Category: Uncategorized

Some of the results of the 2022 elections will have a major impact on 2024. Consider the following:

1. DO THE TRUMP ANOINTED CANDIDATES WIN? Trump endorsed apparently weak candidates in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Ohio. They are not polling well at this point in time. If they win, GOP leaders and voters will attribute their success to Trump’s involvement, and assume he still has plenty of clout with the electorate as a whole in spite of his obvious personal shortcomings and his failure in 2020. If they don’t, he’s going to be blamed, and DeSantis is going to start looking a lot better to right-wing 2024 primary voters.
2. DOES DESANTIS EXCEED EXPECTATIONS? If DeSantis wins a resounding victory in a state with a history of agonizingly close races, it will increase his appeal for 2024. If not, he’s just another guy, and the GOP may want to look elsewhere.

There are two things that can be said with reasonable certainty about Iran. First, the Iranian regime doesn’t enjoy the support of the majority of Iranians; second, the repressive elements of the regime are firmly united in their desire to wield power by both ideology and grubby self-interest. Dislodging the regime will, therefore, be extremely difficult.

The Supreme Leader will not live forever. The most likely outcome of his death will be a seamless transition to someone just as awful–just think of Cuba after Fidel. That is not a done deal, however. It is at least conceivable that there could be competing candidates for the job and that the regime could show some cracks that could be exploited by the opposition.

If it is ever going to happen, it will be then. Pressure from the West has not, and will not, result in regime change, but divisions at home might.

Thanks to Trump and Bibi, America is in a position of choosing between a bad Iran deal and no deal. The first alternative reduces the danger of an Iranian bomb, but not to the extent that the previous deal did, and provides the regime with more resources to build ballistic missiles and support its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. The second alternative means there is no way to stop an Iranian bomb except war. There is no good choice here; which is worse?

The regime needs whatever money it can get to improve the lives of its citizens. Its ability to do mischief outside of its borders is constrained by the fact that the vast majority of Arabs are Sunnis. To my knowledge, its ballistic missiles will have difficulty penetrating Israel’s Iron Dome system. On the other hand, an Iranian bomb might cause MBS to want one of his own, and God knows what happens after that. In addition, it would call Israel’s ability to intervene in Lebanon and Syria into question, as the Iranians could plausibly put their allies under their new nuclear umbrella. Finally, a war to stop the bomb would be exactly what America doesn’t need at a time when we should be focusing on containing Putin and Xi.

On balance, I would say the no deal option is worse, although I would concede that reasonable persons could differ on this issue. One thing is for sure–Biden has no incentive to make the decision until after the election, particularly in light of the illness of the Supreme Leader and the new unrest in Iran.

DeSantis has a very full record on culture war issues, but not much of one on fiscal and economic questions. If he runs against Trump in 2024, will he be tempted to wear the mantle of national conservative?

It would make sense on a variety of levels. First of all, it would obviously set him apart from Trump, who is a completely orthodox GOP proponent of tax cuts and deregulation for business. Second, it would open up a populist avenue of attack that would distinguish him from every possible opponent except Hawley with the reactionary base, which has no inherent love for big business. Finally, there is nothing in his background or personality which suggests that DeSantis is in love with business. By all accounts, he hates chasing campaign contributions; that sort of donor stroking is best left to his wife.

I still doubt he will have the nerve to run against Trump if push comes to shove, and I can’t be sure he would take the next step and antagonize the powers that be in the GOP by preferring workers to capitalists. I have to believe he will give it serious consideration, however. He is making his name by throwing red meat to the base; this would be another way of doing it.

Unlike Trump, who needs the MSM to serve as a foil, Richard Nixon genuinely hated left-wing media figures. He used all of the powers at his disposal to bring them to heel. But he was never in a position to legislate their rights away, and the judicial system was there as a backstop against First Amendment rights violations. The danger he presented to free speech was, therefore, pretty limited.

DeSantis appears to have roughly the same level of animosity towards any media that lean to the left of Fox News. Unlike Nixon, he has shown that he can push legislation restricting the rights of media companies through the system, and he has a friendly judiciary standing behind him. Would the First Amendment rights of blue people be protected if he is elected president? You would be a fool to assume so.

It can be hard to remember now, but for the first two years of his term, Ron DeSantis was an innocuous, forgettable governor. He didn’t hate government or state employees, like Rick Scott. He actually appeared to care a bit about water quality. His initial responses to the pandemic were within the mainstream, even if he seemed to put more emphasis on protecting the elderly, who were members of his political base, over other at-risk groups. So what happened?

I think the poorly researched story accusing him of corruption in the pandemic, and the response from his base, was his a-ha moment. He went from imposing his will on businesses and governments over masks to fighting for the interests of the unvaccinated to questioning the value of the vaccine. He then took the next step and started using the power of state government to roll back the constitutional rights of his critics–turning tweets into legislation, you could say. Now he is flying refugees at state expense to Martha’s Vineyard. What’s next?

DeSantis will be running for president, either in 2024 or 2028, as America’s most rigorous proponent of Orbanization. It is up to Florida’s voters to make it clear that Orbanization is not a political winner for the GOP.

Steve Bannon sounds a lot like a Huntington disciple. When he isn’t bashing wimpy liberals and calling for reactionaries to “burn it down,” he’s arguing that China is an existential threat to Western civilization. He has major issues with Islam, too. Would Huntington approve of him?

Not really, for two reasons. First of all, Huntington clearly distinguishes between the West and Orthodox civilizations, whereas Bannon does not. Bannon consequently sees Russia as a logical ally against America’s enemies, which doesn’t necessarily follow from Huntington’s analysis. Second, Bannon has a nationalist strain in his thought that logically makes mobilizing the entirety of Western civilization against its adversaries impossible. The EU and NATO embody Huntington’s views; Bannon wants to break them up.

I spent a good portion of last week reading Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations.” If you’re interested in geopolitics, and you haven’t read it, I will tell you that I can’t imagine a book that is more important than this one. As a result, I will be posting about it throughout the week.

The book was written in 1996, but it essentially foresaw, in one way or another, everything that has happened in the last 25 years. The rise of China, Islamic fundamentalism, identity politics both here and abroad, Russian imperialism–it’s all there.

Huntington divides the world into nine civilizations: West; Orthodox; Islam; Sinic; Latin America; Japan; Africa; Hindu; and Buddhist. Each of these civilizations comes with an identity that is non-negotiable when threatened by another group. Conflicts between civilizations–particularly between the West on one hand and the Sinic and Islamic groups on the other–can lead to disaster.

Huntington basically anticipated every geopolitical fault line that is in the news today, but his predictions about some of them turned out to be wildly incorrect. These include:

1. Ukraine: Huntington says Ukraine will either fall slowly into the Orthodox sphere of influence (i.e., become a Russian vassal state) or break up. He didn’t anticipate Putin’s invasions and the resulting rejection of Russian hegemony.
2. Japan and Korea: Huntington puts Korea in the “Sinic” zone as a unified whole. He also predicts that Japan will move away from the West and closer to China. In reality, South Korea and Japan have edged closer to the West in response to aggressive Chinese and North Korean behavior.
3. Islamic fundamentalism: Huntington identifies this as a trend, even before 9/11, but does not foresee its ultimate failure as a ruling concept. The Islamic world is notable more for its divisions than its unity today.
4. Soft and hard power: Soft power does not inevitably follow hard military and economic power. The Chinese have less of it today than they did a decade ago.

What you should take away from these faulty predictions is that ideology, individual agency, and big power politics sometimes prevail over issues involving corporate identity. I don’t think Huntington would have disagreed with that. The validity of the book’s thesis is still intact.

Florida doesn’t have an illegal immigration problem. It doesn’t have a land boundary with a foreign country, and most of the immigrants from South and Central America who wind up there are refugees from countries with repressive left-wing governments. But Ron DeSantis knows that nothing–and I mean nothing–fires up the reactionary base more than illegal immigration. And so, he spent a large sum of taxpayer money to fly some Venezuelan political refugees to Martha’s Vineyard. He wanted the base to see him own the libs on immigration, and the media predictably gave him what he wanted.

DeSantis is clearly competing with Trump and Greg Abbott on this issue, but I don’t think it will end well for him. Florida taxpayers aren’t going to appreciate the misuse of their money for a transparent political stunt. Venezuelans (most of whom probably are GOP supporters) aren’t going to appreciate it, either. Finally, it appears that at least some of the refugees were misled as to the destination and the purpose of the trip. Using helpless refugees as political pawns isn’t going to play well with the American public.

DeSantis needs to realize that he can’t compete with Abbott on issues such as guns, fossil fuels, and illegal immigration. Floridians just don’t have the same opinions on these matters as Texans.

Xi actually agreed to leave China to meet Putin in Uzbekistan a few days ago. They had a lot to discuss, and Uzbekistan was the perfect place to do it.

I was going to post one of my hypothetical meeting transcripts, but I decided it wasn’t worth the effort, because it would have sounded exactly like the last one. Putin was begging for economic and military support and arguing that autocrats everywhere are in danger if he loses in Ukraine. For his part, Xi, who is ambivalent about the whole thing, provided soothing words of support, but little more.

Putin didn’t have to invade Ukraine. He could have relied on his ability to turn the gas on and off to get what he wants. Alternatively, he could have played NATO against China to identify the highest bidder. Instead, he put himself in a position where he has no options except to be Xi’s junior partner and supplicant. That will have consequences beyond the war.

The Stans historically have been an area of predominantly Russian influence. China is starting to penetrate them with its economic might, and Putin is in no position to resist. As a result, when the history books are written, Putin won’t just be the guy who launched a bloody, misbegotten imperialist war, drove the most productive elements out of his country, caused Sweden and Finland to join NATO, and lost the best customers for one of his country’s few valuable products; he will also be the man who lost the Stans.

On the ex-KGB man named Putin.

His soldiers keep killin’ and lootin’.

His invasion’s a flop;

Doesn’t know when to stop;

He’s an updated kind of Rasputin.

In light of the dismal Russian response to the Ukrainian counteroffensive, shouldn’t Putin change the name of his country from Russia to Iran?

To be truly successful, a political commercial either has to tell you something you didn’t already know or raise the intensity of your feelings about something you did. The first item typically involves some hitherto unpublicized fact that can be portrayed as sleazy in your opponent’s background; an example of the latter would be creating a sympathetic portrait of life as an unemployed person for people who have never had that experience.

Inflation doesn’t lend itself to that kind of treatment. It is experienced by everyone every day. You can’t really tell anyone anything about it that they don’t already know. That’s why the GOP commercials attacking Biden’s record on the issue don’t have much of an emotional impact.

Assume, for purposes of argument, that pro- and anti-abortion figures in Congress negotiate in good faith and reach agreement on a national standard (i.e., a floor as well as a ceiling) of 15 weeks for an abortion. How would this work in practice?

There would be two very serious problems:

1. Enforcement in the blue states would be spotty at best, as the federal government would be in no position to hire enough employees to do the job, and outraged state officials would view the new legislation as the 21st century equivalent of the Fugitive Slave Act.
2. For their part, the red states would try to use the same kind of bogus health and safety regulations they have adopted for the last 50 years to make the practical exercise of reproductive rights impossible. Some of these could be preempted in the national legislation, but don’t underestimate the ability of red state officials to get around federal rules.

The bottom line here is that national legislation won’t work without the support of a national consensus, which, in my opinion, would be best obtained through a referendum. Barring that, the best available “solution” under current law is to leave the issue to the states, but to prohibit red states from using vigilante laws, violating First Amendment rights, and attempting to impose their requirements on citizens of other states.

Food, new cars, and rent are three of the largest contributors to our current rate of inflation. What is causing the price increases for these items, is Biden in any way responsible, and can the Fed solve the problem?

FOOD: The need to eat is inelastic and universal, so the problem here clearly is not one of a sharp increase in demand. Food price inflation is the result of price increases for inputs that were caused primarily by the war and climate issues. Biden’s spending programs had nothing to do with it, and the Fed can do nothing to help.

NEW CARS: There is no evidence indicating that the demand for new cars has spiked, so the issue clearly revolves around lingering supply chain issues caused by the pandemic. Since demand is not the problem, Biden’s spending programs are not the cause. The Fed can limit demand further by effectively mandating higher interest rates on car loans, but if the problem isn’t demand, what’s the point?

RENT: This one is complicated. Soaring rents are the result of a lack of residential construction over the last decade and increased demand for space caused by the pandemic. Biden bears no responsibility for either of these factors. The Fed can address the issue of rising house prices by raising interest rates, but frustrated buyers are being thrown into the rental market, which just moves housing demand into another quadrant, given that the demand for shelter is inelastic. In addition, making housing construction more expensive simply exacerbates the supply problem. On balance, therefore, the Fed will do more harm than good on this issue by raising rates.

The bottom line is that the Fed has reason to increase interest rates to the point that monetary policy is neutral instead of expansionary, but any attempt to solve the current inflation problem with tight money will only work on a purely psychological basis; it has no support in logic or the data.