Month: December 2020

Like many of us, Thomas Friedman is hoping that the battle between Trump’s reactionary crazies and the rest of the GOP will transform the latter into a responsible center-right party. It would be a Christmas miracle, to be sure. Is it likely?

Let’s put it this way: even if you take the Reactionary faction completely out of the picture, which is clearly impossible, the GOP would be led by a man who ruthlessly and single-mindedly pursues his goals of tax cuts and deregulation for his donors and power for himself regardless of the interests of the American people as a whole. Does that sound like promising material for a responsible center-right party to you?

Nevertheless, we can dream. The last Christmas miracle was 2020 years ago. Maybe we’re overdue.

I was reading an interview a few days ago in which a prominent Justice Democrat was arguing that, due to the Democrats’ shrunken majority in the House, the left controls the balance of power. Was he right?

Of course not! Small legislative factions can dictate policy in parliamentary systems when their positions are roughly equidistant from the two major parties, or when they have a credible incentive to force new elections. None of that is present here. We don’t have a parliamentary system, new elections are a legal impossibility, and the Justice Democrats will always be closer in ideology to the leadership than to the GOP. As a result, the threat is completely hollow; it can and will be ignored.

As I predicted, the Reactionary faction of the GOP has split over the legitimacy of Biden’s victory. One subfaction (we’ll call them the Barrists) believes that Trumpism has some intellectual coherence as an ideology apart from the man on golf cart and pushes the envelope as far as possible, but feels obligated to observe at least some of the forms of constitutional government. The other subfaction consists of crazoids and conspiracy theorists whose loyalty is purely to Trump as an individual. These are the folks who are talking about overturning the election and declaring martial law; in their view, the Barrists are RINOs and cucks.

In other words, the Judean People’s Front has declared war on the People’s Front of Judea. As with the movie, our only task is to sit back, watch the show, and laugh.

A normal president would be doing his best to keep the ship of state afloat and moving in a reasonable and predictable direction during the transition period. Trump is anything but normal, and he is trying to do as much harm as possible before he leaves.

Yesterday was a perfect example. First, he issued more pardons to figures from the Russia investigation and to members of the armed forces who committed atrocities in Iraq. Then, he threatened to veto the stimulus bill on the basis that the payments to individuals were way too small, when in fact, they shouldn’t be in the bill at all. The threat was clearly motivated by his desire to remain relevant in his waning days, and was a transparent bribe to the American people in his quixotic battle to stay in office.

The good news here is that, having blown up everything else, Trump is now training his guns on mainstream GOP politicians and showing us what his presidency could have been like if he had not chosen Republican fiscal orthodoxy over opportunistic populism after he took office. That could create some openings for Biden and the Democrats. Even nihilism sometimes has its uses.

Based on the results of surveys which indicate that its taxing and spending plans are popular, the left insists that it is winning the war of ideas. That does not, however, translate into winning elections. The public may approve of the individual programs, but it doesn’t trust the messengers. That is the reason, for example, that Florida voted for Trump and a large minimum wage increase.

So what should the left do? Here are some ideas:

1. STOP CALLING IT SOCIALISM: Millions of Americans associate “socialism” with totalitarian leaders or with some form of political correctness run amok. Either way, it is a huge vote loser with everyone but millennials who are going to vote for you, anyway. Avoid the label like the plague; based on the textbook definition, you aren’t really a socialist, anyway.
2. TAKE THE CULTURE WAR ISSUES SERIOUSLY: Left-leaning politicians rarely deign to acknowledge the importance and legitimacy of culture war issues to large segments of the population. Dismissing Christianity as a form of “false consciousness,” talking about “defunding the police,” and complaining about voters who put identity and values issues over their economic self-interest doesn’t win elections outside of bright blue districts. Values and identity concerns have to be addressed openly and frankly in red and purple jurisdictions. Make it clear that you care vastly more about affordable health care than bathrooms for transgender people.

2020 has been a disaster for the left wing of the Democratic Party. First, its chosen candidates, Sanders and Warren, were routed in the primaries, thereby showing that the left doesn’t even constitute a majority of Democrats, much less the country. Then, its plan to use its Twitter muscle to force Biden to become a new FDR fell by the wayside when the GOP gained seats in the House, and appeared likely to maintain control of the Senate. Worse, its theory of winning power by boosting turnout and ignoring swing voters was a complete flop. To the surprise of no one except the left, millions of newly mobilized voters liked Donald Trump.

But Georgia presents one last opportunity to save the day. If the Democrats can win two elections that unquestionably revolve around turnout, the left’s mobilization theory will be partially vindicated, and the Democrats will control the Senate. Pressure for fundamental changes, such as court packing and the abolition of the filibuster, will intensify.

Will it happen? It’s possible–both elections will be close– but I’m not holding my breath.

“Defund the Police” was one of the principal targets of GOP candidates during the last election. As the basis for federal policymaking, it is a political disaster, for the following reasons:

1. Yes, crime is down relative to where it was years ago, but you would never know it by watching the local news in any market you might choose. TV stations virtually always lead with crime stories, because they are colorful and make for good ratings. Americans are consequently hypersensitive to crime regardless of the trends and statistics. They aren’t going to vote to get rid of the people who protect them from the bad guys they see at 6:00 every night, to say nothing of the crime dramas in prime time in which cops are invariably portrayed as heroes.
2. America has thousands of jurisdictions with law enforcement responsibilities. Many of them probably don’t have excessive force or racism issues; their residents have no interest in defunding the police. In some of them, the problems are limited to a few bad apples, who need to be identified and disciplined. In a few, the problems are systemic, and require a sweeping response. There is no one size fits all federal solution to these problems; they have to be addressed based on their individual facts.

(It’s 5:00 on December 24. Bob Cratchit is working in his cubicle at Scrooge, LLC when the boss, in “managing by walking around” mode, comes by.)

C: Mr. Scrooge, sir.

S: What is it . . . (looks at the nameplate in the cubicle) . . . Cratchit?

C: Can I have tomorrow off, sir?

S: Why in the world would I do that?

C: Why . . . because it’s Christmas, sir.

S: Not in China, it isn’t. How am I supposed to compete with those people and their low labor costs if I give you unnecessary days off?

C: Well, actually, the Chinese get a whole week off for Chinese New Year. We shouldn’t be working on site this year, anyway. I might get the virus and give it to my special needs child.

S: (Sees a picture of Tiny Tim in the cubicle) Is that him?

C: Yes, sir.

(Scrooge walks around the office with an exaggerated limp)

C: There’s nothing funny about it, sir! He’s in really bad shape!

S: I don’t have time for that political correctness crap.

C: You sound just like Donald Trump, sir.

S: Trump is right about some things. I will miss him on occasion. Mostly, I won’t.

C: Why? Didn’t I see you wearing a MAGA hat?

S: That’s only because I hate socialism. I still have Mitch to protect me, and I won’t have to worry about Trump’s capriciousness and tariffs anymore. It’s the best of all worlds, politically speaking.

C: So, you don’t believe in the fraud stuff, and you don’t support martial law?

S: Certainly not. Those people are nuts. We don’t need the uncertainty. It’s time to move on.

C: You know that Biden is very pro-labor. There will be lots of new regulations.

S: Yeah, and that’s why I’m going to give you your day off. Sort of. There will be a Zoom meeting at noon. I’ll text you the password.

C: Thank you, sir!

S: And don’t even think about ghosting me!

(Cratchit packs up and leaves)

Some commentators on the right argue that Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election are justified by the left’s denial of his legitimacy in 2016 and thereafter. Are they correct?

No, because there are two fundamental differences in the situations:

1. The objections to Trump’s legitimacy after the 2016 election were primarily moral, not legal. Hillary Clinton sucked it up and conceded promptly. There were demonstrations, but no barrage of frivolous lawsuits, let alone efforts to get state legislatures to appoint their own electors or semi-serious discussions about martial law.
2. The left’s complaints were based in fact, not fantasy. Trump did, in fact, lose the popular vote by a significant margin. He did, in fact, receive (and welcome) assistance from the Russians, and subsequently attempt to compel Ukraine to intervene in the 2020 election on his behalf. Just because his campaign’s communications with Russians didn’t meet the standard for a criminal conspiracy doesn’t mean they didn’t happen, or that they didn’t matter. Trump’s objections to the “rigged” vote, on the other hand, are supported by nothing but the fevered imaginations of some of his most rabid supporters.

The PBP/Reactionary deal on regressive tax cuts, deregulation, and conservative judges has been the cornerstone of the GOP since Reagan. Historically, the Reactionaries were content to let the PBPs run the show for most of that period, and were satisfied with a few public relations crumbs here and there. Reactionary deference disappeared, however, as a result of a variety of factors and events, including: the abject failures of the George W. Bush administration; the emergence of Fox News and right-wing web sites; the impacts of globalization and technological change on white male workers; threatening demographic changes; and legal decisions expanding the rights of sexual minorities, to the consternation of conservative Christians.

While Donald Trump’s economic ideas were impeccably PBP, his rhetoric was consistently Reactionary, which distinguishes him from all of his GOP predecessors. With his defeat, is there any hope that the beast will be releashed? Based on the overall outcome of the election, no; if anything, you can expect the Reactionaries to be more, not less assertive within the GOP in the next few years.

In a few respects, mostly dealing with foreign policy, Trump deviated dramatically from GOP orthodoxy. These included:

1. A strong aversion to military interventions, particularly in the Middle East;
2. An almost complete lack of interest in human rights issues, except cynically for leverage in negotiations;
3. A preference for dealing with dictators over elected leaders;
4. A willingness to openly discuss using nuclear weapons;
5. A willingness to meet with foreign leaders without making the customary preparations;
6. An unjustified phobia about trade deficits; and
7. The enthusiastic and arbitrary use of tariffs, even against close allies.

How much of this will survive him? Probably not much. The most interesting question involves #3. If the GOP continues to lean towards authoritarianism at home, how can that not impact their views on foreign policy? How can you plausibly extoll the virtues of liberal democracy abroad as you openly undermine it at home? As the man on golf cart likes to say, we’ll see.

As I’ve noted innumerable times before, the foundation of today’s GOP is an unwritten agreement by which PBPs get tax cuts and deregulation for business, and Reactionaries get socially conservative judges and inflammatory culture wars rhetoric. Trump has delivered in spades on both sides of the bargain, which is why he retained such strong support among Republican voters in November in spite of his inept and uncaring response to the pandemic. His ideas on most domestic issues, including climate change, the environment, relations between business and labor, inequality, affirmative action, support for Christianity, and immigration are completely within the mainstream of the GOP.

These elements of Trumpism will be carried forward by the party’s next leader, regardless of who it is.

That’s exactly what they are doing by denying aid to state and local governments. Maybe someone should point that out?

Plenty of commentators are speculating about whether Trumpism will survive the fall of the man on golf cart. The question cannot be answered in a meaningful way without a definition of Trumpism. There are three elements of Trumpism: personality; orthodox GOP substantive ideology; and heterodox ideology. In this post, I will address the first of these.

It is often said–largely, but not completely, correctly–that Trumpism is nothing more or less than Donald Trump himself. Here are the most striking aspects of his personality:

1. Narcissism;
2. A complete lack of interest in policy details;
3. Faith in gut instincts, not expertise, which is viewed with suspicion as being associated with the “deep state;”
4. Intolerance of opposition;
5. Demands for complete loyalty, while giving none;
6. A short attention span;
7. The use of capriciousness as a negotiating tactic;
8. A belief that truth is whatever serves his interests rather than an objective concept;
9. A rejection of the very concept of public service, which causes him to put his own interests above his country’s;
10. The belief that in all human transactions, there is a winner and a loser, the identity of whom is dictated by power, wealth, shrewdness, and status;
11. Intellectual inflexibility (i.e., the only way he knows how to practice politics is to throw red meat to his base); and
12. An odd combination of whining and belligerence, based on the apparent belief that an evil, powerful establishment has denied him the status to which he is clearly entitled.

Most of these characteristics obviously won’t be shared by his successors, regardless of how disagreeable they may be. The exception is the last; it is difficult to imagine any GOP nominee in the foreseeable future who doesn’t campaign as an outsider grievance politician with a huge chip on his shoulder. That part of Trumpism, alas, is undoubtedly here to stay.

Every year around this time, the right starts bleating about a purely fictional “War on Christmas.” This year, I’m sure the complaints will focus on state coronavirus regulations designed to prevent unnecessary deaths. As if Jesus told his disciples that it was OK to walk around infecting people in late December.

The real war pits the GOP against blue states. This one is getting more virulent with each passing day. First, we had the limits on the SALT deduction in the Trump tax bill, which were justified as a measure to stick it to states with high taxes and levels of service. Now we have the refusal to provide relief to state and local governments, even though history tells us that it creates a double benefit, by maintaining both employment and service levels. Furthermore, there are plenty of red states that will be forced into unpopular service cuts without federal relief; the problem is hardly limited to blue states. Mitch and his henchmen are unmoved; making blue states squeal is the overriding objective here, not using federal powers to promote the welfare of America as a whole.

If blue state representatives acted in the same way, they would deny relief to Texas and Florida for damage caused by hurricanes on the basis that the residents of red states should just suck it up and be the rugged individuals they purport to be. That won’t happen, of course. As I’ve noted before, but it can’t be overemphasized, blue Americans may in some cases think themselves superior to their red compatriots, but red Americans deny that blue Americans are Americans at all. That is a fundamental difference between the two parties.