Category: Uncategorized

My fellow real Americans:

You know what I really hate, besides liberals? Losers! America is about winners! I’m a winner! I’ve always been a winner! That’s how you really know that the election was rigged. Joe Biden is a loser! Look at him and listen to him! I can’t possibly have lost to someone like that! And I didn’t. The election was stolen from me. You know it, and I know it.

MLK was a winner, too. He said he would overcome, and he did! I respect that, just like I respect people like Herschel Walker and Tiger Woods. They’re winners, too. They came from nothing, but they beat the system–just like me! They’re my kind of people.

The problem is that the minorities didn’t accept that they won after the sixties. They didn’t accept that they had the same rights and opportunities that you and I have. They’re losers–most of them. They want special privileges, not equality. When they don’t get them, they scream about racism and “white privilege.” What they really want is to be treated like winners when they lose.

We can’t have that. That’s not what America is about. America is the land of the winners, like me and MLK. That’s why you honor his legacy when you give money to my campaign and buy my merchandise.

As I’ve noted several times before, I don’t think Putin will invade, because Ukraine is too valuable to him as a wedge issue for NATO and the EU and a source of political support at home. But what if I’m wrong? With one exception, the Republican Party will be falling all over itself offering support for Ukraine and bashing Biden for being soft on Putin.

The exception, of course, will be the leader of the party–Donald Trump. So how will all of the other GOP leaders handle that piece of dissonance? By living in an alternate universe and pretending it doesn’t exist, of course. That’s what they did between 2016 and 2020. Why would things be any different in 2022?

Once upon a time–well, in 2019–there was a fundamental division within the Democratic Party regarding the feasibility of moving away from the dollar store economy. The progressive candidates supported major increases in the size of the welfare state, to be funded by tax increases on the wealthy, while the moderates questioned the wisdom and feasibility of such a radical program, and emphasized the need for unity to get rid of Trump. As we know, Biden won the primaries, so the left appeared to have lost.

The pandemic and the Georgia Senate races changed everyone’s expectations. Moderates and progressives alike united behind extremely ambitious plans to help workers at the expense of business. Biden was going to be FDR for the 21st century. And things started well; even Manchin and Sinema voted for the enormous pandemic package. The war on the dollar store had begun in earnest.

Today, it is dead. The BBB won’t pass in anything like its original form. The best we can hope for is a modest package focusing on climate change. There will be no large tax increases on the wealthy, and no dramatic expansion of the welfare state. The dollar store will continue, to the great relief of businessmen and retirees.

In retrospect, the left’s expectations were way too high. We are back where everyone expected to be when Biden got the nomination. Be grateful for the pandemic relief package and the infrastructure bill instead of complaining about the program that didn’t pass.

It was clear after the oral arguments–realistically, it was always clear, based on the politics and the composition of the Supreme Court–that the large employer mandate was going to be invalidated. The only real question involved the choice of rationale. The untold story of this case is that it could have been much worse.

The large employer decision is based on something called the “Major Questions Doctrine,” a piece of judge-made law that has no basis in the text of the Constitution. It consequently should be, but isn’t, a source of embarrassment for the originalists on the Court. The gist of the doctrine is that administrative rules with great impact on society require clearer justifications within the authorizing statute. By definition, it only applies to really important cases.

The three justices–Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch–who really want to shut down what they consider to be a grasping, alien administrative state run by arrogant left-wing bureaucrats wanted to base the decision on the doctrine of “nondelegation.” This is a far more sweeping rationale which can potentially apply to any regulation. They didn’t have the votes, however, so they wrote a concurring opinion extolling the virtues of nondelegation and pretending that it has the same meaning as “Major Questions,” presumably with the next administrative law case in mind.

The choice of “Major Questions,” and the decision in the health care worker mandate case, are triumphs for the Chief Justice. As usual, he got most of what he wanted without making the Court look like a home for political hacks. As a result, there is hope for at least some of the Biden administrative agenda over the next three years.

As I advised my wife about a week ago, true crime stories and Hallmark movies appear to be polar opposites, but in reality, they are very similar. Both are very predictable narratives with clear rules in which order triumphs over disorder and justice is ultimately done. The viewer is left with the impression that everything will always work out in the end. Hence, the popularity of such programs.

Theme parks are a lot like that, too. A proper theme park is a closed, artificial universe in which all of the pieces fit and disorderly narratives are banished, at least temporarily. Again, that is why they are so popular.

With that in mind, imagine designing a theme park which reflects the mindset of an American reactionary–for obvious reasons, we will call it Trumpworld. How would it work?

Trumpworld would have three separate areas: Real America; Liberal America; and Aliens. Real America would contain rides and characters depicting pious white Christians living in rural settings. Here, crime and disorder are unknown. Liberal America, on the other hand, is populated by perverts, violent criminals, drug addicts, and lazy minorities demanding government handouts. Aliens, of course, are even worse; they don’t even have time for Liberal America. They just want to put us in concentration camps, steal our money, and blow us up.

At the end of each day, a great wall rises to protect Real America from the other two. The crowds cry and scream with joy as justice is done. Fireworks go off. Everyone goes home happy. They’ll do it again tomorrow.

I was scrolling through some old posts a few days ago when I came across one from 2019 which contained predictions for the 2020 election. I guessed that Trump would lose the election and would respond by filing a blizzard of frivolous lawsuits and calling his supporters out into the streets. I further predicted that the turnout on his behalf would be relatively meager, and that the system would hold–this time. How did that turn out?

I was mostly right, of course, but I was wrong about one important thing: the violence took place, not at the local level, but in Washington. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that Trump thought he could prevail by persuading a motley group of protesters to storm the Capitol. That didn’t even compute.

He would have been better off if he had taken my advice. He won’t make the same mistake twice. In 2024, the battlegrounds will be local elections offices and state legislatures, not the Capitol.

Let’s return to a question raised by a previous post. Does Putin’s vision for Russia more closely resemble the Russian Empire or the USSR?

Here is my analysis:

1. Putin is an arbitrary ruler, constrained by no particular doctrine: You can argue that this is a good description of Stalin, but even he had to make some pretense of being a communist, and his successors were more oligarchs and bureaucrats than dictators. Advantage: Empire.
2. Putin has no obvious successor, which will lead to instability when he is gone: Succession was not a problem for the autocracy, but it was at times for the USSR. Advantage: USSR.
3. Putin’s repression is limited to actual opponents of his regime, not entire economic classes: Advantage, Empire, which featured a smaller secret police and prison camp system than the USSR.
4. Putin personally controls and disposes of most of the wealth in Russia: His kleptocracy resembles a feudal state more than anything in the 21st Century. Advantage: Empire.
5. One of Putin’s apparent objectives is to reunite the former Soviet republics under the leadership of Russia. That was the way the USSR was run, but those republics were part of the Empire, too. Advantage: Even.
6. Putin supports the Russian Orthodox Church and at least claims to stand for traditional Russian values: Advantage, Empire. The Communists tore down churches.

And so, in spite of the fact that Putin served in the USSR, he is more tsar than dictator. The real question is whether his ambitions extend outside the USSR’s boundaries to include portions of the Warsaw Pact. That would be a tiebreaker; it is TBD.

Ross Douthat doesn’t exactly downplay January 6, but he certainly doesn’t want us to overreact. To him, the riot was just a typical half-baked man on golf cart action that had little public support and was easily thwarted by responsible officials from both parties. If push comes to shove in 2024, they will be responsible again. Trust us, and have faith in the system.

Douthat sounds a bit like the Wizard of Oz at times. Forget the fact that Trump still has the strong support of GOP legislators and voters even after the riot. Ignore the purges of anyone who dares to speak against him in public. Disregard the polls that show that GOP voters overwhelmingly view Biden as an illegitimate president, and think the system needs to be blown up to save “Real America.” Pay no attention to the right-wing pundits who openly regard Biden voters as something other than real Americans. Don’t look at all of the right-wing nuts with guns, and forget January 6 and all of the vote suppression legislation that is being rammed through GOP legislatures. All that is a distraction. Believe me when I tell you that the GOP isn’t really a counterrevolutionary party, in spite of all of the noise, and that everything will be fine as long as the left doesn’t do anything to provoke reactionaries even further.

The fact is that conditions have changed for the worse since January 6. Before then, there was no orthodox position within the GOP opposing the legitimacy of the election; today, there is. Every GOP officeholder with authority over elections is going to be subjected to enormous pressure to take any steps necessary to prevent a Democratic victory in 2024. Under those circumstances, it is reasonable to assume they will suck it up and do their duty regardless of their self-interest? I think not.

Rising rent is a large component of today’s inflation. It is a product of increased demand for housing due to the pandemic and constraints on supply created mostly by state and local regulations. As a result, Biden has exactly zero control over it. That won’t stop the GOP from blaming him, of course.

Many commentators blame hypocritical left-wing NIMBYism for the supply constraints. Is that fair?

Not really. To be sure, regulatory constraints designed to protect the quality of life in places like New York and San Francisco do matter. From extensive personal experience, however, I can tell you that Trump-voting reactionaries in suburban and rural areas behave exactly the same way. The interest in protecting one’s neighborhood from the impacts of development is one of the few that crosses party lines.

Development opponents are often caricatured as smug, self-interested people who just want to keep “the other” out. The reality is more complex. The visual changes, additional noise, and overcrowded public facilities caused by some development do, in fact, exist. It is human nature to try and keep them away. NIMBYism will not disappear unless the objecting neighbors are given reason to believe that the benefits to them from additional housing supply exceed the real inconveniences.

“Don’t Look Up” is a pep rally for the blue team in the culture wars. Ostensibly a movie about a comet hitting Earth and putting an end to existence as we know it, it is really a demand that we see through the superficiality of mass culture (particularly on the internet) and take action on climate change. As a result, Trump voters will hate it.

While the movie certainly has amusing moments, it also has the following weaknesses:

1. Meryl Streep plays a populist president who is clearly intended to resemble you-know-who. With all due respect, however, no woman can plausibly play Donald Trump, because toxic masculinity is the very heart of his appeal. He is unimaginable without it.
2. A comet strike is not a fair analogy to climate change, which is a much slower process. That, along with our ability to impose costs arbitrarily on other parties, is what makes it a more difficult political problem.
3. The movie appears to assume that climate change denial is driven by the cynicism of right-wing leaders and by the superficiality of internet culture. In reality, it has two different sources: economic self-interest and faux libertarian ideology. As I’ve noted many times before, there is no rugged individualist solution to climate change, so it is far easier and more comfortable simply to deny that it is happening.

A word to the wise: if you watch it, don’t turn it off until it is completely over. The very end is important.

As I’ve noted several times before, Ukraine, while important in and of itself, is to Putin just a small piece in a larger game. Its greater significance is as a wedge issue with NATO and the EU, and as a rallying cry at home. The timing of the crisis is consequently driven by Putin’s falling popularity and his interest in testing the relatively new American and German governments.

The West cannot stop Putin from taking Ukraine; it can only make him pay a steep price for doing so. Biden’s primary objective is the purely negative one of preventing the Russians from accomplishing theirs. How can that be done?

By making sure that Geneva is not Munich. Don’t say anything provocative that Putin can use with his domestic audience, but don’t give Ukrainian independence away or make concessions that will split NATO. If any deals are to be made, they should be based on mutual self-interest, not on the desire either to avoid war or to save Ukraine at any price.

Fortunately, as far as I can tell, this is exactly what the American negotiators are doing.

Both Poland and Hungary are illiberal states which increasingly resemble Putin’s Russia more than the rest of the EU. The critical difference between them is that, 1956 notwithstanding, Poland’s historical experience with the Russians has been far more dismal. That means Poland is much more dependent on the goodwill of the EU than Hungary is. Liberal democracy consequently has a better chance there than in Hungary.

Tsar Alexander I provided military muscle for the Holy Alliance, a group of despots determined to keep nationalists and liberals down after the fall of Napoleon. The USSR had the Brezhnev Doctrine, by which it claimed to have the right to keep Warsaw Pact countries as, effectively, socialist colonies. Is it then any surprise that Vladimir Putin is asserting his right to intervene to keep authoritarians in former USSR republics in power?

Of course not. The real question is which of the historical analogies is more appropriate. Putin’s autocracy looks more like the Russian Empire than the USSR to me, so I would say that he more closely resembles the Tsar.

To be fair, you could also say he looks like Theodore Roosevelt. The Putin Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine aren’t all that different.

You remember the Marlboro Man: the rugged, self-reliant cowboy. Thirty years ago, he was a nonpartisan figure. Today, he is clearly a Trump voter.

But should he be? Donald Trump is a bully and a whiner. He owes his position to his daddy’s money. He’s loyal to no one but himself. He’s about as far from the quiet, stoic cowboy ideal as you can get.

Given the conspicuous distance between Trump’s image and reality, it should be possible for the Democrats to win back at least some of the voters who think men should be strong, silent providers. Making an effort to find candidates who appear to fit the stereotype would help.

Historically speaking, populism is nowhere to be found in the Conservative Party’s DNA. In addition, the socio-economic forces against it are very strong, so the government’s objective to “level up” may well fail. For all that, however, BoJo seems sincere about helping the parts of the UK that have been left behind. The GOP, on the other hand, has never put forth any plan to help, say, Kentucky or West Virginia. Why the difference?

For two reasons. First of all, the donor class still calls the tune on economics in the GOP, which has concluded it can’t live without their money any more than it can live without the votes of reactionaries. Second, the GOP doesn’t actually have to help red states in order to win elections. At least until now, reactionary workers have not demanded tax and economic policies which operate in their interests; it has been enough to feed them with cultural resentment and nostalgia about strength and self-reliance. As a result, instead of generating and implementing plausible plans to help reeling red America, the GOP sticks it to blue America by limiting its tax deductions.

You could call it “levelling down.”