Month: July 2022

The combination of rationing and full wartime employment during World War II meant that American households accumulated large amounts of savings and had few consumer goods to buy. As a result, when price controls were lifted, inflation skyrocketed, reaching levels that were much higher than they are today, and the GOP won control of both houses of Congress by complaining about it. Inflationary pressures eventually eased as American manufacturers started producing regular consumer goods again, but the process took two full years.

You don’t have to be a genius to see the analogy between these events and our current situation. The silver lining in the story is that Truman won the 1948 election by attacking the GOP Congress. It could happen again.

The most powerful Joe in America has struck again! The climate change provisions of the BBB are now dead. Progressives are distraught, as well they might be, given that the Supreme Court is waiting to kill any new regulations on carbon; putting money in the budget to fund innovation was the only way forward to prevent environmental disaster.

Three observations are pertinent here. First, since Manchin is effectively an independent, he has every right to tell the left where to go, but his habit of stringing out negotiations and moving the goal posts is incredibly annoying. He doesn’t have a right to do that. Second, this episode should make it clear even to the most diehard progressives that Joe Biden is not their problem–the lack of 50 real Democrats in the Senate is. Third, the best way to deal with Manchin is not to scream at him or drive him into the GOP; it is to make him irrelevant by electing more progressives in states that are bluer than West Virginia.

The grumpy cat is getting grumpier by the day. The January 6 committee is sending out a clear, crisp message that is making Trump look bad. This is largely due to the fact that there is no one to defend him on the committee. That, in turn, is the result of a decision by McCarthy to refuse to participate in the process.

McCarthy will never, never have the nerve to say this in public, but I’m sure he would love to see the back of Trump as soon as possible. Could his decision to boycott the committee have been in any way motivated by that desire? Or, to put it differently, is McCarthy a Machiavellian?

No. He isn’t that smart. Mitch is capable of pulling that one off, but not him.

In the misguided belief that GOP rhetoric about the importance of supporting families was sincere, Mitt Romney proposed a child tax credit that would apply to all families, including those in which the mother stays at home. His hope undoubtedly was to overcome the usual right-wing objection to child subsidies–that providing public money for child care encouraged women to work and thus undermined traditional families–by sweeping the net as broadly as possible. His proposal was roundly rejected by Victorians in the GOP who insisted that any credits should be tied to work requirements. But when he completely revised the proposal to meet the Victorian objection, it was also met with indifference from the right. Why?

Because the GOP believes in the cult of self-reliance, not the protection of families, of course. Giving people free public money that was originally earned by hard-working capitalists only encourages sloth and dependency. If children, to whom this argument cannot logically be addressed (they are already dependents, by definition) suffer in the process, they are acceptable collateral damage in the bigger picture.

The average reactionary thinks that the risks and sacrifices of childbirth are a necessary deterrent to promiscuity; the wages of sin is birth. That reasoning logically shouldn’t apply to rape; however, state legislatures in deep red states are increasingly enacting abortion bans without exceptions. Why is this happening?

There are three possible explanations, which are not mutually exclusive. First, in the GOP, the extreme right drives the train, and in this case, that means the genuine pro-lifers. Second, the reactionaries think rape is a loophole that will inevitably be abused. Finally, some reactionaries probably believe the typical rape victim provokes her attacker, and thus gets what she deserves.

Putin will be meeting with the Iranians next week, presumably to beg for drones and ways to escape sanctions. Since the Iranians obviously don’t need oil from him, the only thing he has to offer in return is diplomatic and military protection from Israel and the US–in particular, advanced Russian nuclear, missile, and anti-aircraft technology. If a deal of that sort is made, it will have far-reaching implications throughout the world.

My observations are as follows:

1. The American New Right should find this meeting highly embarrassing; after all, they have historically viewed Muslims as the cultural enemy of Christian America. My guess is that they will blow it off; after all, the progressive left is the real enemy, and the ayatollahs, for all their faults, aren’t exactly woke. Bannon, Putin, and Ayatollah Khamenei have that in common.
2. The transfer of state-of-the-art Russian missile and nuclear technology to Iran would be a game-changer. Iran would become, at a stroke, a truly existential threat (which it isn’t today) to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Israel would have to strike before any new weapons become effective, and the US, in spite of Biden’s wish for peace, would have to assist. In short, it would mean war with Iran, and soon.
3. War with Iran would infuriate the American left, but pacify some of the right. The domestic political calculus would change significantly, particularly if it happens before the election.

So, stay tuned!

The UK is in a bad way. The combination of Cameron’s budget cuts and increased demands from the pandemic has left public services hanging by a thread, and demographic changes will only make things worse. Under other circumstances, it would be time to increase public spending. But the deficit is sky-high, GDP growth is abysmal (largely due to Brexit, of course), and inflation is roaring. The public is getting restless. What should the new government do?

One group of Conservative constituents will be calling for a new burst of Thatcherite rigor: major spending cuts, largely aimed at the elderly, and deregulation in order to ramp up the growth rate. Another group will call for more spending, inflation and the pound be damned. The next PM will probably zig and zag between the two at first, but in the end, the choice cannot be avoided.

My guess is the Thatcherites will win, and what used to be the “red wall” will be so again. We’ll see.

DeSantis has never expressed any meaningful opinions on American foreign policy. All we know about his ideas on taxing and spending is that he has not been a budget cutter. He really isn’t a national figure. And yet, he is the second choice of GOP voters, behind only Trump. Why?

Because the one thing the Fox News crowd knows about him is that he consistently harnesses the power of the government to roll back the rights of people on the left. This is owning the libs to an unprecedented degree. That’s what reactionaries really want–not tax cuts and deregulation for businesses, particularly, but not exclusively, of the woke variety.

Presumably hoping to capitalize on Johnson’s extreme unpopularity, Nicola Sturgeon has announced that a new referendum will be held in October 2023. The moment has already passed, however. Boris will be leaving, and it is unlikely that his successor will raise as much ire in Scotland as he does.

The bottom line is that the two major parties both oppose Scottish independence, and that the ghost of the unauthorized Catalan referendum still haunts the cause. The only realistic way a second binding referendum takes place is if the SNP holds the balance of power between Labour and the Conservatives. When will that happen? Nobody knows, but it worked for the Irish, so be patient.

Let’s assume Trump looks at the polls and decides not to run in 2024. Are there any GOP alternatives that are better than DeSantis?

The choices are not inspiring. Tom Cotton, to his credit, never embraced the January 6 rioters, and I haven’t seen any evidence that he wants to turn America into a theocracy. On the other hand, he would cut taxes for rich people, shoot protesters, and start wars at the drop of a hat. Josh Hawley has some interesting populist thoughts about taxing and spending, but he did embrace the rioters, and he does want to turn America into a theocracy. Rick Scott wants to destroy the welfare state. Nikki Haley would never survive the primaries. Mike Pence is about as exciting as spoiled milk. And Ted Cruz–don’t even go there.

The only potential candidate who brings even a glimmer of hope is Rubio, who is basically a decent, intelligent guy who consistently lets his ambition get in front of his principles. That he is our best option tells you all you need to know about the current state of the GOP.

The thing about Brexit is, you have to have a border between the UK and the EU somewhere. If you put it in the English Channel, you effectively push the Republic of Ireland out of the EU without its consent. If you put it on the border between Northern Ireland and the ROI, you drive up the cost of doing business between the two and make political cooperation between them more difficult. If you put it in the Irish Sea, you imply that residents of Northern Ireland aren’t really part of the UK, and that Northern Ireland is destined to be reunited with the ROI, regardless of the wishes of the Protestant majority. It’s a mess.

The EU will never, and should never, agree to the border in the English Channel. The British government, having agreed to the Irish Sea border in order to get the deal through, now wants to renege on it. That leaves the land border as the most plausible alternative. When it is all said and done, that’s where it will go, notwithstanding the down sides for everyone.

I don’t live in the UK, so I’m not familiar enough with the candidates to pick a likely winner. I can, however, make a prediction as to how the battle will be won.

The Conservative Party, as it exists today, is a coalition of two groups with fundamentally incompatible ideas about what the government should be doing. One of these groups wants a small, agile central government that cuts taxes and regulations, signs trade agreements, and focuses on economic growth. The other believes in a robust welfare state (particularly for the elderly), protectionism, traditional values, and limits on immigration. It wants a return to the glorious past, not a trip to the future.

The way to reconcile these two groups is to separate style from substance. Donald Trump was an expert at this. The new leader will speak loudly and constantly about culture war issues–in particular, hitting themes about British patriotism and the forgotten people in small towns outside of London–while actually governing as a tax cutting liberal. That’s the only way to keep the band together.

My fellow real Americans:

It is traditional for the incoming president to attempt to heal the wounds of the campaign and unify the country. Lincoln did it, even during the Civil War. Obama and Biden did it. Heck, even George W. Bush did it.

But that’s not how I roll. I don’t believe in that unity crap. And so, I’m going to speak directly to my opponents here.

Real America hates you, because you prosper while they struggle. God hates you, because you don’t believe in him. And I hate you. You aren’t real Americans. You’re European socialists living in the wrong country.

I’m not going to be your president. In fact, I’m going to do everything in my power to make your lives miserable. I’m going to roll back your constitutional rights. I’m going to raise your taxes. I’m going to cut your benefits. Most of all, I’m going to shut you up. You can kiss your right to disagree with me good-bye.

And if you think you can fight back and win, think again. The Supreme Court belongs to me. The electoral system is biased in my favor. And my side has all the guns. You might have the money, but when money does battle with guns, guns win.

So get ready to grin and bear it, or ship out! I’m sure there are lots of godless socialist countries that would be happy to take you in.

Thank you, and God bless real America.

I’ll start with a question: how many trans people have you known in your life? I bet you can count them on your hands. And yet, trans activists seem to be in the middle of every culture war debate about sexuality. They are driving the train, and the rest of us are just along for the ride.

Trans activists take the position that what average people call “normal” is simply “binary”–one choice among many that are also equally valid. The right completely and emphatically rejects this argument and uses it opportunistically as a stick with which to beat the entirety of the left. Many impeccably liberal women also reject the argument, but insist that trans people should not be discriminated against by the state. For their pains, they are called TERFs by the activists, and treated on social media as if they were Nazis. The treatment of trans people is thus a perfect wedge issue for the right.

The activists need to understand that they do not represent anything like a majority on the left, and are unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future. They need, and should be grateful for, the political assistance of the people they call TERFs. If they go too far in dividing the left, they are looking at life under Trump or DeSantis.

Boris Johnson will always be linked to Brexit, a process which is increasingly looking more like Dunkirk than Agincourt. That subject is too complex to be addressed in today’s post. Leaving Brexit aside, how will Johnson be remembered in the future? What issues does he leave for his successors to clean up?

Here are the top three items:

1. BREAKING THE NORMS: Like Trump, it just became accepted that BoJo was self-indulgent, had little patience with legal norms, and had an on-again, off-again relationship with the truth. That part of his legacy will not be repeated. British politics will return to normal after he leaves.
2. CULTURE WARS: British politics historically were based more on class than race, mostly because the country was ethnically homogeneous. BoJo’s great revelation was that British society had changed, and that you could win an election based mostly on identity politics; in the end, that was what Brexit was all about. Today’s Conservative Party is an unwieldy coalition of older, socially conservative people in small, stagnant towns (mostly in the north) and affluent businessmen in the south; what the two groups have in common is their antipathy for young, cosmopolitan, socially liberal Londoners. Finding a way to keep the coalition together will be the first task for Johnson’s successor as party leader.
3. LEVELING UP: What does this mean in practice? Boris had no idea. His successor will have to find a way to define it and implement it in the face of increasing fiscal constraints, which will be no mean task.

Who is likely to follow Boris? Tune in tomorrow.