Author: hamilton1788

MBS and the Saudis are riding high. They have just signed an agreement with Iran that appears–at least in the short run–to eliminate any significant external threats to the kingdom, thereby eliminating the need for any dependence on America. The Ukraine War has made it clear to the rest of the world that Saudi petroleum will be needed for the foreseeable future. MBS has wiped out any meaningful domestic resistance to his reforms. Even climate change isn’t that big a deal; unlike, say, Iraq and Iran, the country can afford air conditioning. Life is good.

But, as I’ve noted before, the rulers who successfully dragged their nations, kicking and screaming, into the present are typically known as “The Great,” as in Peter the Great and Frederick the Great. Is MBS “the Great” or “the Mediocre?” If he’s the latter, and the record to date suggests he is, he should remember the example of the Shah of Iran. Big changes imposed by autocrats over the objections of conservative religious leaders lead to big backlashes when things don’t go well, and then what?

As I predicted, the uprising against the regime failed, because the Iranian leadership remained united and willing to use overwhelming force against it. No one can have any illusions about the legitimacy of the regime at this point, however. It doesn’t exist.

The regime will fall when the leadership ceases to be united against the aspirations of the people. That could happen when the Supreme Leader dies. The succession is likely to be contested, which could bring a meaningful opportunity for the public, at long last, to be heard.

Let’s hope so.

The country was dangerously divided. The executive was dominated by the aristocratic blue team. The countryside and the lower house of the legislature, however, were controlled by the red team, which predominantly espoused a form of fundamentalist Christianity and viewed the blue team as a group of corrupt, out-of-touch, autocratic elitists indifferent to the plight of ordinary citizens. Government was consequently deadlocked at a time of crisis, and serious trouble loomed.

Is it America (or Israel, or France, or any number of countries) in 2023, or England in 1640? You decide.

Pundits have been raising the issue for years; since Israel could not be both Jewish and a democracy, which would it choose? After the events of the last few weeks, the answer is no longer in doubt; liberal democracy in Israel is going to take a back seat.

Israel is divided into three groups: blue Israelis, who are relatively secular, pay the bills, and fight the wars; red Israelis, who spend most of their time praying, taking handouts, and complaining that the blue Israelis look down on them; and the Palestinians–some citizens, some not–who have minimal power and are forced to rely on the goodwill of the other groups. Does that sound like America? Of course it does!

It’s hard to see the current conflict ending well. If Netanyahu and the red Israelis prevail, which is likely, even harder times for the Palestinians will ensue. More violence is inevitable–some of it may spread to the Palestinian citizenry. Israel will be more diplomatically isolated as a result. Only Iran will gain from that.

RUSSIANS

In Europe and America

There’s an avalanche of populist hysteria.

Conditioned to respond to all the threats

From Trump and his right-wing confederates.

Mr. Putin says “We will bury you.”

I don’t subscribe to that point of view.

It would be such an ignorant thing to do

If the Russians love their children, too.

___________

We have to keep the Ukraine free.

It’s really up to you and me.

There is a monopoly of common sense

On our side of the political fence.

But we share the same biology

Regardless of ideology.

So what might save us, me and you

Is if the Russians love their children, too.

____________

There is some historical precedent

To stand up to Russia and its president.

For Ukraine is a winnable war

And Russia lost in Crimea before.

Mr. Biden says he will protect us

And Ukraine will never be reduced to dust.

I hope that what he says is true

And that the Russians love their children, too.

_________

Parody of “Russians” by Sting. He has a 2022 version of the song supporting the Ukrainians on YouTube that is worth seeing.

Zhou Enlai famously said in the 1970s that it was too early to judge the impacts of the French Revolution. There is a dispute about the context of that statement, but you get the point. We need some distance to gain perspective.

The Iraq War, along with the Great Recession and the election of a black president, poisoned American politics by discrediting the CDs and turning the GOP into a reactionary sandbox. But what about Iraq?

Prior to the war, Iraq was a brutal military dictatorship run for the benefit of the Sunni minority. Today, it is Lebanon with oil; the parties are sectarian, Iran has way too much influence, militias rule the streets, and the government just funnels jobs and money to the well-connected in order to keep the peace. Demands for competent government have all come to a dead end. Climate change and the declining value of oil will only make matters worse. There is more freedom than there was under Saddam, but very little hope here.

My prediction is as it was–the power vacuum will ultimately be filled by the military. Iraq will end up where it was, only this time, the Shiites will rule.

Jamelle Bouie insists that Ron DeSantis has more in common with George W. Bush than with Trump. Is he right?

The two do have something in common: the ability to walk a tightrope between the GOP establishment and the right-wing populists. Bush, given his family connections, was always going to have access to the establishment, but he made every effort to show his disdain for it, particularly by embracing evangelical religious views. DeSantis uses his elite educational background to show his competence, but insists that he didn’t inhale. Trump supporters, of course, are not so sure.

But, on balance, Bouie is wrong. Bush might have used public opposition to gay rights to get re-elected in 2004, but culture wars were a lower case issue during his presidency. He campaigned as a “compassionate conservative,” and there is every reason to believe he meant it. 9/11 and the Iraq War changed the character of his presidency irrevocably. But for those events, he probably would have been viewed by the history books as a uniter.

DeSantis is anything but a uniter. Like Trump, he tells blue people that he hates them all the time. Culture wars are his brand. You can’t really say that about Bush.

It’s hard to defend hush money payments to a porn star that almost certainly had an impact on the 2016 election, so the Republicans aren’t really trying. Instead, they are arguing that the legal violations are too insignficant, and too remote in time, to warrant the prosecution of a former president. In effect, they maintain that something like the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standards for impeachment in the Constitution should be applied to criminal actions against Trump for the years before he took office.

If you accept the validity of the argument, shouldn’t it also apply to Hunter Biden? How did his grifting during the Obama years represent an ongoing threat to the republic?

The supply chain problems have been resolved. Spending on goods relative to services has been reduced to normal levels. Gas prices are under control. Labor shortages still exist, due to limited immigration and retirements, but wage increases are running pretty close to the inflation rate. Inflation is down, therefore, but not as much as you might have hoped. Why?

Mostly because affluent consumers with robust pandemic savings and healthy home and 401(k) values are less resistant to price increases than many companies had previously anticipated. The businesses are continuing to raise prices to boost profits. The tradeoff between increased profits per sales item and lost less affluent consumers is apparently worth it. At least for now; are you really going to buy an ordinary car that costs $50,000?

The Trump tax cuts, like the Bush tax cuts before them, were supposed to lead to an explosion of investment and growth. Like the Bush tax cuts, they did no such thing; they resulted in more inequality, an increase in affluent consumer spending, massive investment in government securities to finance the higher deficit (i.e., “right-wing recycling”), and asset inflation. The GOP will, however, insist on more tax cuts the next time it wins a national election. It refuses to learn from history for reasons of self-interest.

When progressives demanded an increase in the minimum wage to $15, I argued that it would lead to lower business service levels and inflation, because business owners would protect their profits and pass the costs to consumers. When the pandemic created a labor shortage and effectively increased the minimum wage, that’s exactly what happened. And yet, today, some progressives are arguing for a $20 minimum wage to help workers deal with. . . you guessed it . . . the inflation that was partially caused by rising wages.

It seems that the right is not alone in its refusal to learn from the past.

Having wisely repudiated his earlier passionate support of Social Security and Medicare cuts in order to pander to the base, DeSantis has now turned his flip-flopping eyes to Ukraine. About a week ago, he described the Ukraine war as a “territorial dispute” that was of little interest to the United States and declined to criticize Russian aggression, but now he says Putin is a “war criminal” who should be held accountable for his crimes by someone. Just not us.

As far as I can tell, the new DeSantis position is that America should cheer for Ukraine but leave it to face the Russian onslaught without any material assistance. Will that satisfy Tucker Carlson, to say nothing of the mainstream of the GOP? Probably not.

Fortunately for DeSantis, he clearly has Rupert Murdoch in his corner, so Carlson may have to keep his mouth shut.

The concept of wokeness revolves around racial and sexual identity, so it isn’t obvious, on first glance, why it would have any relationship to the size of the welfare state. Reactionaries, however, firmly believe that minorities benefit disproportionately from the welfare state, so an attempt is being made by some opportunistic politicians to link federal spending to wokeness. Will it work?

Only to a limited extent. At some point, narrative has to give way to reality. White reactionaries benefit hugely from federal programs, and blue states are net contributors to the welfare state.

I’ve read any number of articles about depressed younger people over the last few weeks. The given reason for this phenomenon is the appalling state of the world today. But is it true?

Let’s compare the plight of Gen Z to my own experience:

1. EXISTENTIAL THREAT: Gen Z–Climate change; Me–Russian nukes.
2. LOST WAR: Gen Z–Iraq and Afghanistan; Me–Vietnam.
3. POLITICAL CRISIS: Gen Z–Trump and January 6; Me–Watergate.
4. APPARENT AMERICAN DECLINE: Gen Z–Yes; Me–Yes.
5. RACIST EPISODES: Gen Z–Police killings; Me–School Desegregation.
6. INFLATION: Gen Z–Yes; Me–Worse.

Are things that much worse today? The facts speak for themselves.

Backed by thousands of years of precedent and a myriad of religious texts, reactionaries believe that gender is immutable and is established at birth. Furthermore, they believe that only heterosexual sex is “normal” and that any other kind is unnatural and an offense to God. State action is necessary to prevent society from being polluted by people who engage in unnatural behavior. Woke people, on the other hand, think gender and sex are fluid concepts and reject the concept of “normal” sex; in other words, everything is normal, and a society that imposes a single idea of normality on all of its citizens is oppressive and unjust.

As with race, there is plenty of middle ground between these ideas. You don’t have to accept the woke idea about sexual fluidity to oppose state action discriminating against trans people. I think that’s where most Americans stand today.

On the one hand, you can make a plausible argument that the government has just encouraged bankers to take inappropriate risks. On the other hand: only the depositors–not the investors or the bank management– were bailed out; the bank’s errors look more like negligence and ineptitude than excessive, out-of-control greed; and is it really fair to expect depositors to know how their bank is investing their funds?

To me, the decisive point is that America is way too fragile, given the pandemic, January 6, a potential Trump indictment, and the pending debt ceiling crisis, to tolerate a series of failing banks. Based on the totality of the circumstances, I think the bailout was the right decision.