Author: hamilton1788

Elizabeth Warren is determined to make sweeping changes to “rigged” America. Would she succeed? Here’s what would happen, relative to Biden and Harris:

1. POLITICAL CLIMATE: Warren’s ambitious plans crash into a coalition of Republicans and moderate Democrats, and mostly go nowhere. The Senate refuses to eliminate the filibuster. The left blames the moderates, and the Democratic Party splits wide open.
2. TAXING AND SPENDING: The wealth tax doesn’t even pass the House, let alone survive a filibuster, as Democratic House members from swing districts oppose it. Warren has to settle for a tax bill rolling back the Trump tax cuts. The proceeds are spent on several of her proposed programs, including, but not limited to, reductions in student debt and day care.
3. RUSSIA: Warren passes the Putin’s dog test. She firmly opposes Russian efforts to split NATO.
4. MIDDLE EAST: Warren is tougher on Israel than Biden, but more accommodating than Harris. Her views on Iran and Saudi Arabia are not fundamentally different than Biden’s.
5. IMMIGRATION: Warren puts relatively little effort into this issue, as it interests her less than sticking it to the wealthy. In the end, it doesn’t matter; GOP obstruction dooms any effort to find a bipartisan solution, and her bill dies in the Senate.
   

An article in Politico asks why Kirsten Gillibrand’s campaign is polling so poorly. Since I never took her candidacy seriously, I’m happy to answer the question:

1. You can reduce the gist of her campaign to two words: men suck.
2. Obviously, the wisdom of writing off slightly less than half the electorate can be questioned, but it would make sense if the field consisted of nothing but men.
3. It doesn’t. She is running against no less than three women who are at least as well qualified as she is. Each of them has a more expansive world view than she does.
4. How can you win if you have nothing to offer men, and the female vote is already split?

The bottom line is that America wants someone who can stand up to Vladimir Putin, not Al Franken. Gillibrand’s candidacy won’t survive Iowa–if she even gets that far.

Make the same assumptions as yesterday, except that Harris, not Biden, wins the election. How does the real world outcome differ? Mostly, it doesn’t, but there are some exceptions:

1. POLITICAL CLIMATE: The right-wing outrage machine predictably goes bonkers over the election of a woman with color. For her part, Harris does not suffer fools and bigots gladly. As a result, Harris’ tenure is filled with attempts to shut down the government and block debt ceiling increases.
2. TAXING AND SPENDING: The Democratic tax bill, passed through reconciliation, puts more emphasis on funding the LIFT Act, and increases the deficit a bit more.
3. RUSSIA: Harris takes a harder line on Putin than Biden.
4. MIDDLE EAST: In a similar vein, while Biden would try to return the US to its traditional role as even-handed mediator, Harris is openly sympathetic to the Palestinians, and tougher on Netanyahu. American relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are even worse than they were under Obama.
5. IMMIGRATION: Harris pushes harder, and earlier, for comprehensive immigration reform, which nonetheless fails due to GOP obstruction in the Senate. She then takes administrative steps to protect illegal immigrants that are successfully challenged in court. Ultimately, her efforts are for naught.

There is an interesting and comprehensive article about Beto O’Rourke in the latest New Yorker magazine. Beto is portrayed sympathetically as an earnest, charismatic, genuinely humble figure who is searching for truth and is prepared to listen to anyone. A less Trump-like politician can hardly be imagined.

Beto would make a great choice as the head of the Peace Corps. As president of the most powerful nation on the planet–not so much. Beto doesn’t pass the Putin’s dog test. He isn’t tough and ruthless enough to deal with a world that frequently (Trump notwithstanding, not always) requires both qualities.

Joe Biden is essentially running for Obama’s third term. Assume that he gets it, and that the Democrats win a narrow majority in the Senate. What happens in the following four years?

Here is my best guess:

1. TONE OF POLITICS: Things improve to the point that there are no shutdowns or debt ceiling crises. McConnell goes into full obstruction mode on legislation, however, and the filibuster remains in place, so nothing much happens that can’t be approved through reconciliation.
2. TAXING AND SPENDING: The Democrats pass a tax increase that rolls back large parts of the Trump tax cut. They use the proceeds to fund an increase in the EITC, higher Obamacare subsidies, and additional money for green infrastructure.
3. CLIMATE CHANGE: The proposed carbon tax dies in the Senate. Biden returns us to the Paris Agreement and reinstates the Obama regulations.
4. CHINA: Biden ends the Trump trade war, but launches a new effort, with the assistance of the EU, to force changes in Chinese mercantilist behavior.
5. RUSSIA: Back to the Obama status quo.
6. RELATIONS WITH TRADITIONAL ALLIES: Back to the Obama status quo.
7. MIDDLE EAST: Biden offers to return to the Iran nuclear agreement and end sanctions in exchange for some additional safeguards. The EU joins in, and the Iranians accept the slightly revised deal.
8. IMMIGRATION: Reactionaries prevent McConnell from making a moderate deal on comprehensive reform, which remains elusive.

The big change, of course, is that the constant drama, the corruption, the racism, the mixed messages, the incompetence, the attempts to subvert the rule of law, and the authoritarianism of the Trump days is gone. That is what Biden supporters really want.

It is likely that the rollout of the Kushner peace plan will be postponed yet again in order to accommodate Bibi’s electoral interests. When the plan is unveiled, however, there is every reason to believe that it will emphasize investment opportunities over political solutions. In other words, it won’t be a “peace plan” in any meaningful sense of the term.

If you analogize the political aspects of the plan to Indian reservations, which I think is entirely appropriate, Kushner believes the Palestinians can be adequately compensated for their loss of land and rights by giving them the ability to build casinos on their reservations. You can see where that approach would appeal to Trump. Just don’t sell the plan to him by giving him a piece of the action–he’ll run the places into the ground.

Tonight, I would like to speak specifically to the white people of America about their dreams and fears for the future. Especially their fears.

There can be no doubt that white people are disproportionately responsible for the success of this nation. They were the first colonists–at least the first voluntary ones. They fought and died for their new country in the Revolution. They wrote the Declaration and the Constitution. They settled the country and developed it. Some of them fought and died to free the nation from slavery–a sacrifice we should never forget. They were primarily responsible for winning the world wars and the Cold War. The country owes them a huge debt of gratitude.

But white people are not the whole story of America. People of color shaped our nation in too many ways, and too profoundly, to describe in a short speech of this nature. Just to mention one thing, our music would be entirely different today, and far less popular, without the contributions of African-Americans. America without people of color would not be America–it would be something far less interesting, and an idea that is infinitely less powerful.

I’m here tonight to tell you that you have nothing to fear from me. I have nothing but respect for your culture and your contributions to this country. I’m also here to tell you, however, that you are not the default for the country. People of color, including me, are not interlopers; we have every bit as much right to be here and call ourselves Americans as you do. We will never have harmony and justice in this country until you accept that fact. It’s not too much to ask.

America is not a melting pot. Nor is it a piece of white paper only given some definition by colored lines. It’s a mosaic, and every color in it has its place. Including yours.

Thank you, and good night.

Several months ago, my wife started watching a Michael Moore series on Netflix about American history in the twentieth century. Moore’s predictably left-wing revisionist view was that America, and Harry Truman in particular, was the unprovoked aggressor in the Cold War; if only his hero Henry Wallace had been president, things would have been very different.

I have some tolerance for contrarian views, but not that much. I left the room after about fifteen minutes.

It occurred to me a few days ago that Bernie Sanders is destined to be Wallace’s historical twin: a prominent left-winger outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party who comes uncomfortably close to the presidency, but never makes it. At least we hope he never does.

If there is one thing we know for sure about Trump, it is that he absolutely loves tariffs, because the system gives him essentially unlimited power to ruin his adversaries and get attention by imposing them to solve bogus “emergencies”. His latest threat to Mexico over illegal immigration is a case in point.

The majority of GOP members of Congress hate his tariffs. They could join with the Democrats to put appropriate limits on his discretion to impose them if they had the nerve. Their fear of him, of course, is far stronger than their devotion to free trade and the national interest, so it won’t happen. Let’s hope they pay the price for it in 2020.

One of Trump’s favorite practices is to make outrageous statements about his opponents and then to falsely claim he didn’t say them, blatantly lie about what they meant, or maintain they were a “joke” if they backfire. So it was with his concurrence with his strongman buddy Kim’s assessment of Biden in Japan, which didn’t go over well at home, even with Republicans.

Fortunately, Trump hasn’t figured out that he is actually building support for Biden with the blue base by singling him out for attacks. If he genuinely fears Biden, he really should be praising him, not insulting him.

A few days ago, the NYT featured similar columns from Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat explaining how Trump will win in 2020. Stephens says this will happen because the Democrats are lurching to the left; Douthat is more equivocal, as he acknowledges that Trump isn’t as accomplished a politician as some of his right-wing populist partners in crime, but he thinks the Democrats need to be more accepting of reactionary views on the culture wars. Are they right?

They’re being too pessimistic, even assuming that the economy continues to roar in spite of the inverted yield curve, which may well not be true. The center of the Democratic Party, in spite of Stephens’ nightmares, hasn’t moved that much; otherwise, why would Biden be leading in the polls? The Democrats won the midterms just a few months ago. Trump’s approval ratings are still stuck well below 50 percent. Trump himself is still the divisive, obnoxious blowhard who turns off moderates and women. Just because Modi won doesn’t mean he will.

The Democratic candidates aren’t directly responsible for any impeachment decisions, so they are free to take positions that are consistent with their self-interest. How is that breaking down?

You might think initially that the fundis would support impeachment and the realos would be more cautious, but the situation is more complex than that; for example, Warren strongly supports impeachment, but Sanders is less enthused. Here is how I see it:

1. If your brand emphasizes working with the GOP to get results, or your independence and good sense, you’re likely to defer to Pelosi on impeachment. Don’t close the door, but don’t demand immediate action, either.
2. If you want the “revolution,” impeachment isn’t going to help you get there. It’s a distraction from the real issues.
3. If you’re behind in the polls and need attention, talking up impeachment makes a lot of sense, regardless of whether you are a realo or a fundi.

If you take this template and apply it to the candidates’ statements, I think you will find it is a very good match.

The arguments against impeaching Trump are: (a) that impeachment cannot succeed; (b) it will damage the Democrats’ chances of winning in 2020; (c) it will unnecessarily divide the nation; and (d) it will normalize impeachment as a political weapon, even against presidents with an impeccable record. The arguments for are: (a) it is a good way to raise public awareness and to generate evidence; (b) Mueller has provided plenty of reasons to pursue an obstruction of justice claim, which has in the past been the basis for articles of impeachment; and (c) failing to impeach under the current circumstances will lower the bar for future presidential conduct.

All of these positions have at least some merit. Which is the stronger side? Here is my line of reasoning:

1. The applicable legal standard here is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which has been understood to mean, not indictable crimes, but actions that endangered the integrity or the security of the state. In that sense, whether Mueller believed Trump’s behavior met the statutory standard for obstruction of justice is irrelevant; the real question is whether Trump’s behavior was a danger to the state.
2. Given that it was determined that there was no underlying conspiracy, and that Mueller was permitted to finish his work, I find it difficult to conclude that Trump’s actions, however deplorable, were “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
3. As a result, I do not think that the current record justifies a quixotic effort to impeach.
4. That isn’t the end of the story. There is plenty of reason to investigate the man on multiple fronts. His determination to stonewall legitimate efforts to hold him accountable could amount to a precedent that would effectively change the Constitution in a manner that would eliminate critical checks and balances. That could amount to a “high crime and misdemeanor.”
5. And so, my judgment is that if Trump ultimately defies a court order requiring him or his administration to provide documents that are necessary for an appropriate level of oversight of the executive, that could well be grounds for impeachment, regardless of the short-term political consequences, because he would be endangering the integrity of the system as we know it.

You can make a pretty good argument that Elizabeth Warren’s innumerable plans, financed by her wealth tax, actually put her to the left of Bernie Sanders. Unlike the “democratic socialist” Sanders, however, she is portraying herself as a capitalist who wants to save the system from itself. In historical terms, she’s trying to play FDR to Bernie’s Huey Long.

It’s a sensible move, and one that will make her more acceptable than Sanders to the electorate if she wins the nomination. But, given her schoolteacher personality, can she persuade the public that she truly is FDR’s heir, and that we need a Second New Deal at a time when the unemployment rate is 3 percent? Don’t hold your breath on either count.

The pattern is becoming clear, at least in dealing with strongmen: Bolton plays the bad cop, while Trump plays the capricious good cop who really prefers negotiations to war. Pompeo just runs around the globe spouting what he thinks his boss believes and pretending they are on the same page when Trump undercuts him, which is most of the time.

This only works, of course, with strongmen; there are no good cops in dealing with liberal democratic regimes. They were part of the “axis of adults” that departed long ago.

The multiplicity of voices is a feature, not a bug, of this administration. Trump thinks it makes him more unpredictable, and increases his freedom of action; that is why he continues to tolerate Bolton’s warmongering. Is the dissonance a good thing? Not if you are relying on the word of the United States in any way, shape, or form, which is most of the world most of the time.