Month: February 2020

William Barr is just the latest, and most dangerous, advocate of the unitary executive theory. From a legal and historical perspective, does it hold water?

No, because it ignores the role of Congress in the workings of the executive branch. The federal government is funded by a budget that is approved by Congress. Many executive officials are subject to the approval of the Senate. Finally, and most importantly, the organization of the federal government as a whole was established through legislation. Can you seriously argue that the president is, essentially, a king within his own branch of government when it is subject to all of those checks by the legislature?

In addition to the text of the Constitution, we know perfectly well that the Founding Fathers were influenced by the experience of the English Whigs in the 17th and 18th centuries. They knew about the Stuarts and their abuses of the legal system, and they would have been united in their desire to prevent them from occurring here. Jefferson and Hamilton would have agreed on this point.

If there is no basis either in the text of the Constitution or in the experience of the Founding Fathers for the theory, the only way it can be defended is by saying that Trump won a nationwide election and is therefore sovereign. He undoubtedly believes that; it is up to us to prove otherwise.

Trump once referred to Sisi as “his favorite dictator.” It’s doubtful that Sisi appreciated what was clearly meant to be a compliment, but for once, Trump was actually telling the truth.

Trump undoubtedly appreciates Sisi because he views him as a fellow strongman who can keep the lid on. The reality is rather different. Sisi’s only real success, if you can call it that, has been in crushing the forces of liberal democracy that were largely responsible for putting him in office. He hasn’t put an end to Islamic terrorism, the Egyptian economy isn’t in very good shape, and climate change and an Ethiopian dam on the Nile loom as very serious problems. In response, he’s building an enormous new capital at vast expense. It’s hard to see how this ends well.

The revolution is coming to Egypt; it’s just a matter of time. Since liberalism failed last time, it undoubtedly will be led by violent extremists who have learned that it is far too dangerous to leave the state apparatus in place. If Trump is still in power, how will he react? Will he acquiesce on the basis that the Middle East is not our problem, or will he attempt to thwart the popular will and use force to keep his chum in power? We’ll see; he’s capable of either approach.

For what purpose were the American colonists fighting when they started the Revolutionary War? The answer to that question is not as simple as you think, and it had important consequences for what happened afterwards.

One obvious answer would be simply for self-determination. The key question here was nationality, not the oppressiveness of British rule. If you accepted that, due to distance and differences in ethnicity and religion, Americans had become a new and distinct nation, it followed logically that they needed to govern themselves in order to realize their full potential. Federalists generally accepted this formula.

On the other hand, some of the patriots framed the issue as a rejection of a despotic British central government. If you followed this formula, your ideas of what should happen thereafter revolved around the protection of state and local rights. Anti-federalists accepted this line of reasoning.

Creating a system of government that resembled Great Britain’s in many respects was not a problem for people like Hamilton whose primary objective was not to make radical changes to the system, but simply to run it themselves in the interests of Americans, not the British. The Constitution largely reflected their views. For someone like Patrick Henry, on the other hand, oppression from the system was the problem, and it was a horrible mistake to try to recreate it. Henry and his allies consequently supported the Articles of Confederation, and ferociously opposed the Constitution.

This division of opinion still runs through our politics today. I will discuss it at length in my next two posts on federalism.

The Presidents’ Day theme for the coming week will be “Federalism, Past and Present.” We need a bit of a break from pure partisan politics.

Imagine that you are Michael Bloomberg. As a billionaire, you know that your candidacy is anathema to the left, yet you will need their votes to win the general election. How do you square the circle?

By taking a page out of Trump’s book. Trump disguises mostly standard fare Republican domestic policy by thrilling the base with tweets that drive the left crazy. Go after him low, hard, and often. Remind the world on a daily basis that he’s a fat fraudster with orange hair and a fake tan who inherited most of his money from his daddy. If you do it memorably and successfully enough, even the left will come to appreciate you.

It might not work. In fact, it probably won’t. But what other chance does he have?

The Democratic leadership in Guantanamo Bay. All of the TV networks except Fox News shut down. The internet, the NYT, and the WaPo subject to strict censorship. Religious tests imposed on all officeholders. Could it happen in a Trump second term?

“You’ve been watching too many movies,” I hear you say. “Trump is too lazy and egotistical to be an American Franco. All he wants is to have everyone suck up to him, and to be able to run the country in the sleazy way he ran the Trump Organization. That’s a danger, to be sure, but it isn’t fascism.”

All of that is true as far as it goes, but it ignores the role of William Barr. Barr is a true believer in maximizing executive power and a Flight 93 Republican; he (manifestly wrongly) thinks the country was established by and for conservative Christians, that our founding values are being undermined on a daily basis by rampant secularism in the courts, blue states, and the media, and that the plane must be crashed in order to save it. He is limited in his pursuit of this agenda only by political realities and some nodding concerns about professional ethics.

Barr can only nibble around the edges as long as we’re at peace. Give him an unpopular war, and the gloves will come off. The Trump Supreme Court will close its eyes and pretend that we’re in a national crisis similar to the Civil War, and our civil liberties will be gone, just like that. The country will be “saved” for the conservative Christian minority–i.e., “real America.”

In spite of the many constraints the system will put on him, Bernie Sanders would be a terrible president. The markets will dive, and Xi and Putin will run amok. He isn’t a threat to our liberties, however, and the pursuit of happiness means more than money. And that, my friends, is why we have to vote for him if he is the nominee.

WHAT SHELTON SAID: I don’t believe in the gold standard, or tight money. Whatever made you think that?

WHAT SHELTON MEANT: Tight money is for Democratic presidents, you fools. Whatever Trump wants, he gets.

WHAT BARR SAID: Stop the tweets! They make it impossible for me to do my job!

WHAT BARR MEANT: I understand perfectly well that my job is to serve as your personal attorney–to help you and your friends and to punish your enemies. I’m doing that without the tweets. I don’t need any explicit direction. Stop making it so obvious and generating so much bad press!

On the Fed nominee they call Judy.

To her critics, Trump says “tough patootie.”

If a Dem ever wins

You know she won’t give in.

She’ll think sabotage is just her duty.

The CDU is likely to turn to the right as a result of AKK’s resignation. That, in turn, will probably cause the coalition to break up at some point in the near future. The SDP will move to the left; polarization will increase; and Germany as a whole will turn inward. The likelihood of major EU institutional reform, already low, will be even further diminished.

The one silver lining in this grim picture is that Germans will once again have two clear choices in the political mainstream instead of a muddle and extremist opposition. Other than that, it’s hard to see how the EU is going to get a grip on its problems if Macron is the only leader who has an interest in reform. The drift will continue until further notice, and Italy looms as the next crisis.

According to Politico, Trump is planning to attend the Daytona 500 in an effort to bond with his “God-fearing, country-loving” base. To what extent does he embody these qualities?

You already know the answer to that question, but I’ll put it in writing:

1. “God-fearing”: Trump is completely oblivious to Christian values, as he showed most recently at the National Prayer Breakfast. He recognizes no higher authority than himself.
2. “Country-loving”: You mean Cadet Bone Spurs? The man who attempted to extort Ukraine for his own political interest? The man who is rotting our institutions every day?

One might add that Trump likes golf and classic rock, not NASCAR and country music, and that he believes so strongly in the sanctity of family, he has three of them. He’s a former casino owner from New York City who paid off a porn star just before the 2016 election. He has nothing in common with his base, for whom he apparently expresses contempt in private.

They do agree on one thing–their enemies. They both hate, and feel victimized by, blue America. Trump reminds red America that he may not be one of them, but he’s on their side, on Twitter every day. The base is fully aware of his shortcomings, but supports him because they think he is an indispensable ally against the blue enemy. That is the basis for Trump’s success.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren appear to believe that the culture wars don’t matter, and that the real division in America is between greedy billionaires and the rest of the country. They’re wrong about that. The Democrats won’t really hold power in this country in the foreseeable future, barring a disaster similar in scope to the Great Recession or massive changes to our political system, until they come to grips with the fact that they cannot win the support of red Americans just by taking money from the wealthy and spending it on them.

I predicted that Biden would lose in Iowa and NH, but I never imagined that it would be by that much. His campaign is on life support. And so, the question needs to be addressed in more detail: as between Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar, who is the best hope for the realos?

Here are four extremely important questions you can use to answer that question, with rankings for the three candidates:

1. WHO IS BEST QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT? Your choices are a former consultant and small town mayor; a senator; and the former mayor of an enormous and diverse American city. This one isn’t close; Bloomberg has the most relevant experience. BUTTIGIEG: 1 point; KLOBUCHAR: 2 points; BLOOMBERG: 3 points.
2. WHO CAN RAISE THE FUNDS NECESSARY TO BEAT TRUMP IN NOVEMBER? This one isn’t close, either. KLOBUCHAR: 1 point; BUTTIGIEG: 2 points; BLOOMBERG: 3 points.
3. WHO CARRIES THE MOST BAGGAGE THAT TRUMP CAN EXPLOIT? While Bloomberg has the most relevant experience, it comes with the most baggage, too. Unbelievable as this may sound, the corrupt billionaire from New York will have a field day tying Bloomberg to the evils of the big city. Mayor Pete has the gay thing, and he sounds like a charter member of the snooty liberal elite. The worst thing people say about Klobuchar is that she’s hard on her staff. BLOOMBERG: 1 point; BUTTIGIEG: 2 points; KLOBUCHAR: 3 points.
4. WHO CAN KEEP THE BERNIE BROS ON BOARD? All three will be acceptable to moderate swing voters, but the danger is that the Bernie Bros will jump ship in November. Their votes are necessary to beat Trump. Bloomberg, the billionaire, will make them run for the hills; Buttigieg famously takes money from billionaires; Klobuchar has no connection to billionaires at all. BLOOMBERG: 1 point; BUTTIGIEG: 2 points; KLOBUCHAR: 3 points.

The totals are: Buttigieg–7 points; Bloomberg–8 points; Klobuchar–9 points. It’s close, which is why the realos are going to struggle with this decision, but I personally think Klobuchar is the best choice.

I’ve said it a million times, but it bears repeating after NH: barring a massive recession, THERE IS NO REVOLUTION. Sanders represents about 30 percent of the voters in the Democratic Party, and less than half that in the electorate as a whole. He cannot bring hordes of new left-leaning voters to the table. His best case scenario is to be a caretaker president, not the American Lenin.

And what is the point of Bernie without the revolution? Why would anyone choose him just to expel Trump and keep the wheels of government running? Is anyone really that impressed with his record in Burlington?

The bottom line is that a Sanders candidacy in 2008 might have made sense. Today–not so much.

It should be obvious at this point to everyone except Warren and her campaign manager that she can’t win the nomination by conventional means. Here are her remaining paths to power:

1. She could stay in the race until the end, accumulate delegates, and prevail as a unity nominee at a brokered convention; or

2. She can agree to be the junior partner in a lefty unity ticket with Sanders. He could make her his prime minister of sorts, in charge of policy details and personnel, while he supplies the gruff authenticity and connection to working men she painfully lacks.

Could the second alternative work? If the realos remain splintered after Super Tuesday, yes; otherwise, the math says no.

Inspired, as you would expect, by the Westminster Dog Show:

1. Donald Trump: Rottweiler. No explanation is necessary.
2. Elizabeth Warren: Border Collie. Incredibly smart and energetic, but somewhat hard to manage.
3. Mayor Pete: Miniature American Shepherd. Small, new, very bright, and popular.
4. Amy Klobuchar: Black Lab. Middle of the road, but popular dog.
5. Joe Biden: Golden Retriever. Friendly and popular, but less intelligent than some of the other breeds.
6. Bernie Sanders: Old English Sheepdog. With an emphasis on the “old” part.

Lindsey Graham, of course, would be one of those obnoxious little dogs who sits in Trump’s lap and barks furiously at everyone around him.

The result of the fundi contest in Iowa was completely consistent with the polls. The surprise was that Biden leaked votes to Mayor Pete, and, to a lesser extent, Klobuchar. Why did that happen?

You can attribute it to Biden’s shortcomings as a campaigner, but he had a relatively strong performance in the debate prior to Iowa, and he was pouring plenty of resources into the state, so it didn’t really have anything to do with him. No, in all likelihood, this was about the drip drip drip of Ukraine; the undecided voters broke for the fresh faces with less baggage than the guy who figures to get slimed over Ukraine day after day during the campaign. To put it another way, the voters were frightened that Ukraine could turn into the 2020 equivalent of Clinton’s e-mail pseudo-scandal, with the same ultimate result.

If I’m right, it was a reasonable choice, albeit one shamefully driven by unscrupulous GOP politicians and media figures. The NH voters will probably go the same way, but Biden was never going to win there, anyway. Will minorities in Nevada and SC concur? That’s the real drama over the next few weeks. Their decision will have a huge impact on the outcome of the campaign.