Month: January 2020

I recommend the following for your reading pleasure:

1. An article on Vox.com about Lamar Alexander’s position on impeachment. The gist of it is that even retirement isn’t enough to protect wayward GOP members of Congress; they fear the loss of future employment opportunities, and even ostracism, at the hands of the reactionary mob. The author refers to this as “right-wing political correctness.” He’s right.

2. An article on Politico about Trump and toxic masculinity. The gist of it is that the ideal of manhood in this country used to consist of modesty, grit, stoicism, and self-sacrifice; Trump embodies the opposite of all of those qualities, but his obnoxious combination of bluster and whining is viewed as “strength” by large segments of the public. Once again, the author is completely correct; the better question is, how did this happen?

I think the answer to the question comes in two parts. The first is the primacy of sixties values: authenticity, freedom, and self-expression. The second is the relative decline of the value of traditional masculinity in the marketplace. Quiet stoicism was all well and good when you were in charge; if that’s not working, because knowledge is now more important than brute physical strength, maybe it’s time to try something completely different. You’re a victim; why not say so? It might win you some sympathy, and at the very least, it will make you feel better.

It seems totally fitting that Brexit and the end of the impeachment trial are likely to take place on the same day. Both were battles between populists with little regard for the truth and the establishment; both generated plenty of heat at the time; both are ending in a fizzle; and both apparently are victories for the populists.

But not so fast! Most of the real Brexit battles lie in the future, as the devil still steadfastly remains in the details, while Trump’s acquittal is about as far from an exoneration as you can get. Additional details about the pain in Ukraine will probably continue to dribble out, and some GOP senators are going to admit that the president’s behavior was considerably less than “perfecto.” The absence of witnesses and the apparent acceptance of self-serving and autocratic behavior by the president will be a public relations problem for the GOP during the campaign. And so, the battle will go on, just in a different form.

The desire to cover up bad news isn’t limited to socialist countries–it’s a universal trait. It happens more often in China, however, because:

1. The Chinese government obviously has more power to limit communications than most governments, including ours;

2. Local officials are evaluated based on their ability to avoid trouble, so they have every reason to try and keep things quiet as long as possible; and

3. When you have arbitrary one man government, no one wants to get too far ahead of the leadership, because it has obvious consequences.

Unfortunately for the Chinese, even with the government’s control of the internet, bad news has a way of getting out, and even being embellished. Hence, the depressingly familiar cycle of a failed coverup, followed by harsh measures that come too late.

What we are seeing now is the rule, not an aberration. It will happen again as long as the Chinese system remains as opaque as it is today.

Everyone knows what a successful peace plan looks like: the use of the 1967 borders, with minimal and realistic land swaps; the payment of compensation in exchange for the loss of the right of return; a demilitarized Palestinian state; and some historically Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem as the capital of the new state. It hasn’t happened, because both sides (with reason) felt that the risks of genuinely trying to make peace outweighed the benefits.

I don’t claim to be an expert in the political geography of the West Bank, but anyone can look at the Trump map and see that it doesn’t result in a viable Palestinian state. That wasn’t the objective. The objectives were to help Bibi and the man on golf cart in their upcoming re-election campaigns, and to show the Palestinians that they are at the mercy of the Israelis and the Americans. You might think this is outrageously bad, Trump and Bibi say, but if you say no, conditions on the ground will only get worse, and no one in the outside world cares enough about you to help you.

How will the Palestinians react? They will look for diplomatic help from Europe, China, and Russia in the short run. They will undoubtedly get some, but not enough to make a tangible difference. Their big picture is the American election. If a Democrat wins, relations between the US and Israel will become much frostier, and America will once again attempt to be an even-handed mediator. If not, and Trump wins, they’re just screwed, barring a revolution in Egypt or Jordan or a highly improbable Iranian military victory over the US and Israel.

As I noted in my previous post, the case for free public college depends on the analogy to primary and secondary education and the evolving needs of an increasingly knowledge-based economy. I don’t buy the analogy; there are tens of millions of jobs out there that don’t in any way require a college education, and I can’t think of a good reason why the people who fill them should have to support college graduates with their tax dollars. Nevertheless, I would agree that the argument can be made with a straight face.

As to blanket programs forgiving existing student loan debt–not so much. That debt was entered into freely, and in most cases, was a good investment. Unlike free public college, debt forgiveness doesn’t expand educational opportunities and provide value to society; it is just a handout to people who don’t deserve one. I see no public benefit in it whatsoever.

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I am opposed to paying reparations to the descendants of slaves. At least they have a case, however, based on history and their current circumstances. I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay reparations to students, which is essentially what the proponents of debt forgiveness are suggesting.

The obvious point about “free” government services is that they aren’t really free; they’re paid for by taxpayers, not consumers. Under what circumstances is that appropriate?

Making public services free to consumers makes sense if one or both of the following conditions exist:

1. Use of the services at one point or another is close to universal; or

2. Members of the general public who do not use the services themselves nonetheless benefit substantially in some way from their availability.

Health care is an obvious example of #1; public primary and secondary school is an example of #2. Primary and secondary schooling is mandatory, and the public benefits from it in a wide variety of ways, so asking the taxpayers to fund it is not much of a reach.

Does “free” public college meet either of these standards? Not #1, for sure; a large percentage of the population does not go to college. I don’t think the value added to society by making college free even to people who can otherwise afford it is sufficient to meet the second test, either. However, it is at least a somewhat debatable point, given the ongoing shift to a knowledge-based economy, and the argument for the Sanders plan hinges on it.

What about extinguishing existing debt for education? That will be the subject of my next post.

When the Senate decides to acquit

The Democrats should throw a fit.

The record will show

That Trump surely should go.

Now the voters must take charge of it.

Ezra Klein makes the case for Warren much as I did–by talking up her competence as a policymaker and executive. He assumes that none of Warren’s grand plans will actually become law, but argues that her vast knowledge of government and her familiarity with personnel would make her a good president. It all makes perfect sense.

Here are the arguments on the other side, however:

1. SHE CAN’T WIN THE ELECTION: As I’ve noted many times before, Warren is extremely vulnerable on identity and values issues. She is the weakest possible nominee–even weaker than Sanders. The polls bear that out.
2. SHE IS UNIQUELY DIVISIVE: Of the five remaining serious candidates, she is the most committed culture warrior. When you add that to her determination to fight 24/7 for her plans, what you get is a president who not only divides red from blue, but Democratic moderates from progressives. The Democratic Party might well crack under the strain, to the obvious benefit of the GOP.
3. HER IDEAS ON FOREIGN POLICY ARE, AT BEST, UNFORMED: With her enthusiasm for tariffs, her contempt for trade agreements, and her fear of military involvement anywhere on the globe, she sounds more like a left-wing version of Trump than a more pacific version of Obama. That’s not good.

To me, the negatives substantially outweigh the positives. Will the electorate agree? As of now, it appears the answer is yes.

One of the noteworthy paradoxes of American politics is the large number of relatively poor people in red states who vote for GOP politicians who are committed to cutting their benefits. Why does this happen, and can it be stopped?

A big part of the answer to the first question is that red state voters, like many others, frequently attach more importance to issues of identity and values than their economic interests. In this, they are joined by the elderly, the other large group that votes for the GOP in spite of its frequent threats to cut benefits. The second part of the equation, however, is that the voters in question view themselves as rugged individuals who were screwed over by the system; while “welfare” is for lazy minorities, they just want justice and their old jobs back. In this, they are encouraged by opportunistic GOP politicians who blame Washington and “elitists” for everything and make idle promises to bring back jobs that are gone for good. Democratic promises of additional investment in poor areas and more government benefits are unpersuasive compared to this toxic cocktail of resentment and nostalgia.

The only way I can see to combat this is with really authentic sounding economic populism; in other words, turn the resentment that the GOP stokes against the federal government against the local capitalists. It works for Sherrod Brown; it might work, to some extent, for Bernie Sanders.

The NYT is reporting that a draft of a book by Bolton provides first hand support for the Democrats’ position that Trump directed the withholding of funds to Ukraine purely for his own political purposes. To put it mildly, that revelation is going to be an embarrassment to Trump’s attorneys, if they try to make the case on Trump’s intent today, as they presumably will.

There is no particular reason to believe that the Senate is ultimately going to vote to hear witnesses. We have always known that Trump will be acquitted. That leaves the Democrats in the following position:

1. They don’t have to run the risk of actually calling Bolton;

2. The facts supporting their allegations are already public knowledge, anyway; and

3. Democratic candidates for Senate seats can run against both an unjust acquittal and a patently unfair process. Here’s looking at you, Susan Collins.

That’s about as good as it could get under the circumstances.

It’s fair to say that both Trump and the Iranians believe that it is. In Trump’s case, he thinks that “maximum pressure” will ultimately force the Iranians to choose between capitulation and regime change; for the Iranians, the hope is that a Democrat will win in November and offer to bring back the nuclear agreement.

Both sides can’t be right, but both could be wrong. In Trump’s case, the examples of Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela aren’t exactly encouraging. The Iranians, of course, could be betting on the wrong horse in the election. Then what?

Given a choice between peaceful surrender and war, which do you think they’ll pick?

Bret Stephens is well aware of Donald Trump’s weaknesses, thank you. He despises the man as much as I do. For all that, he won’t vote for Bernie Sanders if he is the Democratic nominee. Here are his reasons, and my responses:

1. IN SPITE OF HIS AUTHORITARIAN LEANINGS AND CORRUPTION, TRUMP HASN’T REALLY TRASHED THE CONSTITUTION YET: Do you really want to bet that he wouldn’t do it in a second term, particularly with the help of his trusty sidekick Barr? That’s not a risk I’m willing to run.

2. THE SANDERS PROGRAM WOULD DESTROY OUR ECONOMY: There is zero chance of President Sanders getting his program through the system in the absence of a massive recession that completely destroys America’s faith in the capitalist system between now and November. Don’t wager the ranch on that.

3. A SANDERS VICTORY WILL RESULT IN A RIGHT-WING BACKLASH THAT WILL MAKE THE TRUMP ERA LOOK MILD: Not necessarily, because a potential backlash would really focus on cultural issues, not socialism, and Bernie is a more reluctant culture warrior than Elizabeth Warren. He hasn’t moved to the right on values issues to the extent that I think he needs to, but he would save his energy for Wall Street, not religious fundamentalists.

The bottom line is that I think Sanders would make a terrible president, but I will vote for him if he is the nominee, because he can’t possibly do as much damage to our country as the incumbent.

I’m in shock over this one, to be honest.

I was never a big Bryant fan. I thought he took way too many bad shots, and that his hypercompetitiveness made him a bad teammate; there was the Denver thing, too. That said, he was unquestionably a thoughtful man whose horizons extended well beyond basketball. He had much to offer the world even after his retirement. He will be sorely missed, and not just by NBA fans.

Ezra Klein argues in an NYT column that the system is stacked against the Democrats, and that the problem will get worse over time. Is he right?

Yes and no, for the following reasons:

1. THE GOP ISN’T AS UNITED AS HE THINKS: I’ve gone to a lot of trouble over the last 4+ years to prove that the GOP is a coalition of four different ideological factions which don’t actually agree on very much. If you want proof, just consider this: their only significant legislative accomplishment during the two years they controlled both houses of Congress was the tax cut. The divisions are likely to become more visible as there is more discussion about “national conservatism,” which includes a repudiation of the regressive tax cuts so loved by PBPs.

2. WE’VE REACHED THE HIGH WATER MARK OF GOP GERRYMANDERING: Notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision, the public’s tolerance of gerrymandering is running thin. State constitutions are being used to put an end to the problem, and the Democrats are taking state legislative races more seriously.

3. THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROBLEM WILL IMPROVE AFTER 2020 AS A RESULT OF THE CENSUS: No elaboration is necessary.

4. BUT THE SENATE REALLY IS A PROBLEM FOR THE LEFT: There are no good solutions for the Democrats in the Senate even if the filibuster is eliminated. The Democrats will have to run candidates in rural states that appeal to white Christian identity and vision voters, not blue culture warriors or socialists. Bernie, AOC, and the like should take note.

It isn’t easy to bring order to Sanders’ scattered thoughts on America’s relationship with China, but here is my best effort, along with some commentary:

1. We’re going to talk about human rights again. No more sucking up to Xi. (A positive change as long as it doesn’t drive everything else)

2. The Chinese government has improved the lives of most of its people over the last thirty years. We need to keep that in mind as we discuss their human rights record. (A welcome bit of nuance, probably due to Bernie’s sympathy for lefties)

3. We need to be able to work with China on climate change. (Absolutely correct)

4. We need to prevent big, bad corporations from moving manufacturing jobs to China and damaging American workers. We’ll continue the Trumpian tariffs, but for a different purpose. (Oh, no! The jobs will just move to Vietnam unless Bernie imposes tariffs on them, too, which would be even worse. The manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back, and consumers will suffer)

5. Let’s cut the defense budget and rely solely on diplomacy to protect our interests and the interests of our allies. (Diplomacy without the threat of force isn’t going to protect the sea lanes to Japan and South Korea. Do that, and Asia turns into a Chinese sphere of influence)

In short, I see lots of ineffectual hectoring about human rights, backed by, well, nothing. The Chinese will get away with anything they want in the South China Sea, supply chains will be further disrupted, and our alliances will suffer as a result. It won’t be pretty.