Author: hamilton1788

Donald Trump is hardly the first American president to embrace Middle Eastern autocrats, although it is fair to say that his genuine enthusiasm for them is unprecedented. True to form, he sees right-wing strongmen as a guarantee of stability in a region that is otherwise alien and full of dangerous characters. The problem, of course, is that time refuses to stand still, and the autocrats eventually die, or get displaced. Then what?

It’s not hard to imagine Trump using American troops to reinstall, say, Sisi or MBS if a second Arab Spring comes to town. You can even imagine him doing it as a joint venture with the Russians. If he does, all hell is going to break loose, both domestically and internationally.

Remember–you heard it here first. The issue is going to come up. It’s just a matter of time.

According to Paul Krugman and David Roberts, government guarantees of high-paying jobs in clean industry, free health care, and so on are what is required to sell the GND to Congress and the general public. Krugman refers to the concept as a “Christmas tree.” Is his tactical judgment correct?

Not exactly.

I have no objection to Christmas trees as such, but this one won’t work. To illustrate the point, imagine that you are a worker in the oil industry making, say, $80,000 a year. A Democrat approaches you and tells you that your job has to disappear to save the planet, but that you will be given a new job paying $15 per hour installing solar panels for the government as compensation. Does that mollify you? Are you buying into the GND concept at this point?

Of course not. You have no faith in what you consider to be a “socialist” piece of legislation, and you grumble that climate change is just a device by which the far left is attempting to assume control of the economy.

The GND, as it is being sold, has no chance. I agree with its proponents that subsidies and regulations have to be part of the package, along with a carbon tax. Some of this is possible under the current system, assuming Democratic control of the White House. The bottom line, however, is that the GND has to be packaged as a way of encouraging innovation and boosting the economy, not creating the socialist Jerusalem. That in turn means that sober businessmen, not Al Gore style evangelists, have to be the salesmen for the plan to get any public traction.

As I understand it, “Hey Jude” was written for Julian Lennon, so in a way, I’m bringing it back to its roots.

HEY JULES

Hey Jules

Your life’s gone bad.

Such a sad song–it won’t get better.

Remember, you had a glorious past.

It didn’t last.

Now you’re a prisoner.

_______________

Hey Jules

You’re Putin’s stooge.

You’re a leaker, but just for Russia.

You did it! You managed to make Clinton lose!

But now prison blues

Are yours to ponder.

_________________

And if your life should be a pain

Hey Jules, refrain

Don’t carry the press upon your shoulders.

Cause don’t you know that it’s just you.

Hey Jules, you’ll do.

Your war with our system just got colder.

___________________

Hey Jules

We’ve got you now.

No more hacking and leaking secrets.

The sooner you’re in a supermax jail

Then we’ll all hail

Lenin Moreno.

_______________

Na na na na na na na

Na na na na

Hey Jules! (repeat over and over)

Parody of “Hey Jude” by Lennon/McCartney.

Bernie Sanders put Netanyahu on his list of odious right-wing authoritarians, along with Putin, Duterte, and Orban. That seems a bit harsh, given that Israel, in spite of its flaws, remains a vibrant democracy. But only a bit, given Bibi’s many Trump-like qualities and his enthusiasm for obnoxious nationalists–even some who are pretty clearly anti-Semites.

If Bernie wins in 2020, the party is over for Bibi. Sanders will undoubtedly move America back to its traditional role of even-handed mediator between Israel and the Palestinians. I suspect he will seriously consider using American aid as a lever to stop settlements and annexations. Above all, he will have no interest in fighting Iran to the last American. And when Bibi, in accordance with his usual practice, inevitably calls Bernie an anti-Semite and a concentration camp guard, no one will believe him, because Bernie is Jewish.

There aren’t many good reasons to vote for Sanders, but that would certainly be one of them.

Joe Biden: I’m the most qualified candidate imaginable.

Bernie Sanders: To bring about the “revolution.”

Cory Booker: To bring the country together.

Elizabeth Warren: To help the little people who have been screwed over by a rigged system.

Kamala Harris: To bring justice to people of color.

Beto O’Rourke: It’s the next logical step on my long, strange trip.

Pete Buttigieg: To show that gay people are normal, too.

Kirsten Gillibrand: Because men suck.

Theresa May apparently plans to have MV4 in the near future. Will the fourth time be the charm?

May’s tactic has always been to play the two sides against each other. She will try to use the late October exit date and the possibility that her negotiations with Corbyn might succeed as leverage against the Brexiteers, and the likelihood of a resignation and a new no-deal PM as leverage against Labour. My guess, however, is that neither side will view these threats as being credible enough to change positions, and MV4 will fail by about the same margin as MV3.

Then what? The no-dealers are going to make a new push for May’s resignation. If they get it, she will probably be succeeded by a no-dealer, who will end negotiations with Labour, apply as much pressure as possible on the Conservative Remainer MPs to toe the line, and run the clock out. Whether this plan will work or not depends on the Remainers. Will they put party loyalty before their concerns about the impacts of no-deal, or not? That’s a question that I can’t answer.

That would be Lenin Moreno, who booted Julian Assange out of Ecuador’s embassy in London.

Assange is effectively Putin’s stooge. He will argue that he is nothing more or less than a persecuted journalist, but he isn’t charged with anything that implicates the First Amendment, and he’s really a Russian agent, anyway.

So I say, lock him up!

The Harris plan to use federal funds to raise teacher pay on a national basis is shrewd politics, because:

1. Teachers are a very engaged part of the Democratic coalition, so having the support of their union would be very helpful, particularly in the primaries;
2. They are a sacred cow of sorts (as opposed to, say, people on welfare), so Trump won’t make much hay running against them in the general election; and
3. They’re already mobilized, and a major political factor, even in the reddest of states. They could help Harris win delegates in, say, West Virginia and Oklahoma, even though those states are clearly out of reach in the general election.

But is it good policy? There, the story is mixed. You can make a strong case, particularly in red states, that teachers have lost ground economically over the last 30 years, and so deserve a raise that will only realistically come from Washington. Increasing teacher pay significantly would, in the long run, make the job more attractive and thus improve the pool of applicants. It is consequently a measure that has the support of both unions and reformers. You can also make the argument, however, that a large percentage of the money would just subsidize mediocrity if it isn’t tied to rigorous national standards. There would also be complaints about excessive federal interference in a field traditionally dominated by state and local officials, although I’m personally agnostic on that one. Finally, is investing in teachers more important than, say, infrastructure? There is only so much money to go around; whether teacher pay should be given this high a priority is a debatable point.

To me, as policy, it is a close call. It will have to be viewed in the context of the overall budget if and when (more likely, the former) it is given serious consideration in Congress.

Kamala Harris stands out from her competitors in a variety of ways, one of which is her background as a prosecutor. It clearly influences the way she thinks and talks; she tends to be firm and direct, and she enjoys cross-examining witnesses.

That kind of approach could well appeal to angry Democrats. Can’t you imagine a nominee who effectively puts Trump on the stand and destroys him? Wouldn’t that be fun?

Yes, it would. For the same reasons, my best guess is that she will make a strong impression during the debates. If she is to win, however, she needs to address two related points: she has to find a way to transcend pure identity politics; and she has to find a formula that will win votes from white working men.

I think she can do both, but I haven’t seen the evidence of it yet.

In a posting on Vox last week, Matthew Yglesias finds that white liberals have moved decidedly to the left on social issues in the last several years. He cleverly refers to this as “The Great Awokening.” The questions for today are:

1. Why did this happen?
2. What does it mean for 2020?

As to the first question, it was undoubtedly a response to the GOP’s appalling reaction to the election of the incredibly benign Barack Obama, who was portrayed by Fox News as a raging black racist in spite of his ongoing and tireless efforts to overcome the divisions in our society. Trump, of course, made this a thousand times worse. As to the second, a poll in yesterday’s NYT confirmed what I have said many times, and what should be inherently obvious: young PC Democratic activists do not represent the majority of the party’s voters.

For those of us who have resisted The Great Awokening, the message is encouraging and clear–yes, it is possible that the Democrats may decide to rerun the 1972 election in the hallowed names of socialism and PC, but it is by no means inevitable.

“Pocahontas” is undoubtedly the albatross around Elizabeth Warren’s neck. The questions for today are:

1. Does it matter?
2. Should it matter?

The answer to the second question is simple–no. Warren clearly had an honest belief at an earlier age that she was partly Native American. Based on the stories told in her household, the belief was reasonable. She never gained anything by it. Why is such a small mistake a stain on her reputation?

The first question presents more difficulties. During the primaries, she will undoubtedly have a few problems with PC zealots who will complain that she disrespected Native Americans, but that won’t amount to much in the big picture. The general election would be quite another story, however. “Pocahontas” resonates with Trump’s base because it seems to encapsulate everything that is wrong (from their perspective) with left-wing identity politics. Their story is that an allegedly privileged white woman tried to beat the system by making a bogus claim to be a Native American; that is where you end up when you make your arguments for justice and victimhood based on group membership rather than your own individual life story.

Of course, Trump and his base claim to be victims, too, but that’s a story for another day.

On the Fed nominee Herman Cain.

His interest rate views are insane.

He’ll act as Trump’s tool

‘Cause he’s really a fool.

Will Republicans get off the train?

Julian Assange and Glen Greenwald are hardly members of the far right, and yet they have consistently defended Donald Trump. Why?

Because they are the exact opposite of neo-conservatives: they believe that America is exceptional in that it is a force for evil throughout the world. Conceived in slavery, imperialism, and sin, America brings death and disorder everywhere it goes in the name of supposed universal values that it uses purely as a cover for material interests. Sure, Putin might be a thug, and his regime might be a kleptocracy, but his imperialism is more restrained than America’s, and he doesn’t try to convince the world that he’s high-minded. He may be evil, but he’s the lesser evil.

Jeremy Corbyn would agree with all of this, and Bernie Sanders probably does, too, although he is unlikely to say so directly in public.

To these folks, there are two things to commend Trump. First, he’s given no indication that he’s a warmonger; he prefers negotiations and economic sanctions to military interventions–at least so far. Second, Trump doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism; to the far left, his absurdly anachronistic version of colonialism and mercantilism isn’t an aberration–it actually is what America does in practice. Trump, in their eyes, speaks for the real America, not the self-deluded one; he’s a truth-teller who exposes the hypocrisy of the establishment by his open preference for economic interests and dictators over liberal democratic values. As such, he is a breath of fresh air, not a menace to be opposed wherever possible.

As I noted in my last post, the division between uplifting and angry Democrats doesn’t coincide with the realo/fundi split. Why?

Because different Democrats are angry about different things. Warren and Sanders are upset about the allegedly “rigged” American political and economic systems in general; to them, Trump’s corruption is more of a symptom than the actual illness, and his greatest sin was to portray himself as a reformer in 2016, and then to unashamedly pour more water into the swamp. The realos, on the other hand, are less concerned about structural issues with the system, and more about the evils of the individual himself.

I suspect the voters are more focused on Trump than the “rigged” system. We’ll see next year.

There are basically two ways to run against Trump: you can ignore him and try to sell the public on a vision for a better America; or you can focus your energy on prosecuting him for his innumerable sins. The two approaches are mutually exclusive.

You might think initially that the angry approach would be associated exclusively with realos, and the uplift with fundis, but you would be wrong. Beto, for example, is an uplifting realo, while Sanders and Warren are angry fundis.

Which approach will the Democrats choose in 2020? Historically, they have preferred youthful candidates with an uplifting message, but they’ve never run against anyone like Trump before. My best guess is that anger will play well with the blue base this time. We’ll see, probably as early as the first debate.