Like Japan in 1941, China is a highly nationalistic country that clearly seeks to be the dominant power in its neighborhood. Does that make them essentially similar?
No, because China is not a militaristic nation. Historically, it used its size and higher levels of culture to control its back yard. Today, it can buy virtually everything it wants, so military action is not necessary.
Taiwan is an exception, of course.
In 2011, there was a huge uproar over the debt. The GOP was determined to cut spending on entitlements and social programs; to that end, it manufactured a crisis over the debt limit. The MSM collaborated in this by giving lots of publicity to “experts” who told us the sky would fall without cuts. In the end, there was no grand bargain, but there was no disaster, either.
The GOP cut taxes and increased the deficit dramatically during the Trump years. The silence about the debt from the right, the deficit scolds, and the MSM was deafening. Today, however, with a Democrat in the White House and a GOP majority in the House, the MSM are once again taking the issue seriously, even when the first major action of the new reactionary majority was to try to increase the deficit by getting rid of the new IRS agents.
Two observations are pertinent here:
The universal rule is supposed to be that one doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. Experience tells us that it is rarely followed; even the Israeli government does it. What does that mean for Biden and the debt ceiling?
There is no legal, moral, economic, or constitutional basis for refusing to pay existing debts, so as a purely intellectual matter, Biden is right to say he won’t negotiate. As a practical matter, things get murkier. Assuming, for purposes of argument, that Biden really has (mistakenly) rejected relying on the Fourteenth Amendment to deal with the problem, his first step should be to force the GOP to put something on the table; in other words, he shouldn’t negotiate with himself. He is following that direction as of today. After the GOP has exposed the outrageousness of its demands, whatever they may ultimately be, the real discussions will begin. Where that will lead, I can only guess.
Louis XIV identified himself completely with the French people, so it seems likely that he viewed Versailles as a monument to French culture, not just himself. If so, history has vindicated him. The French people are clearly proud of Versailles. If you go there, or watch a French documentary on the place, the emphasis will be on its grandeur, not the suffering of the taxpayers who funded it and the workers who built it.
In a sense, Versailles is a lot like Xi’s concept of the “Chinese dream;” China is great, therefore you are. The difference is that Xi isn’t building anything that will evoke Chinese greatness centuries from now. Airports, highways, and innumerable identical high-rise buildings don’t count. Neither do Uighur camps.
The Chinese government has reversed course and wants more children. What can it do?
Start by considering the reasons many young Chinese workers don’t want kids. They are expected to work 12 hours a day, six days a week (the “996” program), so they have little time or energy for child care. Migrant workers typically have no access to public services in the largest cities, so they either leave their children with older relatives in rural areas or pay for education and health care out of their own pockets. The welfare state is rudimentary at best; families are expected to take care of their own. Residential spaces are small, cramped, and expensive. Under these circumstances, why would they want to add to their burdens?
It would be possible for the state to change these conditions, but any such measures would either offend vested interests or impose enormous costs, which would have to be passed on to taxpayers or consumers. The government has consequently been reluctant to take any effective action up until now. Is there anything else it can do?
Yes. It can restrict access to birth control. Don’t be surprised if that starts happening in the near future.
Ross Douthat thinks the dangers of climate change have been overstated; the most important long-term issue for America and the world, in his view, is a “birth dearth.” He most likely would say otherwise if he lived in Florida, California, or Arizona, but the aging of America unquestionably presents us with some serious policy challenges, so let’s go with it. How could our demographic issues be resolved?
There are two obvious answers to that question. The first would be to provide better financial incentives for women to have children. Douthat occasionally shows some interest in this approach, but he hardly seems passionate about it. The second, and even better, option would be to increase the levels of immigration into the United States. This would serve two purposes: it would provide us with additional essential workers; and it would be a compassionate solution to the problems at the border. On its face, it seems like a no-brainer.
Douthat does not support the immigration solution even though it is completely consistent with the teachings of his beloved Catholic Church. He appears to believe that the best way to increase our population is to compel American women to give birth against their will; in other words, the rights of the American unborn are entitled to more weight than the rights of the Central American born. That tells you demographics aren’t really an overriding issue in his eyes; this is really about a soft form of racism.
The great would-be emperor Xi
Wants more children in China, you see.
But they won’t multiply.
Few are born; more will die.
It’s a tale that won’t end happily.
Joe Biden knows as well as anyone that nothing moves the radical right more than the immigration issue. He has done what he can, within the limits of simple humanity, not to provoke them. Since no legislative solution to the immigration problem is in sight, even though the framework of such a deal is only too obvious, he is kicking the can down the road. The solution will have to wait for another day.
On Afghanistan, on the other hand, Biden rejected the kick the can “solution” and withdrew the troops knowing that defeat, chaos, and unpopularity were likely to follow. That raises the question: is the debt ceiling issue more like immigration or Afghanistan?
I think it is somewhere in between. My guess is that Biden will take a deal with cosmetic cuts if he can get one, but he won’t give in to any demands that put his legislative legacy and party unity at risk.
Crosby was the quintessential gifted 1960s bohemian; a firm believer in experimentation and personal freedom, he pushed back at every boundary he encountered. Sometimes he went way too far for his own good, but as anyone who has watched “Echo in the Canyon” can tell you, he didn’t seem to have many regrets about it. In a more censorious age, that was kind of refreshing.
Crosby was a talented musician and a character. He left a musical legacy from which all of us have been the beneficiaries. He will be missed.
It’s definitely not about debt. Based on his performance in office, to say nothing of his actions as a developer, do you think Donald Trump gives a fig about the deficit? Did the January 6 rioters spend any time screaming about federal spending? Do MTG, Lauren Boebert, and Matt Gaetz really care about debt? Please.
No, this is a battle about power. The red base, although a relatively small minority of the electorate, believes it is entitled to run the country, and sees this is an opportunity to prove it is in charge. The Chaos Caucus in the House represents their interests; it wants to run the Republican Party. The remainder of the GOP has historically stuck with the nihilists in order to keep the left out. All of them want to prove that, regardless of what the voters said in November, the Republican Party has both the right and the ability to crash the plane if it sees fit.
The extremists haven’t even named their price yet, which should tell you everything you need to know about their real motivations. If Biden pays anything like the full ransom they are demanding, he will be sending a message to the entire country that the red base and the Chaos Caucus are in charge, and the rest of us are just hapless passengers in a bus that is heading for the ditch. It is consequently imperative for him not to give in.
It’s June. Janet Yellen has just announced that the debt ceiling cliff is less than a day away. Biden and the Democrats are refusing, at least in public, to negotiate. McCarthy is whipping his troops as if his job depends on it, which, of course, it does. He insists that Biden will cave if everyone sticks together. Trump and his burn it down allies sit back and enjoy the spectacle, because they figure they can’t lose: either Biden caves and demoralizes his party, or chaos ensues and Biden gets blamed for it. The rest of us just hold our breath and wait on events.
The spotlight turns to a handful of GOP House members from Biden districts. They tell Biden they are willing to lift the debt ceiling, but only if he gives them something that looks substantial in return. Agreeing to get rid of the new IRS agents is thrown out as a possibility. Mitch and most of the GOP senators are in their camp.
What happens now? If Biden stands firm and the GOP splits, Biden wins a huge victory, and the debt ceiling gun is retired once and for all. If Biden gives in to the GOP moderates, the immediate crisis is averted, but the hostage takers get a small reward, and are incentivized to try again later. If no deal is reached and Biden refuses to pay the bills, markets will crash all over the world, the burn it down folks will be happy, and both sides will point fingers at the other. If no deal is reached and Biden continues to pay the bills, the markets will react strongly, but there will be no crash, and the crisis will be contained.
I have predicted Biden will make a deal with the moderates, but let’s be honest here: I don’t know that for sure, and neither does anyone else, including the players in the drama. All I can say is, don’t wake me up until it’s over.
The GOP is our testosterone-fueled Daddy Party, so the factions universally support high levels of defense spending, albeit for somewhat different reasons. CLs accept it, for the most part, because they view defense as one of the few legitimate functions of government; PBPs support it because it is directed largely at communist states they abhor; CDs want to use the military to bring democracy and prosperity to the entire world; and Reactionaries like displays of patriotism and swagger.
Of course, the factions don’t necessarily agree on what the military is actually supposed to do. CDs and PBPs generally have an internationalist outlook; CLs and Reactionaries lean towards isolationism. This is a battle that emerged during the Trump years and will become more conspicuous during the 2024 primaries.
Donald Trump never showed any interest in cutting the budget during his days in office. Why is he cheering for a GOP hard line on spending and a debt ceiling crisis?
Part of it is just his vengeful id, of course, but there may be an element of calculation, as well. Creating chaos is his brand; paradoxically, he may think the public will be longing for a strongman (i.e., himself) to put an end to the instability caused by his acolytes once and for all. In other words, desperate times call for desperate measures.
Some commentators think the discovery of government records at various unsecured locations associated with Biden has made Merrick Garland’s decision on charging Trump more difficult. I think it has made the decision infinitely easier. Why?
Because Garland’s decision, like Comey’s in 2016, will inevitably be influenced by politics. The one thing he could do to unite the GOP electorate behind Trump and his faltering campaign is to bring criminal charges against him. Now he doesn’t have to, and he can tell the left that Biden’s mistakes are to blame. They won’t have much of an answer to that.
If you define “wokeness” as a series of identity deterministic beliefs which portray straight white American Christians as being irredeemably evil, all of the GOP factions are united against it. With that definition, “wokeness” is a wedge issue for Democrats, but not Republicans, which is why GOP politicians like to talk about it. But trouble lurks for Republicans when they get into the details.
How far does “wokeness” extend? For example, does it include women advocating for abortion rights? Does it encompass concern about climate change? Does it include the use of vaccines? How does it relate to January 6 and the “rigged” election? And how far should government go to fight it? Should censorship be imposed in some way in spite of the First Amendment? Is legal discrimination against the LGBTQ population acceptable? These questions will divide Reactionaries from the rest of the GOP electorate; we will only know what the predominant opinion within the party is after the 2024 primaries.