Month: January 2020

The Constitution doesn’t tell us very much about how the impeachment process is supposed to work. Our legal system gives us two plausible models for it:

1. GRAND JURY/TRIAL: The House serves as a sort of grand jury and creates the indictment; the Senate handles the trial. Following this model, the president has few rights in the House, and live witnesses are necessary in the Senate.

2. TRIAL COURT/APPELLATE COURT: The House actually holds a trial with live witnesses, participation by the president’s counsel, and cross-examination. After the House creates a complete record, the Senate reviews it and makes its own legal conclusions. No witnesses are necessary in the Senate process.

The problem with the current process is that it is neither of the above. The reason for that, in a nutshell, is that the House leadership did not, and could not, know how the Senate trial would be run. As a result, what we are likely to have is a mixed process: grand jury/appellate court. Politically, that may fly, but legally and logically, it makes no sense whatsoever.

In today’s world, I guess that figures.

David Brooks begins Friday’s NYT column by arguing that Bernie Sanders can’t win a general election, because “Flyover Man” is more motivated by the culture wars than by inequality. I agree; it’s the fatal flaw in the Sanders campaign.

But Brooks goes several steps beyond that to say that American capitalism essentially gives workers what they deserve, because the evidence shows that wage increases are tightly tied to productivity. From that premise, Brooks argues that the system isn’t broken, and that public policy should be focused on increasing productivity, particularly by improving education.

There is a lot there to comment on, including the following:

1. I think that Brooks is cherry-picking his statistics. There is plenty of evidence that wage increases have not, in fact, mirrored productivity improvements since the GOP embraced tax cuts and deregulation in 1980. Most of the evidence that they have relies on less meaningful timeframes.

2. I can’t help pointing out that his beloved GOP is slashing education budgets all over the country. If improving education is the way to solve the problem, he needs to find a different vehicle to do it.

3. As several commentators have pointed out, the fact that wages for lower-skilled jobs have increased at a higher rate in recent years is due, not to the operation of the market, but to minimum wage increases that Brooks’ GOP always oppose.

4. It is practically impossible to measure productivity in many service jobs. Are teachers and health care workers more or less productive than they were 20 years ago? Who can tell? Their wages clearly aren’t dictated by productivity.

5. There is no doubt that our economy is more knowledge-based than it was 20 years ago, and that inequality has increased as a result. The real question is, what is the appropriate public response? The GOP reaction is to cut taxes for wealthy investors and services for everyone else, which, on its face, only makes things worse.

6. If you have an economy that creates high-paying jobs for a handful of well-educated people and low-paying jobs for everyone else, is improving education the answer? First of all, even assuming that it is, it will be a very slow process. Second, it isn’t clear to me that you can make major structural changes to the economy by improving skills across the board. Would a health care worker with a graduate degree be a vastly more productive, and therefore better paid employee, than one without a degree? If the health care worker with the degree decided to find a better paying job in another field, who would replace her, and how much would she get paid?

The bottom line is that you can’t solve structural problems with your economy simply by improving the quality of the workforce. In the short run, the solution to rising inequality is an increased degree of wealth redistribution. In the longer run, we need to find a way to create better jobs for more Americans which don’t require coal miners to become code writers. That is an issue the candidates for president should be addressing, but aren’t.

In an atypical foray into identity politics, the Sanders campaign apparently argued to progressives that Warren can’t expand her base beyond highly educated women who will vote for Democrats in any event. Sanders then sort of, but not exactly, walked it back. Was he right?

Yes. Neither candidate has a plausible path to the “revolution,” but Sanders would have the better chance, as he has more flexibility on cultural issues and more ability to appeal to white male workers than the female Professor Kingsfield. That’s a big part of the reason that he is winning in the progressive lane, even though it is obvious that Warren would be a more effective president.

Since Trump’s ultimate acquittal is certain, his presentation at the trial needs to be focused on the American public, not the Senate. Would you pick a friend of Jeffrey Epstein and the guy who investigated Bill Clinton to make the case to undecided voters?

Didn’t think so.

You don’t have to be Ken Jennings to get this one right.

A: An ignorant, corrupt, narcissistic blowhard with no concept whatsoever of public service, he was enabled by a party that sold its soul to him for tax cuts and right-wing judges.

Q: Who is Donald Trump?

The polls I have seen indicate that support for free trade among Democrats has increased over the last few years. There are undoubtedly two reasons for that: the negative economic impacts of Trump’s tariffs; and the general toxicity of his brand in the eyes of everyone outside his base. And yet, none of the Democratic candidates is running as a free trader in Iowa, a state which naturally leans against protectionism. Why?

Because the candidates know that the general election will almost certainly be won in the Rust Belt, and Rust Belt voters generally support measures to protect their declining industries. Promoting free trade will win you more votes in places like California and Washington, but running up huge margins in those states won’t help you get elected. So, blame the Electoral College for forcing the candidates to emphasize the agendas of swing voters over the interests of the country as a whole.

Whether or not a woman could beat Trump is the burning question of the day. In Klobuchar’s case, the answer is a ringing yes.

She presents the fewest points of vulnerability of any of the major candidates. She’s not a socialist. She doesn’t look or sound like a liberal elitist. She isn’t into culture wars. She isn’t tied to any of the failures of the Obama administration. Her responses to questions during the debates make sense–most notably, on education. As she never fails to point out, she has a record of winning in both blue and red areas, and she has had a fair amount of success working across party lines. She would be a very plausible nominee.

Luckily for Trump, she has no following among minorities, so it won’t happen. His gain is our loss.

NOT FADE AWAY

I’m gonna tell you how it’s gonna be.

You’re gonna give your votes to me.

If I lose, somehow, some way

You know I’m not gonna fade away.

You know I’m not gonna fade away.

___________

My base is bigger than a Cadillac.

They give me love, and I give it right back.

Their love for me is undoubtedly real

‘Cause only I know how they feel.

A love that’s real, not fade away.

_______________________

I’m gonna tell you how it’s gonna be.

You’re gonna give your votes to me.

I’ll be with you every day.

Trump is Trump, and not fade away.

Trump is Trump, and not fade away.

__________________

Parody of “Not Fade Away” by Buddy Holly

You’re probably not looking for a reason to be depressed, but if you are, here’s something to chew on: barring a crushing defeat in November, which doesn’t appear very likely at this point, Trump isn’t going away for the foreseeable future.

If he wins, we know what lies ahead. But even if he doesn’t, he’s not going to follow protocol and keep his mouth shut after he leaves office. First, he’s going to scream about voter fraud, threaten litigation, and do his best to tear the country apart. Then, when that doesn’t work, he’s going to retreat to Trump Tower, vow revenge, and start tweeting his brains out. His hold on the base and the media is such that he will remain the de facto leader of the GOP even after his defeat. He might even run again in 2024.

In a lot of ways, this will be more of a problem for the GOP than for the Democrats. Mitch McConnell probably won’t appreciate getting advice from Trump on a daily basis, and the next generation of Republican presidential contenders is going to be overshadowed. Oh, well.

How can this scenario be avoided? Only if he loses big in November, goes to prison, or chokes on a cheeseburger. We’re just lucky he’s as old as he is.

If Mayor Pete is the nominee, his sexual orientation will be a big bullseye on his back in the general election. What would Trump do with it?

For all of his innumerable shortcomings, Trump really hasn’t shown much interest in bashing gays. It might also alienate moderate swing voters. I don’t think you would see any commercials from him on that subject.

That doesn’t mean his reactionary acolytes would follow his lead; in fact, he would probably count on that. The high road, low road approach with surrogates probably would work nicely here.

Otherwise, Mayor Pete doesn’t present a lot of obvious avenues for attack; he’s not a socialist, a woman, or an anti-war wimp. There is probably something in his tenure at South Bend that would work, and, of course, there is the McKinsey/elitist thing. For the most part, however, he would be a difficult target, which is a big argument in favor of nominating him.

On the Democrat candidate Bern.

He thinks that it’s finally his turn.

His hard left-wing plans

Have millennial fans.

It’s the old folks whose votes he can’t earn.

As with Biden, Trump wouldn’t be able to rely on his favorite identity politics gambit against Bernie Sanders. So what would his campaign look like?

This one is obvious: socialism and Sandinistas. Trump would portray Sanders as a threat to economic prosperity and property rights at home, and a wimp with dangerous leftist leanings abroad.

A large majority of Americans (older voters in particular) are terrified of socialism, so that part of the argument would stick. I’m not sure that pictures of Bernie with the Castros and Daniel Ortega will resonate with the electorate (at least outside of Florida) in 2020, however. Those days may just be too remote to matter.

Could Sanders beat Trump? Barring a fairly severe economic downturn between now and November, probably not. He would have a better chance than Warren, however, even though she would make a much better president.

Joe Biden says he’s the McConnell whisperer; he can get his agenda through the Senate by playing an inside game. Bernie Sanders is Mr. Outside; he claims “the revolution” will force McConnell to give in. Elizabeth Warren thinks both approaches are necessary. Who’s right?

Let’s put it this way–McConnell didn’t give in even in the face of an economic crisis and 60 Democrats in the Senate in 2009, and it ultimately paid off for him and his party. Does anyone seriously believe he can be persuaded to behave differently with a majority in the Senate and 3.5 percent unemployment?

None of the candidates is persuasive on this issue, barring a national calamity and a highly unlikely Democratic sweep in November. That operates in favor of Biden, whose political identity, unlike the others, is not tied to dramatic changes in the system.

There was less aggression than you would have expected under the circumstances. No one stood out, either positively or negatively. It is unlikely that the needle moved much, if at all.

That’s the big picture. Here are my other reactions:

1. Biden wasn’t quite as effective as he was last time, but he was OK. He didn’t implode. That’s probably good enough.

2. Klobuchar was fine, but her constant pandering to the people of Iowa gets annoying. She’s running to be president of the entire country, not just Iowa. What will she talk about in March, if she’s still in the race?

3. Sanders and Warren were scapegoating their brains out. I expect that from Sanders; he doesn’t know any better. Warren should.

4. The question was about being the commander-in-chief, not the pacifist-in-chief. If you believe what you heard at the debate, we don’t even need a military.

5. No one would defend free trade, even in Iowa. That’s depressing.

In spite of her impressive intellect and humble background, Elizabeth Warren is Trump’s dream opponent, because she feeds into every identity narrative that he wants to emphasize. An elderly, sharp-tongued woman who loves wonks, taught at Harvard, and claimed to have American Indian ancestry? For Trump, that’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

His other line of attack, of course, will be socialism. Warren isn’t actually a democratic socialist, but it would be easy to make her wealth tax, innumerable social programs, and new government regulations on business look like a looming threat to your job and your 401(k). Put this information in enough commercials, and the majority of American voters will come to believe it.

There is a reason that Warren’s poll numbers against Trump are significantly worse than Biden’s or Bernie’s. In the real world, I just don’t think she would have much of a chance to beat him, barring a national calamity between now and November.