Unlike Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren doesn’t talk about the “revolution,” probably because it sounds too Marxist and scares off the old people. Like Bernie, however, Warren needs some sort of dramatic change to get her innumerable plans through the system. What should she call it, since the “revolution” is out of bounds?
How about the “Reformation?”
Imagine that you are an owner of a fast food restaurant, and you are now facing a $15 per hour minimum wage. You have the following choices: (a) cut your number of employees and hope your consumers will tolerate the corresponding reduction in your level of service; (b) reduce your staffing level through automation; (c) raise prices; or (d) accept a significantly lower level of profits. What do you do?
Probably some of all of them. Each individual case will be different. There will be job losses, but we don’t know how many, or how the trade-off will work. In addition, across-the-board price increases will fuel inflation, which could cause the Fed to raise interest rates, which will mean a reduction in growth. Finally, it is the moral obligation of all of society, not just fast food consumers or business owners, to provide workers with a reasonable standard of living.
The minimum wage is a convoluted attempt to redistribute wealth that will fail in many, and possibly most, instances. Compare that to increases in the EITC, which won’t result in higher prices, won’t drive up the cost of labor, and will more effectively redistribute wealth. Doesn’t that approach make more sense?
Let’s face it: minimum wage increases make for good politics, because they create the illusion that what amount to privatized welfare payments have been earned through work. In all other respects, they are bad policy.
The incumbent Republican president was a social conservative who repeatedly threw red meat to his base. Lacking respect for the truth and the rule of law, he was distrusted by the left and some genuine conservatives alike. He successfully pressured the Fed to lower interest rates. His relationship with the press was fraught, to say the least. He was a uniquely divisive figure, loved by some, hated by more.
The Democrats responded by nominating a candidate who was well to the left of the political mainstream. They were crushed in the ensuing election, as you might expect.
Is it 1972 or 2020? We’ll know soon enough.
Everyone knows how Donald Trump negotiates at this point. He takes extreme positions; he creates as much leverage as possible through threats of nuclear war, tariffs, and sanctions; and he waits for his opponent to surrender. If that doesn’t work, he takes whatever he can get and spins it as a “win.”
Most world leaders have concluded the best way to deal with him is to collaborate with him on the illusion of an American “win.” Presumably for domestic political reasons, the Iranian leadership is refusing to play that game. In fact, they are engaging in Trumpian tactics of their own by escalating. They apparently believe that the combination of pressure from other countries and Trump’s own lack of enthusiasm for war will ultimately cause the US to back down.
Don’t bet on it. Remember, Trump is surrounded by people who want war, and he isn’t going to accept humiliation on this or any issue. The Iranians, in my opinion, are making a serious mistake.
The supreme leadership of Iran
Doesn’t seem to possess a good plan.
They’re pushing Trump back.
That invites an attack.
‘Cause he’s desperate to prove he’s the man.
Washington was austere, reserved, and famously upright. Hamilton was a brilliant, visionary immigrant. Jefferson was a stylish intellectual with impeccable taste. Madison was modest, bookish, and methodical.
Trump, obviously, is none of those things. So which of the Founders does he least resemble? It’s a close call, but the winner is . . . Washington, by a nose over Madison.
When the NYT asked Bernie if America should have any billionaires, I expected him to respond with a simple and gruff “No.”. In point of fact, his answer was more nuanced than that. It sounded a lot like Warren’s.
I don’t think we should read too much into that, but I feel compelled to give credit when it is due.
In what does Donald Trump passionately and unequivocally believe? I came up with five things: himself; power; wealth; celebrity; and golf. Everything else, including his family, his party, the country, and the Constitution, is negotiable.
Is it any wonder his opponents despise him so much?
I attended a small town July 4 celebration yesterday. It was brash, ramshackle, spontaneous, and loud. It featured a band playing classic rock songs, kids throwing candy to the crowd, and lots of vehicles operating as mobile billboards, but no tanks. It was quintessentially American.
I couldn’t help wondering what a Chinese person would have made of it. God bless America, indeed.
There are two answers to that question. There always have been.
One response revolves around politics. If you accept the principles of limited constitutional government, you agree to follow the law, you don’t oppress your neighbor, and you don’t expect too many handouts, you can be an American. That’s all it takes.
The second response is predominantly cultural. The most important component is the use of English, but you have to listen to the right music, go to an acceptable church, watch the right sports, and so on. And, of course, there is a racial component, too. Anyone who doesn’t meet these standards, even if they were born here, isn’t a real American.
The second group is currently running the country on all but economic issues. Our job is to bring back the first crowd.
Have a happy 4th!
Elizabeth Warren is not a socialist, and that matters, for reasons I have outlined previously. That said, to the average voter, she sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders; the right will exploit that ruthlessly if she is the nominee. How should she make the case that she is just a capitalist reformer?
By combining Piketty with American history. She can argue that American capitalism has always turned into oligarchy in the absence of extensive government regulation. The first wave of oligarchy, the Gilded Age, ended with the Progressive Era; the second with the Great Depression and the New Deal; and the third one started with Reagan and continues today. Capitalism survived the first two waves in good order, and it will survive her, too.
To me, it is a pretty persuasive case, and it puts her in a context that is less alien and threatening than Bernie’s socialism.
If you were to ask Donald Trump what makes America great, he would say power—not freedom, or the rule of law, or the liberal democratic process. That is why he is so determined to have tanks at the July 4 celebration. And that is a big reason why he has to go.
If identity meant everything in politics, Bernie Sanders would poll well among senior citizens. In point of fact, Sanders does very well with millennials, but poorly with elderly voters. Why?
Two reasons. First, socialism has a very negative connotation to the elderly, based on their experience during the Cold War, that isn’t shared by millennials. Second, the elderly (correctly) see themselves as being at the mercy of the government; they can’t afford to take any actions which could put their benefits at risk. In their eyes, Sanders is proposing precisely that.
Bernie would respond by saying that his Medicare for All plan is more generous than the current Medicare program, so seniors have nothing to fear. If you simply accept what is on paper on its face, he’s right. The problem is that most seniors simply don’t believe the government can take on so many massive new responsibilities without screwing up, and that the real world effect of the Sanders platform will be to increase their taxes and divert their benefits (which, in their eyes, they have already paid for) to millennials. Given the fairly horrific experience with the rollout of Obamacare, who can say with absolute certainty that they are wrong? In the real world, therefore, their position makes perfect sense. Bernie will never win them over.
A note to my readers: I will be on vacation until Tuesday, July 9. Posting between now and then will be irregular at best.
I’ve been sort of a disappointed cheerleader for Harris over the last several months–touting her presence, intellect, and prosecutorial background, but complaining about her inability to pick either the realo or the fundi side. Well, her talents were all on display last night, and everyone noticed.
Biden wasn’t exactly doddering, but he looked old, gave meandering answers, and struggled to find the right words from the very beginning. Harris clearly smelled blood, and pounced. It looked a little like one of those predator and prey scenes on a nature documentary.
My guess is that African-Americans will now see her as a plausible winner, and will reconsider their support of Biden. It is an opportunity for her, not a complete victory. If she wants to win, she needs to, once and for all, identify herself as a realo, not a Sanders or Warren wannabe, because that’s where the most votes are. And she needs to be prepared to respond to attacks on her record. She got a pass last night, but don’t expect that to continue.
One other note: Biden wasn’t the only old guy who looked tired and irrelevant last night. Bernie just shouted and kept repeating his one grumpy speech about class warfare, even as the landscape around him changed in real time. I think he is on his way out, too.
Upon leaving the Ben Franklin Museum in Philadelphia about a month ago, my wife observed that Ben was a “Renaissance man.” I somewhat pedantically responded that, technically speaking, he was more of an “Enlightenment man.” The question for today is, what is the difference?
In a nutshell, it is the difference between art and science. The Renaissance was primarily a leap forward in the visual arts, prompted by the fortuitous rediscovery of classical artworks and fueled by growing Italian economic prosperity. Leonardo and Galileo notwithstanding, it was not a great time for science, and the reason is suggested by Galileo’s fate; the Catholic Church had already decided how the universe worked, and wasn’t open to second opinions. The Enlightenment, on the other hand, was born of the bloody failures of the subsequent religious wars. If you couldn’t impose a godly order on everyone, or even decide for all time what that meant, you could put metaphysical issues aside and use your senses to better understand the tangible world. That is what Franklin did, to the benefit of all of us.