Month: September 2020

At Tuesday night’s show from the ‘land

The Don got a bit out of hand.

He thinks that the rules

Are fit only for fools.

How many such scenes can we stand?

Investors have always given Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt. They have consistently ignored Trump’s tariffs and capricious interventions and focused solely on his tax and regulatory cuts. Why? I think it is because they see him as a businessman, and thus a kindred spirit, regardless of his other shortcomings. You could call it identity investing.

But Wall Street hates uncertainty. The prospect of a prolonged conflict after the election, and even blood on the streets, has to be unnerving. Logically, that should be particularly true after Trump’s completely unhinged performance at last night’s debate.

Will we see problems with the markets if the aftermath of the election is as Trump advertises? My guess is yes, but not until then; investors are still in denial as of today.

The single most important thing to remember about reactionaries is that they are angry. As they see it, they built this country, and made it great. Today, their skills don’t have the value they used to as a result of the evolution of the knowledge-based economy. They have suffered a diminution of status as a result. The government, for its part, ignores their plight and gives their hard-earned money to lazy minorities who would rather whine about racism than put in an honest day’s work. Their culture and values are threatened by perverts and illegal immigrants, and the coastal elites, who are prospering while they struggle, are laughing and sneering at them. No wonder they love Trump! He tells off their enemies every day! No one else does that.

The question after last night’s disgrace is whether there is any point at which Trump’s antics become too much even for this crowd. I suspect not. The more stupid, grating, and obnoxious he is, the better they like it. That is the unique insight that Trump has brought to our political system, to the cost of everyone who isn’t a reactionary.

Of course, as I’ve noted innumerable times, Trump’s base isn’t big enough to win him a fair election. He has come to realize that, but instead of widening his appeal, he has decided to try and break the system. That, alas, is where we are today.

Now I work down at the car wash

Where all it ever does is rain.

Don’t you feel like you’re a rider on a downbound train?

——- Springsteen

To be honest with you, I couldn’t bear to watch most of that. I followed it through the NYT’s live analysis. It seemed safer that way.

Biden’s objectives were to avoid looking like a senile old man, to prevent Trump from rolling all over him, and to convince everyone that voting was worth the effort, because Trump would have to leave if he lost. He succeeded admirably in the first two; I don’t know about the third.

Having failed to prove that he was the alpha male, Trump just resorted to abusing everyone around him, playing to his base, lying, and implicitly threatening to call his supporters on to the streets when he loses. There was no evidence of any effort to win over undecided voters, especially suburban women. Rachel Maddow said he was running against the election, not Biden. That sounds about right.

What a ghastly advertisement for our system! I feel like I just watched an episode of domestic violence on live TV. I’m not sure I care to repeat the experience two more times.

Should the Chinese welcome or fear a Biden presidency? It’s a mixed bag. On the plus side, he might be persuaded to lift those stupid tariffs and negotiate more reasonably, and his relative predictability reduces the likelihood of stumbling into either a trade or a shooting war. He will also be looking to cooperate on climate change. On the down side, his complaints about human rights would be unwelcome, and he’s likely to be much more effective than Trump (who doesn’t really even try) in persuading the Europeans, Australians, Japanese, South Koreans, and Indians to join a united front against Chinese aggression.

What are the chances of a President Biden engaging in a shooting war to protect Taiwan? I honestly don’t know the answer to that one. He probably doesn’t, either.

From Trump, we will get lies and nonstop aggression, because, true to form, he believes that the aggressor will be seen as the winner regardless of the substance of the discussion. In some cases, there is some merit to that, but not this one; obnoxious behavior is unlikely to sell him to the suburban housewives he is trying desperately to win over.

From Biden, we will see pleas for decency and unity and lots of counterpunching. Most of the memorable lines from past debates were counterpunches, so this is an advantage for him. Be ready with those zingers, because there will be plenty of opportunities to use them.

Both candidates will reinforce the public perception of their respective personas. As a result, nothing will change.

In terms of the election, no. His base doesn’t care; the blue team already understood what he was; and if I’m right about the motivations of the handful of undecided voters, their concerns lie elsewhere.

But in going forward after the election, yes. If Biden wins, the narrative about plutocrats not paying taxes will be much easier to sell to the public. If Trump wins, the intersection between policy and his debts is going to be a major theme of the next four years.

To understand the strategic importance of Taiwan, just look at a map. It lies in the middle of the principal sea lane to Japan and South Korea. If America ultimately chooses to acquiesce to a PRC takeover of the island, the Chinese will have a foot on the necks of those two countries.

Then what? Neither Japan nor South Korea is in any position to wage war against China. They will turn into vassal states; their current liberal democratic systems will remain in place, but they will be required to follow the Chinese line in everything that matters.

In other words, it will be a big step in the reconstruction of the Chinese Empire. Everything old is new again.

Have you seen the ad for the new Trump/Comey miniseries on Showtime? Both characters are shown in silhouette at a table. The actor playing Trump has his chest and his chin thrust out like some sort of a cross between a fat Mafia don and an angry gorilla. The picture is worth about a billion words. You don’t even have to watch the show to know how it turns out.

That’s the man putting Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court. Her every instinct should be telling her “Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!” But is it? I don’t know.

Most commentators agree that this year’s debates will matter less than usual, because the number of undecided voters is unusually low. Given Trump’s polarizing personality, that seems reasonable.

But some presumably exist. Who are they? I’m guessing they fall into two categories:

1. Transactional voters who are waiting to see what the condition of the economy is in November; and
2. Voters who are leaning against Trump, but need further evidence of Biden’s acuity and moderation before they make the final leap.

Neither candidate can do anything about #1 at the debate. #2 is purely in Biden’s hands. Trump has set a very low bar, and will undoubtedly make an obnoxious fool of himself during the debate, so this should be an easy win for the blue team.

We apparently have an informal agreement to defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression. And why not? From unpromising authoritarian beginnings, Taiwan has evolved into a robust, prosperous liberal democratic state. It is everything we hoped the mainland would be, but isn’t.

Circumstances have changed, however. It was relatively easy to commit to defend Taiwan when the PRC was a military pygmy. That is no longer true, and is becoming less true by the day. We would be fighting on the PRC’s home field, thousands of miles from the American mainland. It would be an incredibly risky endeavor.

The Chinese leadership has shown in recent days that it won’t wait forever to force a confrontation over Taiwan. When it does, will the United States put its very existence at risk to protect what it acknowledges is part of China? Is Taiwan a core strategic interest in the same way that Europe is?

I have my doubts, regardless of who the American president is at the time. If I’m a member of the Taiwanese government, I wouldn’t base my plans on it.

Donald Trump clearly sees himself as a figure from a Nietzsche book–the man whose greatness is so overwhelming and self-evident that he cannot be bound by laws designed for mere mortals. His reactionary supporters mostly view him in the same way. Republican members of Congress know better, but enable him in order to appease the red base.

Today’s question is, simply put, what is the basis for this belief? What has Trump ever done with his life that justifies such treatment?

As far as I can tell, Trump’s “accomplishments” consist of building a few large, garish buildings in New York, creating and making money off a bogus brand, being the host of a reality show with modestly impressive ratings, and running numerous businesses, most notably casinos, into the ground at someone else’s expense. That record entitles you to immunity from normal ethical standards? I don’t see it. I honestly don’t see how anyone does.

The confirmation hearings will, as always, be prime political theater. What kinds of questions should the Democrats ask her? Here are my ideas:

1. PEOPLE OF PRAISE: Questions about Catholicism in general are counterproductive, but there are reports that she may have taken some kind of an oath to this group. We are entitled to know if there was such an oath, what it was, and to whom it was given.
2. RELATIONSHIP WITH TRUMP: Overturning Roe was, by Trump’s admission, a litmus test in the nomination process. It is also clear that he expects his appointees to vote in litigation over the election to keep him in office. In light of that, why should America believe that she hasn’t given him a promise on abortion, and why shouldn’t she have to recuse herself in any election-related litigation?
3. ORIGINALISM: Methodological questions abound. How are the Founders’ views on things that didn’t exist (e.g., the internet) ascertained? Which Founders are the most important? How are their views determined, since they frequently changed over time? If it is more a question of general public opinion in 1787, how is that ascertained?
4. THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS: The Civil War and Reconstruction changed America dramatically. How does that impact originalism? Should the views of the authors of the three Reconstruction amendments be given the same weight as the original founders? If not, why not?
5. THE ROLE OF PRECEDENT: Is it appropriate to overturn precedents on which hundreds of millions of people have relied for many years? If so, when?
6. PAST CASES: Don’t just ask about Roe–ask about Griswold. It is more explosive, and will be harder for her to avoid, since there is no pending litigation on the subject. Was it correctly decided?
7. THE PROPER USE OF HISTORY: Heller is another good case to use as a basis of inquiry. The leading historians on the subject of the Second Amendment think Scalia (her mentor) cherrypicked his facts to support an incorrect partisan position. Why should we believe they are wrong? What assurance do we have that she won’t do the same thing?
8. THE PROPER ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT: Is it the proper role of the Supreme Court to serve as a permanent roadblock to any proposed progressive legislation with established majority support among the electorate? Won’t the Court lose its legitimacy with the public if it does that?

THIS LAND AIN’T YOUR LAND

This land ain’t your land.

This land is my land.

From California

To the New York island.

From the redwood forest

To the Gulf stream waters.

This land was made for Trump and me.

By all accounts, Amy Coney Barrett is practically a saint in her private life. But consider the circumstances behind her nomination. She has been selected by an elected gangster, not just to serve as a prop for his re-election campaign, but for the purpose of tearing the country apart and ultimately providing an essential vote to keep him in office. When the Godfather gives you a job, he demands services in return. In his eyes, that’s the way the world works.

If you’re even a tiny bit sensitive, wouldn’t that make you just a little bit uncomfortable? Shouldn’t it? Does she want American blood, and the death of our liberal democratic system, as her legacy? Apparently, she doesn’t view that as a problem. It’s all about God’s will and the next world, not this one.

Maybe we should just canonize her and skip the Supreme Court part; it would work better for everyone.