Month: February 2020

A few years ago, I inquired as to why a party that had nominated the ultimate establishment figure, Mitt Romney, in 2012 had opted for Trump in 2016. What changes on the ground had caused this seismic shift in opinion? The answer, of course, was nothing; Trump prevailed because he ran unopposed in his white nationalist lane, and the other lanes were too crowded. The shift in GOP opinion has occurred during his presidency, and as a result of it; it did not occur before the primaries.

Today, the Democrats are facing a similar situation. Notwithstanding all of the screaming about the party moving to the left, Sanders really only represents about 30 percent of the primary voters. He can get to a majority fairly quickly, however, if the remainder of the electorate thinks his victory is foreordained.

The frightening thing about Nevada is not the Sanders victory, but the margin. The inevitability factor may already be kicking in. If the center left wants to stop him, they need to pick a single candidate and force all of the others out of the race immediately after South Carolina. It can’t wait until Super Tuesday.

Assume, for purposes of argument, that our political system is so gridlocked, meaningful legislation is no longer reasonably possible. The most you can hope for from a Democratic president is to sweep away Trumpism and to manage the country competently. Major structural change will just have to wait for another day.

That’s the case for Bloomberg, in a nutshell. It’s not very inspiring–in fact, it’s the polar opposite of “I have a dream”–but if you think good management is the best you can do, he’s your man.

Paul Krugman says Bernie Sanders is really a social democrat who has misbranded himself, against his own self-interest, as a socialist. Is he right?

Mostly, but not completely. The “against his own self-interest” part is totally accurate, and will destroy him if he is the nominee. The basis for the “social democrat” part is that Sanders has no apparent interest in nationalizing businesses; even his polarizing signature health care plan only involves federal funding and regulation of the medical profession, not the creation of an American NHS. A true resident of Vermont, Sanders likes things small, and wants to cut big business down to size, but he goes no further than that. As a result, he is more accurately described as a social democrat than a socialist.

On this point, Krugman is echoing arguments I made during the 2016 campaign; they are as true now as they were then. The fact is, however, that at a deeper level, Sanders inhabits a cartoon world of evil, greedy capitalists who manipulate and ultimately oppress the hard-working, benighted masses with divide-and-conquer cultural arguments. Nasty foreign leaders such as Putin and Xi are merely puppets for the oligarchs, who must be resisted by moral force (never military power, of course) in America and throughout the world. This is a world view that is highly informed by Marxism. To that extent, Sanders’ attempts to brand himself are, alas, right on target.

The most striking thing about the Trump tax cut isn’t that it was (predictably) regressive; it is the clearly expressed policy preference for capital over labor. As a result of the tax cut, a professional who owns his business has a much lower tax burden than a similar professional who generates the same amount of income, but operates as an employee.

The GOP is very Victorian about the virtues of work as applied to the welfare state, but not, it seems, to its wealthy supporters. The Democrats would be wise to point this out during the 2020 campaign.

Wages for unskilled workers are currently increasing faster than for the workforce as a whole. This is due primarily to increases in the minimum wage that were opposed by Trump and the GOP. Trump is nonetheless trying to take credit for what he calls a blue collar boom.

I’m not a huge fan of the minimum wage, as everyone who reads this blog knows, but the dissonance here represents a huge opportunity for the Democrats to exploit. They would be wise to make the $15 minimum wage one of the centerpieces of their campaign, along with efforts to protect and expand Social Security.

Zach Beauchamp makes the case on Vox.com that identity politics is compatible with liberalism. Is he right? And do left-wing identity politics work in today’s America?

As to the first question, yes, but only up to a point. Liberalism is ultimately about providing each individual with the greatest possible opportunity to fulfill his potential. In the 19th century, this meant reducing the size of the state in order to reduce its power to discriminate on behalf of legally privileged groups. In the second half of the 20th century, liberalism evolved into an effort to strengthen and use the state to provide positive assistance to aggrieved members of less privileged groups. Identity politics is generally consistent with the latter approach.

Identity politics turn into a problem for liberals if the focus of government programs shifts from assistance to individuals seeking remedies for the impacts of discrimination to the undifferentiated group as a whole. Affirmative action, for example, takes action on the part of groups, but considers each claimant as an individual with unique characteristics. Reparations, on the other hand, would treat African-Americans (or at least a large subset of them) as a group without reference to individual differences. That sort of program would be a sort of feudalism in reverse; African-Americans would be the First Estate, and so on. This approach is the negation of the Enlightenment principles on which our country was founded, and the source of much fear and anger on the part of white men.

As to the second question, I have two observations:

1. In a country that is diverse as ours, and mostly celebrates it, identity politics cannot be avoided. It is what it is; the test is to put it in the proper perspective with the various other claims (such as those purely based on wealth) on government.
2. Left-wing identity politics in this country have led to the current backlash, which will only get worse in the foreseeable future. The eroding white majority feels threatened by demographic change, and is fighting back hard; you can expect this situation to get worse over the next ten years or so. How should the left respond? As I’ve noted before, by treating the alligators with respect until the crisis has passed, not by poking them with an identity stick.

It’s easy to forget at times, but the Founding Fathers left us with a carefully drawn list of enumerated federal powers in the Constitution. Conditions have obviously changed dramatically in this country since 1787. How does the list hold up today? What would you change, if you could?

Unfortunately, federalism today is more a bad faith, opportunistic argument made by both parties than a matter of principle. In my opinion, if you really wanted to start from scratch and create a list that makes sense irrespective of any partisan political points, it would work like this:

1. ISSUES INVOLVING THE SINGLE MARKET, ENTITLEMENTS, AND THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD BE DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: To a large extent, these concerns overlap. Having state-based entitlements would reduce mobility between states and thus damage the single market. State boundaries are irrelevant to issues involving air, water, and climate. Different state environmental regulations, such as California’s emissions standards, can create serious obstacles to the single market, and should not be permitted.
2. ISSUES INVOLVING IMMIGRATION, BORDER PROTECTION, AND FOREIGN POLICY SHOULD BE LEFT EXCLUSIVELY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Please note that “sanctuary cities” are actually a perfectly reasonable local law enforcement approach that should not be prohibited; declining to actively cooperate with immigration officials is not the same as frustrating them. Otherwise, the rationale for this is obvious.
3. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THAT OPERATE ACROSS STATE LINES SHOULD BE CONTROLLED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Relying on state governments to reach agreements would be way too difficult.
4. THE ENFORCEMENT OF ESSENTIAL CIVIL RIGHTS IS A FEDERAL ISSUE: History requires us to take that position; the states cannot be trusted with civil rights questions.
5. ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE CAN BE LEFT PRIMARILY TO THE STATES: That includes, among other things, housing, education, and infrastructure which operates purely at the local level.

How does this compare to the status quo? It isn’t terribly different, which is a tribute to the ability of the judiciary to adapt the Constitution to the needs to contemporary society.

For anyone who wants to see Trump defeated in November, this was your worst nightmare. Even though, in the big picture of things, the candidates don’t disagree on very much, they appear to hate each other more than Trump, who has to be thrilled by this turn of events.

Otherwise:

1. After a brief hiatus, Fighting Liz is back! She had the best night of anyone on stage. Unfortunately for her, her continuing unwillingness to distinguish herself from Sanders disqualifies her from being any kind of a unity candidate. She can’t win as left-wing Pepsi, and that’s what she was last night.

2. As predicted, Bloomberg was bad. He comes across as someone who thinks that America, LLC needs a much better manager. For everyone who rejects the premise of an America, LLC, that presents a problem.

3. Mayor Pete probably got the better of his exchanges with Klobuchar, which is a loss for people like me who think she is better positioned to win in November. He also did a pretty good job of arguing that he represents the middle of the party. We’ll see if it makes an impression in a few days.

4. Biden had a pretty good night by his admittedly low standards, and didn’t take any serious attacks from anyone. Is it too late? He needs to finish no worse than second in Nevada and win South Carolina; otherwise, he needs to quit.

5. Sanders did what he does. You either accept it or you don’t. No one is ever going to make any headway with him at a debate. You should note, however, that he invariably changes the subject when he is asked about the electoral liabilities of being a socialist instead of trying to convince anyone that socialism is actually popular. That won’t work in a general election.

6. Klobuchar’s closing was effective, but the rest of her performance was uneven. I’m afraid her moment may be gone.

Watching “The Borgias” on Netflix, I was reminded that there was a model of masculine behavior (you can guess what it is) that long predated the modest, stoic, self-sacrificing gentleman of the 19th and 20th centuries. In every sense but one, you can view Trump as a throwback to this earlier model.

The exception is that Trump constantly whines as well as swaggers. Would Cesare Borgia have run around Italy screaming about what a victim he was? I don’t think so.

On the Democrat candidate Mike.

For progressives, there’s not much to like.

He’ll hear the left’s jeers

For the first time in years.

A debate’s not like riding a bike.

The record shows clearly that Madison was as committed a federalist as Hamilton both during and shortly after the Constitutional Convention; after all, the two collaborated on the Federalist Papers. Within two years of the ratification of the Constitution, however, Madison had become one of the leaders of the opposition. What happened?

Some historians attribute Madison’s change in position to Jefferson’s return from France. There may be something to that. I think the better explanation, however, is that Madison and Hamilton did not view the objectives of federalism in the same way. At the time of the Convention, Madison was particularly concerned about the behavior and excessive authority of state governments; he saw the federal government primarily as a check on them, not a power in its own right. Hamilton, on the other hand, believed in a dynamic central government similar to that of Great Britain, and did his best to make it a reality during his tenure as Secretary of the Treasury. When Madison realized what was happening, he recoiled, and the rest is history.

This will be Michael Bloomberg’s first trip on stage. How will that impact that debate? Here are three guesses:

1. Debating is an art refined by practice. The other candidates–even Biden–are relatively polished performers by now. Don’t expect Bloomberg to shine under these circumstances.

2. Sanders actually benefits from Bloomberg’s presence, at least for the moment, as he further divides the realo vote. Will Bernie consequently let him off easy for tactical reasons? Not a chance! Bashing billionaires is his reason for running for president. He won’t be able to resist; it’s an issue that is just too close to his heart.

3. Most of the realo candidates will also go after Bloomberg for better tactical reasons. You can expect one of them, however, to make an ostentatious effort to be a unifier and peacemaker. As to which one it will be, I do not know.

Mayor Pete is right–the Democrats have been most successful when they have nominated young candidates with an inspiring message of hope and limitless America. Unfortunately for him, he sounds more like Mr. Spock than Barack Obama or JFK. Do any of the other candidates fit the bill?

Ironically, the elderly Elizabeth Warren talks more about big dreams for America than any of the other candidates. She ruins it, however, by bashing billionaires and telling everyone who disagrees with her that they don’t belong in the Democratic Party. The American dream is about innovation and pushing limits for the benefit of society and becoming wealthy in the process, not creating new barriers and celebrating the mediocre society.

In other words, like Bernie Sanders, she believes in the Danish dream, not the American dream.

The closest European analogy to America under the Articles of Confederation at the time of the Constitutional Convention was the Holy Roman Empire, which was already moribund, and on its way to death a little less than 20 years later. The closest contemporary analogy is the EU. What would America look like today if it were operated in a manner similar to the EU?

The country would be unrecognizable. Here are three of the principal changes:

1. Gavin Newsom would be the most important political figure in the country. The most important decisions affecting America as a whole would be made collectively by Newsom, Greg Abbott, Andrew Cuomo, and Ron DeSantis.

2. There would be no national entitlement programs or deposit insurance. Each state would have its own version of Social Security. Movement between states would be more difficult as a result.

3. There would be no national army–just 50 militias that would operate under a unified command wherever necessary. States like California and Texas would have their own nuclear weapons.

Mind-blowing, no? It could have happened, but for the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, which was anything but a historical inevitability. It was the dream of the Anti-Federalists. It sounds like a nightmare to me.

Of course, there would be one positive thing about a confederal system; Donald Trump would be a figurehead.

Today, people who claim to be “federalists” are usually right-wingers whose primary interest is in promoting states’ rights against perceived encroachments by Washington. Is that consistent with the experience in 1787 and 1788?

Absolutely not. The whole point of the Constitutional Convention was to enhance the role of the central government relative to the states. There were plenty of disagreements on how to do that–primarily between representatives of large and small states–but the protection of states’ rights wasn’t the objective of the Framers. If that’s what you wanted, you were at home in 1787, not in Philadelphia, and you subsequently campaigned against the ratification of the Constitution, not for it.

In other words, most of today’s “federalists” would actually have been anti-federalists in the 18th century, and would have tried to keep the Articles of Confederation in place. What would America look like today if they had succeeded? I will discuss that tomorrow.