Author: hamilton1788

On the Democrat candidate Warren.

It’s Biden’s ox she’ll soon be gorin’.

She’ll take him to school.

Make him look like a fool.

It’s depressing, yes, but it’s not borin’.

____________

But is this really inevitable? Is Biden really that vulnerable to the arguments of the female version of Professor Kingsfield?

Not necessarily, in spite of the obvious differences in intellect. Biden is weakest on identity issues; Warren has no advantage there. He has simple answers available to him on realo vs. fundi questions: we can’t afford it without massive tax increases on the middle class; the public doesn’t want that much change so fast; you don’t have a viable way to make it happen, given the composition of the Senate and the judicial system; do we really want to further divide the nation by arguing 24/7/365 over plans that are out of the ideological mainstream and can’t be approved without dramatic changes to our political and legal systems?

Warren will respond by calling these “Republican talking points.” In reality, they are perfectly legitimate fears shared by a large percentage of the electorate, and for the Democrats to simply dismiss them as obstacles that can be overcome by constant fighting with Republicans would be a big mistake.

Assume, as I do, that Boris wins the election and rams through no-deal. What challenges will he face in making Britain great again?

Four, in particular:

1. LEGAL COMPLICATIONS WITH THE EU IN THE TRANSITION: It’s possible that all of the talk about shortages and such will turn out to be another Y2K situation, and that everyone will muddle through just fine. We don’t know. There will be issues on a million fronts, however, and some of them are likely to be serious.
2. THE AMAZING SHRINKING POUND: The pound is going to fall after no-deal. A conventional Tory politician would cut spending and accept a degree of temporary austerity in order to protect the pound and the savings of his constituents. I don’t think Boris will do that, at least not consistently; I suspect he will continue to cut taxes and spend massively and hope that the collapsing pound will ultimately increase exports and tourism. It’s a cycle familiar to countries run by strongmen, and it’s going to be painful for consumers and savers, particularly the elderly.
3. NORTHERN IRELAND: As I’ve noted before, I anticipate that Boris will pretend to create a harder border, but actually do nothing.
4. SCOTLAND: The Tories are going to be wiped out in Scotland in the upcoming election. Support for independence will run high. Boris will refuse to consider a second referendum. Don’t be surprised if we see some violence, and even a general strike.

Show some sympathy for the poor British businessman, who will soon have to choose between a man who openly dismisses any concerns about the economic impacts of Brexit and a man who just hates capitalists, period. My guess is that there will be lots of votes and contributions for the Liberal Democrats among this crowd.

Assuming, as I do, that no-deal eventually occurs, there is likely to be a run on the pound, as money moves out of the UK and into safer havens. New investment, already meager, is likely to shrink even further as business interests try to figure out what happens next. Even if the immediate concerns about shortages and the like turn out to be overblown, there are going to be major adjustment problems. How will Boris handle them?

Through nonstop jawboning–both boosterism and threats. On the one hand, you can expect him to be the cheerleader-in-chief for the economic prospects of his new UK in order to boost morale and investment; on the other, I’m guessing you’re going to hear plenty of talk about capital controls and other new regulations on business to maintain stability during the transition period. In the end, don’t be surprised if Boris winds up sticking his nose deeper into British business than a pro-Remain government led by Corbyn ever would have. How’s that for irony?

History gives us two models for dealing with Afghanistan. The Korean model requires us to keep troops in the country indefinitely in order to maintain a stalemate; the Vietnam precedent is to negotiate a face-saving settlement and then get out as quickly as possible. Which will Trump choose?

It is clear at this point that he prefers the Vietnam model. It will lead to the demise of the current Afghan government and Taliban rule at some point in time. Trump will undoubtedly attempt to structure the deal so that he gets the maximum political benefit before the election, and only runs the risk of looking like the man who lost Afghanistan afterwards. If it occurs on his watch, he will blame Obama, Pakistan, and anyone else who happens to be around, and then we will move on.

Donald Trump lies all the time, but rarely to deceive. Typically, it is for the purpose of remaining unpredictable. Unpredictability brings with it several advantages: it gives him more freedom of action; makes him the center of attention; and keeps his adversaries guessing about his ultimate objectives. In the end, it’s a dominance thing.

The problem is that real businessmen, as opposed to large-scale grifters, crave stability and predictability. Business by and large blew off Trump’s eccentricities until now because they assumed that he would ultimately behave in a manner consistent with their interests; after all, he was one of them, wasn’t he? On trade issues, however, they are no longer sure that is the case. Hence, the decline in investment and all of the speculation about a recession, which would put his pathetic presidency to an end.

Ironic, but fair, don’t you think?

Suppose you could devise American gun regulations from scratch, without having to worry about whether they were legally or practically possible. How would you do it?

I would do it by breaking them down into categories and reviewing their social utility. Here are the results:

1. RIFLES: Rifles are used almost exclusively for sport. They aren’t typically used in suicides, or to commit crimes, or even for personal protection. RESPONSE: Permit them with limited regulation, mostly focusing on use training.
2. ASSAULT WEAPONS: Assault weapons are only useful for committing extremely violent crimes, including mass murder. They aren’t used for personal protection or hunting. RESPONSE: Ban them.
3. HANDGUNS: This is the tough category, because it is where the gun violence action really is, the attention given to mass shootings notwithstanding. Handguns aren’t used for hunting. They are usually the weapon of choice for crimes and suicides. They are, however, used for recreation at gun ranges, and they are also used legitimately for personal protection. RESPONSE: Impose extensive regulations on their ownership and use. In most jurisdictions, where crime is not much of a problem, they could be completely banned. In areas in which personal protection is more of an issue, background checks, real training programs, and gun security measures would be required, and enforced rigorously.

Bernie Sanders has a problem; Elizabeth Warren has been embracing his policies and stealing his voters. She is essentially portraying herself as a more reasonable, intellectual, and electable version of Sanders. It’s working; he’s stuck in the mud. What can he do?

He has two choices. The first is to make a genuine effort to bring about the “revolution” by moving to the center on social issues and thus strengthening his appeal to reactionary white workers. The second is to move even further to the left, hope that Warren won’t follow him, and argue that Liz is just a lefty-come-lately.

It’s fairly clear that he is choosing Option B. Logically, it makes a certain amount of sense in the short run. In the long run, however, it will alienate moderate voters and put the nomination, let alone victory in a general election, out of reach.

Barack Obama was careful to avoid associating himself too closely with the pro-democracy movement in Iran because he was afraid that the protesters would be unfairly portrayed as American agents by the regime. He was severely criticized by the right for this alleged display of cowardice.

Donald Trump is saying little or nothing in support of the pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. How is the GOP responding to this failure by a right-wing president to promote liberal democratic values? Do you hear a roar of anger from the base?

Of course not. As with stimulus and hard money, that was then, and this is now.

The Right: Obamacare is socialism! It’s a government takeover of medicine! Long lines, rationing, and death panels! It’s anti-American! It has to be torn out by the roots! Long live the free market!

The Left: OK, then we’ll just do single-payer.

The Right: Single-payer is socialism! It’s a government takeover of medicine! Long lines, rationing, and death panels! It’s anti-American! It has to be stopped at all costs! Long live the free market!

The Left: But you just said that about Obamacare, and the world didn’t come to an end. For that matter, you said it about Medicare, too. Why should anyone believe you this time?

The Right: Mumbles incoherently.

The prominent gay conservative (no, that’s not exactly an oxymoron) Andrew Sullivan reflects on a recent discussion with Michael Anton and concludes that a reactionary is a conservative who has been driven to extremes by unwelcome “top-down” social change. The theory sounds plausible. Does it fit the facts?

No. The increased restiveness of reactionaries is a recent development, but there have been no new affirmative action programs, the only significant new addition to the welfare state has been Obamacare (a repackaged and colorblind Mitt Romney program once embraced by the GOP), and the most significant legal/social change is gay marriage (Sullivan can hardly complain about that).

Reactionaries are more militant today because their sense of victimhood has vastly increased. This is due in part to their inability to prevail in the court of public opinion in the culture wars, a development that is clearly “bottom up.” The role of Fox News in stoking their anger cannot be overstated. But the biggest single change was the election of an African-American president. It suggested to reactionaries that the arc of history was running against them; they responded accordingly.

Trump’s “disloyalty” argument runs something like this:

1. Proper American Jews are loyal to Israel as well as their own country;
2. That means giving active support to the Israeli government of the day;
3. Trump is close to the current government, while some Democrats are extremely critical of it; therefore
4. A good American Jew is obligated to support both Netanyahu and Trump.

#1 accepts the old and dangerous trope about Jewish dual loyalty, but turns it on its head, and makes it a virtue rather than a vice. #2 is logically false; if that’s the standard, then the majority of my countrymen aren’t real Americans. #3 is unquestionably true. The conclusion fails because #1 and #2 are false.

The identification of Israel with white nationalist America is, of course, going to be hugely damaging to the Israelis in the long run. Who is to blame? Both Trump and Netanyahu, but mostly the latter, because he has been at it longer.

Donald Trump’s signature thought on political economy–mercantilism–had its heyday in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the European powers disposed of property without taking the slightest interest in the wishes of the indigenous people. He also wants to “take the oil” in Iraq, Syria, and Venezuela. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that he wants to buy Greenland. It’s completely consistent with his view of the world.

He probably thinks of Alaska as a precedent, but that was 150 years ago, and the Tsar didn’t exercise any control over Alaska outside of a few fairly miserable settlements on the sea. Times have changed a bit since then.

We probably should be grateful that he didn’t just invade, instead.

Donald Trump is a colossus. He alone was capable of saving the country from Hillary Clinton and the liberals. America was treated with contempt by the rest of the world during the Obama apology years, but today, everything has changed. Everyone respects us, the economy is running hot, we win every day, and America is great again!

But Donald Trump is also a victim. He is harassed mercilessly by the MSM and the Democrats. The judicial system won’t do his bidding. His friends and appointments invariably turn on him. The deep state battles him every day. No wonder he can’t get anything done. Everyone should feel sorry for him; Lord knows, he feels sorry for himself.

It’s a ridiculous mindset, on its face, but it appears to be shared by a large number of his fellow reactionaries. It is largely this combination of bravado and mutual victimhood which binds the billionaire casino owner and developer from New York City with his struggling white working class supporters. How can it be overcome? Not by lectures like the “1619 Project,” that’s for sure.

Left-wing pundits are correctly concerned that all of the progressives’ plans to remake America will be derailed by the filibuster. They are consequently indignant at the reluctance of several of the candidates to abolish it. They typically attribute this to a mistaken, anachronistic, misty-eyed romanticism about bipartisanship and deliberation in the Senate. Are they right?

Of course not. The candidates who don’t support abolishing the filibuster can foresee a time in which the GOP has control of the presidency and both houses of Congress. Does anyone doubt that the current version of the Republican Party would use the opportunity to completely gut the welfare state and ban abortion on a national level (once Roe has been overturned)? You could say that self-interest would prevent the counter-revolution, but Republican legislators have had great success using racism and the culture wars to sell this kind of a program to their base in the past, and that could well extend into the future.

Abolishing the filibuster is a gamble that comes with huge risks. The candidates who support abolition need to be open about their willingness to take those risks, and to make a compelling case as to how the worst can be avoided in the future.

The reactionary narrative on recent American history runs like this:

1. Life was good in the fifties. The white patriarchy was firmly in charge, and manufacturers were making good money and paying high wages.
2. The Civil Rights Movement and the culture wars of the sixties were a disaster for the moral fiber of the country.
3. The country was falling apart at the seams by 1980.
4. Reagan changed everything. By cutting taxes and siding openly with white social conservatives, he turned the country around. It was morning in America.
5. His GOP successors believed in tax cuts, too, but they didn’t fight the culture wars with enough gusto. Traditional values collapsed, and real Americans were no longer respected.
6. But Trump won in 2016, and America is great again!

Elizabeth Warren’s version of the narrative, on the other hand, would run something like this:

1. Culturally, the fifties left a lot to be desired, but they were, in fact, a golden age for American workers. Corporations were subject to very high taxes, and were forced to be good citizens. White workers were better off as a result.
2. The Civil Rights Movement and the culture wars of the sixties were a necessary response to the tyranny of the white patriarchy.
3. The problems of the late seventies were overblown, and were largely the result of bad luck.
4. Reagan made corporate greed fashionable. The massive increase in inequality, and the growing indifference of large corporations to anything other than profit, are attributable to his administration. Workers have been suffering ever since.
5. Elect me, and make capitalism great again!

If Warren is the nominee, the election will largely be a battle between these two competing narratives. Will the electorate agree that Reagan was a disaster? I have my doubts.