Author: hamilton1788

Donald Trump is arrogant, ignorant, narcissistic, and corrupt. The Democrats wouldn’t want to reproduce any of that. However, Trump’s unconventional success in 2016 potentially contains some lessons about identity politics and campaign tactics that could be used by the Democrats in future years. How would you go about building a better, left-wing Trump?

Here’s how you would do it:

1. Trump, of course, represents his base, which is predominantly male. The blue base is female, so the perfect candidate would have to be a woman.
2. For the same reason, it would have to be a minority.
3. Trump swaggers. Women don’t. The closest female equivalent would be glamor. As a result, she would have to be young, attractive, and vivacious.
4. She obviously would need the ability to trigger both the right and the left with pithy comments on Twitter.
5. Taking relatively extreme positions and having a minimal regard for the facts is a good way to stand out and win free media.

If you haven’t figured out where I’m going with this, she already exists. Come on down, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez!

As I’ve noted many times before, Donald Trump took office with very few ties to the GOP establishment, so he had the freedom to be a genuine populist if he wanted to be. He could have made himself a de facto third party and put his positions up for auction between the Democrats and Republicans. He could have supported a meaningful infrastructure bill and a tax cut directed primarily at his white worker base. Instead, he chose to embrace the parts of the GOP fiscal and economic agenda that are the least popular with the public at large. His association with that agenda will cost him in 2020.

Similarly, the GOP establishment could have treated Trump as a third party, not a true Republican. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan could have made a far greater effort to distance themselves from Trump’s tweets and white nationalism; they could have made it clear to the public that their relationship with the president was transactional–like, say, our relationship with right-wing dictators in the Middle East. They chose, instead, to tolerate the most obnoxious manifestations of Trumpism in exchange for tax cuts, deregulation, and friendly judges. As a result, the party’s fate is completely tied in with the president’s. If he is shown to be a crook, the public will correctly view them as his accomplices.

Is there a point at which the president and the establishment will realize that they are locked in a death embrace, and let go? My guess is that Trump would have to be polling in the 20s for that to happen.

To Donald Trump, the wall isn’t simply an object–it is tangible evidence of his covenant with his base. It represents strength, virility, and his commitment to protect America from all of those scary external forces that threaten it daily: terrorists; brown people; whatever. Most importantly, at this point, it represents his need to show that he is a winner. It is not enough to trade something for it, because that would reward opposition; the Democrats must recognize that the American people anointed him as their leader and that his will must be done, without question. As a result, compromise is not on the table.

To Nancy Pelosi, the wall isn’t simply an object–it is a proxy for everything that is hateful about Trumpism. It stands for capriciousness, stupidity, white nationalism, and the unwillingness to embrace new people and new ideas. It is the negation of the Statue of Liberty: America’s version of the Berlin Wall, the Maginot Line, or the Great Wall of China. Above all, if Trump is permitted to prevail on this issue by taking hostages, it will just encourage him to do it again and again. As a result, compromise is out of the question.

And so, as with guns, the evolution of the wall into a symbol, rather than an object, makes it very difficult to compromise. A deal will come only when the parties start seeing it as an object again, or if external forces are brought to bear that send an even stronger message.

The Daily Telegraph had a headline today to the effect that Theresa May couldn’t unify the Conservative Party, but Corbyn could. That pretty much sums up where we are.

Corbyn clearly has no interest in Brexit, or even in the welfare of the British people; he just wants power at any price. His plan apparently is to hold his party together and hope that the more pro-business Tory MPs desert the government just before the deadline to prevent no-deal. For her part, May is playing a similar game; she thinks Labour moderates will ultimately abandon the leadership and compromise on a soft Brexit similar to her current plan when push comes to shove.

Sounds a bit like our wall issue, doesn’t it?

I like May’s chances better than Corbyn’s, but if they both manage to keep their respective parties together, we’re looking at a no-deal Brexit, with everything that entails. Tribal loyalties being what they are, that is the most likely outcome.

It occurred to me yesterday that Biden could be the Democrats’ answer to Bush 41; he may be old, white bread, and uninspiring, but he’s also experienced, competent, fundamentally decent, and well-liked on both sides of the aisle. That doesn’t sound too bad right now, does it?

I laid out the cases both for and against him in my fake interview a few weeks ago. Plenty of pundits have weighed in on both sides. I think the important thing to remember is that his weaknesses–most of which relate to non-PC events in his record–only impact his ability to win the nomination, not the general election. Next to Trump, his treatment of Anita Hill, for example, means nothing.

When the dust has settled, it may well be that the Democratic Party as a whole wants something new and shiny. In a rough-and-tumble world, however, qualifications matter, and Biden has them in spades. He is also better positioned to beat Trump than any of the other candidates. I hope he runs.

It’s June, 2020. Far behind in the polls, desperate for a “win,” and fuming about his lack of success with regime change in Iran, Trump creates a pretext for war and orders air strikes without congressional approval. The nation erupts. On the left, demonstrations break out all over the country, and both the MSM and the internet are full of references to a wag-the-dog war. On the right, Fox News is calling war opponents traitors, and demanding legal action against them.

Trump calls in Barr and tells him he wants to use his wartime powers under the Constitution, as well as emergency powers under various statutes, to institute censorship of the MSM, to control antiwar content on the internet, and to arrest demonstrators and other “agitators.”

This is not an idle fantasy. You know as well as I do that it is a perfectly realistic scenario. What happens next? I don’t know. That’s what scares me.

Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, the main event was the first day of AG confirmation hearings. Barr came across as a reasonably thoughtful, occasionally slippery, mainstream Republican with decent professional ethics–not a Trump stooge or a fascist. Most of the questioning, as usual, was fairly inept.

He will undoubtedly be confirmed. Should he be? After all, in today’s world, even a mainstream Republican could be a threat to our civil liberties in some circumstances.

If I were on the committee, I would vote no. The combination of Barr’s obvious eagerness to please the GOP establishment, his record of support for expanding executive power, and Trump’s willingness to push the envelope could make him very dangerous in an emergency, or what Trump says passes for one. That’s what really troubles me–not what he may or may not do with the Mueller investigation.

On the plus side, at least he’s better than Whitaker.

The government has predictably suffered a defeat of unprecedented magnitude on the proposed Brexit deal. Under normal circumstances, May would resign. But these are unusual times, and it makes perfect sense for her to stagger on.

Now the power shifts to Corbyn. If he can bring himself to support a second referendum, he has a fighting chance of getting enough defections from supporters of Remain to bring down the government and force a general election. If he can’t, the confidence motion will fail, and the most likely outcome will be the chaos of no-deal. He thinks that will benefit him in the long run. I say he’s wrong.

Stay tuned tomorrow. It will be an interesting day, to say the least.

Tucker Carlson’s now-famous monologue, in which the Socrates of Fox News suggested that the usual GOP cocktail of tax cuts for the rich, reductions in social programs, and deregulation might not be the solution for struggling rural communities, has provoked both positive and negative comments from the right. Reformicons and their allies generally agreed, while the National Review crowd howled; the latter take the position that the plight of white workers is vastly overstated, and to the extent that it exists, it is their own fault, and government cannot and should not fix it.

And the GOP claims the Democrats are sneering elitists!

Analyzed in terms of the four factions, Carlson is proposing that the Reactionaries reject the economic program of the CLs and the PBPs in favor of one that directly assists white workers. Since the foundation of the GOP since Reagan has been a bargain in which the PBPs get tax cuts and deregulation, this is a very dangerous development for the right, and the Democrats would be wise to exploit it.

When asked about a potential O’Rourke candidacy, Donald Trump responded to the effect that one should win something before running for president. Much as it pains me to admit it, I think there was a kernel of truth in that statement. I suspect Beto may think so, too; it appears to me that he never planned to run, but that he is being dragged into the race by well-meaning, but misguided, activists who see him as an Obama successor.

The presidency is the most important job, and the hardest, in the world. It is not enough to be bright and charming and to have enviable political skills; you need a steel backbone, good judgment, and the ability and willingness to persevere during difficult times. To me, that means the job qualifications must include some substantial accomplishment, or at least evidence that the candidate has overcome some serious adversity in his or her life.

Most of the likely candidates for president on the Democratic side have met this test in one way or another. Biden and Warren meet it in spades. I’ve reviewed Beto’s biography, however, and I just can’t see anything in his record that gets him over the hurdle. Unless I’m missing something, then, I really don’t think he should run–at least, not yet.

The career of a typical rock star can be divided into four seasons, as follows:

1. SPRING: Armed with talent, a chip on his shoulder, and an invincible desire to be rich and famous, our hero storms the world and demands to be heard. Against the odds, the world starts to listen.
2. SUMMER: Our hero is the man of the hour. Everything he says and does is subject to intense public scrutiny. He quickly concludes that fame and fortune aren’t all they were cracked up to be, and is crushed by both his own and the public’s expectations.
3. FALL: The public has moved on and found new idols. No longer captive to outsized expectations, and with plenty of money, our hero experiments with a variety of genres and sharpens his craft. He will never again be the center of the universe, but he still has plenty that is worthwhile to say.
4. WINTER: Death or endless nostalgia tours. It’s hard to say which is worse.

Elvis Costello entered his autumn phase about 35 years ago. He has collaborated with a wide range of artists, from the Brodsky Quartet to Questlove, ever since. He was the host of a wonderful interview series called “Spectacle” on TV. He has dabbled in movies. Once an enfant terrible, today he is almost universally admired. He’s married to a beautiful and brilliant jazz singer. Life is good.

His new CD, “Look Now,” has been described by critics as his best work of the 21st century, which it is. The comparisons to “Imperial Bedroom,” to me, are inaccurate; “Imperial Bedroom” was full of anger and self-reproach, while “Look Now” is more rounded and matter-of-fact. The analogy to “Painted from Memory,” on the other hand, makes sense, given that Burt Bacharach collaborated on both. The best songs on “Look Now,” however, are much better than the best songs on “Painted from Memory.”

To me, the highlights of “Look Now” are two collaborations with Bacharach that were apparently supposed to be part of a musical that hasn’t seen the light of day. “Photographs Can Lie” is a gem of a song that would hold up next to Bacharach’s hits from the sixties and seventies. “He’s Given Me Things” sounds like a prequel to “I Want You;” it’s vivid, mournful, and kind of creepy. It concludes with lines that sound like a warning that extends beyond the boundaries of the musical:

“He’s got an awful lot of money/The past can be bought, and then erased.”

Let’s hope not.

I addressed the issue of the ballot question in my last post. Here are the other objections to the second referendum, and my responses:

1. IT CAN’T BE DONE BY THE MARCH 29 DEADLINE. But the EU has already said that there is no legal obstacle to an extension.
2. IGNORING THE WILL OF THE VOTERS IS UNDEMOCRATIC. Why would the outcome of a second referendum, this one with the stakes much clearer, be less “democratic” than living with the results of the first one?
3. A SECOND REFERENDUM WOULD DIVIDE THE COUNTRY. Sure, and it’s totally united today. What the government actually means by this is that the advocates of remaining will cause less trouble if they are disappointed than the Brexiteers. That is no basis for making policy.

If you’re familiar with the HGTV program “International House Hunters,” you know that the buyers are confronted with three choices, and their first task is to eliminate one. In a nutshell, that is one of the objections to the second referendum; there are three choices, and the British public is not accustomed to that.

In my opinion, there are two fair ways to structure a referendum to deal with the three option problem. They are:

1. Have a single ranked preference vote with remain, the May deal, and no-deal as the options. This has the advantage of only requiring one vote, and it ultimately results in a majority in favor of one of the alternatives. The down side is that the British people aren’t accustomed to ranked preference voting. But really, how complicated can it be?
2. Rerun the first referendum question. If remain prevails, nothing more needs to be done. If leave wins, have a second round pitting the May deal against no-deal. This approach avoids the novelty of ranked preference voting, but it could involve multiple votes, which should be avoided, if possible.

The option that does not work is having a first round with just the May deal and no-deal, because supporters of remaining would be able to vote tactically to help their cause. That wouldn’t be fair to the leavers.

As to the other objections to the second referendum, tune in tomorrow.

The world according to David Brooks:

“Back in the seventies, when the government was run by Democrats, business was overregulated and overtaxed, and the people suffered. Fortunately, St. Ronald came to the rescue. Supported by his trusty sidekicks, St. Milton, St. William, and St. Margaret, they cut taxes and unleashed the power of capitalism. Freedom and prosperity reigned, and the people were happy.

But somehow it all went wrong. The left, with its secularism and relativism, was largely to blame, of course, but the capitalists lost their moral compass, too. Growth slowed, inequality soared, and communities withered. Today America is spiritually sick, and an inept, corrupt white nationalist is president as a result. I’m not sure how to fix that, but if I write about it enough, maybe someone will think of something.”

To which I say: LOL.

Do you remember Milton Friedman thundering about the moral responsibility of corporations? Do you recall Reagan banging on about the need for a strong safety net? What about all of those articles in the National Review that insisted we needed to protect the American worker from the effects of creative destruction? And everyone remembers Mrs. Thatcher’s quote about society prevailing over the individual, right?

Well, of course not–none of that happened. The libertarianism that Brooks decries was at the heart of Reagan/Thatcher ideology, and it was obvious from the beginning; you do, in fact, remember Gordon Gekko and “Wall Street.”

It gets worse. Sure, Reagan was an altogether more attractive figure than Trump. Yes, he was a small government idealist, and he traded more in hope than fear. Yes, he was willing to raise taxes, as well as cut them; it was his successors who turned tax cutting into a religion. Yes, he wanted to tear down walls, not build them. But Reaganism was Trumpism in embryo. It was Reagan who made the GOP the swaggering, tax cutting, socially reactionary party that it is today. It was Reagan who created the bargain that has been the foundation of the party for so many years: tax cuts and deregulation in exchange for reactionary judges and welfare cuts for “those people.” Gingrich, Ryan, Bush 43, and Trump all believed in the bargain, and it paid off at the ballot box, thanks mostly to the votes of the people in red states who are suffering today.

What we are seeing today is the convergence of many factors: the power of creative destruction, which is a feature, not a bug, of capitalism; the impacts of globalization and technological change; the advent of the internet and Fox News, which have damaged national unity; and the failure of the federal government, due mostly to the efforts of the GOP, to maintain an adequate welfare state for the benefit of the victims of economic evolution. Blue states, in general, have prospered, and levels of crime and divorce are down; it is only the areas that were left behind economically that have turned into the Brooks dystopia.

How does it get fixed? You start by throwing off tired Reaganite economic theories and making the welfare state more effective; the benefits of that will be felt mostly by red state residents, whether they appreciate it or not. One hopes that the debates within the Democratic Party over the next few years will move us in that direction.

In 2009, Barack Obama gave a speech at Cairo University in which he acknowledged that the Iraq War had damaged America’s image and interests in the Middle East. He made it clear that America had no quarrel with mainstream Islam, but that we would resist extremists, and that we were entitled to help from the locals. He also indicated that America was willing to talk to Iran. In general, the speech was well-received in the Islamic world.

Yesterday, Mike Pompeo made a speech in which he attempted to repudiate everything Obama had said in 2009. Pompeo’s position is that, by definition, American interventions in the Middle East are always good, because America itself is good, which presumably means that the Iraq War was a rip-roaring success. Sunni autocrats are also a force for good; human rights issues in the countries they rule don’t matter. All of the evil in the region is attributable to Iran, including, counter-intuitively, the impacts of the Sunni extremists in IS. America will consequently resist Iranian attempts to expand its influence anytime, anywhere.

Today, we learned that American troops are already starting to leave Syria. Trump has also made it clear in the past that Iraq was a mistake. I guess someone didn’t get the memo.

None of this makes any sense at all. If you can figure it out, you’re smarter than I am.