Month: September 2023

Biden called Xi a “dictator” a few months ago, and was attacked for it in the Chinese press. Was he right? Is Xi the spawn of Stalin?

Let’s check some of the standards for a dictatorship:

1. Xi has succeeded in giving himself life tenure if he wants it.
2. The CCP is run by his handpicked people at every level.
3. He changed course dramatically on the virus without paying any kind of political price for it.
4. He has established a surveillance state and oppressed ethnic minorities, as well as the people of Hong Kong.
5. And, of course, the CCP retains unlimited, arbitrary power over the Chinese people, so in the absence of collective leadership, Xi has the legal and practical ability to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

Just like Stalin and Mao, right? And yet, Xi is governing more as a conservative Chinese nationalist–a 21st century emperor– than as a revolutionary. There has been no action equivalent to the collectivization of agriculture or the purges during his tenure. This is mostly due to the fact that Xi is the head of a successful country with lots to lose, not someone trying to remake it from scratch, but it owes something to institutional memory, as well.

The bottom line here is that Xi has operated within the boundaries established by the CCP’s institutions and history, so the argument for dictatorship is plausible, but unproven. If he tries something completely out of the mainstream and rams it down the nation’s throat, we will know he is actually a dictator.

There are bright blue, just as there are bright red, states and districts. As a result, the blue team has extremists, just as the red team does. They do not behave the same way, however; AOC and Bernie Sanders are not MTG and Lauren Boebert. Why the difference?

Because the Democratic Party wants to use government to help people, while the GOP despises government and wants it to disappear. AOC and Bernie push their positions vigorously, but in the end, they will settle for half a loaf if it is the best they can do. GOP extremists, on the other hand, are rewarded with power and publicity when they wreck government, so they do it.

Hence, the likelihood of a lengthy government shutdown.

Mike Pence is telling GOP voters they should support conservatives, not populists. Nikki Haley wants big spending and tax cuts. Tim Scott thinks all of the striking UAW workers should be fired. That these ideas are unrealistic, and in Scott’s case downright stupid, is beside the point. Ronald Reagan is back, baby!

At least these three candidates, plus Chris Christie, have finally come to understand that you can’t beat Donald Trump by claiming to be a better version of the man on golf cart. It’s about damn time, I would say.

Now, if we can get the Never Trumpers and the AATs to rally around one of these candidates, and the others (plus DeSantis, who is still doing his half-hearted better Trump thing) to drop out, we might have a viable opponent to Trump who doesn’t want to destroy American liberal democracy. That would do wonders for my peace of mind.

Ross Douthat marvels–not altogether approvingly–at Trump’s ideological flexibility. To the rest of us, that “flexibility” means cynical opportunism. How does Trumpism relate to the four GOP factions?

Two initial observations: first, Trump’s personality quirks, not his opinions on policy, are really the essence of Trumpism; and second, no part of him is a CD or a CL. With that in mind, what part of him is PBP, and what is Reactionary?

1. ECONOMY AND FISCAL ISSUES: Trump is an orthodox PBP on issues involving taxes and regulation. His affinity for tariffs and for interfering with the workings of businesses that cross him are pure Reactionary. In fact, Trump’s vision of an America without solar and wind power, but with lots of coal mines and steel plants, is as reactionary as you can get. He wants to invest in the past, not the future.
2. CULTURE WARS: I would describe Trump as a pragmatic, cynical Reactionary here. He is not a true believer–he is a pure pagan, not a Christian–but he embraces reactionary ideas in public in order to win votes from the red base. The base, in turn, is satisfied that he has the same enemies as they do; it is willing to compromise on issues such as abortion in order to put Trump back in office, which is the overriding objective. On social issues, Trump is more an end than the means.
3. FOREIGN POLICY: “America First” obviously sounds a lot like the views of reactionary Americans in the 1930s. In fact, Trump is primarily a mercantilist, which is really, really old school.

On balance, therefore, Trump is a Reactionary. It is only on issues involving taxes and regulations that he follows the PBP line.

Trump is pushing for a shutdown, too, presumably in the belief that chaos leads to a public outcry for a strongman. That made sense in the context of the debt ceiling, but not here. There will be no chaos, and the public will blame the Freedom Caucus for the ensuing inconvenience.

DeSantis is apparently encouraging the dissidents to continue the fight against the McCarthy playbook. In other words, he is aligning himself with a small, relatively unpopular minority of the Republican Party in an effort to force a government shutdown that will be blamed by the voters on the extremists in the Freedom Caucus.

What a shrewd way to win a majority of GOP votes in the primaries! And you wondered why he is so far behind.

It seems impossible today, but less than a year ago, Ron DeSantis was riding high. He had won previously purple Florida by nineteen points in a year in which Trump-endorsed candidates had fared poorly. He was a winner; Trump was a loser. What could go wrong?

Everything. Today, DeSantis is just another guy inhaling Trump’s fumes, for the following reasons:

1. HE MISINTERPRETED THE RESULTS FROM FLORIDA: The electorate, for better or worse, was grateful for DeSantis’ decision to keep schools and the economy open during the pandemic. He decided the election was a referendum on wokeness, and made culture wars the focus of the 2023 legislative session and his campaign. The voters don’t even know what wokeness is.
2. HE CHASED THE WRONG VOTERS: Instead of trying to win over the voters that were available to him, he ignored the Never Trumpers and the AATs and made his pitch to the base, which wasn’t interested in anyone but Trump.
3. HE PICKED THE WRONG POSITIONS: Signing a six week abortion ban and then refusing to apply it on a national basis offended both sides of the divide. Pandering to the base on Ukraine alienated moderate voters and donors. Refusing to take a meaningful position on national conservative economics didn’t help, either.
4. REFUSING TO ATTACK TRUMP WAS A MISTAKE: The base was offended by the mere fact that he was in the race, so refusing to take on Trump was never going to win him any additional votes.

DeSantis is left with two avenues to victory. The first is to win Iowa and hope that the momentum from the triumph somehow carries over throughout the campaign; the other is the possibility that GOP voters simply won’t be able to pull the lever for someone under indictment when push comes to shove. Good luck with either of those.

The recession watch is still on! We are told that the auto strike, or the end of the student loan repayment moratorium, or the likely government shutdown, or something else will cause it. Should we be concerned?

The unfortunate fact is that the dollar store economy runs on the spending of the wealthy and the upper middle classes, so economic changes that damage the interests of others make less difference than you might think. The wealthy don’t have to pay off student loans. What do they care if the moratorium is over?

Biden did his best to replace the dollar store with something better, but he was defeated by a lack of votes in the Senate and inflation. Ironically, his failure is currently operating in his favor. We will only have a recession if the wealthy lose confidence and stop spending, which will only happen if the value of their assets suddenly plunges. That could happen for a variety of reasons, but probably not for the ones the pundits are citing.

A few months ago, McCarthy, after much effort, managed to unite the House GOP around a ransom note that included most of the extreme demands of the Freedom Caucus. This doesn’t sound like much of an accomplishment on its face, but you haven’t dealt with the Freedom Caucus. He then used the ransom note to force Biden and the Democrats to negotiate over the debt ceiling. The ultimate outcome was an agreement that was fairly reasonable. McCarthy is trying the same tactic this time around, but has not succeeded in reaching an agreement with the Freedom Caucus yet. Will the result this time mirror the deal on the debt ceiling? Can a shutdown be avoided?

Yes and no. Yes, the shutdown will ultimately end with an agreement between moderate Republicans and the Democrats, with the Freedom Caucus left out in the cold. Given the extremism of the Freedom Caucus, there is no alternative. But no, we will go over the cliff this time, for three reasons. First, the stakes are much lower, so the parties have less motivation to reach an agreement. Second, the Freedom Caucus trusts McCarthy even less than before, so the GOP may not be able to rally around a ransom note. Third, presidential politics have intruded, with DeSantis supporting the extremists. That makes it even less likely that McCarthy can reach a consensus in his caucus.

This will end when it becomes obvious to the GOP moderates that the American public blames the GOP for reneging on the debt ceiling deal and forcing the shutdown. How long will that take? Longer that we would like.

Back in Dr. Johnson’s day, it was patriotism, but now, it’s MAGA. All you have to do is claim that you are a right-wing victim of the deep state, and all is forgiven, even if your accusers are mainstream Republicans. After all, they’re just RINOs, and you’re a political prisoner.

Do you think George Santos is watching? You bet he is.

As we know only too well, Ross Douthat really, really hates abortion. He would concede that in a better world, or at least a better America, there would be far more state support and compassion for women bearing unwanted babies, but since that isn’t on offer in most red states, the women will just have to take one for the team. They’re acceptable collateral damage.

Douthat also thinks America needs more native-born babies, which is a soft form of racism. Unfortunately for him, even women who otherwise want to get pregnant are now choosing not to do so for fear of the medical complications that arise from the new state anti-abortion legislation. Just another shot in the foot for the pro-natalist crowd!

David French has correctly opined that the condition precedent for more births, even in a regime in which abortion is outlawed, is hope for the future, not anger, hatred, and regulations. Somehow, I don’t think “I am your retribution” fits the bill.

“Rich Men North of Richmond” has been adopted as kind of a reactionary hymn by the GOP. It was even used as a premise in the first question asked at the August debate. The guy who wrote it denies that he favors the right, and if you take the song title literally, he could be telling the truth; after all, Rupert Murdoch and the editorial board of the WSJ are rich men north of Richmond, too. Should we take him at his word?

No, because he clearly accepts the right-wing argument that poor unemployed people in the hammock of dependency are picking our pockets. That part of the song isn’t genuinely populist; it’s just a GOP talking point from the Reagan years that remains with us today. In the end, the song doesn’t really blame the rich men north of Richmond; it attacks the poor men all over America.

Some song parodies practically write themselves. This is one of them.

BURNING DOWN THE HOUSE

Ah, watch out.

You don’t like what we’re after.

Cool babies.

Things keep getting stranger.

We’re extraordinary guys

Burning down the House.

____________

Hold tight.

You think this party’s over.

Hold tight.

You’re in for nasty weather.

There has got to be a way

Burning down the House.

______________

Here’s your ticket; pack your bags.

RINOs jumping overboard.

Transportation is here.

We’re in charge and we don’t care.

Try to stop us if you dare.

Fightin’ fire with fire.

____________

Ah, all wet.

Hey, you might need a raincoat.

Shakedown.

The nation’s at our mercy.

365 degrees

Burning down the House.

____________

Impeachment days are on their way

And you have not seen nothing yet.

Put the left in its place.

I don’t know what you expect

Staring at your TV set.

Fightin’ fire with fire, ah.

________________

Parody of “Burning Down the House” by Talking Heads.

There is a battle going on among right-wing intellectuals regarding the condition of American workers and the role of the state in improving it. On the one hand, the Reaganite faction argues that workers are doing just fine, thank you, and that state intervention in the economy to help them is dangerous and counterproductive. On the other hand, the national conservatives see a working class that needs lots of government help. Who is right here?

Ross Douthat wants to bridge the gap between the two factions so they can focus their energy on what really matters–banning abortion, driving gay people back into the closet, and encouraging trans people to kill themselves. He uses a graphic prepared by a guy at the AEI to show that things are improving for working people, but aren’t perfect. His conclusion is that there is plenty of room for better policy in the GOP, but workers are better off than they think they are, so they should eschew populist economics and get behind social conservatism.

My reactions to the analysis and the graphic are as follows:

1. There are lots of different ways to measure income. It actually probably makes more sense to measure wealth, given that the wealthy rely more on capital gains than income to better their condition. In any event, the AEI has a distinct ideological bias, so without a lot of information regarding methodology, I’m not inclined to accept the graph as fact.
2. There are two significant items missing from the graph. First, it only shows the conditions of American workers after 1970, which avoids making the contrast between significant income increases prior to that date and the outcome of neoliberal policies. Second, it doesn’t show how American capitalists fared during the timeframe of the graph. Even The Economist concedes that inequality in America rose substantially during the relevant time period.
3. I suspect that the guy who created the graph included the value of health insurance in his income figures. If so, the soaring cost of health care actually represents a benefit to the American worker. Spoiler alert–in the real world, that isn’t true.
4. Changes to the tax code that helped American workers were opposed by the AEI. Relying on them to make a case for avoiding future transfers of wealth is hypocritical and obnoxious.
5. The graph, as you would expect, doesn’t distinguish between workers in growing industries and workers in dying ones. It is the latter that have generated most of the publicity and the interest of reactionary intellectuals. The mainstream right, however, has offered the losers of technological change and globalization nothing but racial and gender resentment and nostalgia for their dearly departed jobs.

In short, if you look at the larger picture, the populist reactionaries have a better case than Douthat allows.

As I’ve noted many times, Republicans want every election to look like 1980. A little over a year ago, that was a plausible outcome, given the Afghan withdrawal, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and high levels of inflation, but not today. Biden refuses to play the Jimmy Carter role, and Trump is no Ronald Reagan. Is there a fairly recent analogy that works better?

Yes–1968, because two of the candidates were the first culture warriors of my lifetime. Richard Nixon focused his campaign on “law and order,” by which he meant putting an end to urban riots, and he attacked counterculture figures with gusto. George Wallace, the Ron DeSantis of his day, went even further; he railed about federal bureaucrats and supported angry white protesters and recalcitrant state and local governments in battles over school integration.

Of course, the analogy isn’t perfect. We aren’t at war–culture wars don’t count. Our cities aren’t burning. Biden, unlike LBJ, is running for re-election. And Trump may share Nixon’s contempt for constitutional norms (and also has the support of Roger Stone), but he lacks Nixon’s intelligence and flair for hypocrisy. All of these differences probably dictate a different result in the election.