Month: June 2020

The NYT has caused a sensation by printing an op-ed by Tom Cotton which recommends sending in the regular military to crush the demonstrations. The NYT initially responded to the negative reaction by defending its longstanding practice of providing the public with a wide range of viewpoints, including some with which it has absolutely no sympathy. Later on, it appeared to back away from this position, and said that the op-ed didn’t meet their standards.

They were right the first time. They did the public a service by giving Cotton a forum to show how flimsy his arguments are. Just to list a few:

1. There is no evidence that Antifa is running wild in our streets. Relative to, say, 1968, the loss of life and property damage has actually been quite mild;
2. The “precedents” he cited don’t work, because California invited federal assistance after the Rodney King episode, while the government of Arkansas was actively resisting federal court orders; and
3. There is no assurance that the mere presence of regular military would overawe the protesters and put an end to the violence. Then what? The only plausible Plan B would be to mow down the demonstrators with overwhelming force. Is Cotton really advocating that?

Donald Trump, to our great good fortune, may be discrediting the illiberal project with his innumerable personality defects and terrible record. Cotton would not do the same thing. He has a glittering resume, and he’s not obviously narcissistic, capricious, or corrupt. If America ever decides to go with the Orban option, he will probably play a big part in it. He bears watching.

Barr is, above all, a conservative Catholic. He believes in a single, immutable truth. The paradox is that he works for a man who, like a good Stalinist, thinks that truth is whatever serves power. How can this be? How can this strange relationship last?

It’s a marriage of convenience with a limited shelf life, but it works for now because the two have common enemies. The Savonarola wannabe sees blue people as the ideological enemy; Trump hates them because they’re in his way.

The Beatles’ music is so familiar to us that it seems cozy and timeless, but in reality, it was the product of a turbulent time that is starting to resemble our own. The events of the last few weeks have given me the following new insights into two of their songs:

1. “Eleanor Rigby” is brilliant. It is also utterly merciless, and apparently out of character for the gentle Paul McCartney. Why did he write it? He was flipping the bird at the conservatism and traditional values of the so-called “Greatest Generation.” As with the later, and less artful “She’s Leaving Home,” he wanted everyone to understand that the times and the rules had changed. The pathetic protagonists in the song are consigned to the dustbin of history–and, in McCartney’s eyes, good riddance. Does he still feel that way in his old age? One can’t help wondering.
2. “I am the Walrus” could have been written yesterday. Listen to it again. You will see what I mean. George Floyd would have been no stranger to John Lennon.

Goo googa joob.

As I was finishing a book about Trump, Orban, and Putin last night, I realized that Trumpism is based on two things: power and identity. Here is how it works:

POWER: Trump rejects the notions of objective truth and justice. To him, every transaction, and every relationship, is based purely on power, and has a winner and a loser. As a result, everything he says and does is for the purpose of establishing that he is the most powerful person in the room. Money is relevant here, but only for the purpose of projecting power over others; by itself, it is fairly meaningless.

IDENTITY: Trump sees himself as a white male American billionaire who made himself a winner through hard work, shrewdness, and determination. (His narrative of his life is, of course, not accurate, but it is the perception that counts in this instance). To the extent that you resemble his self-image, you’re OK in his book. And so, Kim, Putin, and Xi may deviate from the model because they’re not Americans, but they remind him of himself in most other respects, so they are to be respected, and even admired. “Winners” of other races, like Muhammad Ali, meet his standard. All others are “losers,” to be manipulated and trampled as he sees fit.

If you’re looking for an explanation of Trump’s behavior at any given time, start with the interplay of these two core beliefs. They will get you where you need to go.

Boris gets something right! Let the Chinese impose their rule over a ghost town.

According to Ross Douthat, our formerly thriving metropolitan areas are actually dystopias characterized by a disappearing middle class, a wealthy, but insulated professional class, and a huge number of essential, but invisible service workers on whom the system is completely reliant. The package is held together by the police, not bonds of community between the winners and the losers. The events of the last few months have shown us how vulnerable and unjust the system is. Is he right?

There is a grain of truth to this. Today’s successful metropolitan areas are dependent on information-based industries, finance, entertainment, and tourism. Manufacturing has moved to the suburbs in order to avoid soaring real estate values, which means fewer middle class jobs. American cities, which used to be a counterpoint to European cities, now resemble them; the poor live in outlying areas with poor transportation links, not in slums close to the city center. These cities are bright, shiny things, but they are not utopias.

That said, these changes are the result of a worldwide economic shift to value based on knowledge. They were caused by unseen forces, not the considered decisions of an uncaring professional class. They don’t conform to the GOP view of a class war between salt of the earth high school graduates with lousy jobs and a thriving, voracious, insular intellectual elite. They weren’t willed into existence by anyone in particular. They happened outside the control of any individual or group, like most things.

Can this state of affairs be reversed? It would probably take a very lengthy pandemic or an economic crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen yet to reverse the polarity between rising cities and declining rural areas. And what is Douthat’s solution to the problem? To convert the elite to a conservative brand of Catholicism, set up Benedict as a theocrat, and ban abortion and pornography? Does anyone seriously believe that the success of land use planning ultimately depends on morality, not economics?

Carrie Lam has accused the Trump administration of having different standards for demonstrations in Hong Kong and the US. Is she right?

As to Pompeo, who extolls the virtues of liberal democracy abroad while trashing the press at home, absolutely. As to Trump, not really, because no one believes for a minute that he has any interest in liberal democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, America, or anywhere else. As to most of the affected state and local officials and the American public, no. The predominant opinion in this country supports the demonstrators in both places.

I read somewhere that Trump was holding the Bible upside-down, which seems only fitting. It’s like flying the flag upside-down.

As we are only too aware, Trump has no idea of what is actually in the book, and couldn’t care less about it, except as a signal of solidarity with his base. The real Trump bible would be much shorter (he only reads bullet points, you know), and would look something like this:

“In the beginning, there was Donald J. Trump. In the middle and the end, too. He vanquished the gorgon Hillary Clinton, escaped impeachment, triumphed over the deep state, owned the libs, and made America great again. He was omnipotent and omniscient. There is nothing else worth discussing, really.”

A large portion of Trump’s base voted for him in 2016 because they viewed him as someone who would completely disrupt the status quo. When we see incompetence and chaos, they see a man who is fulfilling his promise to shake up a rigged and corrupt system. As they saw it, the nation was going to hell in a handbasket, so what did they have to lose?

Have they had enough disruption yet? Are they happy now?

Tens of millions of Americans who previously had health insurance through their employer are now out of work. Some of them will qualify for Medicaid, but some won’t, and the application process will take time even in the best case scenario. Medical providers and the health insurance companies are suffering massive losses as a result. What happens next?

This is a state of affairs that supports the arguments for M4A and is hugely embarrassing for the GOP. If you’re Trump or McConnell, what do you do? Continue to support the elimination of the Obamacare exchanges at a time when huge numbers of people can no longer get insurance through their employer? That doesn’t exactly sound like a vote winner in November, particularly in the middle of a pandemic. Or do you, as the health insurance companies are requesting, hugely increase subsidies for providers, COBRA, and the exchanges, knowing that to do so would be a complete and humiliating reversal of position?

This is the land of no good options. Poor little guys.

Trump apparently berated several governors yesterday for looking “weak” and threatened to use the regular military to crush the protests. For the most part, he only plays a dictator on Twitter and TV, so it is safe to assume that what he really wants is to portray himself as the man in charge and to take credit for the end of the violence, not to actually use the military for that purpose. However, he has the legal authority to send in troops, so we have to take his statements at least a little bit seriously. How would that turn out?

Two points are important here: there is no reason to believe that the National Guard units in the various states lack the resources to control the violence; and the regular military has limited experience with law enforcement and peaceful crowd control. With that in mind, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The troops arrive at a time when the violence is already ebbing. They do nothing important, but Trump takes undeserved credit for solving the problem.
2. The demonstrators are overawed by the troops and go home. In this case, Trump actually has a right to take credit for his success.
3. The violence continues. The troops end it by shooting down large numbers of demonstrators. Trump is fully entitled to the “credit” for this outcome.

Which of these scenarios is the most plausible? It would vary from location to location. Let’s hope we never find out.

Trump is threatening to revoke Hong Kong’s special trade status in light of the proposed security legislation. The questions for today are:

1. Would this action be justified?
2. Would it be wise?

The answer to the first question is yes. The legislation, and the manner in which it is being adopted, means that Hong Kong’s autonomy is coming to an end. Ironically, the Chinese government is complaining about interference in their internal affairs; how can treating Hong Kong in the same manner as the rest of China do that?

I’m much more ambivalent on the second question. The real villain here is the Chinese government, not the workers and businesses in Hong Kong. I’m not sure this action will cause the government any real pain. It would be a better idea to work the diplomatic phones to get stronger international expressions of support for Hong Kong’s rights, and to provide special immigration status for anyone who wants to leave.

According to Politico, there is a division of opinion among Trump’s advisers as to how to respond to the protests. Mark Meadows is pushing for a base-pleasing speech supporting the police and condemning left-wing violence; Jared Kushner, on the other hand, thinks a speech of that nature will cost Trump African-American votes he can’t afford to lose in November.

In this debate, as you would fully expect, there is no discussion of the national interest; the only truly important objective of Trumpworld is re-election. Here are my thoughts on the matter:

1. Nothing Trump could say to bring peace to the country would be taken seriously by either side. Anyone who calls himself a “bull in a china shop” in his commercials is by definition a divider, not a uniter. It’s the only thing he does well. It’s the essence of his appeal to those who support him. It’s what he does every day, and what makes him roll.
2. In light of that, what is the point of making a unity speech? He should go play golf! It will make him feel better, and he can’t do any harm on the golf course, which is the most we can ever hope from him.
3. The speech that Meadows wants would only make things worse. It probably won’t even win him any votes in November. The base is already plenty motivated, thank you.
4. In short, do us a favor and shut the #@*# up!

Mike Pompeo apparently told a Sunday talk show host that the current version of the Chinese Communist Party is different than the one we knew ten years ago. Is that statement as absurd as it sounds?

Close, but not quite. The CCP has always been determined to maintain complete political control of China, to play the leading role in the country’s economy, and to stifle all meaningful dissent. That hasn’t changed. Two things have, however, changed: first, Xi has been given authority over the country and the party that his predecessors did not enjoy; and second, Chinese economic and military power have increased relative to American power over the last decade. The Chinese government has consequently become more openly assertive in its near abroad, and takes less interest in the opinions of other nations. It believes that virtually all opposition from foreign countries can be overcome through threats of force or the application of economic power. Deng and his immediate successors would never have taken that position, because they couldn’t.