Month: April 2020

Barack Obama didn’t play a particularly important role in Clinton’s campaign because she seemed to have things under control, he didn’t want to outshine her, and he had a country to run. He kept mostly quiet during Trump’s first three years, because Bush did it for him, and he didn’t want to be divisive. He didn’t take sides during the 2020 primaries, because he knew he was needed as a unifying figure at the end, regardless of who won. But all that is gone now, and it’s all hands on deck.

Biden needs him; the Democratic Party needs him; the nation needs him. We need his intellect, his integrity, and his ability to uplift. We need him to protect his legacy from a vandal who is determined to destroy it. More than anything else, we need him to help save the country from becoming the illiberal state that could well be our future if Trump, in spite of everything, wins a third term.

He’ll be there. I’m sure of it.

Trump has apparently taken the position that he has the sole power to determine when the various social distancing schemes imposed by the states can be relaxed. This is consistent with his skewed concept of federalism: he gets the fun parts, and state and local governments are stuck with the pain.

I have to assume that he thinks that the commerce clause prevails over traditional state police powers, even during a pandemic, and even when the federal government disclaimed any interest in creating the regulations in question. That line of reasoning sounds questionable, at best. If push comes to shove and the issue is litigated, however, the Democrats’ interests would actually be best served by a Trump victory, because the commerce clause is their legal weapon of choice to expand federal power, and the right has done its best to limit its use in the recent relevant past.

Don’t think Mitch McConnell doesn’t know that. He’ll be begging Trump not to make the argument. Will the man on golf cart listen to him? As he likes to say, we’ll see.

Many years ago, I had to deal with a bureaucrat whose analyses were almost invariably wrong. My rule of thumb with him was that there was a presumption of incorrectness attached to everything he said and did.

Why does that come to mind when I see that Larry Kudlow is going to be on the council that makes recommendations on when to reopen the country?

Many of Trump’s disagreeable qualities–his grandiosity, lack of empathy, and authoritarian temperament, just to name three–are clearly rooted in his narcissism. No one would consciously choose to be a narcissist; his parents are responsible for that. On the other hand, some of his other disgusting traits, including his laziness, lack of intellectual curiosity, and corruption, are self-made, and could be corrected if the will existed. Which of the two categories predominates?

I’ve gone back and forth on this one, but I’m currently leaning towards the pathetic side. It’s arguable. What do you think? Let the debate begin!

There are two ways to deal with the virus: to apply the overwhelming coercive power of the state; or to educate the public and rely primarily on voluntary compliance with social distancing requirements. China, as you would expect, used the first approach, while most of the rest of the world used the second. Who’s winning?

If you believe the statistics, the Chinese are. The problem, of course, is that Chinese statistics are notoriously unreliable, and the government has every incentive to lie. In addition, some liberal democratic jurisdictions reacted more quickly than others, and were rewarded accordingly–think of the difference between New York and San Francisco. Creating a model political system for everyday use based on this kind of extraordinary condition is also inappropriate. Finally, the Chinese state is responsible in large measure for the creation and spread of the virus. On balance, therefore, the authoritarian state has not proved its case.

By nominating Biden, the Democrats have eliminated Trump’s ability to run an identity-based campaign, or one against socialism. The virus has shot down any chance of comparing his economic record against Obama’s. What’s left? To portray the virus as a biological weapon created by the Chinese in response to the trade war, and to argue that Biden is soft on China.

So how should Biden respond? In three ways. First, there’s plenty of footage of Trump sucking up to Xi, even with regard to the virus. Run it over and over again. Second, to point out repeatedly that Trump considers our European allies to be as bad as the Chinese on trade, and refuses to work with them to bring about real international trade reform. Finally, run against Russia. There’s plenty of footage of Trump sucking up to Putin, too, not to mention the connections between his campaign and the Russian government in 2016. The American public is suspicious of Russia for obvious historical reasons. Use that to your advantage.

In his new autobiography, Woody Allen apparently responds to the notion that we should always “believe women” with a reference to the Scottsboro Boys. He didn’t mention the Salem witch trials, but he could have. It’s the same thing.

I’ve always been perfectly consistent on this point–neither sex has a monopoly on the truth, which has to be ascertained on a case-by-case basis. And so, I thought Harvey Weinstein’s accusers were completely credible, but I also thought Al Franken was railroaded, and that the allegations against Allen were probably false, because the police investigated them and did not press charges.

That, of course, brings us to the new allegations of sexual assault against Joe Biden. I don’t find them credible for a variety of reasons, including: there is, of course, no physical evidence of the attack; no other workers in the Biden office at the time have any recollection of receiving a report of the attack; no one has found any evidence that a paper report was filed, even though the accuser says it happened; the accuser made no reference to the attack earlier in the year when other women were complaining about Biden’s habit of being too handsy with them; the accuser has little information about the specifics of the alleged assault; and the accuser has a partisan axe to grind. That’s a lot of reasons not to believe it. No single one is necessarily disqualifying, but the entirety of the picture is pretty clear.

The NYT clearly conducted an exhaustive investigation of the subject; the lack of publicity given to the allegation indicates that the investigators found it incredible, and wanted to avoid making it another bogus Clinton e-mail issue. You can read the article and decide for yourself. For me, it’s a very easy call.

So what, in a cosmic sense, is the meaning of the virus? Here are the possibilities:

1. The virus is the product of bats and poor policy. It has no ultimate purpose; like everything else, it just is, and we have to deal with it. (Materialism)

2. God created the universe, but does not intervene in its operations. As for the virus, see #1. (Deism)

3. God’s purpose in creating the virus are unknowable to humanity. Who are you, mere mortal, to question why? (Book of Job)

4. Like all apparent misfortunes, the virus is actually a blessing from God in disguise. Treat it as an opportunity to be a better person and a better society. (Optimistic Christian)

5. The virus is a plague sent by God to scourge us for our sins. (Pessimistic Christian)

I’ll leave it to you to decide which to believe. I will say, however, that the worst effects of the virus fall too randomly on the population to constitute any kind of justice, the pain that it has caused outweighs any opportunity it creates by a large margin, and anyone who thinks I accept demands for blind intellectual obedience is reading the wrong blog.

It’s 1521. Martin Luther is at the Diet of Worms. In the face of all of the legal, political, and military might of the Holy Roman Empire, and the intellectual power of the Catholic Church, Luther stands on his conscience, and refuses to recant. Can you imagine the courage that would require? It boggles the mind.

As the German peasants will soon learn, to their cost, Luther is no liberal. Liberalism as we know it, however, could hardly exist without this moment.

Move forward to 1535. Sir Thomas More is on trial for his life for allegedly denying that Henry VIII is the head of the English church. Unlike Luther, More is no hick from the sticks, but one of the finest lawyers in the land; and yet, his task had to be terrifying. After being convicted–possibly on the basis of perjured testimony, but we will never know–More lets loose, and argues forcefully that he has a thousand years of history and tradition on his side, while his opponents have nothing of equal weight to balance the scales.

More is often portrayed as a prisoner of conscience, but that’s misleading, as he explicitly rejected the primacy of the individual conscience; he actually was a conservative, and died for his conservative views during a time of revolution.

The legacy of these two cases and men continues today. More is the clear inspiration for William Barr and Brett Kavanaugh and the CD faction of the Republican Party. Luther’s influence can be found throughout our political system, in the CL faction of the GOP, and in the Democratic Party. They will continue to do battle for the foreseeable future.

Happy Easter!

Trump says that the decision as to when to reopen America for business will be the toughest one he has faced. As I’ve noted before, it really isn’t up to him, but let’s run with it. His choices will be:

1. The option that grows the economy the fastest, regardless of the public health implications; or
2. An option that saves the most lives.

Which one will he pick, and what criterion will he use? You know the answer to that as well as I do: the one he thinks will get him re-elected. Nothing else matters to him.

So much winning! Trump was right; I’m already tired of it.

You can expect Trump to portray Biden as three different repulsive personas:

1. Sleepy Joe: The doddering old guy who probably can’t even remember how to make breakfast each day.

2. Creepy Joe: The creepy old guy with his hands all over you who tried to stop corruption fighters in Ukraine.

3. Wimpy Joe: The guy who doesn’t stand up to China, like our fearless hero.

Biden has decades of public service under his belt, and the public already knows him and his story, so this approach is unlikely to work. His job is to prove that he isn’t sleepy, creepy, or wimpy during the campaign. That shouldn’t be too hard.

Trump, on the other hand, condemns himself by his own mouth every day. This campaign is going to be a referendum on him and his record. If he can persuade a majority of the American people that he is the safe choice, in spite of everything, more power to him, and God help us all.

Bernie Sanders didn’t lose because he made tactical mistakes. He didn’t lose because he was soft on Biden, or because the establishment rigged the process against him. He had more money than his opponents, so that wasn’t it, either. He lost because of one word–socialism.

Socialism means different things to different parts of the electorate, but they are all negative. To relatively affluent Democrats, it means paying higher taxes and losing money on their investments. To the great mass of identity voters, it means that Sanders doesn’t accept their critique of society, and falsely blames all of the nation’s ills on greedy businessmen. To older voters, it means dealing with dramatic change at a time in their lives when they want peace and quiet. And to pragmatic voters, it is a label that leads to defeat in November. No one wants that.

The left thinks it has the support of working people in this country, but it doesn’t. All it has is younger voters with little to lose who stand to benefit financially from many of the expensive new programs that Sanders espouses. Until it comes up with a way to win over identity voters, instead of just complaining about “false consciousness,” it will never win national elections in this country. Dropping “socialism” would be a good first step.

On the 45th President Trump.

The market’s relinquished his bump.

He pouts and he preens

And constantly schemes

But nothing is slowing the slump.

For liberals, the purpose of government is to promote excellence by maximizing the ability of each individual to develop his unique talents. For the most part, this is done by limiting the role of the state to the resolution of competing claims among citizens; however, the state also has a positive role to play, by providing education to everyone, and resources to those who would otherwise be deprived of the opportunity to thrive. Liberals believe that God does not exist, or that it is impossible to develop a consensus as to the nature of his will, so attempting to design a society that would make him happy is futile. Excellence is measured by the prosperity of the country, the quality of its culture, and its strength and influence internationally.

For people like Adrian Vermeule and William Barr, the purpose of government is to promote virtue, as defined in commonly-accepted religious texts. The virtuous society is one that is pleasing to God, and promotes the spiritual health of its citizens. As a result of the Fall, men are foolish, weak, and disposed to sin; the point of government is to use its power to force them to be virtuous. They may object in the short run, but in the long run, it is for their own good, and they will thank you for it.

It hardly needs to be said that the latter perspective has its intellectual roots in medieval Christianity. You may have believed that those ideas died when the religious wars in Europe ended inconclusively, but if you did, you were wrong.

The irony, of course, is that Barr’s chosen instrument for creating a virtuous America is a man who violates most of the Ten Commandments every day, and probably doesn’t even know what they are. Oh, well. The Lord, as they say, works in mysterious ways.