Month: September 2020

You had to wonder: why did Trump continue to minimize the effects of the virus in the face of the evidence and expert advice? Was he just too stupid to process the information that was given to him?

We have the answer from his own lips–no! He downplayed the virus because he wanted to avoid “panic.” What he means by that is that he was concerned about a falling stock market, a struggling economy, and a threat to his re-election. He just wanted us to get on with our lives in the usual way even if it resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

So he’s a liar, not a moron. Do you find that comforting?

Any normal politician, seeing his country crushed by a pandemic, would simply extend the Brexit deadline. Boris Johnson, however, is not a normal politician. Brexit and chaos are his brand. As a result, he is threatening to renege on the previous deal with the EU over Northern Ireland; in true Trumpian style, he views potential violations of existing agreements as a form of leverage in the current negotiations.

The EU isn’t likely to fall for it. Tearing up deals will destroy the UK’s credibility as a negotiating partner as long as Boris is PM. He can’t afford that in the long run, regardless of what advantages it may give him in the short run.

It is noteworthy that several prominent members of the Conservative Party have expressed their outrage over this tactic. Would any Republicans do the same? You know the answer to that question.

On the 45th President Trump.

The virus has made him a grump.

He admitted he lied.

Countless victims have died

And the country is in a deep slump.

The Battle of France was over. The Wehrmacht was massed on the French coast, seemingly ready to invade Britain. All eyes were on the Prime Minister. What would he say to rally the country?

“Nothing to worry about–we’ve got this covered. The Germans will go away, probably by the fall. They’re not so bad, anyway–Napoleon would have been much worse. And even if they did try to invade, we’ve got a secret weapon that will kill them all. It’ll be incredible. Trust me. Trust me.”

When asked later why he didn’t do more to mobilize the British public against the enemy, Churchill conceded that he was extremely worried about an invasion, but that nothing really could be done about it, and that his job as the nation’s leader was to avoid panic. That, and to make sure he was re-elected.

Florida state government is highly dependent on sales tax revenues, which predictably have plunged as a result of the pandemic. Massive budget cuts are in the offing. Since service cuts and layoffs are bound to be unpopular, however, the governor, presumably with the approval of the rest of the state GOP leadership, has decided to postpone the day of reckoning until after the election.

But what then? What will Roadrunner do when he reaches the cliff? It depends on the outcome of the election. If Biden wins, you will see new stimulus legislation addressing state and local government shortfalls in short order. If Trump wins, however, things become a bit more uncertain. Will the GOP small government fanatics take a victory lap by refusing aid and enforcing cuts all over the country? Or will Trump find a way to bail out his friends and punish his blue state enemies?

Let’s hope we never find out.

The last time we had a dangerously contested election was 1876. That one ended with a deal which involved the withdrawal of federal troops from several southern states and, effectively, the end of Reconstruction. If something similar happens this time, who would make the deal for the GOP, and what would it entail?

The most likely answers to the questions are Mitch McConnell, and something pertaining to judges and the survival of the filibuster.

Donald Trump speaks for all Americans. He is America.

Well, maybe he doesn’t speak for women. Or blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, or Native Americans. Or anyone who lives in a city. Or seculars, Jews, or Muslims.

Or the MSM. Or NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, the WaPo, or the NYT. Or anyone in the entertainment business. Or liberals of any sort. Or anyone with a college education. Or environmentalists, or anyone who works in clean energy.

Or anyone associated with the Big Ten, NASCAR, the NBA, or the NFL. Or the FBI or the CIA. Or the highest ranks of our military. Or the judiciary.

Never mind all of them. Let’s just say that Trump stands for all real Americans–whatever is left.

His infamous protestation notwithstanding, Richard Nixon was, in fact, a crook. But there were two extremely important occasions when he put the nation’s interests ahead of his own. The first, of course, was his resignation, which avoided a divisive, protracted impeachment trial. The less well known episode occurred in 1960, when he accepted the outcome of an election that may have been decided by the votes of dead people in Chicago. It was a precedent for Al Gore’s concession in 2000.

Trump has already put us through the pain of an impeachment trial. Will he follow Nixon’s example if he loses in November?

Of course not. That would require him to care about the condition of the country, which is of no interest to him whatsoever.

I was reading an article in The Atlantic this afternoon which made the case for defunding the police. While I am in no position to evaluate the argument that the police do more harm than good (on its face, that depends completely on the circumstances in an enormous number of different jurisdictions), I feel comfortable commenting on the following premises:

1. Crime is the product of the environment, and can be more or less eliminated with well-funded social programs; and
2. It is reasonable to expect American voters to support a program that could, if unsuccessful, cost them their lives and property.

As to #1, just consider the proliferation of crime novels from Scandinavian writers. They live in countries with abundant social programs and limited (if growing) racism, and yet . . . all those murders! Fiction or not, the books reflect a larger reality. Crime is not simply created by adverse social conditions, and funding new programs is not going to make it go away.

As to #2, even if you could be sure that defunding would work in the long run, is that a risk you are willing to take in the short term? It is perfectly rational to say no; we live in an infinite number of short terms. Don’t expect the public to accept that risk.

“The people who live in big cities are lawless animals!” said the man who built Trump Tower.

“They have no respect for traditional values!” said the former owner of several failed casinos.

“They don’t submit themselves to God” said the man who knows nothing of religion, and worships only power, money, fame, and himself.

“They don’t believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage!” said the thrice-married man whose sex life used to be written up in the New York Post.

“They don’t support our military, and they disrespect our flag!” said Cadet Bone Spurs, the man who referred to fallen soldiers and POWs as “losers.”

“They don’t respect the law!” said the man who paid hush money to Stormy Daniels.

“I alone can fix this problem” said the man who took no responsibility for defeating the virus.

And tens of millions of people believed him, which proves that Barnum’s famous quote about suckers was actually way too conservative.

Unions are a barrier to the efficient operation of businesses. Some of them have a history of being corrupt. Finally, as we have recently seen with police unions, organizations run primarily by and for middle-aged white men are not exactly known as being socially progressive. There are plenty of good reasons why people my age didn’t embrace unions.

But this came at a cost. Unions are an effective mechanism to transfer wealth from capital to labor. There is a clear correlation between the decline of unions and the national increase in inequality. And it isn’t inevitable that unions have to be associated with reactionary views on social issues; the frontier for union organization consists of employees who are disproportionately female and minority.

There are two conclusions to be drawn from this. First, the Democrats are right to propose legislation and regulations that make organization easier. In fact, they should be doing more to highlight this issue as a wedge between the GOP and its favorite pool of voters. Second, it is possible that, at some point in the future, unions may actually be a progressive force in American politics.

The single most important thing for Biden was and is to make the election a referendum on Trump. By running a low key campaign that is heavy on empathy and light on policy, he has done that. There is no reason to believe the approach will change between now and November.

Is there anything he could do to lose the election at this point? Here are some possibilities:

1. BOTCH THE DEBATES: There is nothing in his performance over the last year which suggests that will happen. In any event, Trump is hardly a formidable debater; all he can do is tell outrageous lies and bluster. In addition, by talking about Biden’s supposed lack of mental acuity, Trump has created a very low bar for him, which can only help.
2. DEPRESS THE LEFT: Trump will drive turnout no matter what he does. He made deals with Sanders and Warren and embraced some of their ideas. They are working hard for him. He is in much better shape with the left than Hillary was in 2016.
3. FRIGHTEN THE RIGHT: The emphasis on empathy and personality rather than policy is designed to address the concerns of moderate swing voters.

The bottom line is that, while we may see a few gaffes between now and November, it is highly unlikely that Biden will do anything to change the fundamentals of the race in Trump’s favor. If he loses, it is far more likely to be the result of events outside his control, including, but not limited to, massive vote suppression.

David Brooks wants to know if we, as individuals, have a plan to keep the country from falling apart if Trump refuses to concede in the face of a clear defeat. It is an all too plausible scenario, and a completely legitimate question.

But there are better questions, directed at GOP leaders. What will Tom do? What will Last Ditch Mitch do? What will John Roberts do? And, above all, what will Tucker do? Will he grit his teeth and tell his viewers to live with a Biden victory, or will he summon them on the streets to burn down the republic in order to save it?

I don’t know the answers to these questions, of course, but here are my best guesses. Cotton will support keeping Trump in power by force. McConnell will see the situation as an opportunity to make a deal with Biden on substance in exchange for maintaining the Constitution. Roberts will do his duty, because he always has in a pinch. And Tucker? If Rupert Murdoch doesn’t figure out that his best interests aren’t served by an ash heap America, it’s burn, baby, burn.

Nationalism is a feeling, not an idea. It is the sense that every individual is just a small part of a larger community which is the organism that really matters in history. It is the belief that the culture attached to that community is better than anyone else’s, and must be protected at all costs. It ties the lives of individuals to a cause that is bigger than themselves. It can, and often does, serve as a substitute for religion, which largely serves the same purpose.

Because nationalism is not an idea, it cannot be rebutted with logical arguments–only results. The first half of the twentieth century provided us with those in spades. Politicians throughout the world consequently worked very hard after World War II to create institutions that would prevent nationalism from getting out of control again. Liberal democracy, the various institutions associated in one way or another with the UN, the EU, even international communism in its way–all of them were designed to restrain the worst excesses of nationalism. They have worked pretty well, on the whole; the world has become a more peaceful place, to the benefit of everyone.

But time passes, and people forget. Steve Bannon somehow views the thirties as being some sort of golden age. Trump’s “America First” mantra is a rejection of internationalist institutions. Revisionist states are on the prowl. The world is getting more dangerous.

Where are we going with this? American support of international institutions is vital if they are to survive in any meaningful way. If Biden wins, the Trump era will probably be viewed as an outlier in the long run. If Trump wins, heaven help us all.

The question is neatly encapsulated in “man on golf cart;” is Trump a dangerous tyrant, or does he just aspire to play one on TV? Lots of pundits have weighed in on this issue on both sides. Is there a definitive answer?

You don’t have to choose: he can be both, and is. Nobody would question his bona fides as a figure of absurdity, but it is perfectly possible to be a ridiculous dictator–just ask Mussolini. In any event, even if he doesn’t actually aspire to be a tyrant, both events and the people around him could drive him to become one.

To put the issue another way, if you asked Trump if he objected more to being called a fascist than a loser, what do you think he would say? Exactly! Regardless of what he might actually want in his heart of hearts, he will burn down half of the country if that’s what it takes to be recognized as the unquestioned leader of the remaining half.