Month: August 2020

Ladies Night!

The Harris speech was OK, but here’s what I will remember from last night:

1. The tape of Obama giving Biden the medal was genuinely touching.
2. Warren wasn’t on the screen very long, but she made it count. She looked like a hungry predator going after Trump.
3. Mostly, I will remember the Obama speech. The gravity and brutal candor of its delivery made me think of something from the Roman Republic. It was both impressive and genuinely chilling, which was undoubtedly the effect he wanted. Cicero or Cato the Elder would have been proud.

Trump delenda est!

Fox News is obviously the mouthpiece for the Reactionary faction of the GOP, but it is far more than that. Its hosts identify issues and shape opinions, even in the White House. It transmits and gives legitimacy to conspiracy theories. It also makes lots and lots of money.

Two questions for the future are pertinent:

1. Tucker Carlson is the country’s leading “national conservative,” which essentially means that he thinks the GOP should ditch its Reagan era economic policies and regulate business in favor of white Christian workers. Will Fox as a whole follow that line, or stick with the status quo?
2. Millions of reactionaries have made it clear that they value their conservative social ideas far more than our liberal democratic system. Fox supports them and thereby damages public support for the system, but push has not come to shove yet. Would the Murdochs rather own the house broadcaster for an American Orban than one of several networks in a free democratic system? I’m not sure even they know the answer to that question.

Do you remember 2009-2010? The Democrats had what appeared to be a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but it didn’t feel that way, largely because Joe Lieberman was always threatening to derail important legislation. It was very annoying, and so was he.

Even if the Democrats succeed in scraping out a tiny majority on paper in the Senate this year, they will have a similar problem; this one is named Joe Manchin. Manchin is 51 percent Democrat and 49 percent Republican. Given the state of opinion in West Virginia, he has to be. His vote can never be taken for granted, particularly on energy issues. A nominal majority may well not be an effective one.

If we get the reasonable best case scenario, expect lots of money to be flowing to West Virginia in the next two years. There is no plausible alternative if the Biden agenda is to stay on track.

Empathy rules, and the roll call is still tiresome. But here’s a question for you: who testifies that Trump is a great guy during the Republican convention, and who would be stupid enough to believe it?

The left has correctly identified the filibuster as a major obstacle to its agenda. Biden has been equivocal. Why?

For three interconnected reasons. First of all, the filibuster isn’t even an issue unless the Democrats win an effective (as opposed to a nominal–I will post on this tomorrow) majority in the Senate, which is a toss-up at this point. Second, Biden has great respect for the traditions of the Senate; there is no point in making clear statements that you’re in favor of blowing something up if it won’t do any good. Third, unity is Biden’s brand; it would be a mistake to jeopardize it unless it is absolutely necessary.

I suspect Biden, as president, will initially attempt to make deals with GOP senators, using the potential abolition of the filibuster as leverage if he plausibly has a Democratic majority in his favor. He would only campaign for its abolition if it is feasible and necessary to get his agenda through, and if GOP senators prove to be beyond redemption, which seems pretty likely.

Due to the conflicts among the four ideological factions, the GOP has a schizophrenic view of the state. It is as libertarian as can be with regard to business interests, but authoritarian on social issues, because the impacts of the cudgel are felt by Democrats, not Republicans. Freedom for me, but the smack of authority for thee, in other words.

This paradigm doesn’t work in a pandemic, because GOP voters can suffer from and spread the virus just as easily as Democrats. The only way you can stop a pandemic is through action, whether voluntary or mandated, which includes everyone. So how does the GOP deal with this clear conceptual failure? By pretending that the pandemic doesn’t exist, talking about other issues, and waiting for better days.

It is just like 2008, when it was obvious to the public that the GOP standard formula of tax cuts and deregulation was not a plausible solution to a financial crisis. Let’s hope for the same electoral result.

I wasn’t able to watch last night, but it is clear that the overriding theme was unity against a dangerous, incompetent, corrupt wannabe authoritarian. That is exactly the way the convention should start, given the present circumstances. The more progressive, hopeful stuff should build to a crescendo at the end. Complaints from the left that the vision is being downplayed are premature–wait until Wednesday and Thursday!

The two wings of the Democratic Party have significant disagreement on the following points:

1. THE TREATMENT OF BUSINESS: The left views business as the enemy. Big business in particular inevitably oppresses workers and exercises undue influence over government policies on taxation and regulation. Liberals see business as the goose that lays the golden egg–to be nurtured, taxed, and regulated carefully so as to create the maximum benefit for society.
2. FREE SPEECH AND SOCIAL ISSUES: The left thinks that traditional views on social issues are self-evidently wrong, that the opinions of historically oppressed people are presumptively correct, and that it is necessary to censor clearly false right-wing and even centrist views in order to encourage more speech from the oppressed people. Liberals don’t believe that social conservatives are necessarily “deplorable”, and don’t support censorship of anything but the most extreme opinions.
3. PAYING THE BILL: The left either thinks that the wealthy will pick up the entire tab, or goes as far to believe that costs are irrelevant. Liberals worry about costs and take the position that most social programs should be paid for in one way or another.
4. HOW DO WE WIN?: The left thinks that elections are won by mobilizing apathetic left-wing voters and that progress on legislative issues ultimately results from dominating the street. Liberals believe in winning over swing voters and in making deals in the legislative process.
5. INCREMENTAL VS. REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE: The left thinks the American people are crying out for fundamental political, economic, and social change. Liberals like their change to be slow and easily digestible.

The liberals won this battle during the primaries, but it isn’t over. You will hear a little bit about it during the convention.

Members of the left frequently accuse Obama of being a “neoliberal.” Is that correct?

It is all a matter of definitions, of course. To me, a neoliberal is someone who believes in capitalism, free trade, regressive tax policies to support investment, and limited regulation of business. Obama only meets the first two tests.

The left appears to view Obama’s successful efforts to save the system during the financial crisis as an opportunity wasted. Those actions were taken during extraordinary conditions, and do not reflect his opinions during the rest of his administration. If he had not taken them, workers as well as business owners would be far poorer today.

The bottom line is that Obama supported the broadening and strengthening of the welfare state, and a mild degree of redistribution, to mitigate the impacts of the system on the less affluent. He was right to view capitalism as the goose that lays the golden egg, not the enemy. What are the alternatives? Socialism? Protectionism? There is plenty of history behind both; both quickly lead to economic slowdowns which damage everyone’s interests, not a fairer, wealthier society.

Every individual VP’s role is defined differently. Some have spent most of their time at funerals. Al Gore was given the task of redefining government. Dick Cheney actually ran the government, if some observers are to be believed. Biden was a liaison to Congress and a general adviser to Obama. Mike Pence sucks up to his boss and does his best to clean up messes. What would Kamala Harris do?

(Note to my readers: I refuse to call her an apprentice president, for obvious reasons.)

She would almost certainly be given portfolios relating to race relations and criminal justice. Other than that, she doesn’t have any experience that fills in a gap for Biden. I suspect he will view this as an opportunity for on the job training; the more she learns, and the better advice she gives, the more authority she will receive. At the end, she would be perfectly qualified to step into his shoes.

Contrary to our expectations, Trump has shown us that uncodified constitutional norms are not universally accepted, and are largely unenforceable. How should Biden deal with that, if he wins?

Here are a few items:

1. It is of the utmost importance that he appoint someone without strong political affiliations as his AG.
2. The independence of the DOJ from the rest of the executive branch should be given a statutory basis in order to prevent politicized law enforcement and put an end to the unitary executive theory.
3. Ethics statutes which exclude the president should be revised. In particular, the president should be required to disclose his tax returns.
4. The right of Congress to conduct investigations and to demand material from the executive branch should also be given a clear statutory basis.

Given that the GOP will want to be able to hold President Biden accountable, it should be possible to get a bipartisan consensus for these kinds of actions. Without them, the next GOP president will be tempted to go even further than Trump; illiberal democracy is just around the corner.

Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon shortly after the latter’s resignation in an effort to heal the nation’s wounds and move forward. It was an unpopular decision that may well have cost him the 1976 election. I think it is fair to say, however, that the verdict of history is on his side. The pardon was, in fact, in the national interest, if not Ford’s.

Biden will face a somewhat similar situation if he wins the election, given the long list of Trump’s misdeeds both in and out of office. In my opinion, it would be a mistake to authorize DOJ to take legal action against Trump. It would make the vital task of dealing with the national divisions far more difficult, invite retaliation, and make America look like a banana republic.

There are caveats to that advice, of course. Important examples of poor and corrupt administration should be reviewed and made public, and the Vance investigation should not be hindered in any way. If Vance determines beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed crimes in New York before he was elected, then he should be free to treat Trump just like any other lawbreaker.

Biden’s most important task will be to protect the nation’s foundations from further institutional rot. My next post will address that issue.

The DOJ’s decision to attack Yale’s admission policies isn’t just an attempt to retry the Harvard case; when combined with Trump’s statements about fair housing rules and the suburbs, it should be seen as a blatant election year attempt to pander to the view of white reactionaries that they, not black people, are the true victims of institutional racism. Call it the 2020 Project.

The 1619 Project at least has most of the facts on its side. It is accurate, but incomplete; the 2020 Project is pure rubbish.

Affirmative action was designed to be a temporary solution to the effects of slavery and racism. It would be nice if we could have a reasoned, good faith discussion about how long it should last, but that is not in the cards. The bottom line is the data clearly show that we are nowhere close to being there today, and anyone who suggests otherwise is being deliberately blind.

Like Donald Trump, Netanyahu will say and do anything to stay in power. Unlike Trump, he’s actually good at it. Beset with political and legal problems, and stuck with an unpopular campaign promise that he probably didn’t want to keep, he managed to leverage the annexation issue into diplomatic recognition by the UAE. It was a stunning, but ultimately meaningless (except to him) accomplishment.

Why meaningless? It doesn’t bring a peace with the Palestinians any closer. It doesn’t really change the relationship with the UAE, or even make a secret public. It doesn’t change the balance of power with Iran. It doesn’t even take annexation off the table for good; if Netanyahu is once again forced by events to talk about it, he’ll do it.

What this will do is provide further confirmation to Trump that life is all about creating and using leverage. If the Constitution denies you that leverage, well, the Constitution is just a scrap of paper.

President Cotton was frustrated. Having been elected by a tiny Electoral College margin (and without a popular majority) in 2024, he was determined to deliver the goods to his faithful Reactionary and PBP supporters, but the Democratic House rejected his agenda out of hand. Building on the precedents established in the Trump years, he signed executive orders directing the IRS not to collect capital gains tax and prohibiting DOJ from enforcing any civil rights laws, which he described as “immoral” and an “offense against God.”

The Democrats took legal action, but the Supreme Court viewed it as a political question and refused to intervene. Impeachment was out of the question, given Cotton’s support in both houses. There was no effective legal remedy for the obvious usurpation of power.

Protests broke out in most major American cities. It was the provocation that Cotton had been waiting for since 2020. He had already replaced the leaders of the military with men he knew he could trust to protect his interests over those of the country. He consequently sent the military to squelch the protests with orders to use overwhelming force. There were hundreds of casualties, but the protests ended. Fox News rejoiced.

Attorney General Barr, brought out of retirement just for this kind of event, announced that the government would use emergency powers to censor the MSM and the internet in order to prevent any new protests. Prominent Democrats, including members of Congress, who had supported the protests were arrested and held indefinitely without charge. New reactionary social legislation was adopted by presidential decree. Opponents of the regime learned to keep quiet. America had turned into Hungary, or even Hong Kong.