Author: hamilton1788

David Brooks has a column, and Paul Krugman a post, on the GOP and conservatism in today’s NYT.  I would say that both of them are correct in their way, but neither has described the entire picture.

A “conservative,” by any common definition of the term, is someone who is suspicious of change, and objects to it except when circumstances make it unavoidable.  If you apply this definition to the various factions of the GOP in relation to current circumstances, here is what you get:

1.  The enormous tax and entitlement cuts and regulatory rollbacks that are the centerpiece of the PBP agenda are dramatic changes to the status quo which can hardly be called “conservative.”
2.  The CL attempt to radically roll back the powers of the federal government is not “conservative.”
3.  The Reactionary agenda to turn the clock back a minimum of 50 years from today’s social, political, and economic conditions cannot reasonably be called “conservative.”
4.  Only the CDs are in any way “conservative,” and they only make up about 10 percent of the GOP.

The process wherein the GOP became radicalized (some, but not all of it, after 2008) will be the subject of a future post.  Suffice it to say, however, that Krugman is right when he says that the Democrats are the true conservatives in today’s polity.

We have a running gag in our house in which I attribute natural disasters all over the world to a “lack of leadership” on the part of President Obama.  The point, of course, is that he has no control over these events.  The difference between, say, the state of the rebellion in Syria and a tornado is one of degree rather than kind.

“Leadership” is viewed by the MSM and some Americans as strong and decisive action, regardless of its ultimate implications for the country.  By that standard, Lee’s decision to ignore Longstreet’s advice and to authorize Pickett’s Charge was great “leadership.”  Or, to use a more contemporary example, George W. Bush’s decision to engage in a war of choice in Iraq in the face of international hostility was also outstanding “leadership.”

Demonstrating “leadership” is only important to people who confuse self-esteem with the national interest.  The real issue in foreign policy is not whether we are showing “leadership,” but if any given action is in the national interest–i.e., is it the best available way to promote our prosperity and enhance our security?  If so, whether we are perceived to be responsible for it or not is meaningless.

I haven’t written much about the Democratic side of the race because, frankly, it isn’t very interesting.  Hillary is going to be the nominee unless her campaign completely implodes over Benghazi or some other scandal TBD.  In addition, the candidates don’t disagree about very much, so there isn’t a whole lot to say.

That aside, look for the following tonight:

1.  How far left will she go?  Clinton, in my opinion unnecessarily, has been taking positions on issues like the TPP that will hurt her in the general election in order to deal with Bernie Sanders. Both the substance and the tone of her comments tonight will be important.

2.  How does Sanders argue that he can accomplish his wish list in a Congress largely dominated by the GOP?  The other candidates will maintain at least somewhat plausibly that they have a history of successfully reaching across the aisle.  Sanders, not so much.  Does he honestly believe that 2016 will be a tidal wave election, and that the GOP House majority will magically disappear?

3.  To what extent will the candidates distance themselves from President Obama?   Hillary certainly will on the use of American power overseas.  There probably will be some discussion about sticking it to Wall Street, and Sanders could bring up single-payer.  Otherwise, their only real objection to the President’s agenda is his inability to get it through Congress (see #2 above).

If that isn’t enough to keep your attention, you can be forgiven for changing the channel.  I probably will at some point.

 

There once was a pundit named Ross.

Abortion law made him quite cross.

Although a CD

He supported Mike Lee

To be a Republican boss.

The prevailing narrative in the mainstream media suggests that the dispute among House Republicans is a purely tactical one between establishment “adults” and Tea Party “children,” who do not understand the limits of their power and the consequences of their actions.   While there is certainly an element of truth to this, there are differences in the objectives of the two groups that go far beyond mere tactics and should not be minimized.

The different goals of the Reactionaries and the PBPs were laid out in one of my initial posts.  In a nutshell, PBPs are perfectly happy to live in 2015 as long as the government cuts their taxes and reduces their regulatory burdens, whereas Reactionaries want to turn the clock back to 1950, or 1929, or 1913, or some point in the 19th Century in order to restore the political, economic, and social dominance of white Christian men over the rest of the country.   When the GOP is in power, the alliance between the two groups has resulted in the desired tax cuts and deregulation for the PBPs, but has accomplished none of the Reactionary agenda, much of which is beyond politics.  The Reactionaries have become increasingly aware of this, and are restless.

The apparent nihilism of the Reactionaries is, therefore, based on the fact that GOP victories in national elections only give them the illusion of power.  They cannot win national elections without the assistance of the PBPs, but the alliance with the PBPs ultimately gains them nothing.

The GOP idol Paul Ryan

Rejected a job, I’m not lyin’.

The party insisted

His no was persistent

Is House rationality dyin’?

To a PBP, the Obama Administration is seriously misguided, because it seeks to strengthen the state and the lower classes at the expense of “job creators”.  To a Reactionary, it is evil and illegitimate:  evil, because it seeks to undermine traditional Christian values; and illegitimate, because its electoral majority was attributable to voters who are not, in their eyes, “real Americans.”

Given that discrepancy, is it surprising that government shutdowns are popular among Reactionaries, but not PBPs?

The situation with the House GOP has become so absurd, it transcends irony.  The best possible outcome that one can reasonably imagine at this point is for Boehner to stay long enough to make his usual deal to lift the debt limit and keep the government running.  After that, Congress will essentially shut down until the election.

Boehner’s legacy, it turns out, will be the creation of an exception to the Hastert Rule to permit the government to keep the lights on.  What could it be called except the Boehner Rule?

About six weeks ago, there was reason to believe that the Obama Administration’s determination to be patient and engage with our adversaries was being rewarded in the Middle East.  The Iran deal was a breakthrough on its own terms, and opened the possibility that we could pick our allies in the future instead of being stuck with them.  In addition, there were lots of stories about diplomatic activity involving ourselves, the Saudis, and the Russians, which suggested that we might, in fact, be able to create a less beastly Syrian government and subsequently a united front to crush IS.

All that is in ruins as a result of Putin’s decision to double down on his support of Assad.  I will address his motives for that in a future post.  The bottom line is that he is now the leader of a Shiite axis which includes Iran, Hezbollah, the Iraqi government, and the Syrian government.  The best case scenario for us now is deadlock, years of agony for the Syrian people, and more refugees, because a negotiated solution is impossible for the foreseeable future.  The worst case is the Russians and their allies slowly, and at great cost to the population, gain control over all of Syria and Iraq, and we do nothing to stop them.  Our credibility with our Sunni allies would thereby be destroyed, and we would be almost friendless in an area of great strategic importance.

The Obama Administration apparently is basing its current policy on the best case scenario.  At some point, the dangers inherent in action are less troubling than the dangers presented by inaction.  I believe that point has been reached.  In spite of the complexities and perils that we may face, it is time to no-fly.

 

There once was a woman named Hill.

Obama won’t bend to her will

And scrap his new deal.

He’s right, I do feel

The pact isn’t run-of-the-mill.

Hillary’s decision to oppose the TPP without even reading the final version is only explicable as one of an ongoing series of efforts to protect her left flank from Bernie Sanders.  It is almost certainly unnecessary, it won’t work–given her history, she can’t out-Sanders Sanders–and it is extremely bad policy.

I have to assume she thinks the agreement will pass with purely Republican support, so there is no substantive risk in treating it as a political football.  I disagree;  given the current state of the GOP, nothing they do can be taken for granted.

If the TPP fails, due in any part to her opposition, and she is elected, what is she going to say to our putative partners to the agreement?  Go make a better deal with the Chinese?

That Trump’s stated position on illegal immigration is wildly impractical, racist, and vile is beyond debate.   The question that is worth posing is whether he actually believes it.

I doubt it.  Whatever you may say about the man, he isn’t stupid.   Furthermore, as far as I know, he doesn’t have any history on this issue prior to the campaign.    In all likelihood, his statements are pure opportunism;  he saw how the Romney campaign profited from attacks on Rick Perry from the right in 2012, and drew the correct conclusions.

It has been American policy for many years to accommodate the rise of China, but only within established international norms (i.e., not by imposing its will on smaller neighboring nations).  The TPP is the latest, and perhaps most important, expression of that policy;  it ultimately gives the Chinese the choice of isolating themselves or joining a club in whose rules it had no say.

President Obama is going to have a difficult task explaining the fairly subtle distinction between rules-based policy and Chinese containment to the American public and the rest of the world in the process of selling the agreement.  For their part, the Chinese have never accepted the notion that they are bound to follow international norms in areas they consider to be their own territory, particularly since the rules, in their eyes, were made by hostile countries and are stacked against them.  Don’t be surprised if more aggression in the South China Sea ensues, even though that, in a sense, would validate the purpose of the agreement.

The President signed a trade pact.

Some Congressmen claimed that it lacked

Sufficient protections.

Fearing defections,

He told them to look at the facts.

The real significance of the TPP is geopolitical, not economic.  One hopes that Congress will look at the big picture and not a multitude of details that won’t matter in the long run.

I think it is fair to say that there is a consensus in China that corruption is a serious problem within the country.   There are three widely different potential ways to address the issue:

1.  If you are a liberal, the solution is to open up the one-party system, free the press, and depoliticize the judiciary.
2. If you are a Maoist, corruption and capitalism are essentially the same phenomenon, so the correct answer is to return to the county’s socialist roots and eliminate inequalities created by the unwarranted growth of the private sector.
3. Identify a few handy scapegoats and destroy them in public in order to send the right message to the rank and file.

Naturally, the government has chosen #3.  Will it work in the long run?  Probably not, particularly since the use of connections is a part of Chinese culture that long predates Communist rule.  More likely, it will just drive the problem further underground.