Month: June 2022

Millennials will complain bitterly at the drop of a hat that the older generations owned more wealth than they do at the same age. While this is true, it ignores the fact that the Boomers will start dying off in large numbers in a few years, so a massive intergenerational wealth transfer is just around the corner. What will this mean, in the big picture?

Millions of struggling millennials are about to become wealthy. Their politics, which are currently predominantly left-leaning, may turn to the right. The extent to which they inherit will depend, however, not just on their parents’ resources, but on how much is spent on end-of-life care. Millennials of similar age, occupation, and background may find themselves in dramatically different circumstances, depending on the percentage of a given estate that is spent on doctors. Expect this to become an increasingly important policy issue as time goes on.

As I’ve noted many times before, to the GOP, every Republican candidate is the sunny, manly Ronald Reagan, and every Democrat is the weak and inept Jimmy Carter. With that in mind, the midterms look like a feast for the GOP; with inflation raging, problems with Iran, and the Russians invading a neighbor, how much more like 1980 could it be?

The logical question is whether this improbable turn of events could change the GOP back into a Reaganite–not a Trumpist–party, focused less on transgender athletes and cancel culture and more on real issues that impact all Americans. The correct answer to the question, alas, is no. Reactionaries made up a relatively small proportion of Republicans in 1980; today, they run the show, and they really, really care about things like bathroom bills. They aren’t going to give up culture wars just because they have genuine domestic and foreign policy issues to use as sticks against Democrats.

Biden has arrived at the palace. MBS is there to greet him.

MBS: Mr. President, at long last! Welcome!

B: It’s good to be here.

MBS: Of course, Trump got here long before you did.

B: Look on the bright side. You don’t have to entertain me with that weird orb thing.

MBS: Trump liked it. And he was a good friend to us, at least most of the time.

B: To me, Trump’s relationship with you was a bit like a passionate, but bad, marriage. With me, it will be strictly business.

MBS: Ok. Fine. You want to talk business. I assume that means us pumping more oil.

B: Right.

MBS: Why should we do that? Not just for you, surely.

B: It will gain you the goodwill of the American people–my party, in particular. You could use some goodwill after the murder thing.

MBS: I have a different idea.

B: I’m all ears.

MBS: Why don’t you just agree not to sign any nuclear deals with the Iranians?

B: I haven’t signed anything yet.

MBS: That’s because you’re afraid of the political fallout. You really want to sign. We know you do.

B: If we don’t make a deal–even a bad one–with the Iranians, they’ll have an unacceptably short breakout period. Is that what you want?

MBS: Of course not.

B: Then, what’s your plan?

MBS: American air strikes, of course. It’s the only answer. It always was.

B: So you’re offering lower gas prices in exchange for a perpetual war between America and Iran?

MBS: Sounds like a good deal for me. You go up in the polls, and we get Iran under control.

B: That’s crazier than killing journalists. Do you really think I would agree to go to war just for a bump in the polls?

MBS: Sure! That’s what democratic politicians do. I don’t have that problem.

B: Well, I do, but I’m not going to start a war just for a bump in the polls. That’s not how we do it in America.

MBS: I bet Trump would do it.

B: Maybe, but he’s an outlier.

MBS: Is he? He looks pretty mainstream America to me.

B: Well, forget it. Think about the goodwill offer. You’re going to need the support of my party in the future. Without us, you don’t have any security against the Iranians.

MBS: I’ll think about it. (Biden leaves)

A note to my readers: I will be out of town between 6/13 and 6/21. Regular posts will resume thereafter.

Put yourself in Bernie’s shoes. The right is using cultural/identity issues to divide white working people from your woke activists. What do you do?

There are no good choices here. You could move to the right on culture war issues and increase the size of your voting pool, but you would lose your most fervent supporters, who represent the future of your movement. If you side with the wokes, you lose any hope of creating an effective majority in the country for the foreseeable future.

It appears to me that the decision has been made by default in favor of the activists. The future may belong to your movement, but for the present, you are stuck in the mud.

Reactionaries constantly tell us that the left is becoming more radical each day, and is using its vast cultural power to marginalize real America. The editor of Jacobin tells Ezra Klein, on the other hand, that the left has no power at all. Could he possibly be correct?

Yes, as applied to his part of the left. As I’ve noted many times before, there is a huge distinction between the woke and socialist versions of the left. The former has, as alleged by the right, moved to the left during the last decade, and drives progressive opinion on social media. It seeks and wields cultural, not political, power. The latter, led by Sanders and the Squad, is interested in issues of class and economic equality; it doesn’t much care about the 1619 Project, bathroom bills, and transgender athletes. It wants political power to help American workers, but it doesn’t have any. It represents a minority of the Democratic Party, and a small sliver of America as a whole, largely because it refuses to take cultural issues seriously.

The right, for its own cynical purposes, is fond of treating the two groups as if they were identical. In reality, there is a good argument that the great accomplishment of the reactionary right, and the great failure of the progressive left, has been in merging different strands of thought into a single, powerful movement with a narrative that is compelling and easy to understand.

Ross Douthat advises us that the mainstream right will blow off any of the allegations against Trump because the left is as guilty of violating liberal democratic norms as he is. Is there any justice to this argument?

Let’s deconstruct it. The right’s complaints revolve around the following: censorship on the web; mob violence during BLM demonstrations; “defunding the police” and otherwise being soft on crime; and evolving standards regarding sexual identity and behavior. The first is attributable to a few (not liberal) billionaire businessmen and the Twitter left; the second involved the behavior of a few individuals during mostly peaceful demonstrations; the third is also a Twitter left phenomenon, except that Trump and the GOP joined in a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill a few years ago; and the last applies solely to a handful of woke activists. No part of the indictment, as it were, factually or logically pertains to Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, the mainstream of the Democratic Party (which voted for Biden), or me.

The essence of the problem here is that the right attributes the behavior of a handful of left-wing nonpoliticians to everyone who didn’t vote for Trump, and then says that far more dangerous actions taken by a US president are the same thing. They aren’t. It’s a clear category error. Period.

Imagine that you are a typical GOP candidate, screaming about inflation. As you see it, Biden and the Democrats are responsible for it, because they spent way too much money. Get rid of them, and the problem will go away.

A reporter interviewing you suggests that, if (as you say) the problem is excessive demand fueled primarily by the stimulus checks and overpayments to state and local governments, the logical solutions would be to increase taxes, thereby soaking up the excess savings, and to demand that blue and red states alike put the overpayments into rainy day funds instead of tax cuts. How do you respond to that?

Do I hear silence? The usual Republican solution–tax cuts–will only make inflation worse, but don’t expect anyone to admit that.

As we know, the price of gas plunged during the pandemic. At one memorable moment, the value of a barrel of oil was less than zero. Why? Because discretionary driving came to a halt. Prices collapsed in response to falling demand.

Today’s conditions, of course, are exactly the opposite. While a substantial percentage of the current price increases can be attributed to supply shortfalls caused by the war, the rest of it is due to the soaring demand for post-pandemic discretionary travel.

The lesson here is simple: gas prices are largely in your hands! If you don’t want to pay $5 per gallon, cut down on your discretionary driving, and they will come down, just as they did in the pandemic. Don’t make the decision to drive for your own entertainment and then whine that Biden isn’t doing enough to keep prices down, because that doesn’t make economic sense.

In the final analysis, Trump can only respond to the hearings in the following ways:

1. What riot? They were just tourists. The video is fake, and the witnesses were bought.
2. The rioters were good, patriotic people, but they went too far. I didn’t do anything to encourage them to riot.
3. Damn right I told them to invade the Capitol! The election was rigged! Real Americans had their government stolen away from them! The rioters were heroes, not criminals!
4. Politics is purely an exercise in the gaining and use of power; rules have nothing to do with it. Anyone who believes otherwise is a sentimental sap. As a result, I was justified in doing absolutely everything necessary in order to stay in office.

Based on our experience, I would say that Trump really believes in #4. He won’t say that in public, however. He seems to be leaning to a combination of #1 and #3, even though no sane person believes #1.

Trump’s stans are too far gone to be reached; they were probably watching Tucker Carlson, or pursuing pedophiles at the local pizza parlor. Most of the rest of America has probably tuned out. The hearing didn’t reveal a whole lot that we didn’t already know. And yet, the process is not a waste of time. Here’s what the committee can do:

1. PERSUADE THE UNDECIDED THAT THE RIOTERS WERE NOT TOURISTS: The Trump/Carlson narrative is difficult to sustain–at least in the eyes of reasonable people– in light of the video and the witness testimony, which was pretty compelling.
2. TO THE EXTENT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT, TIE GOP HOUSE MEMBERS TO THE RIOTERS: We now know that at least one House member asked Trump for a pardon after the fact. How many more were involved? Were any of them in direct communication with the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers? If so, the committee should name names.
3. CONNECT THE DOTS BETWEEN JANUARY 6 AND THE ONGOING EFFORTS TO RIG THE 2024 ELECTION: This story is ongoing. Trump and his acolytes are still fighting the same battle, but with different weapons. It is essential to stop them.

Thus far, the committee has done its job well. Liz Cheney was particularly effective. As to the future, time will tell.

We know where we are headed as a result of climate change. Large parts of California and the Southwest are going to become uninhabitable, due to extreme heat, fires, and water shortages. Agricultural yields will drop. Tropical events will get much worse, with increased losses of life and property. Illegal immigration will be exacerbated, as life in Central America becomes unbearable due to the heat. Rising seas will destroy the value of coastal property all over the country. It will no longer be possible for most people to afford property insurance in many states. Sounds pretty gloomy, doesn’t it?

All of this is inevitable, based on current conditions. There is no plausible technological fix for the carbon that is already in the system. How much worse than the current baseline can it get? A lot, due to the power of financial and ideological vested interests in fossil fuels all over the world, but particularly in America.

Ezra Klein sees a bright future, with a decarbonized economy and cheap, plentiful energy. The only way that is going to happen in America is if the private sector does it with minimal government direction, given the GOP’s ongoing addiction to fossil fuels, the economy of the 1950s, and culture wars. I don’t see how that is realistically possible.

I’m not as bearish on the 2022 election as most commentators, because: inflation will likely be easing by November; the GOP has to defend more Senate seats than the Democrats; GOP gerrymandering has not been as successful as Mitch would hope; the abortion issue should help somewhat; and increased polarization sets the floor higher for both parties than it was in the past. Nevertheless, the smart money is on the GOP winning both the House and the Senate this year. Then what?

Here’s what we can anticipate. First, there will be no meaningful helpful legislation until 2025 at the earliest. Second, there will be a barrage of frivolous Benghazi-like investigations, mostly starring Hunter Biden, who will be portrayed as a latter-day Al Capone. Third, there will be a blockade on judicial appointments. But most importantly, GOP vandalism will be expressed through a debt ceiling crisis that will be the worst we’ve ever seen. Mitch will do his best to keep the lights on, but McCarthy believes in appeasing his extremists, so the House will make ludicrous demands, probably starting with the reinstatement of Trump as president, and then moving to something more “reasonable,” such as defunding Obamacare. Biden will refuse, and then . . . a financial disaster lurks.

While this is going on, the Supreme Court will be blowing up our ability to control guns, pollution, and climate change, and may be reversing course on gay marriage. It’s not a pretty picture.

In the longer run, the Democrats could win the presidency again in 2024, but the potential for a renewed constitutional crisis is very real. In addition, the playing field tilts towards the GOP in the Senate races, and the filibuster will still be in place. The likelihood of using the federal government to solve our very real problems will thus be minimal for the foreseeable future.

We know the right wants to blow up liberal democracy and Orbanize America. How long will it take before the left loses faith in the system, as well? To that question, I have no answer.

Both Ezra Klein and Ross Douthat think young adults should have children in spite of the dangers created by climate change. Klein believes the future will be a rich and exciting place as the result of technological change; Douthat, on the other hand, contends that the bomb presented a much more daunting challenge than climate change, and argues that the baby boom of the late forties and fifties was the result of optimism tied to a religious revival. Is Douthat right?

Unfortunately for Ross, Jesus is not the answer to this question. Compare the condition of the country today with where we were in the late 1940s. After our national triumph over fascism, the GIs returned to a prosperous land which contained a staggering percentage of the world’s productive capacity. The Russian bomb was a threat, but only a conditional one; it had no impact on everyday life. Why wouldn’t you be an optimist under those circumstances? Today, by contrast, we have just lived through the Great Recession and an ongoing pandemic, China is becoming a greater threat than the USSR ever was, and our liberal democracy is under an existential threat from the far right, which refuses to appreciate that the system is already stacked in its favor. Finally, the damage done by climate change, unlike the use of the bomb, is inevitable, and will only get worse. You would have to be very brave or very foolish to be an optimist today.

There are, in fact, plenty of reasons to be a pessimist in the current environment. I will discuss two of them in my next posts.

About a week ago, I was reading the transcript of an Ezra Klein interview with Reihan Salam, a right-wing intellectual working for the Manhattan Institute. Salam is practically bubbling with market-based ideas for making America a better place to live. He represents the acceptable face of the GOP.

After I finished reading the interview, however, I could not help thinking that Salam is just kidding himself for a living. The GOP has zero interest in policy. A plurality of its voters–the reactionary core–doesn’t want to make life in America better; it wants to make it as miserable as possible for the 51 percent of the population that voted for Biden. Most of the rest care only about tax cuts and deregulation; they will only embrace reforms that don’t cost them money.

Salam’s ideas, regardless of their merit, are going nowhere. He is just another useful idiot for the folks who would be happy to turn America into an ash heap as long as they can rule over it.

For years, I advocated giving white Christian nationalists the carve-outs they demanded in order to buy time and stave off their more dangerous demands. It occurred to me last night, however, that after January 6, appeasement of some of the more militant members of the group is no longer a plausible course of action. A loud and growing segment of the Reactionary faction of the GOP is no longer satisfied with carve-outs. It wants a guarantee of permanent power, and it wants to use government to stifle the left, the First Amendment be damned.

There is no appeasing those folks; they have to be fought with their own weapons. That doesn’t mean it is a good idea to poke them or provoke them unnecessarily. Nor am I suggesting that the center-left is obligated to advocate for woke positions which don’t have the support of the majority of Americans; on culture war issues, finding the sweet spot in the center makes more sense. Direct assaults on liberal democratic norms, however, cannot be tolerated, and should be at the heart of the 2022 and 2024 elections, to the extent that any given GOP candidate supports them.