Month: March 2022

Assume, for purposes of argument, that the war ends with some sort of negotiated agreement which trades a limited amount of Ukrainian territory and a pledge of military neutrality for guarantees of sovereignty. Large areas of Ukraine have been devastated. What happens now?

The US and the EU–not Russia, of course–provide huge sums of money for reconstruction. Ukraine consequently moves even further into the EU camp. The aftermath of the war is consequently another political disaster for Russian imperialists who had hoped (and not without reason) that Ukraine would ultimately fall into their lap through the use of carefully calibrated pressure tactics short of war. Putin’s lack of patience has cost them dearly.

A NOTE TO MY READERS: I will be out of town for a few days, starting tomorrow. Regular posting will resume on Sunday.

I read a column in the NYT about a week ago which suggested that Putin is a practitioner of identity politics. Is that correct?

Of course it is! He’s a fascist. Fascism is identity politics taken to an extreme.

It is sometimes alleged that Putin’s ongoing efforts to eliminate effective opposition are turning Russia back into a Stalinist state. Is that accurate?

It does smell that way, but not exactly. Putin is a fascist; Stalin was a dedicated communist trying to make it up on the fly. The distinction matters, because Putin is far more selective in what he attempts to control than Stalin ever was. He won’t liquidate tens of millions of supposed class enemies in an effort to build a twisted utopia in Russia, because it is the nation, not class, that matters to him; he just jails thousands of genuine political opponents, and has a few of them murdered. Not the same thing at all, if hardly inspiring.

As a result, if you insist on analogies to vicious 20th century dictators, the line actually runs to Hitler, not Stalin. Given that Putin constantly complains about nonexistent Nazis in Ukraine, he would undoubtedly be offended by the comparison. Poor little guy–in his defense, his victims only number in the thousands, to date, but we live in softer times.

Dreher wants you to know that his real hero, Viktor Orban, is nothing like Putin. Is he right?

Let’s look at the record. Orban maintains a stranglehold on power in Hungary by: ferociously gerrymandering legislative districts; buying or otherwise controlling the news media; using law enforcement and the judiciary against his opponents; doling out goodies from the EU to his supporters; and posing as the defender of traditional Christian values against LGBTQ people, secular humanists, Jews, and Muslim immigrants. Is this ringing any bells?

Admittedly, Orban hasn’t poisoned his most conspicuous opponents, shut down the internet, or invaded any of his neighbors yet. That’s because Hungary is a small, poor country which needs EU money and lacks a strong military. Whether it is due in any way to a lack of inclination is unknowable under the circumstances.

Our old friend Rod Dreher is shocked, shocked that Vladimir Putin is encouraging his Syrian allies to fight for him in Ukraine. To Dreher, this means that Putin is only posing cynically as the defender of Christian values against the barbarians of the left. Otherwise, how could he bring in dirty Muslims to fight the pious Orthodox Christians of Ukraine? He must only be interested in power, and empire!

Well, of course he bloody is! Dreher is the kind of guy who will buy anything you put in front of him as long as you wrap it up in a package of traditional Christian values. Anyone with any brains at all would have seen that Putin is about power, and nothing else.

People typically watch “Dateline” because it portrays a predictable and just universe in which evildoers get their just desserts in the end. Occasionally, that doesn’t happen; the story ends inconclusively, and the viewers feel cheated.

In a similar vein, I suspect most Americans anticipate Putin’s Ukraine adventure will end with an appropriate punishment for the criminal. Unfortunately, that is highly unlikely; the Russian military may not be covering itself in glory, but it has won Ukrainian territory and still enjoys advantages in men and weapons. If the result is a compromise, what happens next? Biden gets the blame, of course.

If he is wise, he will be preparing the American public for some sort of a deal. I don’t see any evidence of that to date.

Putin launched an unprovoked, imperialist war against an adjoining country he believes has no right to exist. When the US responded by arming Ukraine, what did he say? That he, and Russia, were being “cancelled” by America, of course!

It sounds ludicrous–deranged, even–but it has a clear purpose. He has chosen to identify himself completely with the extreme right in America in the hopes that it has enough political power to stop Biden from intervening in the war. It is cynical, not crazy.

Most of the members of the “New Right” deny being useful idiots, but what more evidence do you need?

And so Putin invaded Ukraine.

I don’t really see what he’s gained.

His campaign’s a dud.

He’s stuck in the mud

And the Russians are feeling the pain.

Donald Trump pulled his endorsement of Mo Brooks in the Alabama primary yesterday. His real reason for doing so, of course, was that Brooks was polling poorly, and thus making him look bad. His stated reason, however, was that Brooks had turned “woke” by refusing to argue that Trump could be reinstated as president prior to 2024.

If that’s what being “woke” means now, count me in.

In the midst of all of our cheerleading for Ukraine, Ross Douthat says we should leave plenty of room for dissent. Is he right?

Absolutely! There is always room for splashes of cold realism when public enthusiasm runs ahead of good sense, as long as the arguments are made in good faith. If you’re a “New Right” admirer of Putin who believes that the war is a contest between a properly masculine leader and the woke, feminized West, however, you’re not making the realism argument in good faith, and we have no reason to listen to you.

Fortunately, Douthat is not in that category, but some of his friends are. Here’s looking at you, Mr. Ahmari.

Ideally, of course, the Ukrainians would throw the Russians completely out of the country with NATO’s weapons, but no active assistance on the ground or in the air. It is highly unlikely, lacking NATO’s offensive capabilities, that they can do so. With that in mind, what should NATO be looking to accomplish here?

Two things: to minimize the loss of Ukrainian sovereignty in the event of a deal; and to degrade the Russian military to the point that it won’t try it again. Realistically, we can’t do anything more than that.

It isn’t a clash of civilizations between the swaggering, manly Orthodox Christian Russians and the secular, feminized West. There are no significant cultural differences between Russians and Ukrainians (after all, that was part of Putin’s rationale for the war), and the nearest NATO country, Poland, is as militant about LGBTQ issues as Russia.

It also isn’t a war between liberal democracy and autocracy, although that argument is closer to the mark than the clash of civilizations model. Ukraine has historically been dominated by oligarchs, and is hardly a perfect example of liberal democracy. Putin probably worries that the existence of personal freedoms and free elections in a neighboring state creates a bad example for his people, but it is unlikely that the Ukrainian system represents any sort of existential threat to his kleptocracy.

No, this is an imperialist war to recreate the Russian Empire over the objections of Russia’s neighbors and in violation of modern international norms. That is plenty of reason to oppose it.

The MLBPA came into the last round of negotiations determined to improve the lot of average veteran players. Did it succeed?

No, because the new agreement did practically nothing to discourage cyclical tanking. The only new measure that will have any impact at all is the lottery for draft picks. That is a good idea that should have been implemented years ago, but it won’t do much to discourage tanking, simply because the MLB draft is far less important to the teams than the NFL or NBA drafts. There is absolutely no certainty that the first pick in the MLB draft will ever make it to the major leagues, much less turn a franchise around.

The fact of the matter is that the players made their own bed by insisting on the capitalist model over the corporate socialist model. In other words, they made a conscious decision to emphasize the earning power of stars over drones. Unless and until the drones take over the MLBPA and demand a complete change in direction, the elite players will continue to get monstrously large paychecks (just as elite entertainers do in other fields), while the rank and file will struggle to get by.

Given that China under Xi is moving towards arbitrary one-man rule, and that Putin’s Russia is rapidly extinguishing free expression and political rights, it is fair to say that the political systems of the two countries, never far apart, are converging. And yet, the two nations are very different. China is vibrant and growing; Russia is stagnant, morose, and suspicious. How do we account for the discrepancy?

It is mostly due to history and culture. The Chinese people view their country as the center of the universe. The Chinese state has been on top for most of its existence. The country is clearly on an upswing. Why wouldn’t the Chinese people be energetic and optimistic, regardless of the travails of their recent past and any issues with their present government?

Russian history, on the other hand, is basically a string of disasters. Life is either bad or worse, depending on the size and competence of the state. Russians don’t believe things will ever get better, because they never have. And so, they don’t.

Both the NFL and the NBA have tanking issues; just ask fans of the Dolphins, Browns, and Sixers. This is due primarily to competitive reasons, however–not financial ones. Franchises that tank do so in the hope of trading extremely poor performance in the short run for success in the future.

Due to the adoption of the capitalist model, MLB is in a different position. The franchises break down into three groups:

1. A small number of very large market teams with extremely lucrative local TV contracts never tank–the enormous fan base would never tolerate it. That doesn’t necessarily mean these teams will always be good; bad management can get in the way, as Mets fans will be happy to tell you. They are never deliberately bad, however.
2. At the other extreme, you have the “Moneyball” teams: Tampa Bay and Oakland. These franchises never increase payroll substantially, due to their financial limitations; they try to beat you with innovation. They’re pretty good at it, too.
3. The teams in the middle engage in “cyclical tanking.” At one end of the cycle, when the team becomes expensive, but has no reasonable chance of winning the World Series, ownership sells off the underperforming veteran players, drastically lowers payroll, and plays younger, less expensive players, in the hope that they will improve to the point where it makes sense to invest in a few outstanding free agents. Payroll then increases as the team improves until it is no longer competitive at the highest level, at which point the cycle begins again.

The trend in MLB is for even large market teams which used to be in the first group, such as the Red Sox and the Cubs, to engage in cyclical tanking. Fortunately for fans and the owners, enough teams are on the upswing of the cycle at any given time to prevent the large market teams from winning the World Series every year. The cycles are different for each franchise; some manage to prolong the upswing section by developing good young talent and making shrewd trades in the sell-off phase (Cleveland), while others are poorly managed, never produce good homegrown talent, and are always rebuilding (Baltimore, Pittsburgh). Nevertheless, cyclical tanking means that there will always be several teams that are absolutely terrible, and have no realistic chance of making it to the postseason.

“Cyclical tanking” is a disaster for mediocre veteran players. The median salary in MLB has fallen over the last few years even as compensation for elite performers has soared. It cannot be overemphasized, however, that it was the players, not the owners, who insisted on the capitalist model. They have done this to themselves.

How did the latest labor agreement address the cyclical tanking issue, and help the middle class? I will discuss that in my last post on the subject.