Category: Uncategorized

If you’re the CEO of a large corporation, your life pretty well sucks right now. Relying on a tactic that goes back over fifty years, the left is threatening boycotts in order to move your position to openly oppose state vote suppression legislation. Ever derivative on issues that inspire feelings of victimhood, the right-wing Rosas have responded in kind, and have also suggested that they will take your beloved tax cuts away if you don’t keep quiet. It’s the corporate equivalent of “shut up and dribble.”

What in the name of Dr. Seuss is going on here? And should the public feel sorry for you?

From a structural/political perspective, the left is trying to use its cultural power for a specific political end–to peel the PBPs away from their Reactionary allies. The right, for its part, is determined to coerce the PBPs to stay on side.

As to the second question, under other circumstances, one might feel some twinges of sympathy for the poor CEOs. In today’s America, however, if you’re not fighting against right-wing attempts to create an illiberal system, you’re part of the problem. If you believe in liberal democracy, as opposed to tax cuts and short term profits, you have an obligation to stand up and say so.

Paul Krugman notes the increasing power of the Reactionary faction of the GOP and, quite reasonably, wonders why the party doesn’t turn populist on economic issues. Here are his answers:

1. THE REACTIONARIES DON’T THINK THEY CAN WIN NATIONAL ELECTIONS WITHOUT THE DONATIONS, EXPERTISE, AND VOTES OF PBPS: They’re probably right.
2. INSTITUTIONAL INERTIA: GOP enforcers and idea producers are predominantly PBP. That won’t change overnight.
3. REACTIONARIES HAVE A NATURAL AFFINITY FOR BUSINESSMEN: After all, plenty of them are small businessmen, too. Small business interests historically have been the backbone of fascist parties. Why should that be any different here?

It seems likely that Putin could take Ukraine without undue difficulty if he put his mind to it. Why doesn’t he? There are several possible explanations, most of which are not mutually exclusive:

1. The existing American and EU sanctions trouble him more than he lets on, and he is concerned about new ones;
2. His military hasn’t performed all that well in Ukraine up to now;
3. He fears the cost of occupation, which would undoubtedly include terrorist attacks within Russia’s boundaries;
4. He didn’t want to embarrass his ally Trump while he was still in office; and
5. Ukraine, for him, is not the end game–it is a piece of a larger puzzle, involving domestic politics, the destruction of the EU, and the elimination of the US as a serious threat. Having an ongoing, unresolved struggle with Ukraine actually helps him more than a military victory and an occupation.

I suspect it is all of these. Don’t be surprised if Ukraine becomes a flash point again in the near future, particularly if #4 is part of the equation.

In the same NYT column I discussed in my last post, Ross Douthat talks about the possibility of the Supreme Court reinterpreting the 14th Amendment to find a fetal right of personhood. For the anti-abortion crowd, this would be the judicial equivalent of a walk-off grand slam; it would immediately ban abortion in all fifty states without federal legislation or a constitutional amendment, and would require pro-choice supporters to amend the Constitution to have any rights at all.

Is this possible? If so, under what circumstances?

There is absolutely zero support for the personhood approach in the text of the Constitution, in the legislative history, or in judicial precedent since its adoption. No originalist or textualist could possibly accept it. It would require a majority of the justices to throw over standard methods of constitutional interpretation in favor of something very like “common good constitutionalism,” which is based on medieval Catholicism. It would be, in effect, a judicial revolution.

Which tells you how it could happen. It is impossible in our current liberal democratic regime. That will change if America, by hook or by crook, chooses the Orban Option. At that point, the entire reactionary agenda, including media censorship, university purges, and religious tests for voting and office holding, would be on the table.

While acknowledging it doesn’t reflect current realities, Ross Douthat dreams of a Republican Party that puts its money where its mouth is on abortion, by funding adequate medical and social services for mothers and unwanted children. Is that dream plausible?

Of course not! While Douthat himself can credibly call himself pro-life, the vast majority of his party consists of reactionaries who are anti-abortion for completely different reasons. Their objective is to limit the sexual activity of women outside marriage, not to provide the fallen and their fruit with a decent quality of life. To them, deep and prolonged misery for the mother and the unwanted child are a feature, not a bug–a necessary deterrent, not a problem for society to overcome.

Reactionaries call the shots within the GOP. Barring a massive split in the party, Douthat’s dream won’t become reality in my lifetime.

DON’T START

If you wake up and don’t want to smile

If it takes just a little while

Open your eyes and look at the day.

You’ll see things in a different way.

_____________

Don’t start thinking about tomorrow.

Don’t start, or it will soon be here.

It’ll be here, and far worse than before.

Yesterday rocks! Yesterday rocks!

_________________

Yesterday you were still in charge

But now cancel culture’s looming large.

If you think that your life’s accursed

Look around–it can only get worse!

__________________

Don’t start thinking about tomorrow.

Don’t start, or it will soon be here.

It’ll be here, and far worse than before.

Yesterday rocks! Yesterday rocks!

______________

Oooh! Keep on looking back!

Oooh! Keep on looking back!

____________

Parody of “Don’t Stop” by Fleetwood Mac.

I am old enough to remember a time in which the GOP genuinely believed in small government and balanced budgets. That hasn’t been true since Reagan. What happened?

Two things. First, the PBPs concluded that the benefits of regressive tax cuts exceeded the dangers created by deficits–a decision that was supported by falling interest and inflation rates over time. Second, the Reactionary faction, which has become the largest grouping within the party during this period, has no interest whatsoever in deficits. Its agenda is to support an anachronistic white Christian nationalism by any means possible. These two factions make up the vast majority of the current members of the GOP, so they drive the train.

To summarize, if you’re a Reactionary, why would you worry about paying for the future, when your entire objective is to live in the past?

If you ask a Republican member of Congress why he opposes the Biden infrastructure bill, he is likely to tell you that the price tag is just too high. It is unfair to burden our children with the mountain of unnecessary debt, he will say.

Given the GOP’s behavior during several Republican presidencies, including Trump’s, this line of argument can’t be taken at face value; after all, it was Dick Cheney who told the world that “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” But it’s worse than that. When Democrats make the exact same argument about protecting our children from climate change, Republicans blow it off, and tell us to live for today; doing anything meaningful to limit climate change will cost jobs and money, and who wants that? Why should we do anything for posterity? What has posterity ever done for us?

It’s enough to turn your stomach.

It may be April Fools’ Day, but the Biden infrastructure bill is a Christmas tree. It has something for almost everyone: unions; environmentalists; rural residents; and China hawks, just to name a few. As of today, it polls very well with the public.

And that’s good! As long as money remains essentially free, there is no real down side to courting popularity with spending.

One thing Obama didn’t do well is get the politics right on his stimulus bill. Biden has learned from that mistake, with some help from the GOP, which is already whining about debt to an indifferent public.

M: Good to meet you! I’ve heard a lot about you!

S: And I’ve heard a lot about you, too. You’re one of those RINOs. You’re a right-wing weenie.

M: Why do you say that? I believe in limited government, low taxes, and freedom. I have voted for Republicans all my life. How does that make me a RINO?

S: You didn’t support Trump.

M: Well, I admit I had serious misgivings about the guy, but I voted for him. What do you mean I didn’t support him?

S: You accepted the results of the rigged election, and moved on.

M: There’s no credible evidence that the election was rigged.

S: Sure there was. It was overwhelming. I heard it on Fox News.

M: Anyway, what would you have me do? Support the rioters?

S: You mean the patriots? Damn right! They were just trying to save America from going down the toilet.

M: How was that?

S: They understood that Trump stood for real America against the homosexuals, the minorities, and the people who hate Christianity. They were fighting to keep our country alive.

M: What about the Constitution and the law?

S: The Constitution was written by white Christians for white Christians. America is a white Christian country. Everyone else is an interloper. They don’t belong here.

M: So where, in your opinion, did America go wrong? How did Biden get 81 million votes?

S: The most important mistake was the Civil War and the Reconstruction Amendments, of course. The amendments infringed on the rights of states to make their own decisions about who was a real American and who wasn’t. Then you had the civil rights uproar and all of that voting legislation in the sixties. In addition to all that, you have the evil influence of the media and the universities. They’re turning our kids away from our culture. They have to be blown up and restarted from scratch.

M: How, in your opinion, did the media and the universities turn against real America? Aren’t they run by real Americans?

S: No, they’re not. They’re run by Jews. Everyone knows it.

M: I think we’re done here.

Here are my initial reactions:

1. “Infrastructure” used to mean hiring small armies of strong young unemployed men to build roads. That isn’t true anymore, because we don’t need more roads, and road projects aren’t a great source of employment. Just ask Obama.
2. We do, on the other hand, need to repair lots of existing roads and bridges. The bill wisely provides for that.
3. In the long run, assuming it passes, the meat of this bill is elsewhere: in the broadband, charging station, and industrial investments provisions. They aren’t “infrastructure” in the traditional sense, but they could make an enormous difference in the future.
4. Business doesn’t like the corporate tax increases that are part of the bill. But what is their alternative? What tax increases are they proposing to pay for it? Or are they going to say that huge deficits are now OK? The MSM should inquire on this point.
5. The logical consequence of 40 years of tax cuts and deregulation is lousy public services and a hollowed-out middle class. The bill is an attempt to move away from what I call “right-wing recycling” (cut taxes for the rich, and they use the money to buy up the new debt–not for productive investments) to a model intended to provide more widespread prosperity and hope for the future. Will it work? I don’t know, but it is long since time to try something new.
6. If the bill passes, look for the GOP to take credit for it in the usual fashion, and for the left to whine that $2 trillion is chicken feed, which it isn’t.

Marxism is a European idea which purports to identify a universal law of history. The CCP pretends to believe it, but in reality, it has no use for universal laws of anything. Its real ideology is Chinese exceptionalism. As a result, the Chinese leadership is only responsive to arguments based on national self-interest.

How can this work in practice? Take the Uighur issue. There is no point in framing an argument based on universal human rights when the Chinese don’t even accept that concept. What you can say, however, is that public opinion throughout the world is outraged by the Uighur camps, and that Americans in particular fear the prospect of being sent to similar camps if China ever becomes the predominant power in the world. China’s rise will thus be imperiled by international opposition if it continues to oppress its own people in such an outrageously blatant way. Is the short term benefit worth the long term risk?

By all accounts, the Chinese are painfully aware of the analogy between the condition of their rising country and Germany prior to World War I. The issue has been studied extensively, and in public. I think they even had a TV series on it at one point.

Unfortunately for the Chinese, and possibly the world, Xi Jinping seems to have skipped school that day. China’s aggressive, nationalistic behavior is resembling that of Imperial Germany more by the minute. The change in tone probably helps Xi at home in the short run, but in the long run, it’s likely to unite a large part of the world against him.

We know what happened to Germany. Does Xi really want to risk the same fate?

You’ve probably seen the series of Progressive Insurance commercials featuring a character named Dr. Rick, a life coach who teaches young homeowners to avoid becoming their parents. In the most noteworthy episode, Dr. Rick throws a plaque with a folksy message that is obviously loved by its young fogey owner in the trash.

Dr. Rick is an advocate for an aesthetic I call “millennial neoclassical:” a stripped-down, digitally-oriented design style which emphasizes light, open spaces, natural materials, and experiences over the accumulation and display of mediocre stuff. The series obviously urges young people to embrace that aesthetic and to reject the clutter that is characteristic of their parents.

Younger people probably find the commercials hilarious. Older people, on the other hand, undoubtedly see the enforced rejection of their values as a metaphor for “cancel culture” and fear it. What else would you expect from a company that calls itself “Progressive?”

Me? I’m indifferent. I don’t hate millennial neoclassical, but I don’t have an ideological loathing of stuff, either.

I had a dream a few nights ago in which an unscrupulous guy contracted with members of the Progressive Insurance TV team to take out a life insurance policy on a family member whose death was apparently imminent. Unfortunately for them, the guy refused to die. Increasingly desperate, the team kept trying to expedite his mortality in a variety of ways, but without success. Finally, they decided to hire a hit squad. Their plan went awry when they lost time engaging in lengthy arguments about the ethnic composition of the squad.

Even hit squads have to be diverse! Hey, they don’t call it Progressive Insurance for nothing!