Month: April 2021

Historically, the GOP had been the tougher of the two parties on Russia; it was Romney, not Obama, who identified Russia as a serious threat during the 2012 debates. Trump changed all of that, with his inexplicable enthusiasm for Putin, and his party followed. The Republicans blew off the threat to Ukraine during the impeachment proceedings for purely partisan reasons. But what about now, since Trump is no longer president? What will the GOP leadership do if Putin turns the screws on Ukraine during Biden’s term?

My guess is that the party will split, but most of the sentiment will be in favor of a harder line on the Russian government. There will be some post-Trump empathy for Russia, but not much. Trump will not be able to carry his party on this point. The Cold War will prevail over the culture war.

Let’s be honest: the electorate punished Trump for what he didn’t do (control the virus), not for what he did (consistently violate constitutional norms). GOP voters completely shrugged off the man on golf cart’s outrages. His reactionary base even appeared to approve of them, as they were proof of his disdain for the “deep state.”

What does this mean? It means the next GOP presidential candidate, whether it be Trump or someone else, is likely to promise more of the same. As a result, there is no point in Biden showing restraint when it comes to the scope of executive action. He won’t get any credit for it from the right.

I’m not advocating for actions that are clearly illegal. Neither am I suggesting that Biden should do anything gratuitous to throw gas on the culture war fire. What I am saying here is that Biden should take the most reasonably expansive view of the scope of his powers in instances where he can make a significant difference in the lives of the American people, because, in the real world, there is no down side to doing so.

It was impossible to watch the PBS series on Hemingway without thinking about Donald Trump. The toxic masculinity, womanizing, mythologizing, and tough guy image–they were all too familiar. If you could wriggle inside Trump’s tiny brain, you would probably find that he sees himself as a Hemingway successor, because, well, why wouldn’t he?

The differences, of course, are more compelling. Hemingway actually lived most of the experiences he wrote about, and left an enduring literary legacy. Trump just makes stuff up and screws people over. His legacy is the January 6 riot that he provoked and then watched on TV.

On those extraordinary occasions when money is plentiful and free, policymakers don’t have to worry about tradeoffs. That time is running out, and in any event, tax increases have down sides. Does the proposed corporate tax increase, on balance, make sense?

The advantages to the Biden proposal are as follows:

1. The corporate tax increase is supported by a majority of the public, so the politics work;
2. The plan is a partial rollback of portions of the Trump tax cut which, predictably, resulted in right-wing recycling instead of the promised additional investment, so we’re not actually losing anything here;
3. A significant percentage of the benefits of the Trump tax cut actually inured to foreigners; and
4. The majority of the tax increase will be borne by the relatively wealthy individuals owning stock, which will reduce inequality.

The down sides, in a nutshell, are that it will make American businesses less profitable and competitive on the world stage, and that plenty of blue voters will be hit by the lost value in their retirement plans. As to the first objection, however, American corporate taxes will still make up a lower percentage of GDP than similar taxes in Europe, so the competitiveness argument isn’t that compelling even if, as seems likely, it proves impossible to negotiate an international agreement prohibiting a race to the bottom on tax rates.

To me, the pluses outweigh the minuses. We may wind up with a situation in which the corporate tax increase is reduced, and other revenue sources are found to make up the difference. If that happens, I will evaluate it at that time.

On a micro level, each business is best served by keeping its costs low, which is consistent with the tax cuts and deregulation promised by the GOP. On a macro level, however, if businesses are successful in holding down wages, American workers won’t have enough money to buy anything, and sales fall. You wind up with a dysfunctional economy built on soaring asset prices and dollar stores. That is a classic tragedy of the commons.

Whether the GOP likes it or not, only government action can resolve a tragedy of the commons. That is precisely what Biden is trying to do. Most businesses, however, are still stuck in tax cut and deregulation mode. They are opposing the infrastructure bill, because they hate the tax increases.

Do they have a point? I will discuss that in a future post.

We are currently engaged in a debate as to whether the Biden proposal is really an “infrastructure” bill. It is a meaningless question. Here are the questions that really matter:

1. Will the proposed public investments generate an acceptable return to the American people, relative to their costs, based on an increase in national productivity during the foreseeable future?
2. Do the investments fill a hole that cannot be plausibly filled by the private sector without the assistance of the government?

If the answer to these two questions is yes, who cares if the investments are “infrastructure,” as that term has been commonly used in the past?

I will be addressing some of the elements of the program in more detail in the future, but by and large, the answer is yes.

We do everything we reasonably can to support your bottom line. We cut taxes and regulations wherever possible. We protect you from the claims of workers, consumers, and the left. In return, we are entitled to your unconditional loyalty. So don’t speak out on political issues that aren’t your concern; shut up and count your cash.

Is this the GOP in America or the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong? You decide.

Inspired by an article in the NYT which, among other things, tells us that the CCP is trying to keep hedge funds in Hong Kong by offering a deal on carried interest similar to the one in this country.

Typically well behind the curve, MLB actually moved swiftly to take the All-Star Game away from Atlanta in light of the impacts of the Georgia vote suppression legislation. Why?

Today’s MLB is a slow, dull product which does not appeal much to millennials. The owners are placing a bet that appearing to be woke will get a favorable response from younger people, while its older fans are too invested to care.

Will it work? I’m guessing yes. Now, they just need to do something about all those boring strikeouts . . .

The 19th century political party we recall as the “Know Nothings” was actually named the “American Party.” With that in mind, wouldn’t it be only fair to call the GOP the “Potato Head Party?”

If you’re the CEO of a large corporation, your life pretty well sucks right now. Relying on a tactic that goes back over fifty years, the left is threatening boycotts in order to move your position to openly oppose state vote suppression legislation. Ever derivative on issues that inspire feelings of victimhood, the right-wing Rosas have responded in kind, and have also suggested that they will take your beloved tax cuts away if you don’t keep quiet. It’s the corporate equivalent of “shut up and dribble.”

What in the name of Dr. Seuss is going on here? And should the public feel sorry for you?

From a structural/political perspective, the left is trying to use its cultural power for a specific political end–to peel the PBPs away from their Reactionary allies. The right, for its part, is determined to coerce the PBPs to stay on side.

As to the second question, under other circumstances, one might feel some twinges of sympathy for the poor CEOs. In today’s America, however, if you’re not fighting against right-wing attempts to create an illiberal system, you’re part of the problem. If you believe in liberal democracy, as opposed to tax cuts and short term profits, you have an obligation to stand up and say so.

Paul Krugman notes the increasing power of the Reactionary faction of the GOP and, quite reasonably, wonders why the party doesn’t turn populist on economic issues. Here are his answers:

1. THE REACTIONARIES DON’T THINK THEY CAN WIN NATIONAL ELECTIONS WITHOUT THE DONATIONS, EXPERTISE, AND VOTES OF PBPS: They’re probably right.
2. INSTITUTIONAL INERTIA: GOP enforcers and idea producers are predominantly PBP. That won’t change overnight.
3. REACTIONARIES HAVE A NATURAL AFFINITY FOR BUSINESSMEN: After all, plenty of them are small businessmen, too. Small business interests historically have been the backbone of fascist parties. Why should that be any different here?

It seems likely that Putin could take Ukraine without undue difficulty if he put his mind to it. Why doesn’t he? There are several possible explanations, most of which are not mutually exclusive:

1. The existing American and EU sanctions trouble him more than he lets on, and he is concerned about new ones;
2. His military hasn’t performed all that well in Ukraine up to now;
3. He fears the cost of occupation, which would undoubtedly include terrorist attacks within Russia’s boundaries;
4. He didn’t want to embarrass his ally Trump while he was still in office; and
5. Ukraine, for him, is not the end game–it is a piece of a larger puzzle, involving domestic politics, the destruction of the EU, and the elimination of the US as a serious threat. Having an ongoing, unresolved struggle with Ukraine actually helps him more than a military victory and an occupation.

I suspect it is all of these. Don’t be surprised if Ukraine becomes a flash point again in the near future, particularly if #4 is part of the equation.

In the same NYT column I discussed in my last post, Ross Douthat talks about the possibility of the Supreme Court reinterpreting the 14th Amendment to find a fetal right of personhood. For the anti-abortion crowd, this would be the judicial equivalent of a walk-off grand slam; it would immediately ban abortion in all fifty states without federal legislation or a constitutional amendment, and would require pro-choice supporters to amend the Constitution to have any rights at all.

Is this possible? If so, under what circumstances?

There is absolutely zero support for the personhood approach in the text of the Constitution, in the legislative history, or in judicial precedent since its adoption. No originalist or textualist could possibly accept it. It would require a majority of the justices to throw over standard methods of constitutional interpretation in favor of something very like “common good constitutionalism,” which is based on medieval Catholicism. It would be, in effect, a judicial revolution.

Which tells you how it could happen. It is impossible in our current liberal democratic regime. That will change if America, by hook or by crook, chooses the Orban Option. At that point, the entire reactionary agenda, including media censorship, university purges, and religious tests for voting and office holding, would be on the table.

While acknowledging it doesn’t reflect current realities, Ross Douthat dreams of a Republican Party that puts its money where its mouth is on abortion, by funding adequate medical and social services for mothers and unwanted children. Is that dream plausible?

Of course not! While Douthat himself can credibly call himself pro-life, the vast majority of his party consists of reactionaries who are anti-abortion for completely different reasons. Their objective is to limit the sexual activity of women outside marriage, not to provide the fallen and their fruit with a decent quality of life. To them, deep and prolonged misery for the mother and the unwanted child are a feature, not a bug–a necessary deterrent, not a problem for society to overcome.

Reactionaries call the shots within the GOP. Barring a massive split in the party, Douthat’s dream won’t become reality in my lifetime.

DON’T START

If you wake up and don’t want to smile

If it takes just a little while

Open your eyes and look at the day.

You’ll see things in a different way.

_____________

Don’t start thinking about tomorrow.

Don’t start, or it will soon be here.

It’ll be here, and far worse than before.

Yesterday rocks! Yesterday rocks!

_________________

Yesterday you were still in charge

But now cancel culture’s looming large.

If you think that your life’s accursed

Look around–it can only get worse!

__________________

Don’t start thinking about tomorrow.

Don’t start, or it will soon be here.

It’ll be here, and far worse than before.

Yesterday rocks! Yesterday rocks!

______________

Oooh! Keep on looking back!

Oooh! Keep on looking back!

____________

Parody of “Don’t Stop” by Fleetwood Mac.