Month: October 2020

Pence initially objected to the use of plexiglass screens to separate the candidates, but he ultimately backed down, presumably because he finally realized it was for his own protection. After all, he will be alone on stage with a woman who isn’t his wife!

We know two things in advance about tonight’s debate: Pence won’t be as deranged as Trump was, because he doesn’t have it in him (think Maduro following Chavez here); and it won’t sway enough voters to count. You can watch it as pure entertainment.

Harris has been even more invisible than Biden throughout the campaign. This will be her chance to shine on a national stage and prove that she would be a worthy Democratic torchbearer after Biden leaves the scene. Will she succeed? I’m betting that she will, but we won’t know until tonight.

The Democrats swept the 2020 election and gained control of the Senate. Their first move was to introduce what should have been a relatively uncontroversial ethics reform package as a test for McConnell and the GOP. When the Republicans blocked the bill, the Democratic leadership concluded that the filibuster had to go. Even the moderates agreed, and the filibuster died.

By 2028, the pendulum had swung back in the ordinary course of business, and the GOP was back in power. Roe having been overturned in 2022, the scene was set for a federal abortion ban. The only serious points of discussion during the hearings were penalties for the women seeking abortions and the scope of any health-related exceptions. Ultimately, the decision was made to perpetuate the politically convenient myth that women requesting abortions were victims, and to limit exceptions to the imminent risk of death for the mother. The bill was reminiscent of the law as it existed in Ireland prior to about 2015.

As in Ireland, the legislation was a disaster. Wealthy women simply went overseas for abortions. Poor women used homemade remedies; some died. Most doctors refused to perform abortions even to save the life of the mother for fear of prosecution. When stories of mothers dying unnecessarily started to pile up, the backlash against the GOP was intense. The law was amended substantially, and the GOP paid the price at the polls for years thereafter.

There are three obstacles between the GOP and a total federal ban on abortion:

1. Roe v. Wade;
2. The Democratic majority in the House; and
3. The filibuster.

The Barrett nomination makes it much more likely that the right will go for gold and completely overturn Roe, as opposed to just effectively banning abortion in red states through bogus health regulations. #2 will disappear at some point in time. That leaves the filibuster. What would Mitch do under these circumstances? Would he grab the marshmallow again and eliminate the filibuster?

On its face, it would be a violation of his principles, but as we’ve learned, he has no principles except holding and exercising power. It would probably cost the GOP in the long run, and the abortion ban would be reversed as soon as the Democrats regained control. But he would be under enormous pressure from the far right. It would be sorely tempting.

The Democrats may do the dirty work for him, and save him any angst over the issue. How would that happen? That will be the subject of my next post.

Polls have consistently shown that a large majority of Americans support additional gun restrictions, but gun legislation never goes anywhere in Congress. Why? Contrary to most public opinion, the NRA isn’t the villain here; the inaction is due to the perception that millions of gun enthusiasts are one-issue voters who can and will tip elections away from conservative Democrats if they are provoked. All of the intensity on the issue is on the wrong side. Nothing will happen unless and until that changes, which is conceivable, as the number of massacres mounts.

The abortion issue is starting to look very similar to me. The public, as a whole, clearly supports Roe v. Wade, but abortion opponents feel very strongly on the issue, while the pro-choice people mostly take their rights for granted. Will that change after Barrett is confirmed? Will the blue team mobilize as effectively for their cause as the red team when they know defeat is knocking at the door? Stay tuned.

Sentenced to be burned at the stake for heresy, William Tyndale’s last words were “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes!” If you feel compelled to pray for the man who is determined to burn our country down for the sake of his own ego, please frame your request in those terms. Otherwise, I will have to pray that your prayers will remain unanswered.

The Founding Fathers viewed the Electoral College as a handful of worthies choosing among their peers. Over time, this evolved, without any massive changes in the Constitution, into a state-by-state winner-take-all system based on popular votes. As a result of this strange and unnecessary system, the vast majority of votes are essentially meaningless, with all of the attention being placed on a relatively few number of votes in swing states. Can the system be revised to be more democratic without revising the Constitution?

Yes. The current system is only mandated in the Constitution to the extent that the Electoral College is required, and the number of votes given each state is set out. The document itself says nothing about a winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes within each state. In fact, that system is inconsistent with the FF’s original vision.

Allocating electoral votes based on proportions of the popular vote in each state would comply with both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. How can we get there? Start with the swing states. Their elections supervisors are under enormous stress, and the parties know that a few popular votes can make all of the difference between winning everything and losing it all. Wouldn’t it be safer for everyone to use proportions? Wouldn’t it eliminate lots of stress for everyone? Of course it would. No more peering at hanging chads! Less at stake in suppressing votes! Wouldn’t that be an improvement over the current system?

If the entire country accepted this system, we would have something very similar to a national popular vote, and states which get no attention from the candidates today would matter, all without going through a hopeless amendment process. I just don’t see a down side to it.

For Trump, catching the virus cuts straight to the heart of the strength narrative. Even for his most avid supporters, who believe that his awesomeness resolves all contradictions, this has to be a source of dismay and confusion. But what happens next?

The mortality rate for the virus is less than two percent, at last count, and Trump has the best medical care available, so it is likely that he will be healthy and back on the trail in one or two weeks. His ultimate triumph over the virus will then be perceived as more evidence of his status as a right-wing superhero. Anyone who can beat the big, bad virus can eat Biden for lunch, right?

Fortunately, it will be too late to matter. The arc of the election has already been established. The only remaining questions involve voter suppression.

(Trump is in the hospital, facing the virus for the first time since March)

T: So, you’re back! I thought I told you to leave in March!

V: Yes, you flattered me; you threatened me; and you tried to bribe me. Nothing worked, because your usual negotiating tactics don’t impress me. I told you I was here to stay for awhile.

T: You’ve gone too far this time. You’re helping Sleepy Joe win the election. Why would you do that?

V: He shows me respect by wearing a mask. You mock me and deny me. You’re getting what you deserve.

T: But that would make me a loser! That just can’t happen!

V: In your own words, it is what it is. It’s like people who are captured. Americans would rather have someone who stays healthy.

T: I’m a big, strong man. I radiate strength. I’ll kick your ass!

V: You’re an old, fat man whose idea of exercise is to ride in a golf cart. It won’t be that easy for you.

T: You don’t plan to kill me, do you?

V: As you often say, we’ll see. One thing’s for sure: the country would be better off without you.

T: I’m tired now. I need to sleep. (He goes to sleep. When does he wake up? Stay tuned.)

If you’re Xi Jinping, you’re probably feeling pretty good right now. After a poor start, you’ve pretty well beaten the virus, your economy is roaring back, and America is imploding in public. Things could scarcely be better for you.

Still, serious long term problems persist that will present a major challenge for you in the long run. Here they are:

1. DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY: China’s rise has been fueled by the migration of hundreds of millions of working age peasants to the cities. Unfortunately, while the Communist Party confesses error about as often as Trump does, the one child policy has been a demographic disaster. The country is aging rapidly, and there are few poor peasants left to be harvested, which means the cost of labor is going to rise substantially.
2. WHERE’S THE WELFARE STATE?: China has a very skimpy welfare state. It keeps costs down by relying on families and communities to take care of their own. That works perfectly well when the family remains intact in a rural setting, but China is a very different place today. The government will ultimately have to stop counting on Confucius to do its work for it. Costs will go up dramatically.
3. WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD: America abuts Canada and Mexico. China, on the other hand, abuts Russia, India, Vietnam, Pakistan, and North Korea. Not exactly the same thing.
4. CLIMATE KILLS: Battles with the weather have played a big role in Chinese history. That is going to happen again with climate change. Large parts of the country will struggle with too much, or not enough, water.
5. CORRUPTION IS A FEATURE OF A ONE-PARTY STATE: Without competition or a free press, there are few safeguards against corruption except the energy of the CCP’s leadership. Xi has mostly delivered on this point, but he was campaigning largely against his political adversaries. What happens five years from now, when everyone in a position of power is his friend? Will he really be willing to purge his allies, too? They probably doubt it, and so do I.

Trump has the virus. I’m not even going to pretend I’m sorry. I just hope it doesn’t win him some kind of sympathy vote.

More than anything else, including racism, regressive tax cuts, and reactionary views on social issues, Donald Trump’s brand is based on testosterone. In his view, swagger translates to strength, and strength is the difference between winners and losers. And so, he attacks relentlessly, and never admits to backing down, even when he does, which is more often than you would think.

Trump’s behavior at the Cleveland debate was completely consistent with this guiding principle. The problem is that it didn’t work; even some of his fans were put off. So what does he do now? Back off and implicitly concede that his bullying tactics aren’t working, or double down in the face of clear public disapproval?

As Biden would say, he is what he is, so I think you’re going to see just a slightly toned down version of the same madman at the last two debates. He’s simply not capable of changing course at this stage in his career, if indeed he ever was, which is questionable.

Years ago, I heard a joke to the effect that if you wanted to seize power in America, you would have to find it first. While Trump is doing his best to challenge this proposition, it is largely true. Power in America is highly decentralized, partly by historical accident, and partly because the Founding Fathers wanted it that way. American government is designed to maximize personal freedom, not efficiency.

The Chinese system is obviously completely different. There are few checks on the central government in practice, and none in theory. The only limits on its power involve time, space, and quick access to information. With AI, even these are dwindling rapidly.

Which is better? The pandemic is a case in point. In the long run, the Chinese system clearly worked better. However, that system also limits transparency and discourages local officials from taking any initiative to solve problems. The fact that the virus got out of control in the first place is largely due to those features of the system.

The bottom line is that the American system is typically slow and creaky, but is perfectly capable of mobilizing public opinion and working competently in a crisis–just ask the Nazis. A more efficient, centralized system also magnifies any mistakes that the Chinese central government may make; the Cultural Revolution is a perfect example. And what if you get a Donald Trump (think Bo Xilai) as the leader of such a system? It could happen, and the potential impacts boggle the mind.