Author: hamilton1788

On current trends, the GOP as we know it is doomed as a force in national elections. Its old white supporters will die and be replaced by left-leaning millennials, largely of color. America in 2035 could thus look like California today. How will the party adjust?

There are several choices:

1. THE GOP EVOLVES INTO A RESPONSIBLE CENTER-RIGHT PARTY: The best alternative is, unfortunately, the least likely, based on its behavior today.
2. NATIONAL CONSERVATISM: The party goes populist on economic issues. Businessmen gnash their teeth, but at least they’re being protected from socialism.
3. GRAND OLD OBSTRUCTIONIST PARTY: The GOP collectively gives up hope of winning the presidency, but relies on its continuing power in rural states, the judicial system, and the filibuster to prevent anything like the “revolution.”
4. DOUBLE DOWN ON VOTE SUPPRESSION: If you can’t win over the voters, you can at least try to stop them from voting! This will require efforts that are far more effective than what has been accomplished to date.
5. FULL FASCISM: Peaceful vote suppression may not be enough, so extralegal violence could be part of the equation. Hey, our way of life is in danger, and we’re justified in doing anything, including wrecking constitutional government, to protect it.

So which will it be? I honestly don’t know, but it’s hard to be optimistic at this point.

It’s January, 2020, and the recession is in full swing. Trump predictably is blaming everyone around him and screaming for stimulus. The Fed is trying, but has little ammunition with which to work, so it’s really up to Congress. What happens there?

The GOP, true to form, demands tax cuts. House Democrats aren’t even slightly interested in that approach, because: (a) tax cuts are an extremely inefficient form of stimulus, as most of the money is saved, not spent; (b) we’ve already been down that street; and (c) no one wants to bail out a flailing president. In order to keep faith with the American people, however, the House passes a series of large spending increases, similar to the spending elements of the Obama stimulus. The bill then goes to the Senate.

Mitch McConnell and his allies have a terrible dilemma. Everyone remembers how they demonized stimulus during the Obama years, and at least a little bit of the opposition was genuine and ideological, as opposed to cynical and opportunistic. If he supports the bill, he violates one of the GOP’s few principles. If he doesn’t, the GOP and Trump are going down in November. Which does he choose?

This could easily happen, and my guess is that McConnell’s desire for power is much stronger than any concerns about deficit spending.

Netanyahu, of course, routinely accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being anti-Semitic. If that were the standard, about half the Jews in Israel would be anti-Semites. The better, and harder, question is whether anyone who rejects Israel’s right to exist is by definition anti-Semitic.

You can only answer that question in the affirmative if you believe that Zionism is an inherent, integral part of being Jewish. Historically speaking, until relatively recent times, that has not been the case. And so, I would say the answer to the question is no.

Personally, I do support Israel’s right to exist, and do not agree with the BDS crowd. In addition, there are certainly plenty of people who reject the whole concept of Israel who are, in fact, anti-Semitic. Being critical of Israel even to the point of refusing to recognize it is not, however, anti-Semitic in and of itself.

When the Civil War broke out, the value of the slaves owned by plantation owners dwarfed all of the capital owned by residents of the Union. As a result, the South, as one would predict, won an easy victory in the Civil War. And thank God they did! Without American slavery, the entire world economy would have come to a standstill, and we would all be poor today.

No? You say that didn’t happen? Your teachers told you that the North won the war, largely because its industrial capacity was much larger than the South’s, and that a great boom ensued after the war even after the demise of slavery? How can we reconcile that with the assertion that slavery was the foundation of the American economy, and that we are living off the proceeds from it even today?

You can’t, and you shouldn’t try. Most Americans at the time of the Civil War were subsistence farmers with no stake in cotton markets or slavery. The industrial activity that was taking place in the North at the time was mostly small scale and for local markets. Cotton was a global industry, mostly financed by London bankers. They weren’t putting money into farms in the North.

The manufacture of cotton cloth was the first truly globalized industry, so naturally it gets more than its share of attention from economists, historians, and African-Americans with an ideological point to make. That didn’t mean it had a significant impact on most of the citizens of the Union back in the 1860’s, it didn’t mean that the world’s economy was doomed when slavery was abolished, and it certainly didn’t equate to an ability to wage war successfully against an emerging industrial colossus, albeit one that was not yet generating huge revenues through exports.

Everything you were taught in school is a lie, thunders the NYT’s “1619 Project;” America is, and always has been, an evil empire, not a shining city on a hill. It was conceived in slavery, brutality, and sin, not a quest for freedom. The Founding Fathers were racist hypocrites. The Constitution was nothing more than a device to keep black people down. After a few brief hopeful moments during Reconstruction, the apartheid system was recreated, and was scarcely better than before; in fact, it was the model for Nazi Germany. Virtually all of the wealth enjoyed by white people today was created by, and stolen from, black people. The only bright spot in this gloomy narrative is the noble, patient struggle of the African-American for freedom and equality. It is the one thing that even begins to redeem this cesspool of a nation.

Naturally, this narrative leaves out a few inconvenient facts. Most notably, it ignores the sacrifice of the hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers who died fighting to free the slaves, and it doesn’t recognize any difference between the Jim Crow South and the milder forms of segregation in the North. The narrative isn’t fake news, or a footnote, and it needs to be told; it also, however, needs to be put in perspective.

I would ask two questions:

1. COMPARED TO WHAT? Was the story of America somehow uniquely racist and oppressive? The European colonial powers, after all, were complicit in the creation of slavery, and continued to profit mightily from it even after they abolished it in their own empires. Most of the rest of the world was ruled by autocracies for most of the period covered by the “1619 Project.” Was life in, say, the Russian or Chinese Empire better for peasants than life in America? I think not.
2. WHERE’S THE REST OF THE STORY? The “1619 Project” narrative puts African-Americans at center stage, and views the rest of American history as a footnote. That would have been news to the people who built the most powerful and prosperous nation in history, and the vast number of immigrants who poured in from all over the world in search of a better life–were they all mistaken, or were they just seeking an opportunity to be oppressors, too?

The legacy of slavery is an extremely important theme in American history, and yes, we are still dealing with it to this day. While it shaped our country, however, it does not define it.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, class warfare blues.

You have to be aware of it; it’s all over the news.

My polling numbers are just stuck, and now I’ve got to choose.

If something doesn’t change right now, I’m surely going to lose.

__________

It’s true I’ve always emphasized class instead of race.

It’s all about the plutocrats; the rest is just a waste.

I don’t believe black people should have to know their place.

But identity is everything? I don’t think that’s the case.

___________________

I’ve got the blues

The oligarchy blues.

This isn’t my first rodeo.

I’ve really paid my dues.

Should Biden be the enemy?

Should I focus more on Liz?

That is my conundrum

And I haven’t passed the quiz.

We all know how Trump loves to negotiate; find or create as much leverage as possible, pound the table, and wait for the opponent to capitulate. You would think, therefore, that he would be using the protests in Hong Kong as leverage against the Chinese leadership in the on-again, off-again trade negotiations. No such luck. Why?

Because there is an exception to the rule when it comes to strongmen. Instead of applying leverage, he sucks up to them in the apparent hope of winning through flattery. He’s been doing it for months with Kim, and now he’s doing it with Xi.

Of course, it is also perfectly possible that he sympathizes more with the oppressors than the protestors, because he admires people who are “tough.” Xi certainly is that.

There are two potential models for a Democratic victory in 2020: base mobilization; and winning over swing voters. But is it possible to do both at once? Can the Democrats walk and chew gum at the same time?

Yes, it’s possible; Barack Obama did it. But it requires considerable finesse, and not everyone can do it. Biden, for example, is depending solely on his appeal to swing voters; for base mobilization, he will have to rely on Trump.

I can see two ways it can happen. Option #1 requires a nominee who is young and a minority (to boost turnout among apathetic identity voters) with a moderate ideological program (for swing voters). Option #2 is the opposite: a white guy who connects with reactionary workers for identity reasons, but who has a radical program to mobilize the base.

Option #1 sounds a lot like Harris, if she can persuade everyone she’s really a moderate at heart. Option #2 would be Bernie Sanders if he would make concessions to reactionary white workers on cultural issues–but he hasn’t. Note that neither description fits Elizabeth Warren, who can fire up the ideologically-committed blue base, but who has no particular appeal for minorities or moderate swing voters, so her chances of winning a general election would depend almost exclusively on mobilizing millennials. That could conceivably work, particular in an economic downturn, but do you want to bet the farm on it?

For Xi Jinping, Hong Kong is the land of no good options. If he does nothing and lets the situation fester, his colleagues may think he’s a wimp (never a good look for a strongman), and people on the mainland may start to get ideas about the feasibility of political reform. If he sends in the PLA, on the other hand, all the pandas and kung fu movies in the world aren’t going to erase images of students being shot down in the streets, and Hong Kong’s credibility as a bridge between capitalism and communism, which still has value to China, will be shattered. What should he do?

For now, the answer seems to be to hope that the excesses of some of the protestors will turn public opinion against them. That could work, but it will take some time. In the interim, Xi could help himself by emphatically reaffirming his commitment to the previous workings of “one country, two systems” and by telling the Hong Kong government to completely shelve the extradition bill. After all, it was the government that was the aggressor here, not the protestors, so calling for a return to the status quo ante wouldn’t make him a wimp.

“Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!” That famous line from “Godfather III” pretty well summarizes Vladimir Putin’s upcoming dilemma, which is highly appropriate, given the nature of the Russian regime.

If Xi were to die tomorrow, the Chinese Communist Party would have no trouble replacing him. Putin, on the other hand, is the indispensable component of his kleptocratic government; he is the one who hands out the goodies and balances the interests. Everyone beneath him does his bidding and fights for his favor. He has no real ideology (other than expanding Russian power, of course) and no obvious successor. When he goes, there will be battles for wealth and power that will range throughout the entire country, with no predictable outcome in sight. Anything could happen, including a new push for genuine democracy. How can he avoid that?

I doubt he can, but my guess is that he will use Deng as his model, and maintain ultimate control of the government even after he formally relinquishes power to his handpicked successor by retaining some sort of minor office and keeping in touch when crises occur, as they inevitably will. There is no guarantee that will work, however; successful strongmen are a tough act to follow. Just ask Maduro.

Boris Johnson’s government has a majority of one. An election looms. Should he go now, or later?

If he calls a snap election, he gets the maximum benefit from the “Boris bounce.” Barring massive tactical voting from Remainers or an implausibly strong showing from the Brexit Party, he is likely to win a large majority, given his ability to rally the troops against Corbyn’s extremism. He will then be in a position to push his cherished no-deal Brexit through Parliament without causing a constitutional crisis.

The second option requires him to jam no-deal through the system regardless of the clear sentiments of the existing Parliament. It will involve a constitutional crisis, and probably embarrass the monarchy. He will then own both the crisis itself and the many problems that will arise from no-deal. His chances of losing after a chaotic Brexit are much higher.

To me, this is a very simple decision. It appears, however, that Boris values Brexit more than stability, the constitution, or even success at the polls. That’s both dangerous and logically absurd.

Elizabeth Warren’s many left-wing fans find it self-evident that their candidate is the most intelligent of the lot (probably true) and that her innumerable plans are just the ticket to fix our “rigged” system (a far more debatable point). In their view, concerns about Warren’s viability as a general election candidate are merely inherently sexist “likeability” questions that should be dismissed as a matter of principle. Moderates within the party are therefore urged to get with the program, check their male privilege, and support the best qualified person for the job.

It’s not that simple. The issue isn’t “likeability;” it’s identity politics. And Warren is a potential disaster in a general election in which identity will undoubtedly play an enormous role, given the nature of the Trump presidency.

The question for each candidate is whether he or she can mobilize or sway enough votes to win in 2020. If you view the election as primarily an exercise in base mobilization, why would you choose an elderly white woman over a younger person or a minority, given that these are the two categories of voters whose levels of participation are most easily raised? If, on the other hand, you think the real task is to win over likely swing voters, such as Never Trumpers, white male union members, and moderate suburban women, why would you pick a righteously angry female law professor from Harvard whose views can be easily (if not exactly accurately) described as socialism? And that doesn’t even count her “Pocahontas” red privilege episode.

Yes, Warren is a good debater. Yes, she would likely make mincemeat of Trump on the issues. Yes, given the constraints under which she would be operating, she could be a reasonably good president. But no, that doesn’t make her a winner in 2020 unless the electorate can be persuaded to vote their economic interests instead of their identities, which is incredibly unlikely.

The radical right incumbent won a plurality (not a majority) by appealing to two groups. First, he convinced business interests that he was the only thing standing between them and extreme leftists. Second, he promised his base that he would make his country great again by standing up to foreigners, promoting traditional cultural values, and rooting out ethnic enemies within the state.

Is it Germany in 1933 or America in 2020? Time will tell. One thing is for certain; there is an antecedent for the tax cuts for social conservatism bargain, and it isn’t pretty.

So Modi has turned Kashmir into a vast open air prison–and to what end? To throw red meat to his base? To piss off the Pakistanis? To show Trump who’s the boss in this neighborhood? To put an end to political violence in Kashmir? Good luck with that, seventy years after the partition.

You can’t solve deep-seated political problems in a truly democratic system with pure repression. Frankly, I can only see two models here, and both are troubling. One is Xinjiang, with the surveillance state and the Uighur camps. The other is the West Bank. Is that what India really wants?

In spite of their obvious conceptual and rhetorical differences, there are points of continuity between the two on foreign policy, as follows:

1. NORTH KOREA: Obama built a coalition, but it didn’t change Kim’s behavior. Trump first threatened nuclear war, then decided to rely on personal charm. That hasn’t worked either. ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
2. IS: The Trump secret plan turned out to be the Obama plan. It succeeded. ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
3. AFGHANISTAN: Both men battled the blob to withdraw. Neither has succeeded to date. ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
4. SYRIA: Neither man wanted to make much of a commitment to help the rebels. Now the question is, who wins the peace? ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
5. RUSSIA: Russian adventurism in Ukraine took place during Obama’s watch, not Trump’s. On the other hand, Trump is doing nothing we know of to deal with ongoing Russian cyberwarfare efforts, and he usually appears to be at odds with his own government. ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
6. IRAN/SAUDI ARABIA: Obama built a coalition against Iran, negotiated the nuclear deal, and refused to underwrite Saudi ambitions. Trump scrapped the deal, isolated America diplomatically, and gave MBS a blank check. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
7. CHINA: The “pivot to Asia” was based on the TPP. It could have worked. Trump has relied upon bluster and tariffs, which won’t. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
8. RELATIONS WITH ALLIES: It isn’t clear that NATO can survive another four years of Trump. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
9. LATIN AMERICA: Obama re-established diplomatic relations with Cuba. Trump tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the Venezuelan regime. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
10. INDIA: Both presidents moved slightly towards India. Trump probably doesn’t even know where Kashmir is. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.

There you have it! Not as lopsided as with domestic policy, but Obama is a clear winner here, too