Month: December 2019

“The Godfather” was grand and quintessentially baroque. “Godfather II” was a sweeping sociological and psychological statement about corruption and the increasing irrelevance of the mob in light of changed circumstances. “Goodfellas” made being a gangster feel exhilarating. “The Irishman” contains numerous obvious allusions to all three of these movies, but it is a very different kind of experience. The effect of it, if anything, is a bit depressing.

“The Irishman” is essentially about two things. First, it demythologizes the mob. The characters are shown, not as poets or existential heroes, but as plodding, linear, unimaginative people who view violence as just another way of making a living. There is nothing glamorous about their lives: most wind up dead; some waste away in prison; the lucky ones just lose their families and die unmourned. The second is about the passage of time. You see the details of the world in the 1960’s and 1970’s and marvel at how everything has changed. We are told that Jimmy Hoffa was once as big as the Beatles (I don’t remember that, but I was just a kid then); today, the workers at the nursing home don’t even recognize his name.

In an odd way, it’s a perfectly appropriate movie for New Year’s Day. It’s not thrilling, but it’s never boring. Happy New Year!

She was strongly opposed to impeachment at first; she thought it was unnecessarily divisive, that it would fail, and that it would be a counterproductive distraction from the Democrats’ successful core messages on the economy and health care. After the Ukraine episode came to light, however, she changed her position, and managed the process in a way to maximize its limited political benefits and maintain party unity. All the while, she succeeded in keeping the government open and in winning some benefits for the public, particularly with her changes to the USMCA.

2019 was the year the left started to fight back more effectively against Trumpism; she was unquestionably the leader of that fight. And so, Nancy Pelosi is the woman of the year.

So Trump chose to bomb in Iraq

‘Cause our men have been under attack.

So a new Iraq war?

It would be number four.

Is it really his plan to go back?

The culture war really is a product of the 1960’s. There was hope that the election of Barack Obama, who came of age after the sixties and had no culture war history, would effectively put an end to that stage of American history. In addition, most of the indicators of social ills that are tied to cultural issues (violent crime, abortion, drug use, divorce rates, etc.) have actually improved over the last twenty years or so. At first glance, therefore, you would suspect that tensions would have eased. In fact, they’re worse than ever. Why?

Several reasons:

1. Millennials, for a variety of reasons, are not embracing Christianity. Christians no longer see themselves as the “Moral Majority,” and they feel threatened.
2. Fox News beats the culture war drum 24/7.
3. The election of an African-American president with a Muslim-sounding name resulted in a backlash which combined both racial and cultural elements in an ugly stew. Periodic stories discussing a minority-majority America in the near future don’t help, as white America associates racial diversity with political correctness and attacks on its values.
4. The gay marriage decision and, to some extent, gay triumphalism.
5. Social media amplify the voices of extremists on both sides.

Cultural issues, even more than economic issues, are tearing our country apart. What is the best way to deal with them? As I’ve noted several times in the recent past, the best approach is strategic patience and understanding on the part of the left.

The struggle for democratic rights in Hong Kong reminds me of nothing so much as one of those existentialist movies from the 1960’s–think “Cool Hand Luke.” In interview after interview, the students and their allies make it clear that they don’t expect to win, but they can’t just sit back and watch the Chinese government turn Hong Kong into an open air prison, because that would be a denial of their own humanity.

The ultimate hopelessness of the cause makes it all the more admirable, and should remind us that liberal democracy is something more than an ATM that one jettisons when it doesn’t produce the desired amount of cash. If only the GOP would get that message! By enabling Trump’s authoritarian impulses for their own modest political benefit, they are effectively marking themselves as allies of the Chinese government.

In India, in Iraq, in Iran, in Lebanon, in Venezuela, in Turkey, and even in America, where Trump faces impeachment, supporters of liberal democratic rights have started to fight back against sectarian and authoritarian governments. They may not win, but at least they aren’t acquiescing to illiberalism. That is why Hong Kong is the story of the year.

Yes! A substantial majority of Likud voters decided to give up a guaranteed share of power and to force the nation into an unnecessary election that no one wants solely to protect the interests of their indicted leader.

Does that make sense to you? Me, neither, but we don’t belong to a cult. Let’s hope the Israeli voters punish them for their irresponsibility.

They require no introduction, but I’ll give them one, anyway.

The one had a vision of a company that would use the internet to unite the world peacefully, and make him billions along the way. For a while, it seemed to work, and the company was widely praised as a force for positive, liberal change, particularly during the Arab Spring. But then the potential for social media to be used for evil became obvious, governments started to crack down, and the business model failed, except as a generator of enormous profits. Today, it seems inevitable that the company will be regulated as a public utility, broken up, or both, and it is evolving more into an American national tech champion than a pioneer of globalization.

The other was the head of state of a country with oil and nuclear weapons, but an economy roughly the size of Australia’s. A hard, cynical man who believes in nothing but his own indispensability and regaining the lost greatness of his nation, he used unconventional means, including irregular troops and internet trolls, along with some pure butchery, conservative ideology, and clever diplomacy to expand his influence. He stands for both the power of globalization and its ultimate limits.

I give you the men of the decade: Mark Zuckerberg and Vladimir Putin.

There are two iron laws of primary campaigns: every serious candidate is entitled to at least one boomlet; and, notwithstanding the noise and drama, the winner is usually the favorite at the beginning. Today, we are hearing that Sanders is surging. Is that real?

Only to a very limited extent. Yes, Bernie appears to have recovered nicely from his heart attack. He has a core of devoted supporters and plenty of money. In some ways, as I will explain in a future post, he would be a more formidable opponent for Trump than Warren, although she would make a far better president. He’s clearly not going away any time soon.

That said, he’s still way too far left for the mainstream of the Democratic Party, so he’s only going to win if we have a massive recession in the next few months, or if we have a brokered convention. Don’t bet the ranch on either of those occurring.

At the beginning of the decade, the right-wing populist backlash had begun, China was emerging as an economic and military threat, the Middle East was unsettled, Iran was trying to build a bomb, the Russian bear was growling in the near abroad, Europe was looking divided and sclerotic, and the Patriots were a threat to win the Super Bowl. Today . . . well, you get the idea. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

The one thing that has clearly changed is the role of the internet in our lives. Social media are vastly more widespread and influential than they were in 2010. The early dream of a peacefully interconnected world was ruined by hackers, spammers, bots, white supremacists, Russian trolls, perverts, and the like. The dream is starting to look more like a nightmare to the average citizen.

Unfortunately, that, to me, is the story of the decade.

Assume, for purposes of argument, that McConnell and the GOP majority in the Senate go with my Option #1, and refuse to call any witnesses; the decision would, therefore, be made solely on the basis of the record provided by the House. What does that mean for the rationale for acquittal?

It means the credibility of the witnesses in the House proceedings cannot be effectively attacked, and the GOP senators can’t use the favorite talking point of their House counterparts–that the process was fundamentally unfair to Trump–as the basis for their vote. That leaves them with two possible rationales. The first–that there is insufficient testimony from anyone with first hand knowledge of Trump’s statements and motives to support removal–will look absurd to anyone reading about the case 20 years from now, given that the Senate was presented with the opportunity to call several such witnesses and declined. The second is that Trump’s actions, while reprehensible, are not enough to merit impeachment. This line of reasoning will both enrage the president and send a message that coercing a foreign nation to intervene in American elections is not a big deal. That isn’t a message that is going to make Collins or Murkowski feel very comfortable.

For thousands of years, the growing of cotton was a very small scale affair, mostly involving Indian farmers. Technological change and the introduction of capitalism changed all of that. First there was “war capitalism,” driven by the forcible appropriation of land and slavery. Conditions for workers in the mills were horrific, too. Then you had “industrial capitalism,” in which state power was used in a variety of ways to nudge, and sometimes compel, farmers around the world to give up growing other crops and to raise cotton exclusively. The result was widespread misery and famine. The British and American mill workers, for their part, ultimately put themselves out of work by demanding decent working conditions. Today, most cotton and cloth production takes place in impoverished countries, and the march of creative destruction continues unabated.

It is a depressing story, to say the least. I do have to make the following points in defense of capitalism, however: the history of the production of cotton cloth is not typical of capitalism, which did not typically depend on coercion and slavery; and the vast and widespread benefits to consumers are not considered in the book. For the world in its entirety, cheap cotton cloth was a blessing, not a curse, the immense pain it inflicted on its producers notwithstanding.

“Empire of Cotton” is a depressing book, particularly for admirers of capitalism. It can be a bit repetitive, too. Nevertheless, if you have a chance, you should read it, because it has something important to say about the nature of capitalism and globalization.

The book is too complex to summarize in a single post, but the crux of it revolves around the transition from a production model based on the forcible appropriation of land and slavery ( reasonably called “war capitalism” in the book) to what is referred to as “industrial capitalism.” Global cotton production increased dramatically, even without slavery, after the Civil War through the use of state power in the form of infrastructure investments, technical assistance, various kinds of subsidies, the enforcement of contracts on an international basis, and a degree of coercion. The results were typically disastrous for the producers; for example, Indian farmers who were prodded by British authorities to plant cotton exclusively for the ultimate benefit of mill owners and workers in the UK starved by the millions when prices fell, as they inevitably did on occasion.

If misery was a by-product of cotton production all over the world, even without slavery, does that weaken the case for reparations for the descendants of American slaves? No, but it means that supporters of reparations need to be precise. The injury which arguably requires compensation is not simple economic harm, but the denial of basic humanity, which did not occur in established societies like India and Egypt.

Kamala Harris is already out the door. Cory Booker, in all likelihood, will be soon to follow. Michael Bloomberg has plenty of money, but a very limited constituency. Mayor Pete and Klobuchar are the remaining viable Biden replacements. Who would be the best choice?

They have different strengths and weaknesses. Mayor Pete has the ability to raise money, and the novelty of his campaign is attractive to some, but he can sound as technocratic as Mr. Spock, and his lack of relevant experience is a legitimate issue. Klobuchar, on the other hand, has a solid legislative and electoral record, but lacks sizzle. She doesn’t have much money, and her campaign will be dead if she doesn’t somehow win Iowa.

To me, Klobuchar would be both a better nominee and a better president. It’s a moot point, however; neither candidate has any obvious appeal to minority voters, so the likelihood of a Biden replacement victory is very low.

Progressives usually accuse Joe Biden of being “naïve” when he insists that he can work with Republicans. Cynical supporters maintain that Biden knows that the GOP won’t work with him, and that he is simply telling his supporters what they want to hear. Is there a better argument in his favor?

Yes, although you will never hear it from him, because it is a variant of the cynical position. It starts with these premises: (a) the system is currently stacked against any major progressive changes, and no amount of “fighting” can alter that; (b) the country is dangerously divided, and liberal democracy is at risk from the radical right; and (c) time and demographics are on the side of the progressives, but that train won’t arrive for a few years. As a result, what we need is a transitional figure who can purge the system of Trumpism without pushing too hard for divisive progressive reforms over the next four years. After rebuilding unity and trust by feeding the alligators during a single term, Biden can then turn the job over to a younger progressive in 2024, at which time the demographic situation will look more promising than it does today.

If you want fundamental change immediately, this isn’t ideal, but with the current Supreme Court, the Electoral College, and the rules of the Senate, what’s the more plausible alternative to treading water and waiting for the future?

I asked my wife, who is a sucker for anything Christmas, to identify the capital of American Christmas, based on the images she sees on TV. She said it was in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. She’s right; there is even a Christmas card for sale of a Norman Rockwell painting of downtown Stockbridge. I almost bought it this year, but I didn’t.

I grew up in a town in Ohio that looked a lot like Stockbridge, so all of those images of snow, large colonial homes, and happy, affluent white people inevitably resonate with me. Most Americans have never lived in a place like that, however. Why do they relate so strongly to those images?

Unfortunately, the answer is fairly obvious: at an unconscious level, we accept the notion of white suburban America as the real America. The Christmas commercials and the Hallmark movies are telling us what we want to hear. That’s the reactionary position, and we need to resist it.