Month: September 2023

Having correctly seen that the only way to avoid a shutdown was a bipartisan CR, McCarthy introduced one this afternoon. It passed solely due to Democratic votes. Ukraine money was excluded from the bill in a sop to the Freedom Caucus. McCarthy will undoubtedly argue to them that he accomplished one of their primary objectives, so they should hold off on a motion to vacate. It is highly unlikely that they will acquiesce this time.

What we have in the House is a situation where the right-wing rabble rules 99 percent of the time, but a bipartisan coalition excluding the extremists prevails when it really matters. Should the Democrats continue to tolerate this state of affairs, particularly when they know that McCarthy is desperate to keep the gavel?

No. It’s time to make some demands. If McCarthy is going to remain Speaker with Democratic votes, the blue team deserves something important from him in return. An end to the impeachment inquiry, which is only making the red team look stupid in any event, would be a logical place to start.

It isn’t really directed at McCarthy, although for Matt Gaetz, it might be. It isn’t really about spending cuts, either. There was no concerted effort to cut spending during the Trump years.

No, this is about the mouthpieces for the reactionary base attempting to impose their will on the rest of the GOP, the Senate, Joe Biden, and the American people. They may represent a small fraction of the electorate, but they think they speak for “real America,” and for them, that’s all of the justification they need.

Trump never makes any effort to attract anyone outside of the base, and it works for him, at least within the boundaries of the GOP. Why wouldn’t his most devoted disciples do the same thing?

A note to my readers: I will be on vacation next week. Regular posts will resume the following week.

Ross Douthat observes that wealthy Americans, by and large, have stable marriages and wonders why working and middle-class people don’t. Can we help him out here?

First, let’s put this in historical perspective. Back in the day, the marriage contract was a bargain in which the man worked for wages and provided economic stability, while the woman did the work around the house and took care of the family. While this state of affairs could seem oppressive at times, the bargain was reasonably equal, and made sense.

Fast forward to today. Consider the position of two hypothetical characters, Jim and Anne. Jim has a blue collar job that pays him about $30,000 a year; Anne is a teacher making $40,000 a year. The two can save on some expenses by getting married and living together, but Anne will have to serve both as the primary breadwinner and the person doing most of the housework. If you were Anne, is that a bargain you would make, particularly if Jim’s employment is insecure?

Probably not. The bottom line is that this problem is being driven both by the evolution of the knowledge-based economy and a cultural issue regarding work around the house.

There were always two plausible ways to resolve the debt ceiling crisis: an agreement between Democrats and a few moderate Republicans; or the use of the Fourteenth Amendment. Initially, I thought the first option was more likely; later, I changed my mind, because I thought the Fourteenth Amendment route would serve McCarthy’s interests better. As it turned out, I was right the first time. The agreement was reached, and McCarthy kept his job, but just barely.

This time, there’s no Fourteenth Amendment option as a Plan B. The only way the imminent shutdown ends is with an agreement between House Democrats and a few moderate Republicans based on the CR supported by the Senate. McCarthy has now done everything he can to move his plan forward, and failed, so the way is clear for the bipartisan approach.

When will that happen? When the political pain starts kicking in for the moderates, and not a minute before. Look for McCarthy to oppose bipartisanship vehemently in public to keep his support with the right, while actually encouraging it in private.

Donald Trump wants to rebuild the economy of the 1950s–lots of strong, burly men working in mining and manufacturing jobs that either have disappeared, or are going to in the near future. It is hardly an agenda that would appeal to tech bros. And yet, some of them are his vocal supporters. Why?

Two reasons. First, they see Trump as a chaos agent who will disrupt an unacceptable status quo dominated by unimaginative bureaucrats who keep their genius under strict control. The highly questionable assumption in this scenario is that power will fall into their hands, not the hands of the reactionaries (ask the industrialists who backed Hitler how well that worked out for them). Second, both they and Trump believe that successful entrepreneurs are economic supermen who deserve to be set free and need more respect from the public. In that sense, they are natural allies.

Xi doesn’t want to hear it. He hates all of this noise about “lying flat.” He wants young Chinese people to “eat bitterness,” take menial jobs for which they are overqualified, and work long hours for minimal pay. Oh, and by the way, they’re supposed to be getting married, having lots of children, and taking care of their parents, too. Good luck with that.

Most of the problems with the Chinese economy can be resolved if the government starts to understand the need for a dramatic expansion of the welfare state. The CCP–a communist party, the last time I looked–has resisted that to date, partly because it has concerns about debt, but mostly because it doesn’t want to encourage the Chinese people to lounge in the hammock of dependency. In that sense, Xi is more Victorian than communist.

Paul Ryan would be proud.

I managed to last about an hour and a half on this one. My reactions are as follows:

1. The moderators asked good, pointed questions that the candidates routinely ignored. They then did very little to keep order, which made the event largely unendurable.
2. The MSM make the problem with candidates talking over each other worse by using speaking time as a metric of success.
3. No one candidate really stood out. DeSantis and Scott were a little bit more effective than last time, but so what? Neither of them made any headway against Trump, and neither made meaningful gains against his opponents.
4. You can’t beat Trump, or even the other candidates, if all you do is mouth standard GOP talking points. The others are doing that, too. If you want to look better, sound different–more thoughtful and innovative.
5. If you believe these candidates, tax and spending cuts are the answer to all economic questions, even if that makes no sense. Will tax cuts reduce inequality? Will tax and spending cuts reduce the cost of child care? Maybe on the planet Zoltan, but not here.

The status quo of lots of equally matched candidates grasping for the Never Trumper and AAT votes will clearly continue for the next few months. The sorting process won’t begin until the primaries start.

A column in today’s NYT suggests that the judge’s decision in the fraud case will hurt, because it goes to the heart of Trump’s identity as a successful businessman. Is that correct?

No, for two reasons. First of all, the business titan angle to Trump’s candidacy was meaningful to a lot of voters in 2016, but not now. Today’s he’s an angry reactionary politician vowing vengeance on his enemies, not the guy who fired people on “The Apprentice.” Second, Trump and his followers believe that a successful fraud is evidence of the man’s overwhelming intelligence; to them, there is no moral issue involved. If he screwed people over in business, more power to him!

Mitch McConnell has come to Kevin’s office to discuss the impending shutdown.

MITCH: Kevin, you’ve got to get better control of your caucus. The crazoids are embarrassing our party.

KEVIN: It’s not that easy. You try dealing with the Freedom Caucus for an afternoon. It’s worse than herding cats. It’s more like herding mosquitoes.

MITCH: Don’t forget that I have to deal with Ted Cruz.

KEVIN: Cruz is just an abrasive, ambitious opportunist. He’s not crazy, like my people.

MITCH: I think you’re giving Ted too much credit. Anyway, you need to get these people under control one way or another. You know we never win shutdowns, right?

KEVIN: Right.

MITCH: So, what’s your plan?

KEVIN: When we get really close to the cliff, we’ll reach an agreement with the extremists that includes virtually all of their demands. We’ll present that to the Senate. When the Senate says no, we’ll say the shutdown is the fault of the Democrats in the Senate.

MITCH: What about the part where you’re reneging on the debt ceiling deal?

KEVIN: We’ll say those cuts were a floor, not a ceiling.

MITCH: Oh, right. I’m sure the public will be on board with that. What then? How do we get the government back open?

KEVIN: After a short shutdown, the bad press will persuade the crazoids to make a reasonable deal.

MITCH: But they’re crazy. They can’t be reached. The only way you make a deal is to split your caucus, defy Trump and DeSantis, and accept the Senate budget. That makes you basically the head of a coalition of moderates in both parties that opposes the most likely nominees in our party.

KEVIN: Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, but if it does, it does.

MITCH: Then how do you keep your job?

KEVIN: The Democrats will keep me in power.

MITCH: For a price, of course.

KEVIN: For a price. We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

MITCH: This sounds like a disaster in slow motion to me. (He leaves)

Like Japan in the 1990s, China is dealing with a property bubble, demographic issues, and problems with debt. Is China consequently doomed to years of stagnation?

In reality, conditions in China differ significantly from those in Japan, for both better and worse. The positive factors are the size of the Chinese market and the absence of any ideological commitment on the part of the CCP to neoliberal policies, which makes a massive government response practically possible. The negative factors are the government’s Victorian attitudes about consumer spending, its continuing desire to keep its decision-making process arbitrary and opaque, geopolitical strains that will impact exports, and Xi’s clear preference for security and stability over growth.

The bottom line here is that China’s economic future depends on the willingness of its government to improve consumer confidence by expanding the welfare state, putting more money in the hands of its citizens, and providing more encouragement to the private sector. Is Xi capable of making a credible U-turn on these issues? Right now, you would have to say no.

The latest New Hampshire polls show DeSantis in fifth place, with ten percent of the vote. At this point, he’s not the dauphin; he’s just another guy. Does that have an impact on his behavior at tomorrow’s debate?

It should. I expect him to come out swinging, not at Trump, but at all of the people on the stage. I think he will make the case that he is Trumpier than all of them, including Ramaswamy, whose books will be cited as often as possible. The objective, as always, will be to position himself as Trump’s heir when the man on golf cart implodes.

Which, of course, is highly unlikely. Hoping for a miracle is not much of a strategy. But what else does he have?

Russia is the aggressive imperialist country that menaces the West with its weaponry, not China. And yet, the American right embraces Putin and hates China. Why?

In light of the current state of Russian politics, you can’t base the argument on human rights. Nor can you say that Xi is woke with a straight face, because he emphatically isn’t.

There are two reasons for the difference, only one of which is reasonable. The reasonable argument is that China, as the world’s greatest manufacturing power, is a greater threat to America in the long run, because Russia is just Nigeria with nukes. The less savory argument is that Putin, as a white Christian, is one of us, but the Chinese are a totally alien race and culture. That’s racism, pure and simple.

Which of the two arguments is more compelling to the reactionary right? You decide.

When Scott, Haley, and Ramaswamy argue that their success disproves the concept of systemic racism, GOP voters love it. See, they’re not racists! Take that, liberals!

But for the base, it isn’t enough to say that ethnic minorities should just get over it; you have to acknowledge that white Christians are the true victims in today’s America. It’s hard for Scott, Haley, and Ramaswamy to take the next step and say that.

Which is why Trump has the advantage with the base. His personal sense of victimization helps him bond with the self-pitying far right.

Since it’s self-evident to reactionaries that their ideas are correct, their principal tactic for winning a majority has been reshaping the electorate, not compromise. Gerrymandering and vote suppression have been the order of the day. It has not really worked, however. The Democrats are still winning elections. It has to stop.

So what now? Ramaswamy has suggested taking the vote away from people under 25, which would help, but not enough. The red team needs something even more dramatic.

Women make up a large majority of the blue team. Why not take away their vote? After all, it’s not as if they ever did anything to earn it.

If you ever watch a French documentary on Versailles, you may be surprised by the enthusiasm with which the presenter discusses the monument to unchecked autocracy. Instead of focusing on the human costs that went into it and the inequality it represents, the French appear to view it as a critical part of the country’s cultural heritage. It belongs to all of them, not just the long dead Sun King.

In light of that, Xi’s “Chinese dream,” which focuses on the well-being of the nation as a whole rather than that of individual Chinese citizens, makes more sense, doesn’t it?