Category: Uncategorized

ROSS DOUTHAT: Conservatism is being damaged by its identification with Trump’s narcissism, incompetence, capriciousness, and corruption.

RESPONSE: What the hell did you expect? It didn’t have to be that way; conservatives could have treated him as an independent third party instead of embracing him completely. His greatest victory was to convince the majority of the GOP that he was the only thing standing between real Americans and cultural annihilation. In November, they are likely to pay the price for it, and are entitled to no sympathy.

If you’re Mitch McConnell, and you’re thinking about the future, you can’t like what you see. On your own side, the PBP/Reactionary bargain that is the cornerstone of the GOP, and which you practically embody, is under threat from Reactionaries who want complete control of the party–even over economic issues that have always belonged to the PBPs. Even worse, the country itself is changing demographically and ideologically; millennials and minorities overwhelmingly prefer socialism and political correctness to free markets and fundamentalist Christianity. In a decade or so, your most reliable voters will be in the ground, and you will be a dinosaur. Since you, like Trump, are not willing to sacrifice the relatively pleasant present for the uncertain future by changing course, what do you do?

There are already two guardrails built into the system: the Electoral College and the Senate, particularly if the filibuster remains in existence. The third possible guardrail is the judiciary. And so, you labor day and night to get as many Federalist Society judges confirmed as possible. They can stop socialism and political correctness in its tracks even if the GOP has become a permanent minority in the other two branches.

Will it work? Only if the left-leaning millennials are willing, in the long run, to live with a political system that doesn’t respond to the will of a clear majority. On that point, I have my doubts. If the GOP doesn’t bend to the future, you’re going to see lots of pressure for significant constitutional changes in the foreseeable future.

Larry Kudlow: There is no second wave of the virus.

Response: Better go out and buy more masks! Kudlow is never right, regardless of whether the issue is within his supposed area of expertise.

As I’ve noted before, the Boomer project was all about freeing the individual from the dead hand of tradition and authority. In some ways, this was a blessing; it improved the lives of members of stifled groups and resulted in some really interesting art. In other respects, increased individualism was a disaster; think of inequality and climate change. I leave it to you to decide which way the scales tip.

Generation Xers mostly followed the Boomers. Millennials, however, predictably have a completely different take on the world. Millennials effectively reject Boomer individualism in favor of a new communal orthodoxy–socialism and political correctness. Boomers gave us Woodstock and “The Graduate;” millennials responded with cancel culture.

This is the battle within the Democratic Party. It is the difference between Biden and Sanders supporters. For now, Biden has the votes, because older people go to the polls. Ten years from now? That will probably be a different story, for better or worse.

Inevitably, we are led to the question of whether Trump is a fascist. It is a question that I have addressed on several previous occasions, not always with the same answer. Having created a definition and an archetype, it is time to tackle the issue again.

Trump meets half of the standards for the ideal fascist. He is a man; although he grew up wealthy and privileged, he still resents the Manhattan elite who found him ridiculous; he is an effective speaker in a bitter, sarcastic way; and he believes that every relationship is built on power. He does not, however, meet the other four standards. It’s a mixed bag.

As to the definition of fascism, the picture is also somewhat mixed. Some of his views are reactionary, but it is becoming increasingly clear that he is a true believer in the PBP economic formula of tax cuts and business deregulation. He uses nationalist rhetoric, but he is reducing the American political and military presence throughout the world, and his blustery talk has not resulted in war. He stomps on liberal democratic norms every day of the week, but he has made no real effort to control the press or shoot down protesters in the street, even though the opportunity has been presented to him. He is, in short, more of an eroding, corrupting force than a right-wing revolutionary.

In the past, I have referred to Trump as an “accidental fascist,” who is motivated far more by narcissism than ideology, but who might be driven by events and his desperate desire to be seen as a “winner” to become a despot. Today, I would say that split verdict is mostly accurate. That he would like to be an illiberal democrat is, I think, beyond doubt; his template for the presidency is his operation of the Trump Organization. He has come to believe that he is only accountable to the country at election time, and that it is perfectly appropriate for him to use his powers to tilt the playing field to the maximum extent possible. There is, however, no reason to think that he dreams about being a fascist dictator. If that happens, it will be due more to extreme circumstances and the efforts of his supporters than to his ideology and lust for power.

Historically, American reactionaries were Democrats, and pretty peaceful. Today, they’re Republicans; they’re angry; they’re running the country, for the most part; and they’re demanding even more. What happened? Are they fascists?

The answer to the first question is that the country and the world changed, as follows:

1. DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE: America will be a majority minority country in about 20 years. That scares the hell out of reactionaries, for obvious reasons.
2. ECONOMIC CHANGE: Globalization and the evolution of the knowledge economy have significantly reduced the value of the skills of American men with limited education, who are disproportionately reactionaries.
3. LEGAL CHANGE: Some of the PC agenda (gay marriage, for example) is now the law of the land.
4. CULTURAL CHANGE: Back in the day, reactionaries were certain they were the “moral majority.” Today, not so much. Practicing Christians are a minority in this country, and their numbers are dwindling by the day.

Reactionaries consequently feel threatened, and they’re lashing out. It is clear that they attach more importance to their social, economic, and political primacy than to the Constitution. They have already bought into the notion of illiberal democracy. Could they be pushed a step further, into outright fascism? Can you imagine gangs of white thugs in orange shirts beating up minorities and pledging their complete loyalty to Orange Jesus?

It would take a national catastrophe the likes of which we haven’t seen yet to get there. It would be further complicated by the fact that Trump’s strongest supporters are elderly. But yes, you can imagine it without too much difficulty.

McConnell, Trump, and their henchmen intend to make immunity for businesses from claims arising from the virus one of their principal objectives in the next round of stimulus negotiations. On a related note, it appears that some businesses are already requiring workers and customers to sign waivers before entering their premises.

Would you patronize a business that required you to sign a virus waiver? Is this a good way to regain consumer confidence? I don’t think so.

The Republicans are making it clear that they view our current economic problems as a function of inadequate supply, which can be resolved by providing legal and financial aid to producers. They’re wrong. The real issue is demand, which won’t recover until a much larger segment of the population is convinced that they can associate with other people without catching the virus.

The left-leaning world has been roiled by the Cotton “Send in the Troops” NYT op-ed. There is no division of opinion about its merits; all concerned agree that it was factually inaccurate, proto-fascist crap. The issue is whether the NYT should have printed it.

Those who say no basically make the following arguments:

1. There are ideas that are so antithetical to the values of a free press and liberal democracy that they are not worthy of public consideration. For example, the NYT would not print an op-ed calling for the extermination of African-Americans.
2. That is partly a function of self-interest. Does it make sense to provide a forum for people who don’t believe the left-leaning press has a right to exist?
3. The Cotton column was so flawed, and so self-evidently outside the boundaries of liberal democratic discourse, that it should never have appeared in the NYT.

Those who support the printing of the op-ed say the following:

1. A newspaper dedicated to liberal democratic values should err, wherever possible, in favor of more speech rather than less;
2. Cotton, like Trump, clearly speaks for a significant segment of the electorate. Ignoring their views is dangerous to those who disagree with them;
3. The column was wrong, but not clearly beyond the boundaries of decency; and
4. The column showed Cotton for what he is. He will be wearing it for the rest of his political career. Running it was, therefore, a public service.

This isn’t an easy question to answer. It depends largely on whether you think the column was more akin to, say, advocating genocide or slavery than a standard GOP policy statement. For me, however, the second position is correct in this instance. The NYT didn’t just troll its readers; it exposed the views of a potential future GOP leader and presidential candidate for the whole world to see. That is a valuable public service.

It is fair to describe Xi, Duterte, and Bolsonaro as strongmen. But are they fascists? Again, let’s go to the definition:

1. Xi is definitely not a fascist. First, as a Marxist, he cannot be a reactionary; he looks forward to a brighter future, not a mythological glorious past. Second, while he is undoubtedly a nationalist, that appears to be more of a tool of governance and base mobilization than anything else. Finally, Xi is constrained to a large extent by the institutions and ideology of the Communist Party. He doesn’t have anything like Putin’s freedom to change course.
2. Duterte, with his glorification and use of violence, clearly meets the extraconstitutional means test, but he’s not a reactionary, and he’s really kind of a wimp in dealing with his neighbors. He’s not a fascist, either.
3. Bolsonaro is undoubtedly a reactionary. He doesn’t appear to be much of a nationalist. He hasn’t really relied on extraconstitutional methods yet, but there are persistent rumors that he may be planning a coup with the help of the military. Keep your eyes on this one.

Various publications are reporting this morning that the GOP is contemplating a police reform bill. This is a truly stunning development, even though you can be sure that there will be nothing to it in practice, just as there is never any substance to GOP gun control initiatives.

Why is this important? Because it is the Republican Party that we are talking about here, folks. The party of swagger and the big dick! The party of the Second Amendment people! The party of strength! The party of shoot first and ask questions later! The party that holds the gun in one hand and the Bible in the other, and sees them as one and the same! The party with the reactionary base which must always be obeyed!

McConnell, Trump, and the rest must be reading the polls and getting very, very worried. Maybe base mobilization isn’t, in fact, the way to win national elections.

Is Putin a fascist? Let’s go to the three elements in the definition and see:

1. REACTIONARY: Putin unquestionably plays one on TV. The fact that he waited about ten years to emerge as one suggests that his stance is far more opportunistic than truly ideological, and is mostly for foreign consumption. Daily life in Russia doesn’t look like something out of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The record here is mixed.
2. NATIONALISM: Check. Bring back the Russian Empire! Make Russia great again! Just ask the Ukrainians, Georgians, and Syrians.
3. EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL MEANS: Putin rigs elections, maintains control over the mass media, uses law enforcement and the judiciary for political purposes, and murders his opponents when he thinks it necessary. On the other hand, the constitution remains in place, and he occasionally shows it some lingering respect by trying to amend it or working around it. In short, while Russia is hardly a liberal democratic state in practice, it retains some of the forms of one.

On balance, I would call him a fascist rather than an illiberal democrat, but it is a debatable point. We will know more when he finally leaves office; a successful fascist is a harder act to follow than an illiberal democrat.

Left to his own devices, Trump would undoubtedly withdraw from NATO. Legally, he can do it with a year’s notice. Would he try it in a second term, when he is only minimally accountable to anyone?

He might, but his views are outside of the GOP mainstream in this instance, and the one area in which Republicans in Congress have shown some willingness to break from him is foreign policy. I think you would see a veto-proof majority oppose the withdrawal if it became a reality.

It is more likely that he would just use his powers as commander-in-chief to throw sand in the gears of NATO and watch it come to a halt. Hey, it’s working with the WTO–why not?

What would a perfect fascist look like? Here are some ideas:

1. He would be a man, of course. Fascism is a manifestation of toxic masculinity.
2. He grew up in a family that was declining in its economic and social status. They blamed both the people above and below them for their plight.
3. He has a deep sense of grievance about his lack of social status. His anger about it fuels him every step of the way.
4. He served in the military during a war that his country lost. He never got over it. He blames outsiders and their domestic accomplices for his country’s decline.
5. He is a very effective speaker, not in an inspiring way, but in his ability to voice the anger and fear he shares with his supporters.
6. His family was religious, and he makes a big display of observing the forms of traditional religion, but he really only believes in power. For him, religion and traditional values are just an essential mechanism for protecting the wealthy and socially powerful from unwanted change from below and from outside.
7. He is good at dividing and deceiving his enemies. For him, truth is just the servant of power. He lies and changes positions on a dime where necessary to advance his interests.
8. He is single-minded and completely ruthless in dealing with his opponents.

Draw your own conclusions.

Trump apparently plans to move thousands of American troops out of Germany for no reason other than to express his disdain for Europeans in general and the Germans in particular. Why does he feel this way?

Three reasons:

1. His grandfather was a German draft dodger. He views his German origins with embarrassment; he even claims to be Swedish on occasion. His contempt for the German government is just another way of denying his roots.
2. In his view, the US ultimately lost World War II, because, instead of plundering what was left of Germany and Japan, we welcomed them back as allies and permitted them to become economic competitors. As he sees it, they have been ripping us off for years.
3. He despises Angela Merkel. They mix like oil and water. First, she is a woman, and he can’t stand the thought of treating a woman as an equal. Second, she is the superego to his id; she can’t and won’t swagger the way he does. Third, she’s always patronizing and lecturing him about liberal democracy and human rights. He thinks those ideas are just eyewash; that history is made by great men such as himself; that only military and economic power matter in the real world; and that the Europeans use “shared values” as a cover for their mostly successful efforts to steal our wealth and our jobs.

So where would this relationship go in a second term? For that, tune in tomorrow.

Illiberal democracy is a new concept. I believe the term itself was coined by Viktor Orban. How does it differ from fascism?

An illiberal democracy retains the forms and protections of liberal democracy on paper, but makes them practically meaningless by corrupting or subverting them. The will of the majority is frustrated in elections by gerrymandering and government control of the media. Law enforcement and the judiciary are weaponized against the government’s critics through the appointment of blatantly partisan public officers. Freedom of speech and association are limited through regulatory harassment and the acquisition of popular media by friends of the government. Government supporters get subsidies; opponents don’t. And so on.

Illiberal democracy is a way station–but to what? Poland and Hungary need money from the EU and protection from NATO, so they push the envelope as far as they think they can go, and no further. Will the EU finally take effective action to reel them in, or will they ultimately devolve into openly fascist states? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’m not optimistic.