Month: September 2022

We evacuated from Irma. The trip to North Carolina was a nightmare. All of the major evacuation routes were jammed, and it was extremely difficult to find gas. In the end, the storm was not that bad. Probably what everyone remembered most about it was the images of the clogged evacuation routes and the gas issues.

I was, as you would expect, watching video of Ian from the beginning to the end. The televised images of the evacuation routes strongly suggested to me that people weren’t leaving. It now appears that I was right, and the death toll will reflect that.

Katrina was the result of events that were not foreseen–the failure of some of the levees–and the practical inability of many of the city’s residents to evacuate. Ian was different. Everyone could have evacuated, and the government told them to do so; the problem was getting people to believe, based on their experiences with Charley and Irma, that leaving was a better option than staying.

At the micro level, I don’t think you can blame Florida government for sending the wrong message. In the long run, however, refusing to deal with climate change is a crime, because it will lead to more storms and more deaths. In that sense, Florida government, which is to say uninterrupted rule by the GOP– is very much culpable, and will pay the price when residents start fleeing the state.

Power, unlike wealth, is a zero-sum game, so in light of the economic turmoil in the West, you would think that China was the winner. You would be wrong.

Growth has slowed to a crawl in China. The government’s covid policies are damaging the economy and creating unrest. The Russian invasion, which effectively was backed by the Chinese government, is an international embarrassment. Western Europe and Japan are moving away from China and towards the United States. If that’s winning, Xi is probably already tired of it.

Who is winning? Only the Gulf States, at this point.

A Thomas Edsall column in the NYT made me aware of a “Statement of Principles” from a group called the “National Conservatism Project.” The group includes numerous luminaries from the New Right, including our old friend Rod Dreher.

The geopolitical vision of this group could be best described as a collection of completely sovereign Christian nations working in concert, but not through international institutions, to do battle with China, Islamic countries, and, of course, woke people. The domestic agenda essentially is to make Christianity great again. The authors of the “Statement” want to return Christianity to its dominant place in the public sphere wherever Christians are in a majority; religious minorities will be tolerated, but only in their private sphere.

This raises three major questions:

1. HOW CAN RED STATES RECHRISTIANIZE, IN LIGHT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT? The answer to that can only be that the authors of the “Statement” want a complete reversal of First Amendment jurisprudence. The Establishment Clause would be limited to the prohibition against creating an official state sect. Christianity as a whole, not being a sect, could be lawfully institutionalized.
2. WHAT HAPPENS IN BLUE STATES, WHERE CHRISTIANS ARE A MINORITY? DOES THE STATEMENT LEAVE THEM OUT OF THE PROJECT? Not really. The Edsall column contains a quote from one of the authors which suggests that they really believe in federalism, but the “Statement” itself makes it clear that the federal government must step in if “immorality” runs rampant in blue states. That is an invitation to create a fascist state.
3. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MEDIA, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY LOCATED IN BLUE STATES? The “Statement” doesn’t address that issue directly, but its tenor is such that one must assume that all left-leaning media would be subjected to strict controls, and possibly eliminated altogether.

Are you surprised by any of this? You shouldn’t be. This is where we are heading.

Three things:

1. Social stability (i.e., no public unrest or challenges to his leadership);
2. A dynamic economy; and
3. Reduced inequality.

The problem is that he can’t have all three. #2 requires a blast of capitalism, which inevitably involves creative destruction and increased inequality, which is inconsistent with the other two objectives.

What does this mean in practice? #1 is the only goal that isn’t negotiable. It will prevail over the other two, which essentially means no change to the status quo unless or until the demands from the public become too strong to ignore.

Mao liked to break things. He thought stability and stagnation were the enemy. And so, he fought for continuing revolution, even against the rest of his party. His “success” was the impoverishment of China.

The next generation of Chinese leaders saw national salvation in economic development, which inevitably leads to a process in which winners turn into losers, and vice-versa. Creative destruction, not stability, is what capitalism is all about.

The Xi generation rules over a powerful nation. It values stability over everything else, including growth, because it has much to lose. What does this mean for the Chinese economy?

In the end, it means a return to stagnation–just at a higher level than before.

Populism, by definition, is an attempt to rouse the masses against an elite that is perceived to be self-interested and corrupt. Populists should, therefore, welcome an increased level of participation in the political process by the powerless.

But contemporary right-wing American populists don’t speak for a majority of the American people. What’s more, they know it. As a result, they make the argument, based on the views of the Founding Fathers, that America is a republic, not a democracy. This is an openly anti-democratic argument.

In addition, the kinds of people the reactionary populists believe have too much power–the wealthy and educated elements of the public–are exactly the kinds of people the FFs thought should be running the country. You can be certain, for example, that Hamilton would have been appalled at the idea of a guy in a Viking outfit storming the Capitol to keep Trump in power.

The bottom line is that our “populists” actually want rule by the elites, but they define “elites” as including only elements of the public the FFs would hardly have recognized as elite. It is as if the FFs wrote the Constitution to give the insurgents in Shays’ Rebellion control over the country. If you think that’s ludicrous, you’re not alone.

Long before the WTO membership, the creation of the export machine, the 2008 Olympics, the construction of the Uighur camps, and the repression in Hong Kong, Huntington predicted that China would rise and seek to dominate its neighborhood. Leaders in the West, who were not that prescient in 1996, are now attempting to resist. Is this a clash of civilizations, or something else?

I have on many occasions described the Chinese state ideology as “Chinese exceptionalism” rather than communism. That is consistent with Huntington. The problem with attributing the conflict between China and America to a clash of civilizations, however, is that Taiwan and South Korea, both part of Huntington’s “Sinic” sphere of influence, are robust democracies and American allies. The very different character of regimes with similar cultures is not consistent with Huntington.

While there is certainly an element of culture war (or, if you insist, racism) in America’s fear of China, more of it has to do with China’s turn towards more rigorous authoritarianism at home and aggression abroad over the last decade. These developments were a matter of choice for the Chinese leadership; they were in no way the inevitable product of Chinese culture. As a result, I don’t think you can say this is a pure clash of civilizations; there are elements of ideology and great power rivalry at work, as well.

It is, of course, highly ironic that the leader of the Brothers of Italy is a sister. That observation aside, what can we expect from the new government?

Four things:

1. We will see lots of rhetoric and performative actions on illegal immigration and wokeness. Actually accomplishing anything meaningful will be a different matter.
2. There will be a significant push within the EU to loosen fiscal rules. The German government, which approved massive new borrowing and spending programs for the pandemic, and which currently faces a recession, probably won’t resist too much this time. When the cost of borrowing goes up, however, the EU won’t be there to help. The new government will have to face the markets on its own.
3. Meloni will probably make some effort to loosen sanctions on Russia, but won’t get very far. She will be too dependent on EU money to make much of a splash here.
4. Italian governments, almost by definition, are weak and unstable. Since it is unlikely that the leaders of the other right-wing parties will embrace their subordinate status for very long, this one will be even weaker and more unstable than most.

The great would-be emperor Xi

Wants to hold on to power, don’t you see?

So he’s put out the word.

It’s already been heard.

Woe to them who say they don’t agree.

The Huntington book identifies illegal immigration and “multi-culturalism” as potential problems for America. It argues that the values we consider universal–free speech, free elections, limited government, respect for property rights, and the like–do not apply in most civilizations. Above all, it foresees that China will attempt to dominate its Sinic sphere of influence, at a minimum. It all sounds a bit like Trump. Was Huntington a Trump voter?

Not so fast! Trump deviated from the playbook in a number of critical ways. First of all, like Bannon, he viewed Russia as being part of a Christian sphere rather than the center of a separate Orthodox sphere. Second, he tried to divide the West rather than unite it. Third, Trump has a strong mercantilist bent that doesn’t appear anywhere in the book. Finally, and most importantly, Trump doesn’t simply argue that American values aren’t universal; he rejects them in America, as well. Where Huntington saw those values as the glue that keeps the West together, Trump sees only himself.

You know how difficult it was to pull off the D-Day invasion. Now imagine trying it without the element of surprise, and with no assurance that you would have control over either the sea or the air. Sounds like a nightmare, doesn’t it?

It does. That’s why the Chinese won’t invade Taiwan. They will use a combination of missile strikes, cyberwarfare, and an air and sea blockade instead.

What does this mean for America and Taiwan? Providing arms to Taiwan that are intended primarily to deal with a ground assault is a waste of money. We need to be working on a plan to deal with the blockade, which means emphasizing anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons and improving our ability to supply the island by air.

Like Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis had little tolerance for criticism. Unlike Trump, he was determined to do something about it. And so, with his re-election assured, he persuaded the Florida Legislature to pass a bill creating a cause of action on behalf of specified state officials (local officials, some of whom are Democrats, were not included) for “unfair criticism” on the internet. The burden of proof on “unfair criticism,” a vaguely defined term, was placed on the defendants.

Criticism of the governor on the web immediately ceased, to the delight of the Hungarian Candidate’s base. When the inevitable First Amendment challenge came, the District Court enjoined enforcement of the new law in a blistering opinion, all but calling DeSantis a fascist. The Eleventh Circuit was split on predictably ideological lines, however, and the case went to the Supreme Court, where Thomas and Alito were itching to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan. A divided Court followed the Fifth Circuit’s decision in the Texas social media case and held that the internet was fundamentally different than other forms of media; as a result, according to the Court, the free speech protections in Sullivan did not apply. Furthermore, the Florida law could be enforced against residents of states other than Florida who dared to criticize DeSantis.

As usual, the other red states fell into line and adopted similar regulations. Liberal democracy in America was effectively dead.

Monster Hurricane Ron hit Florida this morning. With almost surgical precision, it devastated Broward County, a Democratic stronghold, and then veered back out to sea. Hundreds of thousands of blue voters were killed, and millions were left without power. The red voters of Palm Beach, including Trump, were spared.

Safe in his Tallahassee mansion, Governor DeSantis was exultant. “That’s what those people get for hating God and me,” he said. “Now they’re getting their reward for being pervert groomers. They’re burning in Hell, and I’m going to be re-elected. Dead men can’t vote.”

“Who said that climate change is a bad thing? It’s even more effective than the pandemic in getting rid of liberals. Now we can get on with the job of making Florida a paradise for real Americans, and really stick it to any liberals who are left.”

As of today, it looks like Ian is headed more or less straight to our Florida house. The question is, will DeSantis even care? Can he take a day or two off from fighting the culture wars to actually try and protect the lives of Floridians? Or would he prefer that all of the blue people get washed away, so they can’t vote against him in November? Is that part of his “freedom” agenda?

Nancy Pelosi has come to the White House to talk about the campaign.

B: It looks like we’ve done it!

P: Done what?

B: Turned it around! The latest projections even give us a decent chance of holding the House.

P: We haven’t done much of anything, except benefit from lower gas prices and lots of headlines about Trump. Oh, and lots of lousy Republican candidates. And abortion, of course.

B: Maybe we should send Alito flowers. He’s done more than anyone else except Trump to help us out here.

P: The Republicans don’t seem to understand that America doesn’t really agree with them about anything except inflation. They’re better off when they’re the dog that can’t catch the car.

B: What do you think of the McCarthy agenda?

P: The fake one or the real one?

B: The fake one. We know the real one is to burn it down.

P: It’s certainly interesting that it doesn’t say anything meaningful about abortion, or Russia, or inflation.

B: It’s just a bunch of soothing malarkey intended to persuade America that the GOP doesn’t really want to burn it down, which, of course, it does. At least the extremists do, and McCarthy will do anything they say in order to be Speaker.

P: Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. I’m too old to be the Minority Leader again.

B: What should we do in the meantime?

P: Two things. First, talk about how the Republicans want to take away your constitutional rights. That includes, but isn’t limited to, abortion. Second, emphasize everything we’ve accomplished in the last year or so–including infrastructure, climate change mitigation funding, and legislation protecting us from the Chinese threat–and point out the lack of GOP solutions to inflation.

B: No matter what they say today, they’ll want a tax cut if they win, because that’s what they do, regardless of the circumstances.

P: Yeah, and look at how well that’s going over in the UK. Not that the Republicans care. For them, tax cuts for the rich are a kind of religion.

B: Well, let’s just hope we don’t have any unexpected drama between now and November. I’m guessing the polls are right this time. I feel pretty good about where we are.

P: Me, too, but you never know until it’s over. (She leaves)