Category: Uncategorized

As the saying goes, Islamic extremists hate us as much for who we are as for what we do. They despise our culture. As a result, it makes perfect sense to talk about a clash of civilizations as it pertains to them.

But they don’t count for much after the destruction of ISIS. Iran isn’t really a revolutionary state anymore, and its appeal is limited to Shiite Muslims. Afghanistan is a basket case; it is debatable whether its leaders have much interest in spreading the word outside its boundaries in any event. The principal Islamic states dislike jihadis as much as we do. There just isn’t much fuel available for an international culture war between Christians and Muslims; the more prominent dispute is the centuries-old internal battle between Sunnis and Shiites.

Once again, the clash of civilizations thesis fails the reality test.

Since the time of Peter the Great, Russia has been ambivalent about its relationship with the rest of Europe. On the one hand, you have heads of state who viewed Russia as being a backward cousin needing a substantial amount of modernizing; on the other, you have Russian leaders who purported to believe that their country was, and should remain, unique and uncorrupted by the West. Peter, Catherine the Great, Lenin, and Gorbachev were in the first group; Nicholas II and Stalin were in the second.

Putin is advertising himself as a member of the second group. Whether he actually believes his reactionary nationalist drivel is almost beside the point now. The bottom line is that his war with Ukraine–the Abel to Russia’s Cain–can hardly be described as a clash of civilizations; furthermore, Putin has friends among Catholics (the Hungarians) and Muslims (Syria). His ambition to recreate the Russian Empire consequently has no connection with culture wars; it is just old-fashioned imperialism, pure and simple.

This one should be a no-brainer. The French economy is in relatively good shape, particularly in light of the pandemic. Putin is an ally of Le Pen. What more do you need to know?

The problem is that populism is alive and well in France for the same reasons that it is here: animosity among residents of rural areas and decaying 19th century industrial areas towards more affluent knowledge workers and immigrants. In addition to that, Macron frequently comes across as being detached and indifferent. Jupiter didn’t have to present himself for re-election, but Macron does; he appears to forget that at times.

A Le Pen victory would be a disaster for France, the EU, and NATO, but a huge win for Putin. Let’s hope with all of our might that it doesn’t happen.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, Ukraine battle blues.

You have to be aware of it; it’s all over the news.

The invasion isn’t going well, and now I’ve got to choose.

If things don’t start improving soon, I’m surely going to lose.

__________________

Should I escalate the war, or should I just refrain?

Should I focus on the east, and really bring the pain?

Attacking NATO is a risk; would it be worth the gain?

One thing that I know for sure–I’m going to take the blame.

________________

I’ve got the blues.

The stuck in Ukraine blues.

I got a lot of bad advice

For that, there’s no excuse.

It’s time to change the narrative

So I can say I won.

I have to have a victory

When all is said and done.

If China were a truly Marxist state, there would be no discussion about a clash of civilizations with the United States; for a Marxist, the struggle is between classes, not nations. China is not a Marxist state, however; its effective ideology is Chinese exceptionalism. That means the question of a clash of civilizations makes perfect sense.

The problem with the theory is that other nations which were heavily influenced by Chinese culture–most notably, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan–are American allies. I can’t see how that fact can be reconciled with the notion of some kind of American struggle with a Chinese cultural sphere of influence.

The real issues between America and China pertain to their very different political systems and to China’s drive to dominate its near abroad. In other words, a model based on ideology or foreign policy realism works better than one based on culture to explain the differences between the two countries.

The best way to neuter NIMBYs would be to give them a direct interest in the success of proposed residential developments. Here are two ways that could be done:

1. The land use approval process could be changed to guarantee property owners only the minimum use required by the Constitution. Anything in addition to that would be contingent on an agreement with the neighbors. Planning staff would be used to mediate and facilitate the agreements. They could address anything from the appearance of the new development to capital improvements in the surrounding areas.
2. Local governments could create tax increment benefit districts around each new development. Increased revenues from the developments could be used for improvements to the surrounding communities.

As a young land use lawyer, I can remember reading countless scholarly articles which, based on an implicit premise that increasing housing supply only generates new demand, insisted that residential development hardly ever paid for itself. I thought the premise had the line of causation reversed, and that the conclusion, if true, would mean property taxes would go up and never come down. I was right; the argument was faulty, and today’s housing shortages and soaring prices are the result.

The fact is that residential development, from the perspective of the entire community, is far more positive than negative; it keeps prices and rents down, increases the tax base, and provides large numbers of jobs in construction and elsewhere. The problem, however, is that it also imposes costs on the immediate neighbors: new traffic; construction noise; reduced privacy; and unwelcome aesthetic changes. The character of the neighborhood can change completely. These are very real problems for the neighbors; just dismissing them and calling them NIMBYs is not a solution.

Local governments typically try to bridge the gap between the community good and the neighborhood harm by creating a transparent process and a meaningful opportunity for the surrounding property owners to be heard. In my experience, the results have been mixed, because the ultimate decisions are usually political, and the stronger side wins. In some communities, this means the developers; in others, it is the neighbors. Either way, the outcome is unsatisfactory to someone.

We need a better way to bridge the gap. I will throw out two proposals tomorrow.

The Russians have apparently decided to refocus their efforts in eastern Ukraine, where they have had more success. Some commentators have gone so far as to suggest that the original drive on Kyiv was just a feint, which is both logically absurd and inconsistent with all of the evidence. What should we think of Plan B?

Putin could have annexed most of this property years ago. He didn’t, because he wanted it to stay as a Trojan horse within the Ukrainian state, and because it is an economically depressed area with minimal value to Russia. Even if he prevails and cuts off eastern Ukraine, it will not be much of a consolation prize; as a result of his impatience, the rest of Ukraine will never be his unless he somehow finds the resources to occupy it over fierce, ongoing native resistance. He can no longer have any illusions about that.

The record will show that I took Larry Summers’ side on stimulus payments when it wasn’t cool. I was ultimately reconciled to those payments when it became clear that they were inevitable; I hoped their political value would outweigh their potentially negative impacts on the economy. In the long run, that didn’t work.

That said, I think Summers is wrong when he calls for sharp increases in interest rates to stop inflation, for the following reasons:

1. HE DOESN’T PAY ENOUGH ATTENTION TO CONDITIONS IN THE UK AND THE EU: As I’ve noted before, it is clear that the largest component in our current inflation rate involves skewed consumer priorities and supply chain problems, not excessive government spending, based on what is happening elsewhere.
2. HE DOESN’T ANALYZE THE ACTUAL EFFECTS OF INTEREST RATE INCREASES ON INFLATIONARY SECTORS: Making it harder to borrow money isn’t going to decrease food consumption, stop the impacts of the Ukraine war on gas prices, or reduce the demand for housing. It can only “help” by shattering consumer confidence by driving down asset values, which isn’t worth it.
3. HE DOESN’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT RAISING RATES HAS LESS IMPACT WHEN CONSUMERS ARE SPENDING THEIR EXCESS SAVINGS: The stimulus payments are only a small component of the vastly increased pandemic savings.

I will reiterate: the Fed needs to talk ferociously about inflation to keep expectations under control, but creating a stagflation recession by driving down the markets won’t do much to stop inflation–it will only add more misery to the equation.

This is about personalities, not ideology. You can break them down as follows:

1. COMPLETE NIHILISTS: The system is completely broken, so let’s destroy it, stop worrying about who gets hurt, and see what happens! EXAMPLES: Most of the members of the Freedom Caucus.
2. OPPORTUNISTIC NIHILISTS: If I absolutely have to, I will vote to keep the government functioning and to avoid a default. I would prefer not to in order to appease the counterrevolutionary base. As for any other constructive efforts to legislate, forget it. EXAMPLES: Too numerous to mention.
3. KEEP THE LIGHTS ON: I will always vote to pay our debts and keep the government open, but that’s it if a Democrat is in the White House. EXAMPLE: Mitch McConnell.
4. OCCASIONALLY CONSTRUCTIVE MEMBERS: Every once in a while, I will show an interest in efforts to expand the welfare state, particularly for children. I will also vote for a Democratic judicial nominee some of the time. EXAMPLES: Mitt Romney; Susan Collins.

The key issue I am illustrating here is what the GOP will do with regard to the debt ceiling and government shutdowns if they win the 2022 elections. There is little reason to believe the fourth group will expand. The first group is beyond hope. Will the majority be in the second or third group? TBD.

I read an article a few days ago about the declining level of empathy in America today. Here’s what the factions would say about that:

1. CDs: Empathy is the glue that keeps society functioning as a single organic whole.
2. CLs: Empathy is the enemy of freedom, the ultimate social good, because it tempts people to vote for regulation that only helps losers.
3. PBPs: It’s a dog-eat-dog world, man. Do you really think I should empathize with my competitors, or do unsolicited favors for my customers?
4. Reactionaries: Sure, I have plenty of empathy– but only for real Americans. Anyone who isn’t a conservative white Christian is my enemy, because he wants to crush my culture.

And you wonder why declining empathy is an issue, and why there are so few CDs left in the GOP?

Being an illiberal country isn’t necessary incompatible with NATO membership–just ask the Poles. NATO members, however, have an obligation to follow the NATO line with regard to Russia. If they cannot be trusted in a time of conflict, they shouldn’t be part of the alliance.

Erdogan has already made it clear that he wants the benefits of membership without its obligations. That means he might even pass NATO military secrets on to Putin in the event of a conflict. Orban’s Hungary appears to be moving in the same direction.

We should not tolerate potential Trojan horses within the alliance. Erdogan and Orban should be told to shape up or face the bear without our assistance.

Advanced anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons have helped the Ukrainians stop the Russian advance, but the Ukrainians won’t be able to mount large scale counteroffensives to throw the Russians back without weapons designed for that purpose. As a result, Zelensky quite reasonably is asking for tanks and planes. Should he get them?

We are walking a tightrope here. On the one hand, the most desirable outcome of the war–the complete expulsion of Russian forces from Ukraine–is impossible unless we give Zelensky what he wants. On the other hand, giving him offensive weapons may cause the Russians to escalate, with possible catastrophic results. The red line is in Putin’s mind, not on paper. It’s a tough call.

Since it is highly unlikely that Ukraine would ever launch a ground assault on Russian territory, my best guess is that tanks wouldn’t cross the line. Fighters and bombers would worry me more. If I were Biden, I would split the difference.

I first met Vladimir Putin years ago, when he was just a struggling KGB agent in Dresden. He tried (unsuccessfully, of course) to make me a KGB asset, but not very hard; you could tell his heart wasn’t in it. He came across as someone who loved his country, but had some doubts about communism. We hit it off immediately over a few warm East German beers. He promised to keep in touch.

When I saw him the next time, he was, much to his surprise (and mine), President of Russia. He had just obliterated Chechnya, but did not have any apparent issues with the US or NATO. He was basically the same guy, but he had developed some attitudes about power and the manifest destiny of Russia that made me queasy. At times, his comments about the Russian people sounded like something that would come out of the mouth of an 18th century tsar. I was a bit worried about what it meant for the future, but I let it go.

The next time I saw him, he had just taken Crimea. He was riding high. He kept spouting nonsense about the holiness of Russia and how America had screwed up the world. I couldn’t get him to stop. I couldn’t decide whether he actually bought into this stuff or not, but it didn’t matter. We didn’t have anything more to say. I haven’t seen him since.

Today, he looks and sounds like a monster. I don’t even recognize him. He’s just not the same guy. He needs to go as soon as possible.

According to the NYT, the CCP is preparing a film for the viewing of party members that portrays Putin as the proper successor of Stalin, following a line of foolish wimps. To the CCP (but probably few others), this is a compliment. What does it tell us about the CCP?

It no longer takes communism seriously as an economic theory. To the CCP, “communism” is a form of national renewal in the face of global opposition through an authoritarian government; it has nothing to do with the ultimate success of the working class in a class struggle driven by dialectical materialism. In that sense, Putin’s fascist Russia is becoming as “communist” as China. Finally, it suggests that the CCP is turning into a one-man operation. It no longer has any time for collective leadership.

Of course, this sounds like a rationale for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and we know how that turned out.