Month: February 2020

The outcome of the 2020 election will probably depend on three groups of voters:

1. MILLENNIALS: Will they show up in unprecedented numbers to support the Democrats?
2. MODERATE/CONSERVATIVE SUBURBANITES: They despise Trump, but worry about the financial consequences of voting for a Democrat.
3. WHITE WORKING MEN: Can the Democrats flip them with economic promises, or are they primarily reactionary values voters who cannot be reached at this point?

So where does Sanders stand with these groups? While a disproportionate percentage of his supporters are young, there is absolutely no evidence, either from 2016 or the 2020 primaries to date, which suggests that he can drive up the millennial turnout enough to win the election. If he is the nominee, he’s going to lose the second group, which carried the Democrats to victory in 2018; in fact, he has shown no interest in winning them over. That just leaves the third group.

For Sanders to win a general election, we all have to pray that proposed wage increases and pro-union legislation are an adequate enticement for white working men; there are no other realistic options for him. Color me skeptical in the absence of a recession or other disaster.

In anticipation of the release of “The Mirror and the Light,” the last book in Hilary Mantel’s Thomas Cromwell trilogy, I have been watching the “Wolf Hall” DVD for a second time. If anything, the viewing is better the second time than it was the first.

The highlight of “Wolf Hall” is an episode that is essentially a reworking of “A Man for All Seasons” from Cromwell’s perspective. If you’ve seen “A Man for All Seasons,” you know that More is portrayed as a witty, saintly prisoner of conscience who is sent to his death by perjured testimony that Cromwell obtains from his odious henchman, Sir Richard Rich. In “Wolf Hall,” More is an enthusiastic heretic burner and torturer who craved martyrdom and the positive press that would come with it and who probably actually made the fatal admission to Rich out of a misplaced intellectual snobbery.

Which side should we take in this battle? The portrayal of More in “Wolf Hall” as a conservative, not a prisoner of conscience, is accurate. Both men were highly articulate and spilled plenty of blood in their day, although the portrait of Cromwell as a thuggish mass murderer ignores the fact that the English Reformation was far less bloody than the religious wars elsewhere in Europe, which is testimony to his political skills, as well as those of Henry VIII. It really comes down to your view of the just society, and it is a battle that has relevance even today.

More defends his position in his closing statement at trial by saying, essentially, that he has a thousand years of history on his side–what have you got? That is the voice of a conservative at its clearest. Cromwell, for his part, was not a secular figure, but he made the Bible available to the entire population in English and promoted legislation to improve the lives of common people; he was as close to a liberal as you could get in a sixteenth century context. If More had prevailed, there would have been no Elizabethan England, and the country would have looked much like Philip II’s Spain, only without the wealth and sunshine. Would that have been an improvement? If you’re honest about it, you have to admit that we live in a Cromwellian world today, and the answer is no.

William Barr and his Flight 93 friends are undoubtedly admirers of More. It is easy to imagine Barr as a heretic burner in a different age. And while Donald Trump is a far less complex and attractive figure than Henry VIII, there are certainly similarities there . . . .

PUTIN

Putin, draw up some plans

And help take back command

Of the rest of this shattered land for me.

Only for me.

_____________

Putin, please hear my cry

And let your bombers fly

Straight to the rebel lands for me.

___________

Now, I don’t mean to bother you

But I’m in a mess.

The country’s mine; won’t settle for a square inch less.

I love power, and I know you do, too.

I leave it up to you.

_____________

Parody of “Cupid” by Sam Cooke

At some point in time, Trump is going to start arguing that the virus is evidence that we need Fortress America. The truth is that a completely secure Fortress America is not practically possible in today’s world, so what we really need is multiple layers of defense, and more transparency and effective cooperation on health issues from the Chinese.

THE TRUE CONSERVATIVE POSITION: Europe is an extremely important trading partner and a strong supporter of liberal democratic values and the international rule of law. We need to maintain and enhance our economic, military, and diplomatic relationships with the Europeans to protect our interests, particularly in the face of an increasingly aggressive China and a revisionist Russia.

THE GOP POSITION: Ditto.

TRUMP’S POSITION: The Europeans take advantage of the money we spend on their defense and rip us off. They’re just as bad as the Chinese! NATO should be run more as a protection racket, and the EU should be broken up. Brexit is a good start.

CONCLUSION: Once again, the question is whether Trump can flip his party on this issue. In this case, probably not, but as long as he remains president, NATO is in danger.

Predictably, Trump has shown more concern about the stock market and his own political prospects than the present and future victims of the virus. As usual, it’s all about him. It always is.

I’ve posted several times in the past about the problem of a president with a known indifference to the truth trying to reassure the public in the face of a crisis. In this case, the crisis is a virus, not a recession, but the issue is the same. Will the public believe him, given his reputation? Will even the faithful base downplay the problem just because he says they should? I suspect not.

THE TRUE CONSERVATIVE POSITION: We should be balancing the budget, at least before investment, during periods of prosperity. Tax cuts are only useful in limited circumstances, and should be paid for, except when they are part of a stimulus package in a recession.

THE GOP POSITION: Tax cuts are always a good idea, regardless of the circumstances. Tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy always lead to more investment and higher growth. The deficit is just a stick with which to beat Democrats when they’re in office, and a good reason to starve the beast.

TRUMP’S POSITION: Same as the GOP’s.

CONCLUSION: “National conservatives” don’t support regressive tax cuts. Will their position ever become GOP orthodoxy? I have my doubts. In any event, spending and not taxing is hardly “conservative.”

The shoutfest is over! Here are the answers to my questions:

1. I think the realos scored some points against Sanders, but not enough.

2. Warren launched more ferocious attacks on Bloomberg, whom she appears to hate nearly as much as Trump. That excites her very small base, but in the big picture, it doesn’t do her any good at all. Biden actually benefits more from it than any of the other candidates; anything that diminishes Bloomberg without offending his supporters helps make him the realo frontrunner.

3. Biden had a very good night. I think it was enough to stop the rot, at least for now. I’m guessing he will win SC. That, combined with the continuing Warren assaults on Bloomberg, will help him on Super Tuesday.

4. There was no Mayor Pete/Amy undercard tonight, which was just as well. They are fading into electoral oblivion.

5. Bloomberg was definitely better, but the public will probably remember Warren’s assaults on him more than his responses. Which will matter more in the long run, his commercials or his poor debate performances? We won’t know the answer to that until Super Tuesday.

The most interesting part of this debate came early on, when Elizabeth Warren essentially told the world that she was in complete agreement with the Sanders agenda, but was a more competent alternative. So much for the unity candidate approach!

For such an ostentatiously brilliant woman, this was an extremely stupid strategic move. The Bernie Bros are not going to desert their man and support her because they admire her policy fluency; in fact, they despise her affection for wonks. The moderates, on the other hand, have no reason to vote for someone who openly disagrees with them on everything. Where does she go from there?

Warren is basically making the case that she should be the junior member of the progressive dream team, and that she should be in charge of policy and personnel. That would make sense, and might well happen. As an argument to actually lead the ticket, however, Bernie with brains makes no sense at all.

Here are the principal story lines for the debate:

1. REALOS VS. SANDERS: Since Sanders is now the clear leader, all of the realo candidates can be expected to attack him with renewed vigor. Will they be more effective this time? They need to make their point on socialism and electability in more sophisticated ways.
2. WHOM DOES WARREN FIGHT? We’re sure to see Fighting Liz again, but against whom? Bloomberg is the obvious target, but directing her fire solely at realos doesn’t help her make the unity candidate case. She can’t be Pepsi to Sanders’ Coke. Dr. Pepper, maybe.
3. CAN BLOOMBERG IMPROVE? Money is important, but it isn’t everything.
4. BIDEN’S LAST STAND? There is no plausible rationale for his candidacy if he can’t win in SC. Expect him to invoke Obama in every other sentence here.
5. MAYOR PETE VS. KLOBUCHAR: This undercard has become annoying and counterproductive. The issue isn’t which of the two will win the single ticket to Super Tuesday; it’s whether either one has any kind of reasonable path forward. Are they aware of that? We’ll see.

THE TRUE CONSERVATIVE POSITION: Social Security and Medicare are an integral part of the social fabric. A fiscal crisis looms; millions of elderly Americans would suffer greatly if benefits are cut when the trust fund runs out of assets. The logical way to deal with the problem is with moderate tax increases–most notably, by increasing or lifting the income caps on contributions.

THE GOP’S POSITION: We never support tax increases (except for Trump’s tariffs, which we pretend aren’t taxes). The key here is to get the Democrats to accept at least partial responsibility for benefit cuts.

TRUMP’S POSITION: I’m caught between the base, which is passionate about maintaining benefits, and the leadership here. The best course of action is to do nothing and leave the problem for someone else.

CONCLUSION: The leadership and Trump are both being irresponsible, but in different ways. Neither has a legitimate claim to be conservative.

Donald Trump famously said that he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and not lose his voters. The same is pretty much true of Bernie Sanders. His most rabid supporters will not desert him, no matter what.

The key to beating Sanders is to unite around a single realo candidate and start winning primaries in order to prevent a bandwagon effect, not to try and peel away his base. Debates don’t have that much effect on him, since he always tells the same simple story, and he hasn’t changed his positions very much over time. That said, one might make some progress with undecided voters by pointing out the tradeoffs in his ambitious programs that he consistently ignores. For example, he acts as if his GND proposal will only damage the interests of a handful of billionaire investors in fossil fuel industries. What about the hundreds of thousands–perhaps millions–of people who have good jobs that depend on fossil fuel production? Are they really going to vote themselves out of a job, and trust Sanders to provide jobs with similar pay in clean energy industries? Would you really want to take that chance if you were in that position?

Of course not. The climate issue is so compelling, it may well be necessary to swallow some significant short term pain in order to accomplish the long term objective. It is important, however, to acknowledge and justify the tradeoff–not to completely disregard it. Rest assured that the GOP will bring it up during the general election campaign if the realos don’t.

THE TRUE CONSERVATIVE POSITION: Russia is a revisionist power with values that are antithetical to our own. It is engaged in asymmetric warfare against us for the purpose of damaging our institutions and our standing in the world. It must be resisted by all means short of war.

THE GOP POSITION: Ditto.

TRUMP’S POSITION: Putin is a fellow strongman with whom we can work to get things done. Our real enemies are the EU, China, and Islamic terrorists; he hates them, too.

CONCLUSION: Will Trump succeed in flipping his party on this issue, as with so many others? It certainly isn’t beyond the realm of possibility.

The usually sensible Matthew Yglesias thinks realos are overreacting to the possibility of a Sanders nomination, because:

1. Bernie’s more outrageous legislative proposals will never happen, anyway;

2. Notwithstanding his rhetoric, he’s actually just a pragmatic left-wing Democrat who has always been willing to make deals and settle for half a loaf;

3. He’s a stronger candidate than you think, based on his record in Vermont; and

4. He has some interesting ideas about foreign policy that deserve to be tested.

To which I respond, as follows:

1. True enough, but the mere fact that he espouses them guarantees that the overriding general election issue will be socialism, not Trumpism, which means the Democrats lose. It doesn’t exactly bode well that Sanders changes the subject when he’s confronted with the socialism label; it suggests that even he knows it’s a loser;

2. We’ll never know, because he has no chance of beating Trump unless we have a recession or some sort of disaster between now and November;

3. The American Switzerland is not exactly a great proxy for the country as a whole; and

4. His great ideas essentially involve cutting the defense budget to shreds and letting Putin and Xi run wild, while weakening our economy with tariffs.

There is a very good reason why Democrats in swing districts are already making it clear that they can’t support him in November. If the party doesn’t decide on a single realo candidate very soon, the country is headed for disaster.

THE TRUE CONSERVATIVE POSITION: We only have one planet to live on, so we need to protect it. We have to assume the worst case scenario is coming and create an insurance policy of sorts to fend it off. The best way to do that is to use the market; that means a carbon tax with rebates.

THE GOP POSITION: We can’t take meaningful action against climate change, because it would offend our donor base and require tax increases. We can’t have that. Whatever happens to millennials is their problem, not ours. What has posterity ever done for us, anyway?

TRUMP’S POSITION: Climate change is a Chinese hoax.

CONCLUSION: The Democrats are the real conservatives in this debate.