Author: hamilton1788

On the GOP senator Graham.

It’s the Democrats he loves to slam.

Did Trump cause the riot?

He just doesn’t buy it.

In fact, he just won’t give a damn.

To the surprise of nobody, Trump’s attorneys are arguing that his statements at the rally preceding the riot do not meet the “incitement” exception in First Amendment jurisprudence, and so he cannot be convicted on the impeachment article. Let’s leave the premise aside, for now; is the conclusion correct? Is the legal standard for impeachment identical to the one which prohibits criminal prosecution for words short of “incitement,” as that term has been defined in case law?

It’s not a ridiculous argument, but I don’t think so. The balance of private rights and public harms in impeachment is different than in a criminal prosecution. The liberty interest deprivation (loss of office versus the loss of physical freedom) is less compelling, and the public interest in the protection of the constitutional order is greater when a rogue president is involved, rather than an average citizen. Congress is consequently free to adopt a lower standard for impeachment proceedings if it chooses to do so.

I would imagine Trump would contend that leaving the usual First Amendment standard creates a slippery slope that will ultimately lead to instability and disaster. The truth is, however, that the combination of partisan politics and the two-thirds conviction requirement provides more than enough protection for future presidents from frivolous impeachment proceedings. Impeachment has already been shown to be a weak reed; the impending Trump acquittal will only make that more clear.

No liberal democratic system can be truly stable and productive without a reasonable, forward-looking, and responsible center-right party. The GOP hasn’t met that standard since, to be generous, 2009; today, many of its leaders can’t even bring themselves to denounce deranged extremists. Can the Democrats do anything to nudge them back to respectability?

Yes, by:

1. Winning elections, preferably by large margins, thereby convincing the leadership and the donor class that “no enemies to the right” has a dismal future;
2. Governing successfully, and thus proving the GOP theory that only the private sector can get things right is a lie; and
3. Prosecuting right-wing extremists who violate the law and threaten the political system to the fullest extent possible. Otherwise, today’s rabble may turn into tomorrow’s IRA or ETA.

Technically, “reconciliation” is a procedural mechanism which permits the majority party in the Senate to avoid the filibuster on some issues relative to the budget. In a more common sense, “reconciliation” refers to efforts by two adverse parties to resolve differences and move on together.

In the current context, the two meanings are at odds. Which is more important? The Democrats should do their best to harmonize the two by avoiding the use of the reconciliation process and reaching bipartisan agreements where reasonably possible, but the issues facing the nation are too pressing to avoid it altogether. On some looming budgetary matters, such as permanent welfare state expansions and green investments, there is no plausible alternative.

The left’s reaction to the counterproposal made by the ten GOP senators has been withering, to say the least. Is that fair?

Let’s break it down:

1. INDIVIDUAL PAYMENTS: The proposal for the $1,400 checks only makes sense as a device to get enough votes for the rest of the package. Some members of the left appear to have lost sight of this, and are seeing the checks as an end in themselves. The GOP proposal to reduce the payments and target them more directly to the less affluent should be accepted, even if the people making the offer have a record of supporting tax cuts that would not meet their current standard.
2. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: The 10 are willing to extend the payments through June, instead of March, at the weekly rate approved in December. It is highly unlikely that the hospitality industry will be running at full bore by the beginning of summer. I would use the proposal as the basis for negotiation, but require the extension until September.
3. MONEY FOR VACCINATIONS: There is a huge difference between the Democratic and GOP numbers. Frankly, I don’t have enough information to evaluate this one.
4. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT RELIEF: The absence of any state and local government payments in a “unity” bill is shameful. The GOP just has a blind spot on this point. The need is immediate, and should be addressed in the first bill. This point is not negotiable.
5. MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE: The GOP was never going to approve it, in any form. That should be taken as a given.

The bottom line is that I consider the offer serious, with the exception of the absence of state and local government relief. If the 10 won’t agree to that, the relief bill should be adopted by reconciliation ASAP.

According to the self-interested right-wing purveyors of hate, the end of the world is at hand. The left will use its power to drive all decent American citizens into re-education camps. Christianity will be outlawed and will disappear, along with our guns, in the name of political correctness. Socialism will ravage the land. If we don’t fight back, it’s 1984.

If you think this sounds like the world’s largest and most dangerous crazy religious cult, you’re right. What will these people say when their predictions fall flat? Probably that Biden stood in the way, and that AOC and the next generation are made of sterner stuff. After all, that’s what a cult would do–keep the lie alive.

Today’s tech titans are often compared to the robber barons of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. How do they stack up?

Not well. Both groups consisted of innovators who did everything in their power to crush the competition. The robber barons, however, succeeded in bringing new products and services to the masses that improved their lives, and were thus inescapable; in the case of Facebook, on the other hand, Mark Zuckerberg just created a platform that uses information generated by third parties to sell advertisements. The social utility of that service does not remotely compare to a railroad or a steel or petroleum product.

Of course, if you have a monopoly on a product or service some portion of the public absolutely has to have, as in the case of farmers and the railroads in the late nineteenth century, you can pretty well charge whatever you want for it regardless of the damage you inflict on your consumers in the absence of effective regulations. In that respect, today’s robber barons present less of a problem than their predecessors. I can easily choose not to buy Apple products or to be on Facebook, and I do.

In the long run, I think Zuckerberg will be remembered more for his (profoundly negative) impact on political systems than the economy. The tech titan who reminds me most of the earlier gang is Bezos. For better or worse–and there is plenty of both-he is making massive, irrevocable changes to our real economy, not just a virtual one.

After the riot, you can view the GOP as an onion with the following layers, starting from the outside:

1. The extremists who either actively participated in the riot or continue to justify it;
2. A larger group that continues to accept the lie about the rigged election, but which did not support the riot;
3. A group that said nothing to contradict Trump when he repeated the lie up to the point that the election was certified at the state level, but did not object to the count on January 6 and was appalled by the riot; and
4. A small group which actually wants the GOP to be a responsible center-right party. These people acknowledged the Biden victory within a few days of the election.

Groups 1-3 all bear varying degrees of responsibility for the riot. Groups 1-2 represent a continuing danger to our liberal democratic system. Mitch McConnell thinks Group 1 is a liability for the GOP, and wants to see them excommunicated; Kevin McCarthy believes they need to be kept on side. That is the only real question at this point; my money is on McCarthy.

STREET FIGHTING MAN

Everywhere I hear the sound of marching, charging feet, boys.

The election’s here, and the time is right for fighting in the street, boys.

__________

But what can a Proud Boy do?

For the time of the storm’s at hand.

But in liberal Washington

There’s just no place for a street fighting man.

No!

____________________

I think the time is right for a counterrevolution.

‘Cause where we sit, we don’t admit of compromise solutions.

____________

But what can a Proud Boy do?

For the time of the storm’s at hand.

But in liberal Washington

There’s just no place for a street fighting man.

No!

Get down!

_____________

Hey! So we promised a disturbance!

We shout and scream; we kill the libs;

Their MSM servants!

________________

But what can a Proud Boy do?

For the time of the storm’s at hand.

But in liberal Washington

There’s just no place for a street fighting man.

No!

Get down!

______________

Parody of “Street Fighting Man” by the Rolling Stones.

The new administration is almost certainly going to increase taxes on the wealthy to pay for additional spending on poor and middle-class people. This attempt to increase equality of outcomes clearly reduces negative freedom for affluent people. But what about freedom as a whole?

If you’re a CL, you never reach that question, because using the state to reduce inequality of outcomes is inappropriate and possibly even immoral. Maximizing negative freedom is all that matters. Most of us are not CLs, however; we care about positive as well as negative freedom. How should we analyze the issue?

You start with the concept of marginal utility. A dollar in the pocket of a wealthy person, in general, contributes less to the well-being of society as a whole, and certainly to the individual, than an additional dollar in the pocket of someone who desperately needs to spend it for essentials. Not only is the service provided more valuable; the immediate impact on the economy is greater, as well. Under current conditions, it sounds like a fairly simple calculation.

Conditions can change, however. If the program is run poorly, the dollar could disappear into the unworthy pocket of a bureaucrat. In some countries, the welfare state is already so large, the dollar might just encourage more dependency. And what if that dollar, in the pocket of a wealthy man, would be invested in a company which creates tremendous social value–not just a government bond? Wouldn’t that change the equation?

It would. The bottom line is that each attempt by the state to decrease inequality has to be judged on the totality of the facts. There is no general rule that always works here.

As I noted in a previous post, equality does not exist in nature, or in a feudal state; the size of the state is thus tied to the level of equality to which it aspires. Here’s how it works:

1. EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW: Typically associated with states emerging from feudalism in the 17th and 18th centuries. In some cases, the abolition of status-driven law was accomplished by “enlightened despots” (think Prussia and Austria); in others, it was the result of more democratic forces (France and the UK).
2. EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY: This requires some additional application of state power to redistribute resources from the fortunate to the less affluent. It is the objective of modern liberal democracies.
3. EQUALITY OF OUTCOME: In its perfect form, which has never remotely existed in history, this is communism; the state controls everything, and then theoretically disappears. There are obviously a variety of degrees, ranging from a stingy welfare state (the US) to genuinely socialist countries.

The key here is that the more equality you want, the larger the state must be to enforce it. As a result, as you increase the equality of outcome, you inevitably decrease the amount of negative freedom you offer your citizens. But what about the overall level of freedom–both positive and negative? I will address that issue in my last post on the subject.

Hardly a day goes by without reading an article featuring a progressive demanding that “Biden must abolish the filibuster.” Say what? Biden doesn’t have any control over the Senate’s rules. These people need to be talking to Joe Manchin, not Biden.

The reason they aren’t, of course, is that they (correctly) perceive that they have no influence whatsoever with Manchin. What are they going to do? Threaten to primary him in one of the reddest of red states if he doesn’t buy into the entire progressive agenda? Cancel him on Twitter? He would probably view that as a badge of honor.

The bottom line is that the filibuster is here to stay for at least the next two years. Bernie Sanders is more realistic about that than most of his supporters. There are two ways to deal with it: reconciliation; and pairing Democratic initiatives with items designed to attract Republican votes. Expect to see both of these tactics in the next few months.

It is fairly easy to come up with a working definition of “equality”: treating similar things similarly. The issue is with the application. To what extent are different people similar, and thus entitled to identical treatment by the state?

There are two ways to look at the issue. In a religious sense, every soul has the same value to God; hence, the similarities among people outweigh any genetic differences. This approach is found in the Declaration of Independence and is the foundation for American liberal democracy. Jefferson said it was “self-evident.” But it isn’t; if you look at physical, mental, and emotional characteristics of individuals instead of souls, you may well be more impressed by the level of difference than the similarities.

In a state of nature, or at least of a primitive state, equality doesn’t exist. Equality is not a typical attribute of families, tribes, or feudal states. Enforcing equality requires action on the part of the state–even states that we would consider, by modern standards, to be fairly minimal. How that works will be the topic of my next post on the subject.

I don’t see any reason to doubt the sincerity of Mitch McConnell’s pre- and post-riot speeches about Trump in the Senate. It is clear that he thinks the GOP would have a brighter future without the stain of Trumpism, particularly after the debacle in Georgia. But Mitch is a pragmatist. He sees no point in trying to lead the party where it resolutely will not go.

McConnell sent a message to the other GOP senators by showing his willingness to vote for conviction without firmly committing himself one way or the other. When the rest of the group refused to take the hint, he decided that the devil of the Trump connection was less bad than the deep blue sea of a party more alienated from its base. As a result, he’s going to vote for acquittal and hope that the donor class can be mollified with the passage of time. So will the vast majority of his compatriots.

My prediction from the weekend is right on the mark, so far.

American children are taught that the Revolution was all about “freedom.” Is that true?

It depends on your definition of “freedom”. The limitations on movement into Indian areas west of the Appalachians, while perfectly reasonable from the British point of view, were undoubtedly viewed as being oppressive by a fair number of enterprising colonists, and disappeared after the end of the war. In addition, the Intolerable Acts were an unjustified measure of collective punishment of residents of Boston after the Tea Party, and the Navigation Acts were designed to benefit the mother country, not the colonists. Otherwise, the British had a light footprint in America. The intensity of government did not really change after 1783.

The point of the Revolution was not to reduce the size of government, but to recognize that America was a separate nation worthy of self-determination. If you view “freedom” solely in terms of degrees of individual freedom from state control, as CLs tend to do, the Revolution was probably counterproductive. If you view freedom as being synonymous with national autonomy, it is a different story; your teacher was right.