Month: February 2020

Bret Stephens says Elizabeth Warren is losing because she’s running as Pepsi to Sanders’ Coke. Is he right?

Yes. It’s important to note that it didn’t need to be this way. She could have promoted a more middle-of-the-road health care plan instead of embracing M4A. She could have put more effort into creating a more traditional capitalist context for her reform proposals. She could have suggested raising money through income and estate tax increases for the wealthy rather than an unworkable and unconstitutional wealth tax. She could have shown more compassion for people with traditional values. Those were choices on her part, and she will live to regret them.

It’s too late for her to position herself as a unity candidate; there are too many images of her arm-in-arm with Bernie. We probably should be grateful; as I’ve noted many times, due to identity concerns, she’s the weakest candidate the Democrats could run in the general election.

I watched about the last half of the speech on my computer, with no sound, but with the running commentary from the NYT. I could actually stand it that way.

Have you ever seen anything so graceless in your whole life?

I woke up this morning with the thought that Trump is nothing more or less than a classic bully. That’s what pulls together his blustering and whining, and it’s why foolish people think he’s strong.

He just has to go–period. Democrats, take note.

2+ percent growth under Obama was a disaster! America was a hellhole! Today, we have 2+ percent growth, and we’re back, baby! I alone made our economy great again!

If you’re a genuine conservative, as I am, you believe in the almost infinite ability of people to screw things up. The episode with the Iowa app provides further evidence of that–not that it was needed.

With that in mind, what do you think happens if M4A is approved, and the government suddenly takes over about a sixth of the GDP? Do you really think the transition would be seamless? What happens to health care–a service which sometimes represents the difference between life and death– if it isn’t?

Sanders and Warren really need to provide an adequate response to that question. I haven’t heard one to date.

Assume, for purposes of argument, that the long-awaited Biden implosion is upon us, and that Klobuchar is not a viable candidate. That would leave Mayor Pete and Bloomberg as the sole survivors in the realo lane. How do they stack up?

There are obvious similarities and differences. Both of them have experience as mayors, are center-left candidates, and struggle getting minority support. Bloomberg is much older and wealthier, and his experience as the chief executive of America’s largest city counts in his favor; Mayor Pete is a younger, fresher face with far less experience and baggage. Who would have a better chance against Trump?

Every time I see Mayor Pete, I think Michael Dukakis. Bloomberg’s experience as a businessman comes across better to me than Mayor Pete’s work at McKinsey; he’s a genuine success story, not Mr. Spock. The money he could pour into a campaign against Trump would matter some, as well. On the whole, it is a debatable point, but I think Bloomberg would fare better in the general election.

The real winners in Iowa were: Donald Trump, because turnout was low, and anything that makes government look ridiculous works in the GOP’s favor; Bernie Sanders, who apparently prevailed in the fundi primary; and Michael Bloomberg, who spent his time elsewhere. The apparent losers are: Iowa, for obvious reasons; Elizabeth Warren, who needed a win and probably didn’t get one; and Joe Biden, who clearly underperformed. He’ll be happy to get out of town.

The ultimate test for Warren comes in New Hampshire. If she doesn’t win there, she’s probably finished. Biden needs a really strong finish in Nevada, a win in South Carolina, and a massive win on Super Tuesday. Mayor Pete has to prove he can win minority votes. If all of them fail, Bloomberg starts looking like a viable choice for the realos.

Each political candidate is a brand of sorts. If the presidential candidates were cars, what would they be? I’ll publish my opinions, along with any others I receive in comments, later in the week.

Regardless of what Trump says tomorrow, this is what he will actually mean:

My fellow real Americans:

Yes, yes, I know I’m supposed to stand up here and pretend that I care about everyone, but you know that’s not me. I’m all about my base. The other people didn’t vote for me–why should I care what they think? What did they ever do for me, except impeach me? They’re the enemy!

Anyway, I know some of you are going through hard times, what with economic stagnation, opioids, and the like, but I alone have made you great again after the desert of the Obama years. Every time I send out a tweet attacking liberals, it makes you feel like you’re in charge, and your elitist enemies are on the run. The good old days are back! Just remember, you owe me for that, so you had better come out and vote for me in November.

As for what I’m going to do in the next few years, the obvious answer is, more of the same. More angry tweets about liberals; more tax cuts for my friends; more attempts to obliterate anything with Obama’s name on it, starting with health care; more working with dictators to bring peace and stability; more tariffs to bring back good American jobs; more attacks on the left-wing press; more conservative judges; more of the wall; more cuts to programs that help foreigners and lazy minorities rather than good people like you. Remember, I’m unshackled now, so I can be even Trumpier than ever. And that’s what you want, isn’t it?

All of us were lucky: Trump; America; and even the Iranians. Had the Iranian missile strike killed any Americans, Trump probably would have upped the ante, and we would be at war today. It didn’t, so he could plausibly claim victory, and the crisis has apparently fizzled out.

But the issue remains. Is escalation still possible?

On the one hand, Trump clearly prefers economic sanctions to war, and his base doesn’t really relish the thought of another Middle East war, which matters to him. On the other hand, the Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian proxy forces are hardly under the perfect control of the Iranian government, and all of Trump’s instincts tell him to respond disproportionately if there is a provocation, which is the way to war. It’s a mixed bag.

What’s new and interesting here is that Israel and Saudi Arabia don’t appear to be pushing for war. I suspect that is because the Saudis now appreciate how vulnerable their oil facilities really are, and neither party fully trusts Trump to take the war all the way to its logical conclusion after the many stops and starts to date.

It has become increasingly obvious that the red line is American deaths. If there are no deaths, there will probably be no escalation–at least not until after the election. If there are, Trump’s instincts will kick in, and heaven help us all.

Here is the way I would make the case for Brexit, and shape the trade negotiations:

1. As a free trade entity, the EU has been a tremendous success.

2. But as a pseudo-state, it has been a failure, and there is no sign of any structural change that would fix its problems. There is no such thing as a European citizen. The Germans won’t lead, and the French can’t. Enlargement has made effective governance impossible. That is why the euro crisis was so intractable, immigration continues to be a serious problem, growth is so slow, the CAP is so wasteful and corrupt, and illiberal democracy is on the rise. Next, an Italian crisis is just around the corner–who wants to be a part of that?

3. Just as we were wise to stay out of the euro, we are better off avoiding responsibility for a sinking ship. We should take advantage of the part of the EU that works, however. Let’s try to get an agreement which maintains our involvement with the single market to the maximum extent possible. If that means continuing to accept a substantial number of EU regulations, it’s worth it; complete sovereignty in today’s world is a myth, anyway. Don’t choose symbolism over growth.

The turning point in the sad Brexit saga came when BoJo decided to betray his Irish allies and accept a deal that Theresa May couldn’t stomach. It was unscrupulous, but it worked; with no deal apparently off the table, the government collapsed, but the English Conservatives came together and won the election, assisted mightily, of course, by Corbyn.

But the negotiations to date have barely touched on the future economic relationship between the UK and the EU. Virtually everything is still on the table, the deadline is less than a year away, and Boris is threatening to end the transition period regardless of whether a deal has been reached or not. In short, no deal is effectively still a real possibility, and very little has been resolved.

And that, my friends, is why I’m posting this on Groundhog Day; the British are still living in interesting times. I will have more to say about a proper Brexit deal in a subsequent post.

Michael Bloomberg is actually to the left of Bernie Sanders on guns. His positions on climate change and cultural issues are well within the Democratic mainstream. He supports improving Obamacare and agrees that the wealthy should pay higher taxes. And yet, Sanders views Bloomberg not as a fellow competitor, but as the enemy, simply because he is a billionaire. What does this mean for the campaign?

From Bloomberg’s perspective, it means he has the option of doing what none of the other Democratic candidates will do–running blizzards of commercials attacking Sanders as a dangerous socialist. He hasn’t gone negative on any of the other Democrats yet, but if it looks like a socialist will win, why not? From Bernie’s perspective, it means he will reject any help from Bloomberg and other left-wing billionaires during the general election campaign, which will obviously hurt his cause, and he may even provoke a third party challenge that could cost him the election.

Keep that in mind if you are thinking about voting for Bernie in the primaries on the basis of his electability.

Here is Lamar Alexander’s argument for acquittal, slightly embellished to add clarity:

1. Yes, the overwhelming evidence shows that Trump attempted to coerce a foreign government to assist with his re-election campaign in a way that was inconsistent with American law and national interests.

2. Yes, that is an abuse of power, and impeachment was consequently appropriate.

3. The Senate, however, is required to determine whether the offenses committed by Trump represent such a clear and present danger to the country that he should be removed from power.

4. That is a balancing test. In this case, the attempted coercion of Ukraine failed. In addition, the election is imminent, and Trump’s fanatical supporters are capable of doing just about anything if he is removed. The danger to the country from removal, based on these unique circumstances, is greater than the danger from keeping him in office. Therefore, Trump did not commit a “high crime and misdemeanor,” as that term is used in the Constitution.

There is nothing in the text of the Constitution itself which suggests that such a balancing test is appropriate. Since the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is left open to events and interpretation, however, you can reasonably argue that there is enough wiggle room for this kind of approach.

The real danger arising from the balancing test is that it will encourage future corrupt presidents to do what Trump does–play exclusively to the base and threaten violence if he is deprived of power. Would Alexander do the balancing the same way if he had to deal with lightly armed Bernie bros, as opposed to Trump supporters? I’m guessing not.