Month: December 2022

We’re not homeless–far from it. We have a nice house in the North Carolina mountains. It’s beautiful, here, too; the sky was a gorgeous pale blue and pink on the mountain this morning, and the snow meets the Currier & Ives test. We could be living in a shed, like some people who were interviewed in the Fort Myers paper. Life could be a lot worse.

But we miss the familiar rhythms of a Florida Christmas. We miss our friends. And, above all, we miss the warm weather. We had a wind chill factor of minus 37 degrees here yesterday morning. I haven’t seen anything like that in about 50 years.

Under the circumstances, you can understand it if songs like “I’ll Be Home for Christmas” have a different meaning for us this year. Sometimes it’s just better to sing and not pay any attention to the lyrics.

DeSantis can get anything he wants from the Florida Legislature, but he isn’t saying anything specific about new abortion restrictions. Why?

Because he wants to maintain some degree of plausible deniability with both the base and moderate suburban women, of course. Whatever the Legislature does, he will tell one group he is responsible, and the other that he isn’t. Brilliant, right?

It won’t work. The pro-life activists in particular aren’t interested in anything that looks like a compromise. He’s going to be blamed by someone for the new legislation regardless of how it turns out.

Here is where the factions stand on the impending debt ceiling crisis:

1. CDs: You would crash the economy and destroy the nation’s credit over the payment of existing debts that were already authorized by Congress? That’s insane!
2. PBPs: Ditto. You’re putting my investments at risk. Don’t do it!
3. CLs: Reducing the size of government is the overriding objective here. Sure, there will be some pain, but in the end, we’ll all be better off.
4. Reactionaries: Can you think of a better way to BURN IT DOWN?

Navigating the gap between these trains of thought will be McCarthy’s most important task, assuming he is the next Speaker.

DeSantis has made fighting wokeness his brand. What, exactly, is his understanding of the term?

I think he would define it as “an extreme left-wing identity ideology, propagated by elites and embedded in the MSM and the federal government, which holds that America is a bigoted, misogynist, homophobic, and racist country, and puts the responsibility for that on straight white Christian men.”

So far, so effective–it is doubtful that more than a tiny fraction of the American public holds these views, so criticizing them is a good way to win votes. The real questions with DeSantis, however, are as follows:

1. Does his view of wokeness extend to any belief commonly held by elites? For example, does it include climate change and vaccines? If so, DeSantis is walking on thin ice with the electorate here.
2. If elected president, how far is DeSantis prepared to go to impose his views on wokeness on blue states and cities?
3. Along the same lines, how far will he go to attack wokeness outside of government? Will he attempt to censor the internet and the MSM?

The last two questions are of extreme importance. He should be asked them during the GOP debates over the next two years. His answers will tell us whether he is just a traditional Republican or the Hungarian Candidate.

Elections over the last decade show that America is a conservative country in the literal–not the Republican–sense of the word. We might have fond memories of the 1950s, but we still look forward, not back. We are not reactionaries.

Americans are suspicious of new large-scale government spending programs. Most issues should be left to the private sector, or to state and local governments; where federal action is clearly necessary, it should be small and incremental. Once a new program is in place, however, it should remain. Attempts to repeal programs that benefit large numbers of Americans usually don’t end well.

On social issues, Americans believe in traditional values, but do not support discrimination against historically disadvantaged groups, and are unwilling to give up rights that they have enjoyed for many years.

Abroad, Americans support democratic states, and oppose authoritarian ones. How far they are willing to go to express those opinions is an open question.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Based on some mercantilist ideas which hadn’t been seen since the 18th century, Trump created a system of tariffs that upended the international trading system. Biden has kept large portions of that system in place. Why?

Three reasons:

1. CHINESE REPRESSION AND AGGRESSIVE DIPLOMACY: Biden is not fixated on the trade deficit, but he is justifiably concerned about the national security implications of Chinese tech growth and protectionism.
2. POLITICS: Due to the vagaries of the Electoral College, the 2024 election will probably be decided by a relative handful of votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, all of which are industrial states with strong protectionist leanings.
3. NOSTALGIA: Like Trump, Biden is old enough to remember and celebrate the 1950s–a time of strong unions, rising wages, low levels of inequality, and American manufacturing predominance. Unlike Trump, he actually cares about workers. Protectionism appears to be a way to bring back those days of industrial glory.

I read a column a few months back which made the case that we need a generation of leaders that can’t remember the 1950s. To be honest with you, I think the writer was correct. We need to see the world as it is today, not as it was 70 years ago.

(It’s 5:00 on December 24. Bob Cratchit is working in his cubicle at Scrooge, LLC when the boss, in “managing by walking around” mode, comes by.

C: Mr. Scrooge, sir.

S: What is it . . . (he looks at the nameplate on the cubicle) . . . Cratchit?

C: Can I have tomorrow off, sir?

S: Why in the world would I do that?

C: Why . . . because it’s Christmas, sir.

S: Not in China, it isn’t. How am I supposed to compete with those people and their low labor costs if I give you unnecessary days off?

C: Well, actually, the Chinese get a whole week off for Chinese New Year. We never should have come back to the office, anyway. The worst of the pandemic might be over, but the virus is still out there, and I might get sick and give it to my child. He has special needs, you know.

S: (Sees a picture of Tiny Tim in the cubicle) Is that him?

C: Yes, sir.

(Scrooge walks around the office with an exaggerated limp)

C: There’s nothing funny about it, sir! He’s in really bad shape! If he gets the virus, it could kill him!

S: I don’t have time for that political correctness crap.

C: You sound just like Donald Trump, sir.

S: No, I don’t. I have nothing to do with him. He’s totally out of control. His time has come and gone. He has nothing to offer people like me.

C: Well, DeSantis then.

S: DeSantis is strong on wokeness, but not on tax cuts. They’re more important. I don’t completely trust him. I’ll support him if he’s the nominee, but he’s not my first choice.

C: Who would that be?

S: Rick Scott. Unlike Trump, who believes that he alone made America great, Scott understands that people like me made America great. Without entrepreneurs, this country is nothing. Just ask Elon Musk.

C: What about people like me?

S: You just draft off my awesomeness. You could be replaced in a heartbeat–at least, you could if we had a normal labor market. Biden and the pandemic have given you workers way too much power. Enjoy it while it last, because it won’t.

C: What about Christmas?

S: If I don’t give you the day off, Biden will probably send his jackbooted thugs down here to harass me. He might even try to persuade you drones to unionize.

C: So I get the day off?

S: Sort of. There will be a Zoom meeting at noon. I’ll text you the password.

C: Thank you, sir!

S: Don’t even think about ghosting me!

(Cratchit leaves)

By and large, the red state reaction to the pandemic was that the danger was highly overblown. Freedom was more important than life and public health. Mask mandates trampled on our fundamental rights. Vaccines? Take them or leave them. Just get on with life and hope for the best.

Today, several red states are trying to keep asylum seekers out of the country on the basis that–wait for it–a federal regulation based on public health and the pandemic must remain in place. I guess the virus is only a problem if it is carried by people from Central America.

SCENARIO ONE: House Republicans agree to lift the debt ceiling in exchange for a cosmetic cut in spending–think getting rid of the additional IRS agents here. RESULT: The markets relax, and life goes on as usual, but the threat of a future confrontation remains.

SCENARIO TWO: Biden and the Republicans agree to defund major parts of the IRA in exchange for debt ceiling relief. RESULT: The markets are happy, but the Democrats are demoralized. Bernie Sanders announces he will challenge Biden in 2024.

SCENARIO THREE: No deal is reached. The markets go crazy, and a worldwide financial crisis ensues. Both parties blame the other. The “burn it down” crowd rejoices.

SCENARIO FOUR: No deal is reached, but Biden invokes the Fourteenth Amendment and pays all federal government obligations, anyway. The markets initially seize up but calm down shortly thereafter. GOP members file suit to stop Social Security payments and payments to contractors, which doesn’t exactly endear them to the public. The suit is dismissed for lack of standing. The crisis is over, never to be repeated.

Which of these do you think is the most plausible?

The Fed is increasing interest rates in an effort to suppress inflation. You advocate cutting taxes in order to mitigate the impacts of higher interest rates on the economy. What, exactly, do you think this will do to inflation?

If you’re an inflation hawk, you really should be advocating for higher, not lower, taxes; they would suck up some of the excess savings that are fueling the spending that is causing inflation. It is worth noting that no one–particularly, no member of the GOP–has suggested that.

It occurred to me early this morning that the wilder elements of the GOP view today’s political climate in the same way the more extreme Whigs viewed life under the Stuarts in the latter half of the 17th century. An out of touch government holding values that are anathema to the mainstream is using the political and legal systems to impose its will on the public. Essential freedoms are under attack. Conspiracies are everywhere, so conspiracy theories abound.

The problem with the analogy is that none of this is actually happening. Law enforcement has not been weaponized against the right. Biden is not trying to impose a woke agenda on anyone. First Amendment rights are still intact, and there are no Christian re-education camps. The threat to “freedom” from the woke left, to the extent that it actually exists, comes from a handful of activists who will soon find themselves expelled from Twitter. That’s not exactly the equivalent of Judge Jeffreys or the secret Treaty of Dover.

The analogy between the “rigged election” and the Popish Plot, on the other hand, is perfectly appropriate.

It appears that there is something like a genuine crisis at the border. To be honest with you, I don’t really care very much, because it doesn’t affect me. I suspect that most Americans feel the same way.

The reactionary right doesn’t, however; it views illegal immigration as a perpetual existential crisis. How would it solve the problem?

Trump had a clear answer to the question– be as cruel as possible in order to persuade the immigrants to stay home. This included family separations, of course. The mainstream of the GOP was appalled by that, so the policy came to an abrupt end. But what other answer is there, from the right-wing perspective? To will the objective, but to deny the means, is hypocrisy.

There are two realities at play here. First, the only answer to the immigration problem is a deal in which legal immigration is increased, and a path to citizenship is provided, in exchange for significantly more border protection. Everyone knows this is the deal, but it won’t happen for the foreseeable future, because the reactionary base won’t permit it. Second, as a result of that, the GOP has no plausible answers to the immigration problem and does not seek any. The Republican Party just wants to use the issue to bash Democrats–period.

America played a huge role in the creation of the international trade system that governs economic life today. We frequently cite the existence of that system, and its success in bringing increased prosperity to the world over the last 75 years, as the difference between us and the rule-breaking Chinese. Trump did his best to cripple the system, however, and Biden is largely following his lead. It looks like hypocrisy, doesn’t it?

The problem is that the system was not designed to deal with a huge country that openly views its corporations not as independent actors, but as agents of an aggressive, autocratic state. Nevertheless, American violations of the letter and the spirit of trade law need to be limited to transactions which have a clear relationship to national security in order to maintain our moral standing in the rest of the world. Regulations on chip manufacturing meet that standard, but most tariffs do not.

Ross Douthat will admit that a woman who is denied an abortion may suffer economic hardship in both the short and long term as a result. However, he thinks society as a whole is better off, for two reasons. First, we need the additional population to finance our welfare state; and second, the loss of abortion rights is somehow supposed to result in more responsible sexual behavior and more stable relationships. Is he right?

Increased immigration is the obvious answer to the first question, and I don’t really think men spend a lot of time thinking about the availability of abortion when they go out in pursuit of sex, but we’ll put those aside for the moment. The real question is, will women who want abortions agree to put their self-interest aside and take one for the team for the betterment of society as a whole? Of course not! They didn’t in the past when abortion was illegal, and they won’t now.

As I predicted, the self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist” is starting to impose censorship on his critics on Sewer. I expect the situation to evolve as follows:

1. Inertia will keep left-wing journalists and commentators on Sewer for some time, but ultimately, they will leave. Sewer will become a right-wing swamp.
2. Advertisers will leave, as well. This will cost Musk lots of money.
3. He won’t care. He has plenty of money. What he wants is a loud voice and a higher degree of celebrity. Sewer gives him that in spades.
4. The right, which has howled about censorship for the last few years, will cheer him on. DeSantis will make it clear that his “freedom” agenda is only for his supporters; dissent from the left is to be stifled, not welcomed.

The bottom line is that entrusting what should be public spaces to plutocrats is hardly a perfect solution to the censorship problem, but leaving the issue to the government creates difficulties, too, because there is no agreement on the boundaries of the window of acceptable opinion. Do you want DeSantis to decide what should be tolerated on the internet?