Category: Uncategorized

To the left, the problem is rising economic inequality, and the enemy is the 1 percent, who have gained disproportionately from technological change and globalization over the last few decades. An array of statistics supports this argument. To the right, however, the problem is not inequality, but the lack of social mobility, and the enemy is the 10 percent–the professional elite who exclude others from their class by marrying each other, living in gated communities, refusing to get divorced, not ruining themselves with drugs and alcohol, and battling furiously for advantages for their kids. They are hypocrites, say the right; they adhere to Christian values without actually believing in Christianity.

The logical question to ask Douthat, Brooks, and the rest of these right-leaning pundits, is what is your solution to this “problem?” Do you want the 10 percent to start taking drugs and getting divorced? Do you want them to stop caring about their kids? Is your plan to convert them to a conservative brand of Catholicism, and then impose their values on poor red people? These ideas are every bit as absurd as they sound.

The left-leaning intellectual class, by and large, is willing to tax itself for the benefit of red people. That isn’t the answer; red America wants to reduce the size of government, not increase it. As best I can tell, the only realistic response is that red people want the intellectual class to admit that they enjoy their wealth and privileges, not due solely to temperance, talent, and hard work, but largely to luck. They just happened to be standing in the right place when the knowledge economy came into being. If they lived in South Sudan or Yemen, all of that talent would avail them nothing. If the apocalypse comes, and everyone has to live off the land and fend for himself, they will all fall by the wayside, while the red people will manage to survive.

OK. I admit it. Red America, does that make you feel better? Will that get you off my back? Can we talk about the 1 percent now?

It is a word that is much used today–but what exactly does it mean? Here is my definition, which does not come from a dictionary:

The pursuit of reactionary nationalist ends through extraconstitutional means.

By way of elaboration:

1. Not all reactionaries are fascists; in fact, in this country and Europe, most of them have been willing to live by the rules of liberal democracy in the recent past. All fascists are reactionaries, however. They all look back to an idealized previous version of the state in question and seek to recreate it through any means necessary.
2. Nationalism and reactionary politics have not always been intertwined. In the early 19th century, nationalism was primarily a progressive strain of thought. Today, however, nationalism is typically set up as an antidote to a liberal “globalist” order controlled by multi-national corporations and self-seeking, patronizing intellectual elites. As a result, it is usually associated with small business owners and blue collar workers desperately struggling to maintain their small social, legal, and economic privileges within their society.
3. The “extraconstitutional means” primarily involve violence, of course, but the principal point here is that a proper fascist doesn’t accept any limits on his power, or any institutional barriers between himself and the nation he supposedly embodies. There are no such things as checks and balances in a fascist state, concepts of universal human rights do not exist, and the law serves only to implement the will of the leader, as it may change from time to time.
4. A cult of personality is usually part of a fascist state. A properly organized system can get by without one, however. No one ever said Franco was a charismatic figure.

Many commentators, myself included, have noted the similarities between the current events and 1968. The self-styled “law and order” candidate prevailed 52 years ago; is the same result inevitable this November?

No, for several reasons:

1. Nixon was not the incumbent. Trump is, and he is a uniquely divisive figure; swing voters will hold him responsible for the chaos. He is the arsonist, not the fireman.
2. The violence has been much more muted than it was in 1968, and is less threatening to the average American.
3. The injustice involved in Floyd’s death is obvious to everyone. Even Trump and McConnell admit that.
4. A majority of the electorate has moved to the left on civil rights issues. Many of the demonstrators are white. There is no threat of some sort of race war here.

The bottom line is that a vote for Trump is a vote for more of the same. Is that what the American people really want? We’ll see in November.

Mark Zuckerberg has the best of both worlds; he operates what amounts to a vast international public space for private profit with minimal governmental regulation. He makes money off of material provided by his consumers, while taking no legal responsibility for it. He also uses his resources to devour any would-be competitors.

Given the size and reach of Facebook, the way it polarizes and tribalizes popular opinion, and the immense political influence it gives to Zuckerberg personally, this situation is unsustainable; Facebook ultimately will collapse, be broken up, or be regulated as a public utility. For now, however, Zuckerberg is fighting a mostly successful rear guard action to maintain the status quo by zigging and zagging between the demands of his employees, the left, and the right and promising solutions that never materialize.

Do you despise Facebook for the damage it is doing to our political system? Do you think something needs to be done, but despair of any effective regulation from Washington? The good news is that the remedy is in the hands of its consumers. If they express their objections by quitting, the problem will disappear regardless of what happens, or doesn’t happen, in Washington and Brussels.

It’s up to us. Do you want to spend the rest of your life measuring your personal value by the number of likes you get? Do you want to limit the damage done by foreign actors in our elections? Do you want to put an end to the easy dissemination of extremist ideas, both right and left? You know what to do.

The reduction in the national unemployment rate came as a pleasant, and even shocking, surprise to many pundits and economists. I’m really not sure why; things were bound to improve to some extent when the lockdowns ended. The Economist has referred to the new condition as the “90 percent economy;” I call it an “equilibrium.” Either way, what happens next is what really matters, and it depends primarily on consumer confidence, not the speed at which the remaining restrictions are removed.

The bad news is that the GOP is already taking the good news as a reason not to help state and local governments and to cut off supplementary unemployment benefits. You can anticipate an unpopular reduction in services and unnecessary job cuts, as well as more pain for the unemployed, in the near future.

The good news is that deliberately prolonging the recession to starve the innumerable small state and local beasts and to stick it to the unemployed will cost the GOP in November. Now that’s a reason to cheer!

On the 45th president Trump.

Jim Mattis has made him a grump.

A loser, he says.

He was picked by the prez

So who gets the blame when he’s dumped?

DOMINATION

Domination

It’s my life.

Count my wealth.

A red hot wife.

________

Domination

Come again?

Though she’s old

She’s still a ten.

___________

Domination

Men with guns.

Killing looters?

All in fun.

____________

Domination

That’s my game.

It’s my way

My path to fame.

___________

Domination

Will to power.

We approach

My finest hour.

____________

Domination

Think it sucks?

Too bad, Jack.

You’re out of luck.

____________

Domination.

Democrats?

Socialists.

Not where it’s at.

__________________

Domination.

Envy me.

‘Cause there’s plenty

More to see.

_________

Domination.

Go, big red!

If you’re not

You’re likely dead.

___________

Domination.

I’m the man.

Think you’ll stop me?

No one can.

___________

Domination.

Here’s the end.

I’m on top;

You’re not, my friend.

Trump has already justified his inept response to the virus by arguing that no one saw it coming. In point of fact, everyone did but him. He made a deliberate choice to downplay the threat in order to maintain confidence in the markets. Pay me now, or pay me later: he’s suffering the consequences today.

But even if the impacts of the virus had been completely unforeseen, he wouldn’t be entitled to any sympathy, because dealing with unexpected problems is part of the job. Jimmy Carter didn’t anticipate the Iranian revolution. Reagan and Bush 41 didn’t plan for recessions. Bill Clinton didn’t run for president promising to bomb Belgrade. Bush 43 might have been a reasonably decent president but for 9/11. Obama didn’t run through the primaries promising to save us from a huge recession. Why should Trump be any different?

Because he’s Orange Jesus, I guess.

The NYT has caused a sensation by printing an op-ed by Tom Cotton which recommends sending in the regular military to crush the demonstrations. The NYT initially responded to the negative reaction by defending its longstanding practice of providing the public with a wide range of viewpoints, including some with which it has absolutely no sympathy. Later on, it appeared to back away from this position, and said that the op-ed didn’t meet their standards.

They were right the first time. They did the public a service by giving Cotton a forum to show how flimsy his arguments are. Just to list a few:

1. There is no evidence that Antifa is running wild in our streets. Relative to, say, 1968, the loss of life and property damage has actually been quite mild;
2. The “precedents” he cited don’t work, because California invited federal assistance after the Rodney King episode, while the government of Arkansas was actively resisting federal court orders; and
3. There is no assurance that the mere presence of regular military would overawe the protesters and put an end to the violence. Then what? The only plausible Plan B would be to mow down the demonstrators with overwhelming force. Is Cotton really advocating that?

Donald Trump, to our great good fortune, may be discrediting the illiberal project with his innumerable personality defects and terrible record. Cotton would not do the same thing. He has a glittering resume, and he’s not obviously narcissistic, capricious, or corrupt. If America ever decides to go with the Orban option, he will probably play a big part in it. He bears watching.

Barr is, above all, a conservative Catholic. He believes in a single, immutable truth. The paradox is that he works for a man who, like a good Stalinist, thinks that truth is whatever serves power. How can this be? How can this strange relationship last?

It’s a marriage of convenience with a limited shelf life, but it works for now because the two have common enemies. The Savonarola wannabe sees blue people as the ideological enemy; Trump hates them because they’re in his way.

The Beatles’ music is so familiar to us that it seems cozy and timeless, but in reality, it was the product of a turbulent time that is starting to resemble our own. The events of the last few weeks have given me the following new insights into two of their songs:

1. “Eleanor Rigby” is brilliant. It is also utterly merciless, and apparently out of character for the gentle Paul McCartney. Why did he write it? He was flipping the bird at the conservatism and traditional values of the so-called “Greatest Generation.” As with the later, and less artful “She’s Leaving Home,” he wanted everyone to understand that the times and the rules had changed. The pathetic protagonists in the song are consigned to the dustbin of history–and, in McCartney’s eyes, good riddance. Does he still feel that way in his old age? One can’t help wondering.
2. “I am the Walrus” could have been written yesterday. Listen to it again. You will see what I mean. George Floyd would have been no stranger to John Lennon.

Goo googa joob.

As I was finishing a book about Trump, Orban, and Putin last night, I realized that Trumpism is based on two things: power and identity. Here is how it works:

POWER: Trump rejects the notions of objective truth and justice. To him, every transaction, and every relationship, is based purely on power, and has a winner and a loser. As a result, everything he says and does is for the purpose of establishing that he is the most powerful person in the room. Money is relevant here, but only for the purpose of projecting power over others; by itself, it is fairly meaningless.

IDENTITY: Trump sees himself as a white male American billionaire who made himself a winner through hard work, shrewdness, and determination. (His narrative of his life is, of course, not accurate, but it is the perception that counts in this instance). To the extent that you resemble his self-image, you’re OK in his book. And so, Kim, Putin, and Xi may deviate from the model because they’re not Americans, but they remind him of himself in most other respects, so they are to be respected, and even admired. “Winners” of other races, like Muhammad Ali, meet his standard. All others are “losers,” to be manipulated and trampled as he sees fit.

If you’re looking for an explanation of Trump’s behavior at any given time, start with the interplay of these two core beliefs. They will get you where you need to go.

Boris gets something right! Let the Chinese impose their rule over a ghost town.

According to Ross Douthat, our formerly thriving metropolitan areas are actually dystopias characterized by a disappearing middle class, a wealthy, but insulated professional class, and a huge number of essential, but invisible service workers on whom the system is completely reliant. The package is held together by the police, not bonds of community between the winners and the losers. The events of the last few months have shown us how vulnerable and unjust the system is. Is he right?

There is a grain of truth to this. Today’s successful metropolitan areas are dependent on information-based industries, finance, entertainment, and tourism. Manufacturing has moved to the suburbs in order to avoid soaring real estate values, which means fewer middle class jobs. American cities, which used to be a counterpoint to European cities, now resemble them; the poor live in outlying areas with poor transportation links, not in slums close to the city center. These cities are bright, shiny things, but they are not utopias.

That said, these changes are the result of a worldwide economic shift to value based on knowledge. They were caused by unseen forces, not the considered decisions of an uncaring professional class. They don’t conform to the GOP view of a class war between salt of the earth high school graduates with lousy jobs and a thriving, voracious, insular intellectual elite. They weren’t willed into existence by anyone in particular. They happened outside the control of any individual or group, like most things.

Can this state of affairs be reversed? It would probably take a very lengthy pandemic or an economic crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen yet to reverse the polarity between rising cities and declining rural areas. And what is Douthat’s solution to the problem? To convert the elite to a conservative brand of Catholicism, set up Benedict as a theocrat, and ban abortion and pornography? Does anyone seriously believe that the success of land use planning ultimately depends on morality, not economics?

Carrie Lam has accused the Trump administration of having different standards for demonstrations in Hong Kong and the US. Is she right?

As to Pompeo, who extolls the virtues of liberal democracy abroad while trashing the press at home, absolutely. As to Trump, not really, because no one believes for a minute that he has any interest in liberal democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, America, or anywhere else. As to most of the affected state and local officials and the American public, no. The predominant opinion in this country supports the demonstrators in both places.