Author: hamilton1788

I had an idea driving home a few days ago that was either brilliant or hopelessly banal–I can’t decide which.

The thread which holds Trump’s reactionary core together is fear:  fear of Muslim terrorists; fear of African-Americans; fear of immigrants, and their alien culture; fear of violent crime; fear of lost status in the face of claims from women; fear of lost government benefits; fear of unemployment or underemployment; and fear that traditional rural and Christian culture is being swamped by urban values.  This fear easily morphs into anger, which is why anger is such an important feature of right-wing talk radio.

These people find Trump’s swagger comforting.  Trump’s stock in trade is fear and anger.  In that respect, he differs from Reagan, who also swaggered, but had a genuine message of hope tied to tax cuts and limited government.  Trump thinks the world revolves around power, and the shining city on the hill is a fairy tale; he wants to be Batman, not the second coming of Thomas Jefferson.

There is an important message here for the Democratic Party.  If you want to win these voters back, it isn’t enough to talk about policy, or even about respect for traditional values–you have to come across in such a way as to make the fear disappear.  That means, above all, looking strong and certain.

 

It’s easy to understand the motivations behind “Made in China 2025.”  Communist states were practically designed for mercantilism.  There are no ideological issues with the government picking winners and losers; for the Chinese, it is the nation as a whole that matters, not any individual company.  The Chinese will not feel truly sovereign until they are self-sufficient in tech.  Finally, the future, if China is to continue to progress economically, is not in low wage work, for which there are plenty of potential competitors.  If the “Chinese dream” is to be realized, tech will have to be a big part of it.

As I noted long ago, Trump has legitimate concerns about “Made in China 2025,” but his chances of persuading the government to give it up are slim and none.  The question, then, is how should America respond?  What would “Made in America 2025” look like?

It would certainly involve significant restrictions on Chinese purchases of American tech companies.  That is already happening.  The biggest change would be to increase the amount of money spent on basic research, and to subsidize, as necessary, American tech champions, just as the Chinese do.

The problem with this, of course, is that a program of tech financial support would look exactly like the clean energy subsidies in the Obama stimulus package that drove the Republicans crazy.  If you’re going to invest public money in the private sector, you’re going to have to pick winners and losers, and you’re going to have some Solyndras.  That’s just the way it is.

The Chinese accept that, but we don’t, which is why it won’t happen.  The best you can hope for is an increase in the money spent on basic research, but the GOP’s hostility to government spending on anything but the military is such that even that would be difficult.  Our ability to compete with the Chinese, with all of the national security implications that come with it, will continue to depend on the barons of Silicon Valley, not the government, barring a major change of attitude about intervening in the free market.

If you get a chance, do a search for “Trump handwriting” and look for a 2015 article in Politico about the handwriting of the presidential candidates.  The section of the article analyzing Trump’s signature describes his personality perfectly.  You’ll love it.

When you come right down to it, the North Korea story can only end one of three ways:

1.  War.  North Korea is destroyed at an unfathomable cost.
2.  Containment.  There is no deal and no war.  The status quo more or less continues, except the North Koreans finish work on their ICBM, the enforcement of sanctions weakens, and we place more military assets in South Korea to prevent the unraveling of the alliance.
3.  Trump settles for a deal for a phased, partial rollback of the North Korean nuclear and missile programs in exchange for sanctions relief and promises of future economic aid.  Kim accepts the sanctions relief and ultimately (and predictably) chooses to keep the nukes he considers essential in lieu of taking the aid.

None of these alternatives includes Kim voluntarily giving up all of his nukes.  That simply isn’t going to happen.  Bolton has figured that out.  I doubt Trump has yet.

 

Based on Trump’s behavior, ZTE is a hostage, not a lawbreaker.  That’s Trump’s favorite way to negotiate.  Don’t be surprised if you see this again.

Life in the time of Trump.

The summit’s off, then on.

No one knows how the wind blows.

All sanity is gone.

He’s truly shown that he’s the man.

His world spins like a top.

It’s like a seasick circus ride

We don’t know how to stop.

In honor of the Irish referendum today, here’s my analysis of the abortion issue, which revolves around three questions:

1.  When does a fetus become a person?  This is frequently framed as a question about when life begins, but that’s stupid;  a fertilized egg is alive, but it may or may not be a person.  There are two perspectives on this question.  The traditional religious view is that a fertilized egg is, indeed, a person;  this is based either on the assumption that a human soul (which is, of course, intangible) is created at conception, or on carrying forward the historical ignorance of the biology of a fetus.  The second model is biological, and revolves around the ability of the fetus to function as a human being independent of the mother.  That requires the fetus to have all of the usual human organs, and for them to work.

2.  What are the interests to be considered in the debate?  There are four parties with interests to be considered and balanced.  The fetus itself has an interest in its own life;  that interest becomes more compelling as it grows and becomes more functional on its own.  The mother has a myriad of emotional, physical health, and financial interests in the decision to give birth;  for some, these include the argument that abortion rights are necessary to give her the same sexual autonomy that a man enjoys.  The father has a less compelling interest in fatherhood.  Finally, society, in addition to all of these other interests, has legitimate concerns about public costs inevitably attributable to unwanted children, and may want to either encourage or discourage children based on demographic and environmental issues.

3.  Who makes the decision?  In some countries, this decision would be left primarily to religious institutions.  For the most part, it is a question left to the legislature.  In the US, authority over the issue was divided between legislatures and the judicial system after the Roe decision.  In Ireland, the question is being addressed in a referendum.

Where do I stand?  I support the biological model, think the interests of the mother and society are paramount in the relatively early stages of the development of the fetus, and believe that balancing interests is a task for legislatures.  In other words, I would characterize Roe as wise, but legally inappropriate, judicial intervention in the political process.  If I were Irish, I would vote yes in the referendum.

Putin undoubtedly viewed his intervention in the 2016 election as a low cost, low risk, high reward gamble.  After all, he could outsource the hacking to cybermercenaries who didn’t cost very much, and he could easily disavow them if they were caught.   Victory was highly unlikely, but the prize was alluring:  a bumbling, clueless, wannabe strong man who admired him as his principal adversary.

Against the odds, Trump prevailed, and Putin has in some respects reaped the benefits.  America is discrediting liberal democracy and trashing its alliances on a daily basis; he could not have hoped for more.  He also has gained plenty of admirers among the crowd that unquestioningly follows Trump and Fox News.  On the other hand, the political class has united against him, sanctions have not been lifted, and America is becoming, if anything, more aggressive in its support of Ukraine.  American troops in Syria are killing his private sector soldiers.  Finally, while Trump is easily manipulated, he loves being unpredictable, so one can’t be sure that he will stay on board for his entire term.

The bottom line is that, from his perspective, Trump is a mixed blessing.  Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it.

So, it appears that Trump’s desire to dominate everyone around him and to be the most unpredictable man alive has at least temporarily overcome his lust for a Nobel Peace Prize.

The clear winners in this are Kim and the Chinese.  The biggest loser is South Korea, which is now facing the possibility of war again.  We come next; it’s hard to imagine the rest of the world ramping up and enforcing sanctions when Trump was the one who called off the meeting.

Personally, I think this is a temporary condition.  On Korea, Trump wants attention and a “win,” not war.  Nothing he says or does should be taken seriously until he signs on the dotted line–here, or anywhere else.

This will end with him giving away the store and demanding credit for it.

Political Science

No one likes us; it can’t be me.

Because I’m perfect, as all can see.

But all around, even our old friends put us down.

Let’s drop the big one and see what happens.

 

They steal our money, but are they grateful?

No, they’re spiteful, and they’re hateful.

They don’t respect me, so let’s surprise them.

We’ll drop the big one and vaporize them.

 

We’ll save the Russians.

No need to poke the Russian bear.

‘Cause Putin’s just about my only friend

And anyway, there’s nothing there.

 

Boom goes Pyongyang, and boom Tehran.

Tin-pot dictators will all soon be gone.

More big Trump statues in every town.

Europe and Asia:  the whole world ’round.

 

Oh, how peaceful it will be.

We’ll set everybody free.

You’ll wear a Japanese kimono

And there’ll be Italian shoes for me.

 

They all hate me, anyhow.

So let’s drop the big one now.

Let’s drop the big one now.

 

Parody of “Political Science” by Randy Newman.

A good strong man is a tough act to follow.  If you don’t believe me, just ask Maduro.

The essence of being a strong man is that you eliminate all other centers of power.  Everyone else is always in a perpetual battle to win your favor.  Stability only exists at the top.  You are the indispensable man.  Everything revolves around you and your whims.  The law and political institutions, by themselves, are nearly meaningless, and the public cannot rely on them in a crisis.

That is why the succession is such a difficult problem to solve, why Putin will find it difficult to retire, and why Russia will be looking at a new period of serious instability when he finally leaves.

If you’re looking for a good analogy, think about Michael Corleone in “Godfather III.”  The mob boss and the strong man are more alike than you probably think.

During the campaign, Donald Trump assured us that he was incorruptible.  After all, he had so much money, what else could he want?

In one of the most memorable scenes of “Key Largo,” the character played by Humphrey Bogart engages in a discussion with the notorious gangster Johnny Rocco about what he wants.  His conclusion is that Rocco wants “more.”  Rocco agrees.

Which of these is a more accurate description of the last 16 months?

In the wake of Trump’s decision to break the Iran agreement, the Iranians are going to be looking for economic and diplomatic support from Putin.  Putin, for his part, has no particular reason to love the ayatollahs, but he really hates American financial imperialism, so he will be happy to oblige.  He will offer support against the sanctions and make vague threats (not amounting to a clear red line) about what happens next if it appears that the parties are heading for war.

My prediction, of course, is that we are, in fact, heading for war.  Will Putin actively intervene on behalf of Iran if that occurs?

No.  He will demand concessions from Trump as the price of his neutrality, and he will probably get them.

While Putin is winning in Syria, he is losing (at least so far) in Ukraine.  Here’s why:

1.  Putin’s objective is not to physically occupy Ukraine or eliminate its nominal legal independence (that would be too risky and expensive);  it is to turn Ukraine into a willing economic, military, and political vassal of Russia.
2.  He was very close to success prior to the revolution, at which time his plans went completely out the window.
3.  He retaliated by sending his green men to occupy Crimea, and by supporting separatists in the remainder of Ukraine.  His allies control a substantial portion of eastern Ukraine.  The ultimate prize, however, is the whole of Ukraine, not just the eastern rust belt, which has limited value to him.
4.  His intention is clearly to use the potential reunification of Ukraine as a carrot, and various economic measures as a stick, to change public opinion and bring the government to heel.
5.  It isn’t working.  The government of Ukraine has shown no inclination to return to the fold in exchange for reunification.  There is little or no public support for such a change in policy.  In the meantime, the US and the EU have imposed punishing sanctions on Russia as a result of his aggression and the outrageous actions of his separatist allies, and he has lost all of his credibility with the EU governments that really matter.

Putin is playing a long game here.  It is not impossible that Ukraine will implode under the pressure he can apply in the end.  As of today, however, a betting man would bet against him.

Andrew Sullivan compared Trump and Richard III in his weekly column in last Friday’s New York Magazine.  On balance, he found Richard to be the more sympathetic figure, given his physical issues and difficult upbringing.  He identified an essential similarity, however;  both of them used outrageous lies as a tool to enforce loyalty and eliminate political opponents.

The similarity does, in fact, exist, but I’m more impressed by the differences.  Trump is ego-driven;  he didn’t want power as much as the adulation that comes with it.  Richard, on the other hand, was a grim practitioner of realpolitik; he came of age at a time when defeat in politics at the highest level meant death.  Richard was also a very experienced politician, and competent, unlike Trump.

In other words, Richard resembled Putin far more than Trump.