Month: November 2019

TRUMP CAMPAIGN: America has been playing the world’s policeman for the last fifty years. What did we get for it? Nothing! Not even gratitude! Just a lot of dead soldiers and wasted money!

From now on, it’s no more Uncle Sap! It’s all about the Benjamins, baby! If you want protection from us, pay the man! If we send our military to the Middle East, we take the oil! And no more nation-building and worrying about democracy and human rights. They’re just covers for so-called friends who take us to the cleaners every day.

America first!

RESPONSE: That’s great until you need help with some urgent foreign policy problem. Then you really will be home alone.

Note to my readers: I will be on vacation until Sunday. Regular posts will resume on Monday.

To summarize, Elizabeth Warren:

1. Initially said relatively little about health care, and seemed to be open to a variety of plans to expand coverage;
2. Then embraced Bernie’s plan without indicating how she would pay for it;
3. Then came up with her own implausible plan to pay for it;
4. Then proposed an interim plan with a public option and suggested that the quest for M4A would be postponed until the latter stages of her term.

#4 is reasonably consistent with mainstream opinion within the Democratic Party, and is not logically ridiculous. But how will these changes of position play out politically? Will supporting both a moderate interim approach and M4A give her the best or the worst of worlds?

There is no doubt that any kind of retreat from M4A will cost her some votes on the left. Those are votes she can afford to lose. The real question is whether moderates will feel more comfortable with her as a result of the change of course, or whether they will continue to focus on the problems associated with the ultimate M4A goal and her lack of consistency on the subject.

Warren was better off when the thrust of her campaign was on bashing billionaires and curing capitalism. M4A is a distraction from that message. In this case, I think the journey is the destination, and health care is going to be an albatross for the rest of the campaign, and into the general election if she is the nominee.

TRUMP CAMPAIGN: America, you’re probably wondering what we have to offer for the next four years. The answer, of course, is more of the same! The first tax cut was a huge success, so we’ll have another one! It’ll be even bigger and better than the first one! We’ll finish the wall! We’ll use tariffs to impose fantastic new trade agreements on our so-called allies! And, of course, we’ll get rid of Obamacare once and for all and replace it with something that’s far better! It’ll be great! Believe me. Believe me.

RESPONSE: None required.

I watched some YouTube video of Biden’s 2012 debate with Paul Ryan. Some of the same verbal tics are present, but they are much more subdued. I think there is something else going on here.

My best guess is that it is mild short-term memory loss. I have experienced this myself, and I’m younger than Biden. The good news is that, if I’m right, it doesn’t impact his ability to process information, which is really the bottom line for him as a candidate and potential president.

An article in The Atlantic attributes Joe Biden’s verbal tics during debates to his history as a stutterer. I was not aware of his condition, since he doesn’t advertise it, and it makes me feel somewhat better about his performance to date.

It would be interesting to compare video of him in debates in previous campaigns to the present to see if this is a new problem. If I can find any material on YouTube, I will let you know.

TRUMP CAMPAIGN: America, you’ve never had it so good. Unemployment is below 4 percent. Wages are rising. Most importantly (at least to us), the markets are at record highs. It’s all due to the big tax cut and deregulation.

All of this will be destroyed if you elect a Democrat in 2020. They’re all socialists, you know, and they don’t appreciate the value of business and the importance of individual initiative. If I lose to one of those clowns, the markets will plunge and unemployment will soar. Is that a chance you’re willing to take? Are you willing to risk everything you own just to get rid of me because I’m a little rough with my mouth?

RESPONSE: There is a tiny bit of truth to this one. The markets won’t respond well to a Warren victory, even though she understands the economy far better than Trump does, because investors believe that Trump is on their side, and she isn’t. It’s the financial equivalent of identity politics, and it works to the benefit of right-wing strongmen everywhere.

In the long run, Warren’s predictability and willingness to follow the law may look better to the markets than Trump’s ignorance and capriciousness. It’s hard to tell at this point.

The argument about the tax cut and deregulation, of course, is mostly b.s. The biggest long term problem with our economy is the reduction in demand associated with demographic change and the hollowing-out of the middle class. The latter is due to increased inequality resulting, in part, from GOP taxing and spending policy. Trump and his regressive tax cut have only made this worse.

TRUMP CAMPAIGN: America, the world is full of thugs who are out to get you. Illegal immigrants are coming by the millions to rape you, kill you, and steal your job. Foreigners with friendly handshakes are really here to rip you off. Terrorists are everywhere. Criminals abound in our cities. And what do the wimpy liberals want to do? They want to open the doors and let the foreign bad guys in and the domestic criminals out!

I alone am tough and clear-sighted enough to fight back. I will protect you from the bad guys. If I seem a little unconventional and rough, that’s what it takes to survive in such an evil and violent world.

RESPONSE: In reality, Trump has done nothing to make Americans safer. He has damaged our alliances, sucked up to dictators, and behaved so capriciously that no one can trust him. Only someone foolish enough to believe that bluster is strength will buy into this. Unfortunately, there are tens of millions of Americans who fit that description.

Likud can break the political logjam, avoid an election that no one wants, and guarantee itself a share of power by ditching a leader who is under indictment and making a deal with Blue and White. You would think that would be an easy decision, but it seems not.

If, under the circumstances, the leadership makes the deal, you can say that Likud is a normal political party. If they ignore the interests of the entire membership, let alone the nation, solely to assist Bibi, it is a cult.

BANG AND BLAME

If you could see yourself now, Nancy

It’s not my fault.

I used to be so in control.

You’re going to roll right over this one.

Just roll me over, let me go.

You’re laying blame.

Take this as no, no, no.

_______________

(Chorus)

You bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

Blame, blame, blame.

Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

It’s not my thing, so let it go.

(Repeat)

____________________

If you could see yourself now, Nancy

The tables have turned.

My whole world hinges on your swings.

My secret life of indiscreet discretions.

You turn the screws, and Twitter screams.

Don’t point your finger.

Ukraine is not my thing.

________________

(Repeat chorus twice)

_______________________

You look a little worried.

I know it all too well.

I’ve got your number

But so does every kiss and tell

Who dares to cross your threshold

Happens on your way.

Stop laying blame.

Ukraine is not my thing.

________________

You bitch at me

Jump on me

Shout at me

Hit on me

You laugh at me

Scream at me

Threaten me

You impeach me

You impeach me.

Parody of “Bang and Blame” by R.E.M.

The Woke King, a/k/a Ta-Nehisi Coates, predictably raised my blood pressure by tepidly praising what he calls “the democratization of cancel culture” in today’s NYT. The rest of the column, however, was not that bad. Coates admits that PC Twitter mobs are “suboptimal” and directs most of his attention to the dispute between Colin Kaepernick and the NFL.

My reactions are as follows:

1. I have always sympathized with Kaepernick, but it has to be pointed out that the NFL has been motivated more by greed and cowardice than spite, because it fears offending the millions of football fans who are decidedly unwoke. In that respect, there is no moral difference between the NFL and the NBA, which responded in the same self-interested way to Chinese anger about the Morey tweet on Hong Kong protesters. I don’t recall ever reading a Coates column on that issue.

2. The legitimate point that Coates should have made, but didn’t, is that PC Twitter mobs may be obnoxious, but you can avoid them simply by turning off your phone. It is a horrible mistake to equate people who have been attacked on social media to the victims of actual lynchings.

Elizabeth Warren frequently does it with a twinkle in her eye, while Bernie Sanders shouts and looks grim, but both have made bashing billionaires the centerpiece of their respective campaigns. Is that good for the country?

Sometimes the billionaires bring it on themselves, by seeking rents, successfully lobbying for even more regressive tax cuts which benefit no one but themselves, and constantly whining about a lack of respect. It’s hard to be very sympathetic, and I agree with the consensus that their taxes should be raised significantly. But still . . .

Sanders and Warren are threatening to turn the wealthy into the left-wing version of illegal immigrants– convenient scapegoats for policy failures. The idea of hiring armies of IRS agents to scrutinize their assets on an annual basis is the rough equivalent of treating them like dangerous wild animals in a zoo. Worse, the wealth tax sends the message that too much financial success makes you evil. As Cory Booker pointed out at the last debate, we need to grow the economy as well as redistribute the proceeds.

In my opinion, it is perfectly OK to identify important unmet social needs and ask the wealthy to give up their unjust tax benefits and pay for programs that address them. I would go on to say that you can even make a case that redistribution will help rebuild the middle class and ultimately enhance economic growth. The unconstitutional and administratively awkward wealth tax is not the way to go, however, and the anti-billionaire rhetoric needs to stop. We need to solve problems, not create scapegoats and unlikely martyrs.

On the one hand, the witnesses at the impeachment hearings were bright, articulate, nonpartisan civil servants–some of them immigrants–who were willing to risk career and reputation to tell the truth and protect the interests of the nation as a whole. On the other hand, some of the GOP members of the panel were peddling conspiracy theories favored by Putin and attacking the objectivity and patriotism of the witnesses in a desperate effort to protect the position of a corrupt, pathetic cult figure–a man on golf cart.

I bet you don’t have any problems identifying the best and worst of America.

The single most memorable thing I have read during the last few months was a comment about Mike Pompeo’s nose in The New Yorker. The author of the article quoted an anonymous European diplomat calling it “a heat-seeking missile for Trump’s ass.” That sounds about right, and it explains how the man keeps his job.

As Secretary of State, Pompeo has obligations to the American people, to Trump, and to the people who work for him. The essence of the problem is that he only acknowledges the second obligation. The others apparently don’t matter to him.

It is clear from this week’s testimony that Pompeo enabled Trump’s self-interested shadow diplomacy, and that morale at the State Department and our standing in the world have plunged as a result. If he had an ounce of integrity, he would resign immediately. In spite of the lessons he supposedly learned about honor and patriotism at West Point, he doesn’t, and he won’t. He’ll just keep trucking on and sucking up to his boss until he sees an exit ramp that appeals to him.

One can only hope he will pay the price for it when he runs for office in Kansas, which seems almost inevitable.

A: This bright, dedicated civil servant ripped conspiracy-loving GOP members a new one during her testimony on impeachment.

Q: Who is Fiona Hill?

A conservative named Daniel McCarthy makes the following arguments against impeachment in today’s NYT:

1. The left is too eager to assume the worst about Trump’s motives when other inferences are possible;
2. Trump is just fulfilling a campaign promise to behave unconventionally and “drain the swamp;” and
3. He has only violated norms, not laws.

My reactions are as follows:

1. The only plausible explanation of Trump’s behavior, particularly after hearing yesterday’s testimony, is that he attempted to compel the Ukrainian government to intervene in our election purely for his personal benefit. No other explanation even remotely makes sense.
2. What Trump meant by “draining the swamp,” both then and now, was not clear. In any event, complying with campaign promises to take on the establishment is not a legitimate justification for committing high crimes and misdemeanors against the American political system.
3. Norms are on a continuum, based on their importance to the integrity of our political system. For example, changing the date on which one customarily gives the State of the Union address would hardly be a high crime and misdemeanor. Directing the Justice Department to bring frivolous criminal charges against political adversaries clearly is. Trying to force foreign countries to assist with a re-election campaign in a manner inconsistent with our declared national interests unquestionably falls on the latter end of the spectrum. In other words, abuses of power may not be technical violations of the law, but they are certainly valid grounds for impeachment.