Month: June 2020

Donald Trump was elected to be a disrupter: to divide the nation; to prefer his uninformed instincts to the advice of experts; and to throw gas on the fire. The fruits of that approach are now apparent: an inept response to a pandemic and blood on the streets. What does he do now?

Trump consistently responds to crises either by doubling down or by saying or doing something outrageous in order to change the subject. A war with Iran is going to be on the table because, at this point, where else can he go? His only other hope is a miracle cure for the virus, and even his happy sales talk can’t produce one of those.

The Democrats won a wave election in 2008 because the public correctly perceived that the usual GOP menu of tax cuts and deregulation wasn’t a solution to a financial crisis. John McCain made his name attacking bridges to nowhere. Did you really want to hire him to bail out GM?

Whether 2020 turns into a similar debacle for the GOP depends largely on what happens during the next several weeks. The current plan to revive the economy, if you can call it that, is to boost supply by reducing unemployment benefits and thereby forcing people to go back to work. The problem, of course, is that the recession is primarily the result of a lack of consumer confidence; in other words, it is driven by a lack of demand, not supply. Many of the jobs to which the workers are being compelled to return no longer exist. Increasing misery will make the problem worse, not better.

If the GOP sticks to this line, and additionally refuses to assist state and local governments, the recession will deepen, and they will justly be blamed for it in November.

The Swedes opted for a less rigorous regulatory regime than their Nordic neighbors in the hope that earlier herd immunity and less economic damage were an acceptable trade-off for more short term deaths. To date, you would have to say that it isn’t working. But hey, at least it was a plan, and you won’t really be able to judge it until we have a vaccine.

If you try to ascertain the contents of Trump’s “plan” by its results, it would be a similar trade-off. In reality, there is no plan; he simply grabbed the marshmallow before the fifteen minutes expired, because he’s incapable to sticking to anything for more than a few days. As a result, we have the worst of all possible worlds: a much higher death rate than the Europeans, with no end in sight; plus significantly diminished economic activity due to a lack of consumer confidence.

So now what? The new GOP “plan” seems to be to coerce a higher level of economic activity by depriving workers of their additional unemployment benefits and forcing them to return to work. Good luck with that; it certainly won’t build the level of confidence in the public health system that is really needed to improve the economy.

You might ask, why even bother? The man is a walking, talking negative ad every day he remains in office, and it’s all free! What’s more, he’s likely to become even more unhinged as his desperation increases. Just put out positive, reassuring ads and let events take their course.

For the most part, that will work, but there are certain parts of Trump’s record that require some emphasis. Make sure the public doesn’t fall for his efforts to rewrite history on the virus. Show him as being weak and inept on China. Run footage of him as an ignorant, capricious leader who is laughed at by the rest of the world. Correct the public misconception that he is a self-made man. Portray him as a friend of plutocrats who consistently opposes regulations and legislation that would help average workers.

But don’t spend much money on the corruption and authoritarian angles, because everyone already knows about them. It’s a waste of resources.

Life in the time of Trump.

Some black lives have been lost.

The president says clean the streets

No matter what the cost.

Most protesters have kept the peace.

The public has their backs.

But Trump just can’t show empathy.

It’s something that he lacks.

Contrary to popular legend, Trump’s core supporters aren’t white workers; they’re small business owners who hate government interference in their affairs and mistakenly identify with him as a self-made man. These are the kind of people you would see waving assault rifles around state buildings, demanding an end to lockdown regulations. By and large, they got what they wanted.

But what now? In most places, you can’t make much of a living by serving only people who swagger and refuse to wear a mask. How are these folks going to operate their businesses if large segments of the public don’t feel safe there?

It’s going to be tough sledding for them. And they had better not cry for assistance when the wolf is at their door. They’re proud, rugged individuals, and they don’t believe in dependency and government handouts, right?

A new study has shown that the severity of the recession is largely due to a dramatic reduction in discretionary spending by the affluent. It is fair to assume that this mostly means tourism, restaurants, and entertainment. What kind of stimulus would bring this spending back and restore the economy to health?

A stimulus won’t work. The rich don’t need another tax cut; they already have plenty of cash piled up waiting to be put to some productive use. What they need is the confidence that they won’t catch the virus if they go to the theater. Trump and the GOP don’t seem to understand that; they just think that forcing people to go back to their low-paying jobs will do the trick.

Where stimulus helps is with maintaining the spending of the less affluent. Like the previous rounds of stimulus, the next round consequently needs to focus on wage subsidies, unemployment insurance, and money for health care. Without this kind of help, the economy is going to get worse, not better.

Between Trump and the Chief Justice John

All pretense of friendship is gone.

The Supremes helped him out

Though he screams and he pouts

‘Cause the issue on DREAM is now gone.

1. IS SHE QUALIFIED? As the mayor of a diverse city with international connections, I would say yes, but it’s debatable.
2. IS SHE IDEOLOGICALLY COMPATIBLE? Yes. She was a Biden supporter from the beginning.
3. COULD SHE RUN AND WIN IN 2024? There is no way of knowing until we see her on a national stage.
4. WOULD PICKING HER PUT A SENATE SEAT AT RISK? No.
5. HAS SHE BEEN VETTED NATIONALLY? No.
6. DOES SHE BRING SOMETHING POSITIVE TO THE CAMPAIGN? Strong connections to the African-American community, and probably a few additional votes in Georgia, but we have no idea how effective she would be on the national stage, and the possibility of white backlash over police issues is significant.

THE VERDICT: Another high risk choice for a campaign that shouldn’t be taking too many chances.

Donald Trump owes whatever chances he has of being re-elected to the Fed. Without Powell’s quick and decisive action, the economy would be in far worse straits than it is today. Don’t expect Trump to give him any credit, however. As far as he’s concerned, Powell is just another one of his mistaken appointments.

In a similar vein, the Chief Justice has done him a great favor by supporting the Dreamers in the DACA case. By doing so, he gave Trump another rallying cry to fire up his base in November, while taking deportations off the table prior to the election. Had the Court found against DACA, Trump would have felt compelled to hold the Dreamers hostage in exchange for the wall and misguided limitations on immigration; the Democrats would have resisted and played the issue for all it was worth to the electorate.

Don’t expect him to show any gratitude for this stroke of luck, either.

There is a very interesting op-ed by Russell Moore in today’s NYT. The gist of it is that Moore views this week’s Supreme Court decisions on LGBTQ rights as an assault on the freedom of religious conservatives. He asks Americans to conduct their debates on issues touching on religious principles in a manner consistent with the First Amendment and the protection of religious freedom. He concludes by arguing that if these kinds of decisions are decided in favor of the side with the votes, it will ultimately hurt the left as much as the right.

There are three elements of his argument that require a response:

1. Whether in an effort to pander to the left-leaning readers of the NYT, or because he really sees conservative Christians in this light, he makes a big effort to identify the rights and interests of Christians with Muslims and Jews–much smaller, and historically powerless, religious minorities in this country. Do the historically dominant right-wing Christians really feel as isolated and embattled as Muslims and Jews in today’s cultural environment? It seems absurd, but there you are.
2. Moore’s warning about religious coercion is difficult to square with the right’s passionate support of legislation banning abortion, although I suppose he would (absurdly) frame the issue as one of “freedom” for fetuses.
3. Moore doesn’t really spell out the negative consequences to secularists if, in his view, religious freedom is not respected, but I think the implication is clear: if you don’t carve out safe spaces for our beliefs, we will retaliate by voting for Trump, or even more forceful authoritarian personalities, in order to protect our rights. We care more about our values than the health of liberal democracy. We will stop at nothing to use the system to win elections, and then our raw power will prevail over your paper rights. Cross us at your peril.

I believe #3 is, in fact, the prevailing opinion among millions of American Christians. The best way to deal with it in the short run is to give them the safe spaces they demand. Let the millennials sort it out in the long run; it won’t be as big a problem in 20 years as it is today.

1. IS SHE QUALIFIED? She is a two-term member of the House and has executive experience with a large police department. I would say yes, but it’s an arguable point.
2. IS SHE IDEOLOGICALLY COMPATIBLE? Pelosi clearly views her as a team player, so, yes.
3. COULD SHE RUN AND WIN IN 2024? There is no way to answer that question today. She doesn’t have any experience campaigning on a national level.
4. WOULD PICKING HER PUT A SENATE SEAT AT RISK? No.
5. HAS SHE BEEN VETTED NATIONALLY? No.
6. WOULD SHE BRING SOMETHING POSITIVE TO THE CAMPAIGN? She would help with African-Americans, and she might sway a few votes in Florida. Since we’ve never seen her campaign on a national level, however, we really don’t know if she would be a net positive or negative.

THE VERDICT: Given her lack of experience, she would be a risky choice for a risk averse campaign. There is no obvious reason to prefer her to Harris.

Donald Trump is so ignorant, he doesn’t know that Finland is an independent country. He sucks up to dictators, and attempts to intervene in criminal investigations touching their interests, in an effort to curry favor with them. Everything he does is directed towards his re-election. He asked the Chinese to help him win in November. Even his acolytes make fun of him behind his back. It’s not a pretty picture.

Of course, we’ve known all of this for years–only the details have changed. The real significance of this is that, in spite of the incredibly dismal picture the people in his administration have painted, HIS BASE STILL SUPPORTS HIM 100 PERCENT. No amount of incompetence or corruption or authoritarian behavior can change their minds. He’s a strong man and a disruptor, and he’s on their side against the foreigners and the libs; that’s all they need to know.

1. IS SHE QUALIFIED? Yes. She is a US senator, and she has executive experience in an important state office.
2. IS SHE IDEOLOGICALLY COMPATIBLE: Yes. Like Biden, she ran as a realo, not a fundi.
3. COULD SHE RUN AND WIN IN 2024? Yes. Age will not be a problem, and her combination of glamor and toughness would appeal to some white men.
4. WOULD PICKING HER PUT A SENATE SEAT AT RISK? No. The GOP isn’t going to win a Senate seat in bright blue California.
5. IS SHE VETTED ON A NATIONAL BASIS? Yes.
6. DOES SHE BRING ANYTHING TO THE CAMPAIGN? Yes–she’s a good speaker, and she will appeal to the young and minorities. Her failings during the campaign revolved around her decision to run as a general election candidate too early. She was not the only candidate to fall into this trap, and it wouldn’t be a problem in November.

THE VERDICT: She is the most logical choice for the job. If Biden still harbors resentments over her attack on him during the debate, he needs to get over it.

If there is one thing that Donald Trump wants us to know about him, it is that he is a strong man. He swaggers and stomps. He sticks out his chin and his chest, and waves his arms. He uses harsh language, and appear to mean it. It is all designed to give comfort to those who see him as the indispensable bulwark against change and evil outside forces. It frequently works.

Capriciousness, mindless bluster, and bullying are not, in reality, evidence of strength, but it can be difficult to sell that to the electorate. What we need for the undecideds is visual proof of his feebleness and cowardice. Fortunately, we now have both.

Barr’s admission that Trump was led to safety in the White House bunker and the tape of Trump walking slowly and gingerly down the ramp at West Point are gifts from God to Biden. One hopes they will feature prominently in his commercials. They will hit the man on golf cart precisely where it hurts.