Category: Uncategorized

Some of the words of praise for the COVID rescue bill are veiled attacks on Obama from the left for the inadequacy of his stimulus. Is this justified?

While it is clear in retrospect that the 2009 Obama stimulus was too small, much of the after-the-fact criticism of it is unjustified, for the following reasons:

1. The economy was in free fall at the time Obama took office. The output gap was skyrocketing. No one knew, in real time, exactly how large it would become. Biden, on the other hand, has inherited a stable, slowly improving economy. Conditions, therefore, are quite different.
2. Biden has the advantage of seeing how the GOP reacted to the Obama stimulus legislation. In particular, he knows that getting additional money from Congress in the future is a tougher sell than Obama thought it would be. He doesn’t have to operate under any illusions about the GOP’s willingness to cooperate in the national interest. We’ve seen that movie before.
3. Biden also has the advantage of knowing that some kinds of stimulus don’t work as well as they were advertised in 2009. Most notably, the public works portion of the Obama stimulus bill was not terribly successful, contrary to the nation’s experience during the Great Depression.
4. The temporary expansions of the safety net in the Biden bill may not survive, and the Biden Bucks checks may cause the economy to overheat. It is too early to evaluate those portions of the legislation.

Angela Merkel wears two hats. As the elected leader of the largest and most powerful nation within the EU, she is expected to maintain a steady, unambitious course and impose German frugality on the spendthrifts. As the unelected head of the EU, she is required to put her own country’s interests aside and work for the common good. Is it any wonder she struggles to reconcile these tasks?

Merkel is the antithesis of a visionary. She has no great and enduring dream for the EU. She is very skilled, however, at finding the lowest common denominator, and fending off existential crises. Whether it be Russia, China, Trump, immigration, recession, or the euro, she has always managed to keep the EU afloat, even if it doesn’t have much of a direction.

So what happens when she leaves? The EU’s institutions don’t work very well. There is little sense of a common purpose. Macron has a vision, but insufficient clout to make it happen. The divisions between the tightfisted, prosperous Teutons and the struggling, big spending Mediterranean countries, and between the liberal and illiberal democracies, aren’t diminishing over time. Will her successor have the same ability to patch the holes in the ship of state?

Probably not, which means more rough times ahead.

Barack Obama didn’t want any part of the culture wars. His speeches were filled with totally sincere calls for unity, and he did his absolute best to avoid provoking angry white people. His status as the first black president, however, made him the embodiment of the conflict with the reactionary right, which for the first time could easily imagine power slipping through their fingers, and responded accordingly.

Obama’s failure to unite the country, through no fault of his own, was the biggest disappointment of his presidency. Trump, of course, made dividing the country by ratcheting up the culture wars and owning the libs his calling card, so things have only gotten worse since 2016.

Some commentators have attributed Biden’s success with the COVID bill to his reluctance to engage on cultural issues. Whatever truth there is to this argument, understand that it is not a new tactic. Biden is simply better positioned to lower the temperature than Obama was by virtue of the fact that he is an old, unthreatening white guy.

Consider the impacts of the smartphone. Nobody except Steve Jobs knew we needed them, but once they were invented, they took over most people’s lives (not mine–I don’t have one). They give us instant access to everything from breaking political news to cat videos. We can communicate around the globe at the speed of light and at minimal cost. Our attention spans are much shorter; we crave constant stimulation, and mostly get it. It is a different world than the one I knew as a child, for better and for worse.

Marx was right about the impacts of technological change on culture, but wrong to focus exclusively on the means of production and the class system. In reality, immensely important cultural changes can result from innovations in the means of destruction (think of the social and political changes that arose from the widespread use of guns), the means of transportation, and the means of communication–not just the means of production.

If you talk to a self-styled conservative, he will probably tell you that the root problem with liberalism is that it incorrectly treats all people as overly rational, materialistic, atomized actors. It is our values and traditions, not individual material self-interest, that motivate the vast majority of our actions. The political system needs to reflect that, and traditions, however irrational they may appear at first glance, are entitled to a strong presumption of correctness, as they represent the collective wisdom of the nation over time.

Fair enough, under normal circumstances. But what happens when the culture and traditions evolve, particularly in a way that conservatives can’t embrace? What do conservatives have to fall back on when the world starts moving way too fast, and in the wrong direction?

Either some form of racism or absolute religious values that have been rejected by the majority of the population. That’s exactly where American conservatism is today. As a result, our “conservatives” don’t actually want to conserve anything; they want to return to a white Christian Brigadoon that never really existed, and certainly doesn’t today.

As I’ve noted on several occasions, there are two models for America’s involvement in Afghanistan. In the Korean model, we keep troops in the country indefinitely in order to maintain what amounts to a stalemate; in the Vietnam model, we cut the best face-saving deal we can, withdraw, and hope for the best, while fully expecting the worst.

Trump clearly preferred the Vietnam model in Afghanistan. Left to his own devices, Biden appears to agree with him. Should he follow Trump and adhere to his agreement with the Taliban? Here are the relevant questions:

1. Is the Afghan government likely to survive an American withdrawal, regardless of the terms of any power sharing agreement with the Taliban?
2. What are the costs of maintaining a small number of troops in Afghanistan?
3. Are the Afghan government’s chances of surviving likely to improve over time if we stay for a few more years, and then leave?
4. Does the strategic importance of Afghanistan justify keeping troops there and not, say, in Yemen or Somalia?

The clear answers to these questions are no, not much, no, and probably not. They cut both ways in the argument.

This is a difficult call. If you’re Biden, you don’t exactly relish the thought of being the guy in power when the rebels take control of Kabul. The results are likely to be horrific, and you can’t count on the GOP accepting that this is the inevitable outcome of an agreement reached by Trump. After acquiescing in Trump’s position on withdrawal, you know they’re going to beat you up as “the man who lost Afghanistan.”

In my opinion, the least worst option is to insist on virtually flawless compliance by the Taliban with the Trump agreement, and to use any reasonable pretext to keep our troops in place to maintain the stalemate. It’s hardly a perfect solution, but none is available.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, Trump hangover blues.

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

A rabble stormed the Capitol, and Trump just lit the fuse.

Attacking our democracy; for that, there’s no excuse.

______________

“The system’s rigged against us!” Trump and his minions cried.

His allies took him at his word, and several people died.

The Congress was deliberating, but we had to hide.

Now my party’s split in two; Trump caused the great divide.

__________________

I’ve got the blues.

The furry Viking blues.

Liberal or illiberal?

My party has to choose.

The system’s there for us to work

I’m a master of the game.

So breaking all the furniture

To me sounds kind of lame.

Some commentators argue that Biden’s success with the COVID rescue bill is attributable to his unwillingness to engage on culture war issues. Is that true?

Not really. Biden’s lack of interest in throwing culture war bombs is due to the following:

1. He’s an old guy who thinks extreme partisans on both sides of the culture war are full of crap;
2. He also believes (correctly) that the national interest is best served by lowering the political temperature after the events of the last four years. That is what he means by “unity;” and
3. He hopes that the benefits of the COVID bill will win over reactionary voters who are concerned more about pocketbook issues than identity politics.

Refusing to engage on culture was not, therefore, a tactic to win approval of the rescue bill; in fact, the GOP voted unanimously against it. To the extent that culture and the COVID bill are logically related, the lines of causation run the other way.

Here is where the factions stand on the welfare state:

1. CDs: All Americans are morally entitled to a decent standard of living. A robust welfare state is necessary to ensure that the elderly and the unfortunate do not fall below that line. Markets cannot be relied upon to solve these problems.
2. CLs: America is for rugged individuals. Redistributing from the wealthy to the poor increases the size of government, destroys freedom, and creates perverse incentives. Americans should work to live–not lounge in the hammock of dependency.
3. PBPs: The business of America is business. Welfare states for individuals cost too much and should be cut back wherever possible. Tax breaks, subsidies, and tariffs for worthy, struggling businesses are another matter altogether . . .
4. Reactionaries: A strong, but limited, welfare state is necessary to protect struggling white Christian workers from unfair competition from foreigners and illegal immigrants. Lazy minorities need not apply.

So what is the lowest common denominator among these groups? Resist any expansion of safety net programs which is supported by Democratic presidents and which disproportionately helps poor minorities, while protecting programs which predominantly help white workers and large businesses or which are proposed by GOP presidents in an effort to create a permanent conservative majority.

Florida Republicans are moving forward with a bill to limit access to public universities for students who plan to major in a discipline which won’t immediately lead to employment. Why? Because they’re the liberal arts, of course!

I’m just surprised they didn’t think of it sooner. Of course, science majors don’t care much for the GOP, either. Maybe they should limit scholarships to religion majors.

Here are the questions I posed in my last post, with the answers:

1. COULD THE CREATION OF A VOTING RIGHTS EXCEPTION TO THE FILIBUSTER BE JUSTIFIED IN TERMS OF HISTORY AND CONTEXT? The GOP would undoubtedly argue that the Founding Fathers left voting issues to the states, where they should remain. However, voting is a foundational right; the workings of the entire system depend on it. There have been federal rules regarding elections for over a century. Finally, the FFs’ intentions were superseded by the Civil War and the Reconstruction Amendments. The federal government is the ultimate guarantor of civil rights relating to voting–not the states. The new act is a totally appropriate way to implement the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
2. IS THE CREATION OF SUCH A LIMITED EXCEPTION SUSTAINABLE? In the long run, probably not; it reminds me of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” However, in the short run, it might work. Voting is an important and discrete subject, and it isn’t clear that the GOP will have much incentive to use it as a wedge for the total abolition of the filibuster in the foreseeable future.
3. HOW WOULD THE GOP REACT? By shutting the Senate down, to the extent they can. By provoking debt ceiling crises and government shutdowns. By encouraging militia activity during elections. It would get ugly, fast.

If you’re Joe Manchin, is it worth it? Frankly, that’s a pretty tough call. I still think he should use his leverage with both sides to force a reasonable compromise.

Still in thrall to Trump, the GOP has responded to its election losses by doubling down on culture war issues and allegations of election fraud. As a result, bills have been advanced in a variety of red state legislatures to make voting more difficult, at least for groups that are reliably pro-Democrat. The Democrats, for their part, have proposed to federalize election law in a manner that reflects their perceived interest in increasing turnout. Their bill is going nowhere in the Senate unless the filibuster is either eliminated altogether or modified to create a voting rights exception.

It is easily possible to exaggerate the impacts of these kinds of bills on the ground. There are recent studies which suggest that vote suppression tactics made no practical difference in the 2020 election. It is also undeniably true that the kinds of measures that are in dispute (early voting, mail ballots, etc.) were only enacted relatively recently; we managed to have elections that were viewed as fair before them. The real problem is that the margin between the GOP and the Democrats in 2020 was so small, any measure to tweak turnout can be viewed as making the difference between victory and defeat. Hence, the intensity of the dispute.

Would a voting rights exception to the filibuster be justified, based on history and logic? Could it be sustained in the long run? And how would the GOP react to it in the real world? These questions will be answered in my next post.

Self-styled “conservatives” claim to support freedom of speech against the oppressive left, but protecting right-wing free speech alone won’t turn the tide in the culture war; that can only be accomplished through censorship of the left. How would that be done?

It would be a big job. Most of it would have to be accomplished purely at the local level. You could, for example, require all teachers, professors, and librarians to pass ideological tests in order to keep working. But when you consider the vast number of jurisdictions that would be involved, and the fact that many of them are in blue states, the task is truly daunting. What can be done in one stroke at the federal level?

The easiest thing would be to enact some sort of vague internet regulation that permits a board appointed by a reactionary president to review and censor obnoxious left-wing speech on social media. The precedents for this exist in a variety of authoritarian countries overseas. At first glance, of course, this would violate the First Amendment, but with a reliably conservative judiciary, it might be possible to overcome the obvious legal problems. Shutting up the woke crowd on Twitter wouldn’t resolve the entire issue, but it would be a good place to start.

Or, of course, you could actually engage with these people and try to convert them, but that would be way too hard. The Orban Option is much easier and faster.

Bret Stephens thinks we need a new party to defend the principles of liberal democracy. We already have one–the Democratic Party. Republicans need not apply.

Stephens clearly believes the Democrats are beholden to the “woke” crowd. They’re not–any more than they despise “real Americans,” as the GOP constantly claims. “Wokeness” is mostly a social media phenomenon. It gets a lot of public attention, largely from the right, but its power over the Democrats in Congress is extremely limited.

The bottom line is that “wokeness” operates outside of national politics. Neither party is responsible for it, and neither party has any ability to stop it without dramatically changing our political system for the worse. So either fight back against it on its own terms, or let it go and hope for the best; don’t rely on politics for a solution, because you won’t find an answer there.

As I’ve noted previously, the Founding Fathers weren’t reactionaries, but they weren’t democrats, either. If you were making the case for democracy to the FFs, with the benefit of over 200 years of hindsight, what would you say?

Here are my arguments:

1. CHANGED CONDITIONS: The 18th century assumption would have been that the bulk of the populace didn’t have the education or the requisite amount of information to make informed choices about matters of state. That is not true today; if anything, we are inundated with too much information.
2. EQUALITY OF HUMANITY: While individuals are not equal in terms of intellectual talent, they are unquestionably equal in the sense that they have the same ability to experience life (the FFs, not a religious bunch, might have put this in terms of the equal value of souls, but I doubt it). If you assume, as most of the FFs did, that politics is an exercise in addressing conflicting interests, why should the interests of one individual be automatically preferred to another?
3. MADISONIAN FACTIONS: Madison made the argument that the geographical diversity of the country made it difficult for factions to combine and oppress minorities. That argument doesn’t look too great today, given the cultural and political polarization of our country, but it still has some merit.
4. WISDOM OF THE CROWD: There are even game shows based on this premise, which usually works.
5. NO BETTER ALTERNATIVE: If you wanted to identify an American aristocracy, who would be included? As noted in previous posts, you certainly can’t identify it with the “real Americans” beloved by reactionaries.

Are these arguments compelling? I would say yes, particularly when the system has liberal guardrails built in to protect individual rights. However, as we have seen over the last few years, the guardrails alone are no guarantee that the system will continue to exist and thrive; the public has to buy into them, as well.