Month: December 2021

Consider the plight of the pregnant, unwed teenage girl. She will be ostracized by society as a whole, and may be rejected by her family. She could be thrown out of her house, and even subjected to physical violence. Her access to medical care during the pregnancy, particularly in red states, is not guaranteed. She will not be able to work and earn money for a significant period of time. Bearing and giving birth to a child comes with serious physical dangers. Finally, when the birth is over, she will either have to give up any dreams she might have of a career for the foreseeable future, or live with the pain of giving up the child. Doesn’t sound too great, does it?

No problem, says Justice Barrett. Just drop the baby off at a fire station and move on with your life. The baby gets adopted by a loving family, and everyone lives happily ever after.

Except, in the real world, they don’t. Barrett’s experience of motherhood bears no relationship to what happens to our hypothetical subject in 21st century America.

Ross Douthat is excited by what he calls the “New Right”–a group of reactionary intellectuals concerned primarily with what they view as the moral decay of our country. Well, of course he is; they sound just like him. He views them as being new and refreshing. Is he correct?

The “New Right” is only “new” in that it is very, very old. It has its intellectual roots in medieval Europe. It rejects the Enlightenment in favor of canon law and scholastic philosophy–Thomas Aquinas, not Thomas Jefferson, if you like. As a result, it also rejects the ideas behind the foundation of this country. Its adherents sound more like 19th century French monarchists than Americans.

Naturally, this presents some towering practical political problems. How can the “New Right” possibly take power in the foreseeable future when their ideas are completely inconsistent with American institutions and legal thought, and are opposed even by a large majority of the mainstream, individualist right? There are only two possible answers. One is a violent counterrevolution, followed by the creation of a theocracy over the will of the vast majority of the American people; the other is to jump on the bandwagon of a more popular movement, such as Trumpism, and then move it stealthily in the correct direction.

The members of the “New Right” don’t talk about this implicit element of their program, because it wouldn’t exactly win them a lot of fans in the public. It should not be ignored, however. These people may have some cuddly ideas about the importance of the community, but only the unpopularity of their ideas keeps them from being very dangerous.

Today’s decision only addressed a narrow issue relating to parties. The case can go ahead, but it isn’t going anywhere fast. What is the end game here?

The Supremes are clearly uncomfortable with the vigilante aspect of the law, because it is a potential threat in blue states to some of their favorite parts of the Bill of Rights. As it stands today, it is likely that they will be presented with a final decision to review after they overturn Roe in the Dobbs case. Texas is likely to repeal the vigilante law and replace it with a state-enforced total ban after Dobbs. At that point, the current case will be moot, and the justices won’t have to rule on the vigilante elements of the statute, which can nonetheless remain in effect until Dobbs is over. Even if they do take the vigilante case, for reasons I can’t currently fathom, they could distinguish abortion from, say, gun rights simply by referring to the decision in Dobbs that abortion is not a fundamental right.

Dilemma solved.

I have gathered the two of them together to discuss their views on Biden’s first year in office.

C: So, what do you think of Biden’s first year?

S: Worst ever.

M: Worst ever.

C: Let’s start with you, Mark. Why do you say that?

M: Because he’s terrible for business, of course.

C: Does that mean your profits are way down?

M: No. Actually, we’re holding up just fine.

C: Are you being forced to pay your employees a lot more as a result of the Great Resignation?
M: No. I don’t have minimum wage employees. Getting people to sell cars isn’t really a problem. I hear things from my friends in business, though. They have big problems keeping employees. It concerns me.

C: Why? Do they have some sort of divine right to pay their employees poorly?
M: It’s important to keep costs down. People like me have to make a living, you know. I could be next. You never know.

C: What’s happening with your investments?

M: They’re doing fine, actually.

C: And your taxes haven’t gone up, either.

M: No thanks to Biden.

C: So profits are fine, business is fine, your investments are fine, and your taxes haven’t gone up. Why is Biden bad for business?

M: He doesn’t respect us the way he should.

C: Oh, so this is a reprise of the Romney makers and takers thing?

M: Damn right! Business people are responsible for all of the jobs and all of the money everyone else makes in this country. Without us, this country is nothing!

C: And, as we saw during the pandemic, without workers, we aren’t anything, either. We can’t even eat unless we have employees working at the grocery store, or delivering to us.

M: That was a special case. And it’s over. Things need to go back to where they were, and my friends and I are entitled to more respect.

C: What about you, Sebastian? Why do you think Biden is the worst?

S: For starters, he shouldn’t even be president. He stole the election.

C: With the assistance of Republican governors, election workers, and judges, I suppose.

S: Hey, they’re all part of the establishment. The GOP is full of RINOs. If you didn’t support Trump, you’re really a Democrat.

C: So what would Trump have done differently than Biden?

S: He wouldn’t have spent as much money. We wouldn’t have the inflation we do today.

C: You do know that he supported the stimulus payments that Congress approved last winter?

S: It would have been different. It just would have.

C: What else?

S: We wouldn’t have had the Afghanistan debacle.

C: You do know that Trump made the deal to get out of Afghanistan.

S: It would have been different, somehow. He probably would have scared the Taliban. He’s a tough guy, you know.

C: What else?

S: We wouldn’t have to deal with all that critical race theory crap.

C: How is Biden responsible for that? When has he ever supported critical race theory? That’s a state and local issue.

S: Leftists are all the same. Biden and Bernie may not talk about that crap, but they support it.

C: How do you know that?

S: Tucker says so.

C: Well, this has certainly been enlightening. Thanks for coming.

A right-wing writer named Erika Bachiochi argues in the NYT that Trump, for all of his conspicuous personal shortcomings, did the country a favor by squelching the GOP’s libertarian biases and embracing a form of communitarianism. According to her, the demise of Roe is just the beginning; the GOP will reject outmoded Reaganite ideology in favor of policies that protect the weak and dependent (including, but far from limited to, the unborn) from the strong and wealthy. Is there any basis for this?

The appropriate response is to inquire as to what planet this woman inhabits. The GOP she lionizes supports militant anti-vaxxers crying “My body, my choice,” regressive tax cuts for the wealthy, the deregulation of business, anti-union legislation and regulations, and benefit cuts for the poor. Donald Trump was, and is, completely in step with this ideology. Does this sound like the communitarian great white hope to you?

For sixteen eventful years, Angela Merkel wore two important hats: German Chancellor and de facto leader of Europe. They came with different responsibilities, and pulled her in different directions. Now that she is gone, what is her legacy with each job?

As Chancellor, I think it is fair to say that she played a good hand reasonably well. The economy had been revived by the SPD labor reforms and by Chinese demand for German products by the time she came into office. She rode with the tide, never pushed the voting public too far, held off extremists, and frequently stole the SPD’s clothes during her tenure in office. At the time of her departure, Germany is clearly the great power in Europe, and is more prosperous than ever, but it suffers from a lack of investment and increased inequality. A more dangerous Russia looms, and China is no longer a reliable trade partner. The next few years are likely to be bumpy for the new coalition.

As the leader of Europe, her objectives were to keep the EU afloat and impose German values on it to the maximum extent possible. She barely succeeded at the former–the UK is gone, but Greece is still there–and ultimately failed at the latter, winning the ill will of the Greeks, Italians, and others along the way. She had no answers for the emerging illiberal democracies within the EU, and ultimately agreed to a number of very grubby compromises to keep immigration from getting out of hand. With Merkel’s departure, Europe is a project led by a visionary without the clout to make his dream happen–Macron. But the EU will continue to muddle through, because it always has.

The bottom line is that Merkel’s legacy is a mixed bag. But then, whose isn’t?

I think it is fair to say that the MSM’s coverage of Biden–particularly his economic record, but also including Afghanistan–has been relentlessly negative for most of the year. Some left-leaning commentators are puzzled by this; others think the MSM have an obligation to downplay the administration’s real problems in an effort to preserve liberal democracy from the GOP. For his part, Ross Douthat believes the MSM would only make Trump’s case for him by appearing to behave in a partisan fashion. Who is right here?

This is not as complicated as it seems, for the following reasons:

1. The MSM are only focusing on the issues of the moment, as usual. We hear and see stories about inflation and supply chain problems every day; naturally, that tends to drive Biden’s poll numbers down. What we don’t hear is a reminder that, if you look at the big picture, everyone is better off today than at this time last year, due to rapidly rising employment, as well as the stimulus and enhanced UI benefits which created a large pool of savings that is currently contributing to some extent to inflation. The legitimate criticism of the MSM here, in other words, is that it should be talking about the big moving picture, not the snapshot.
2. Douthat is essentially right about the role of the MSM as to their coverage of Biden. Once again, however, the big picture is that the GOP is an openly insurrectionist party, not a normal opposition. The MSM have a duty to avoid false equivalence and make sure the electorate is kept aware of the qualitative differences between the two parties when it has reason to compare them.
3. The MSM’s coverage of the big Biden bills has focused almost exclusively on their cost and the difficulties involved in getting them through the system. That makes about as much sense as talking about the cost of a car without discussing what you get in return. The problem is not the administration’s “messaging;” it is the MSM’s reluctance to get into the appropriate level of detail regarding the benefits of the legislation, largely due to laziness. Inform the public as to both the costs and the contents of the spending programs and let the voters decide.

Once Roe is finally dead, you can anticipate a rush to adopt abortion prohibitions with few if any exceptions in the red states. There will be some perfunctory discussion about exceptions for rape, incest, and the like, but most of the new statutes will be very close to absolute prohibitions. This may look like terrible politics, but the reactionaries will take the position that they haven’t paid any price thus far, and that the electorate is already as polarized as it can get, so the risk is minimal.

At first, this may appear to be true. At some point, however, the MSM will start running horror stories about the plight of women who have been denied abortions. There will be a new groundswell of opposition to the law inspired by these stories. The law will be modified accordingly.

That’s what happened in Ireland. It will happen in Texas, too.

As I noted in a post about a year ago, Putin could invade and take Ukraine at any time of his choosing. His purported concern today–that he fears NATO expansion into Ukraine–is ludicrous, and he knows it. So what is he trying to accomplish, and why is this happening now?

As important as Ukraine is to Putin, it is never the entire picture; he is also concerned about domestic politics, about portraying Russia as a great power, and about splitting the EU and NATO. All of these factors are undoubtedly present here. Russia is struggling with the virus; he is facing a potent anti-vaxxer opposition; there is a new and untested government in Germany; and the American withdrawal from Afghanistan wasn’t exactly glorious. There is undoubtedly opportunity here to make trouble and profit from it.

Will he invade? I doubt it, because it would involve taking lots of casualties and assuming the costs of occupying Ukraine for the indefinite future. The new EU and American sanctions would hurt, and NATO would be united in its opposition. Better to keep turning the pressure on and off and hope that Ukraine falls into his hands without an invasion at some point in the future. In the meantime, he can show strength both at home and abroad, take the attention of the Russian public away from the virus, create a narrative in which Russia is in danger from NATO, and test the stoutness of the new German PM and FM. He can put an end to the crisis whenever he likes, so what’s the risk?

As I’ve noted many times before, the GOP is the party of the dollar store economy, because it benefits businessmen and the elderly, the party’s two most important constituencies. Low wages are a key component of the dollar store, because they keep profits up and prices down. As a result, the GOP’s efforts to brand itself as a party of working people depend solely on the culture wars; Republicans have no case on the structure of the economy.

The Great Resignation has put the dollar store under great pressure; wages and prices are on the rise. What can the GOP do about it? Numerous red states cut the enhanced unemployment benefits early, but that had no real impact on employment. What now?

Be patient and starve them out. They’re living on their dwindling savings at this point. All you have to do is wait and cut the already miserably low state unemployment benefits to the point where they have to go back to work at whatever wage employers are willing to pay. At that point, the dollar store will return with a vengeance, and all will be right in the world–at least, for you and your voters.

Two years ago, I did a post in which I discussed the choices facing a fast food restaurant owner confronting a new $15 minimum wage. He could: cut staff and hope his customers didn’t object to a lower level of service; raise prices; replace some staff members with machines; or accept lower profits. The pandemic and the Great Resignation have put him in exactly the position I hypothesized. How is he responding in the living laboratory?

As I predicted, by selecting several of the options. In the short run, he is cutting staff and raising prices. In the longer run, investments in labor-saving technology are skyrocketing. The one thing he is not doing is living with lower profits. Hence, the performance of the markets, even in a pandemic with a labor shortage.

Germany is a prosperous country with a reasonable government and no tradition of faux libertarianism. And yet, a militant anti-vaxxer movement thrives there. You can also find one in other wealthy European nations. It is even spreading to Australia and New Zealand. What does that tell us about the roots of contemporary reactionary thought?

That Trumpism–at its core, a faux libertarian movement based on toxic masculinity–isn’t limited to America. That, in turn, tells us that the shift to a knowledge-based economy, which is a global phenomenon, is a threat to the status of men all over the world.

I voted for Dole in 1996 because I suspected a second Clinton term would be marked by scandal and failure. I was right, and I have never regretted that vote.

Is it going too far to call Dole the last reasonable and decent member of the GOP? I don’t think so. Even outliers like Mitt Romney and Susan Collins believe in regressive tax cuts regardless of the circumstances and historical evidence. The mainstream, of course, is now an openly insurrectionist party which stands only for toxic masculinity and whatever thought flits through Donald Trump’s head at any given time.

Trump and Netanyahu opted for “maximum pressure” in the hope of forcing regime change, or at least a complete reversal of policy, in Iran. We were told that sanctions would work, and were a viable alternative to war. This was, of course, a lie, and now the Israelis have to live with the consequences of it. The Iranians are much closer to a bomb than they ever were in the Obama years.

It does not appear, as of today, that Biden’s negotiations with the Iranians are going to succeed. What then? Here are the choices:

1. America and Israel, notwithstanding decades of rhetoric to the contrary, learn to live with an Iranian bomb. Deterrence is the order of the day, just as it was with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
2. Israel, possibly with American help, starts “cutting the grass” with the Iranian nuclear program. A low level war of indefinite duration looms.
3. Israel and/or America annihilates Iran with a nuclear first strike. The problem disappears.

The weakness with #3, of course, is that it would normalize the use of nuclear weapons, to the benefit of the Russians, North Koreans, and other bad actors. Eliminating the short term problem only creates a much larger one in the future.

What this really does is tell you how lame nuclear weapons really are as a bargaining chip. If we do threaten the Iranians with nukes, they won’t take it seriously. That is why the most likely outcome is “cutting the grass.”

By all accounts, starvation looms for millions of Afghans. The combination of the withdrawal of American aid, which represented a huge proportion of the country’s GDP, the freezing of assets, and a drought is creating a humanitarian disaster. What should America do?

There are two massive obstacles to an American aid program:

1. The Taliban want a godly Afghanistan, not a prosperous one. Mass starvation simply isn’t a big deal to them. If Allah wills it, who are they to argue?
2. Afghanistan is a client state of Pakistan, which has devolved into a vassal of China. As a result, any aid to the Afghans, no matter how it is structured, ultimately helps subsidize Pakistan and China.

The Chinese are fond of reminding people that they are a large and powerful country. They typically do this by bullying smaller countries. It is time for them–not America–to step up to the plate and actually do some good outside their own boundaries.