Month: December 2019

In Sunday’s NYT column, Ross Douthat uses Christmas as a jumping-off point to argue that: (a) Christianity is more pervasive in our lives, and our values, then we realize; and (b) you can’t ultimately accept Christian ethics without embracing its dogmas and metaphysics. Is he right?

On (a), yes; it’s an argument I’ve made many times before. You need to be leery of the notion that Christianity, with its emphasis on the value of each human life, is a buffer against totalitarianism, however; after all, Orthodox Russia and Protestant/Catholic Germany both turned into totalitarian states. In addition, while religious ideas of equality inspired the Abolitionists and the Civil Rights Movement, the conservative opponents of both were committed Christians, too. Finally, of course, there is the overwhelming evangelical support for Trump. Being a Christian does not, by itself, put you on the right side of history, or even any debate about equality.

On (b), no, partly because different Christian groupings have wildly different ideas about both dogma and metaphysics. Are we talking about the side which believes in an infallible pope, transubstantiation, and the power of saints, or the side that doesn’t? There is no single orthodox position accepted by both.

Christmas is a perfect example of how ideas can become unmoored from their origins and still work. For most people, Christmas has lost its religious significance; it is now a day, like Chinese New Year, to escape the tyranny of commonplace concerns and to reconnect with family and the past. It works just fine that way. It’s still going strong, and will for the foreseeable future.

Merry Christmas!

I heard a joke on the radio to the effect that a Democratic fundraiser in a wine cave is perfectly appropriate, because Democrats are best known for whining and caving. Is that true?

In a way, yes. The GOP is a swaggering daddy party; the Democrats, on the other hand, are a predominantly female party that prefers making deals and getting things done to bellowing and needlessly dividing the country. As a result, Biden and Mayor Pete are prospering with a message of unifying the country; you wouldn’t see anyone with that message running in a GOP primary, even before Trump.

Democrats compromise when it is necessary to keep the country going. That makes them the adult party as well as the mommy party. There is no reason to apologize for that; like every family, every country needs adults somewhere.

Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren are profoundly different people and politicians, but they use similar language to describe barriers to the popular will that are baked into our system. Trump loves to talk about the “deep state,” the “rigged system,” and “draining the swamp,” while Warren’s new overriding campaign theme is “corruption.” Are they right, and are they talking about the same thing?

Hardly.

If you deconstruct Trump’s thought patterns (a frightening task, to be sure), it runs something like this:

1. I was elected by a majority of real Americans;

2. The will of the people should be respected in a democracy; therefore

3. Anything I do as the representative of the people is sacrosanct, and any barriers to their will should be eliminated.

In the real world, of course, what he means by this is that people who obey the law and longstanding liberal democratic norms are getting in his way, and need to go. That’s a description of a banana republic, not the United States of America.

For her part, Warren’s real concern is that the wealthy have too much access to power in this country. She is disguising an attack on the First Amendment rights of wealthy people by illogically associating them with Trump’s innumerable misdeeds in office. Trump’s corruption is sui generis; it ought to be treated that way.

If you want to see the future of the GOP, check out a state in which the Democrats have minimal influence in government, so alliances among the factions are unnecessary. Try Texas, for example.

The important political battles in Texas pit pro-business “moderates” (in my terminology, PBPs) against social conservatives (Reactionaries). The PBP faction wants to improve education and infrastructure to help the state’s economy; the Reactionaries want bathroom bills and right-wing high school textbooks. The PBPs view the Reactionary agenda as being a distraction at best and a detriment to the state’s business-friendly reputation at worst. After a few years in which the PBPs were barely hanging on, the two factions appear to have reached some sort of an equilibrium, but the battle will continue.

You will see the same phenomenon at the national level in the coming years. The emerging question is whether Trump’s successor as leader of the GOP will be a “national conservative” with a reactionary, interventionist, pro-worker economic agenda. My guess is that the WSJ and the other PBP enforcers still have enough clout in the party to prevent that from happening in the foreseeable future, but the issue is definitely up for debate, as evidenced by Trump’s acceptance of union-supported changes to his USMCA over the objections of business interests.

(It’s 5:00 on December 24. Bob Cratchit is working in his cubicle at Scrooge, LLC when the boss, in “managing by walking around” mode, comes by.)

BC: Mr. Scrooge, sir.

S: What is it (looks for name on the cubicle) . . . Cratchit?

BC: Can I please have tomorrow off, sir?

S: Why?

BC: Why, it’s Christmas, sir.

S: Not in China, it isn’t. How am I supposed to compete with those people and their low labor costs if I give people like you time off?

BC: But Trump is protecting you from the Chinese with his tariffs, isn’t he?

S: His tariffs don’t help, and the uncertainty is killing me. I have no idea what he’ll do on a day-to-day basis. It makes it impossible to run my business.

BC: Wow, you’ve really soured on him in the last year. It sounds like you support impeachment.

S: Not a chance! He may be erratic, egotistical, and out of control, but at least he’s on my side. If he doesn’t win next year, we could get Sanders or Warren, and then I’d be really screwed. You, too. You could be out of a job.

BC: At least Warren and Sanders support Medicare-for-all. I could really use that. I have a special needs child, you know.

(Scrooge peers into the cubicle again and sees a photo of Tiny Tim)

S: Is that him?

BC: Yes, sir.

(Scrooge hobbles around the office with an exaggerated limp)

BC: He’s in really bad shape, sir. Why are you making fun of him?

S: I don’t have time for that political correctness crap.

BC: You sound just like Trump.

S: On his more lucid days, he makes me proud to be an American again. I just wish he would have a few more of them and stop the trade war.

BC: But what about Christmas?

S: You’ll probably complain to some stupid federal agency that Trump hasn’t abolished yet if I don’t give you a day off, so you can stay home. But keep your phone on—I will send you some spreadsheets to analyze.

(He thinks for a minute)

S: Hey, there’s an idea! You could be an independent contractor . . . .

I don’t think Trump’s pressure will bring the Iranians to the table, given the government’s political constraints, but assume that I’m wrong, and negotiations ensue. What could Trump reasonably expect to get in a second deal that wasn’t attainable in the first one?

Here are the possibilities, and my reactions:

1. AN EXTENDED TIMEFRAME ON THE AGREEMENT: The other parties to the agreement would have no philosophical objection to this, as it would not change the framework of the deal. The Iranians might agree to it if they received some face-saving concessions. THE VERDICT: Quite possible.

2. LIMITATIONS ON IRANIAN BALLISTIC MISSILES: This one would be harder to enforce than limitations of nuclear activity. THE VERDICT: Questionable, but not beyond the realm of possibility.

3. TOUGHER INSPECTION PROTOCOLS: The current ones are pretty strict. Don’t hold your breath. THE VERDICT: Very doubtful.

4. LIMITS ON IRANIAN SUPPORT FOR FOREIGN PROXIES: Completely unenforceable and an unrealistic violation of Iranian sovereignty. THE VERDICT: Forget it.

The author of a book on cults made that case to an interviewer on Vox.com a few days ago. The Vox interviewer, who noted that Trump uses the same mechanisms of communication as every other politician, seemed dubious, and with some reason.

Neither party to the interview really said this, but the principal reason the issue comes up is that the GOP as a whole has been willing to abandon some of its core beliefs just to satisfy his whim. Russia used to be an enemy; today, Putin is our ideological soul mate. The FBI and the CIA used to protect us; now, they’re the deep state. Kim Jong Un used to be a murderous dictator; now, he’s sort of a good guy. Free trade used to be a positive thing; today, we embrace tariffs. And so on.

I think the true test of the theory will come if Trump ever abandons his support of regressive tax cuts and embraces the economic ideas of “national conservatism.” Would the GOP establishment be willing to go that far? At this point, anything seems possible, but it’s doubtful we’ll ever find out, as Trump’s populism on domestic issues has always been restricted to his style, not his substance.

During Thursday’s debate, Sanders once again portrayed the health care issue as a battle between a much abused public and the greedy drug and insurance companies. That is a grotesque oversimplification, and the voters know it, even if Bernie doesn’t. Refusing to confront the real problems, and the corresponding fears, involved in completely revamping roughly 17 percent of our economy does not help to sell the program to a public that is largely skeptical of expanded government.

In light of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in the latest of a never-ending string of Obamacare cases, I’m surprised that Sanders doesn’t make more of an effort to argue that M4A would actually be more legally defensible than Obamacare. If the current system is always going to be hanging by a slender legal thread, why not go for the whole enchilada?

The answer, I suppose, is that the legal argument, regardless of its merits, interferes with his favorite poor us and evil them narrative. That is a fundamental problem with his candidacy; he lets his ideology define the facts, like so many members of the GOP.

I’m on a roll this morning.

I’M DREAMING OF TRUMP’S IMPEACHMENT

I’m dreaming of Trump’s impeachment.

It’s surely time for him to go.

Now the House has spoken.

The system’s broken.

The trial will only be for show.

_________________

I’m dreaming of Trump’s impeachment.

We’ve reached the time to make things right.

May our days be merry and bright.

And may the voters finally see the light.

On the Democrat candidate Bern.

You can bet he won’t make a right turn.

He’s tight with the base

But in this kind of race

It’s the center that rules, as he’ll learn.

On the Democrat candidate Joe.

The polls say he’s leading, you know.

The left wants him gone.

He keeps hanging on

But we’ve still got a long way to go.

On the Democrat candidate Liz.

Her campaign’s not lacking for fizz.

She hates billionaires.

Take her on, if you dare

‘Cause that’s just the way that it is.

Comments on last night’s debate:

1. I don’t know if it was because he likes the LA sunshine, or his preparation was better, or he had a nap before the debate, but this was, by far, Biden’s best performance. That’s good news! He doesn’t have to win the debates; he just has to avoid losing them.
2. We had our first extended confrontation between the two intellectual giants over donors, with no clear winner.
3. It occurred to me that you can break the field down into overly hot, intense performers (Warren, Steyer, and Sanders), the icy and urbane Mayor Pete, and everyone else. My guess is that the viewers prefer someone who looks relaxed, but not to the point of being an android. That helps Biden, Klobuchar, and Yang, the last of whom is actually the best of the lot.
4. Don’t expect any significant shifts in the polls as a result of this debate, which is fine with the leaders.

Not as a result of impeachment, and possibly not after the 2020 election, but at some point, Donald Trump will leave office. The question is, then what will he do with himself, assuming reasonable health?

The answer is clear–THE SAME STUFF HE’S DOING NOW! He’s going to continue to tweet provocatively and hold id-heavy rallies, because that’s how he rolls. Just enjoying the perks of being an everyday billionaire is nothing compared to being the celebrity he is today. He’s not going to fade away into Trump Tower. He couldn’t stand the loss of attention, and his reactionary fans won’t want to let him go.

That’s a bit of a nightmare for us, of course, but imagine what it means to the GOP candidates who try to pick up the torch after he leaves. They’re never going to be free of him. He’ll be a big black cloud hanging over the entire party. Too bad.

This morning, Donald Trump stands accused of being a sort of modern day Catiline: a threat to the political system that can only be addressed by his removal from office. It is a form of ostracism. It is a stain on his reputation that will never disappear.

Even Trump, whose moral obtuseness knows no bounds, understands this, and it drives him crazy. The question for the day is, how did this come to pass, particularly after the Mueller investigation?

I think the answer is relatively simple– Trump can’t see any difference between running the Trump Organization and the country. As a developer, I’m sure he would have had no qualms about digging up dirt to use against, say, a member of a zoning board. No one would expend much energy condemning him for doing that, and he couldn’t be prosecuted for it. Why should things be different just because he is now the CEO of a much larger and important organization, America, LLC?

Because, of course, there is no America, LLC, and the presidency is a public trust, not a prize. Trump has no understanding of that distinction. He never will.