons, to create some limited opt-outs in civil rights legislation to accommodate right-wing Christians.

If that sounds like feeding the alligators, it’s better than having them feed on you. Are you listening, Elizabeth?

Donald Trump’s neocolonialist, funhouse realpolitik foreign policy is an outlier even in his own party, let alone in the country as a whole. So what would a consensus foreign policy look like? I would say it would closely resemble Obama’s, except that it would be more overtly hostile to the Chinese, and it would involve even less foreign military intervention. In particular, we would stop sucking up to dictators, peacefully promote liberal democracy and human rights, reduce the absurd concern about trade deficits, embrace our allies instead of repelling them, support useful international institutions, and comply with agreements instead of tearing them up.

Wouldn’t that be a welcome change? Even Lindsey Graham should prefer it to what we have now, although he would never admit it.

The D.C. crowd apparently chanted “Lock him up!” at Trump during a World Series game. There has been a fair amount of angst about this among some left-wing commentators. Is it justified?

In my opinion, no, purely due to the context. When crowds shout “Lock her up!” at Trump rallies, they are directing their opinion to someone who is in a position to do exactly that, which is a threat to our (pre-Barr) depoliticized law enforcement process. There was no one at the game meeting that description. Trump wasn’t exactly about to lock himself up.

The chant was nothing more or less than a spontaneous expression of disgust with the current administration which was fully justified by the present circumstances. People who are concerned about protecting the integrity of the system should be focusing more on public statements by the Democratic candidates regarding Trump’s guilt and their desire to prosecute him than on this kind of activity.

Anyway, Fox News apparently edited out the chant in its footage of Trump’s appearance, and he probably thinks that everyone at the game loved him, because that’s what he always thinks.

You can make a good argument, as David Leonhardt does, that health care is getting far too much time and attention during the debates. However, as an illustration of the philosophical differences between realos and fundis, health care plans are hard to beat. That is undoubtedly the reason the debate moderators like to lead with that issue.

Elizabeth Warren has decided to release a detailed health care plan in the next few weeks. While we obviously don’t know its contents yet, we can safely assume the following:

1. Warren loves wonks, and they love her. As a result, you can expect the plan to be molded and endorsed by some of the best health care wonks in the country.
2. Nevertheless, it will be based on assumptions that are highly questionable, simply because that can’t be helped.
3. Warren will expect her critics to defer to the expertise of her wonks. They won’t; instead, they will hire their own wonks, who will reach vastly different conclusions.
4. The dispute over the merits of the Warren plan will be the focal point, other than impeachment, of the campaign. The public will believe whatever it wants to believe.
5. In the meantime, the risk aversion issue will hang out there, and nothing about the Warren plan will resolve it, because plans are one thing, and hard reality something completely different. The public understands that. Warren doesn’t; she thinks the combination of will and enormous brains can solve any problem. Just like the best and the brightest and Vietnam, right?

Americans aren’t stupid; they know their health care system is terrible. They are, however, generally risk-averse; they’re afraid (not without reason) that any attempt to completely remake the system by the government will actually leave them worse off. Add the hundreds of billions of dollars in vested interests on the part of providers and insurance companies to the equation, and you have a recipe for stasis. That’s where we are right now.

So how would you go about building a consensus for meaningful change? You would start by assuming that only incremental reforms are realistically possible. You would then move on to the low-lying fruit, such as controlling drug prices. You could take some of the proceeds from tax increases on the wealthy and use them to cut copayments within the framework of the existing system. Finally, you could at least consider adding a public option; that’s about as far as the envelope could be pushed, and even that might not be possible.

Like many other realos, I suspect, I would be happier if one of the Biden replacements caught fire. Historically, the Democratic Party has always fared better with a young, sharp, and vigorous nominee. But, for a variety of reasons, that hasn’t happened this time, and there isn’t much reason to believe that it ever will.

At some point, the only realistic choices will be Biden and Warren. For me, it will be around the November debate. Until then, it is still ok to hold on to my money and dream the impossible dream . . .

It wasn’t that long ago that Supreme Court nominations were viewed as legislative nothingburgers. If you don’t believe me, consider that Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, and David Souter were nominated by Republican presidents, and Felix Frankfurter and Byron White were nominated by Democrats.

But that was then, and this is now. The culture wars, with their vast legal implications, have polluted the nomination and confirmation process. Both sides view control of the presidency as a life and death matter for their values. The stakes have become much too high, and the hearings are almost uniformly ugly.

Mitch McConnell is grimly driving right-wing judicial nominations through the Senate in the hope of creating a permanent barrier to future left-wing legislation. Some Democrats have responded by proposing to pack the Supreme Court. That is exactly the wrong response. It will further damage the reputation of the Court and invite retaliation in kind from the GOP; it would also deepen the divide between blue and red in a way that threatens the stability of our country.

The correct reaction is to try to find a way to make the process less, not more, political. I would suggest two measures: bring back the filibuster for judges in order to avoid the appointment of radicals on either the right or left; and change the Constitution to provide for limited and staggered terms, so every president has the ability to appoint some justices, and the loss of any particular election does not represent such a catastrophe for either side.

It’s a long shot, to be sure, but it would be worth trying.

The Trump tax cut has been a failure, both economically and politically. Even the GOP base, and some billionaires, can support higher taxes on the wealthy today so long as the proceeds are used for purposes that don’t offend the sensibilities of reactionaries. And so, if the objective is to reduce inequality and improve the lives of average Americans, the real questions are:

1. What taxes should be raised, and how?
2. How should the money be spent?

As to #1, the consensus answer clearly isn’t the unconstitutional and impractical wealth tax; there is no need to reinvent the wheel here. The place to start is with the indefensible exemption of capital gains and income above roughly $130,000 from FICA. Next, I would substantially increase the estate tax. Third, I would roll back a large part (probably not all) of the corporate tax cut. Finally, I would increase the highest marginal rates of income tax to somewhere around 50 percent.

How would the money be spent? First, on filling the holes in Social Security and Medicare. Second, on infrastructure improvements. Third, on a larger EITC. Finally, I would increase Obamacare subsidies with anything that remained. Since the reactionary right only hates spending programs which appear, in their eyes, to benefit unjustly privileged, lazy minorities, these ideas should meet with their approval.

In the end, there are only two options for the American military presence in Afghanistan: the Korean model, in which we stay indefinitely to maintain a stalemate; and the Vietnam model, in which we make an ostensibly face-saving deal with the enemies knowing perfectly well that it ultimately result in the destruction of our allies.

Trump’s preference for the Vietnam model was clear even before he sold out the Kurds in Syria. Can there be any doubt about his intentions now? They don’t even have oil in Afghanistan. I’m afraid opium doesn’t count.

If I’m a member of the Afghan government, I’m working on my exit strategy today. Waiting would be a serious mistake. From Trump’s perspective, on the other hand, the most important concern is to make sure that the Taliban’s parade in Kabul takes place after the 2020 election. Nothing else will matter to him.

America is more divided today than it has been since the 1960’s. How can that be fixed? Well, I don’t have any idea how to stop identity voting, but I can suggest some constructive policy positions that would have substantial support from both sides of the aisle. And so, I will be running a special feature entitled “Reuniting America” this coming week.

I did a parody of this song for Bernie years ago, but this one is even more timely.

RUDY CAN’T FAIL

How’d you get so rude and reckless?

Your image is no longer speckless

And the libs eat you for breakfast.

Rudy can’t fail.

__________

He replies:

I know that my job makes you nervous

But I’m working in Donald Trump’s service

‘Cause owning libs gives me purpose.

Rudy can’t fail.

________________

He went to the White House

To realize his dream

‘Cause what he needs, only Trump has.

The left may curse

And they’ll press him till he hurts.

Rudy can’t fail.

_______________

He’ll never get over his temper

And he’s hated by all the right papers

But Trump is his only savior.

Rudy can’t fail.

________________

How’d you get so rude and reckless

When your boss is so obviously feckless?

Now the libs will eat you for breakfast.

Rudy can’t fail.

Parody of “Rudie Can’t Fail” by The Clash.

Donald Trump’s ethics revolve solely around power. He has it, and you don’t. The strong do as they will, and the weak suffer what they must. Ubermen aren’t constrained by ethics or the law. If you don’t like it, too bad! Get over it!

Except that when someone else has the hammer, he immediately goes into victimhood mode. Where’s my due process? It’s a rigged witch hunt! Poor, poor, pitiful me!

Does anyone out there find this as grating and obnoxious as I do? Don’t you just want to tell him to get over it?

AOC and Ilhan Omar have endorsed Sanders. Is that a game changer?

Of course not. Bernie may, in the end, win the race to the left with Warren, but that won’t help him win the nomination. Only a massive recession can do that.

You’re Mitch McConnell, and you’re looking at conducting an impeachment trial in a few months. You’re reasonably confident that there will not be enough votes to remove Trump from office, so your real objective is to limit the damage in the 2020 election. With that in mind, how do you run the trial?

In general terms, he has two choices: he can run it as an actual de novo evidentiary hearing, with lots of live testimony and cross-examination; or he can use the record created by the House and just hear legal argument on it. The first approach, from his perspective, is high risk and high reward; Trump may insist on it in an effort to completely vindicate himself, but if the American public hears lots of credible testimony on TV from clearly honest civil servants about a quid pro quo (which will probably happen), the optics won’t be too good. The second approach is weaker theater, and less risky, but it requires the Senate to rely on a record that won’t be favorable to the GOP cause, to say the least.

There is no perfect choice here. I’m guessing that McConnell will ultimately pick a process that looks more like the second option, and that the defense will ultimately be that the attempts at a quid pro quo were improper, but not egregious enough to constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Will Trump agree to that, as opposed to a long shot attempt at total vindication that is more consistent with his public statements and personality? We’ll see.