Category: Uncategorized

I read somewhere that Trump was holding the Bible upside-down, which seems only fitting. It’s like flying the flag upside-down.

As we are only too aware, Trump has no idea of what is actually in the book, and couldn’t care less about it, except as a signal of solidarity with his base. The real Trump bible would be much shorter (he only reads bullet points, you know), and would look something like this:

“In the beginning, there was Donald J. Trump. In the middle and the end, too. He vanquished the gorgon Hillary Clinton, escaped impeachment, triumphed over the deep state, owned the libs, and made America great again. He was omnipotent and omniscient. There is nothing else worth discussing, really.”

A large portion of Trump’s base voted for him in 2016 because they viewed him as someone who would completely disrupt the status quo. When we see incompetence and chaos, they see a man who is fulfilling his promise to shake up a rigged and corrupt system. As they saw it, the nation was going to hell in a handbasket, so what did they have to lose?

Have they had enough disruption yet? Are they happy now?

Tens of millions of Americans who previously had health insurance through their employer are now out of work. Some of them will qualify for Medicaid, but some won’t, and the application process will take time even in the best case scenario. Medical providers and the health insurance companies are suffering massive losses as a result. What happens next?

This is a state of affairs that supports the arguments for M4A and is hugely embarrassing for the GOP. If you’re Trump or McConnell, what do you do? Continue to support the elimination of the Obamacare exchanges at a time when huge numbers of people can no longer get insurance through their employer? That doesn’t exactly sound like a vote winner in November, particularly in the middle of a pandemic. Or do you, as the health insurance companies are requesting, hugely increase subsidies for providers, COBRA, and the exchanges, knowing that to do so would be a complete and humiliating reversal of position?

This is the land of no good options. Poor little guys.

Trump apparently berated several governors yesterday for looking “weak” and threatened to use the regular military to crush the protests. For the most part, he only plays a dictator on Twitter and TV, so it is safe to assume that what he really wants is to portray himself as the man in charge and to take credit for the end of the violence, not to actually use the military for that purpose. However, he has the legal authority to send in troops, so we have to take his statements at least a little bit seriously. How would that turn out?

Two points are important here: there is no reason to believe that the National Guard units in the various states lack the resources to control the violence; and the regular military has limited experience with law enforcement and peaceful crowd control. With that in mind, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The troops arrive at a time when the violence is already ebbing. They do nothing important, but Trump takes undeserved credit for solving the problem.
2. The demonstrators are overawed by the troops and go home. In this case, Trump actually has a right to take credit for his success.
3. The violence continues. The troops end it by shooting down large numbers of demonstrators. Trump is fully entitled to the “credit” for this outcome.

Which of these scenarios is the most plausible? It would vary from location to location. Let’s hope we never find out.

Trump is threatening to revoke Hong Kong’s special trade status in light of the proposed security legislation. The questions for today are:

1. Would this action be justified?
2. Would it be wise?

The answer to the first question is yes. The legislation, and the manner in which it is being adopted, means that Hong Kong’s autonomy is coming to an end. Ironically, the Chinese government is complaining about interference in their internal affairs; how can treating Hong Kong in the same manner as the rest of China do that?

I’m much more ambivalent on the second question. The real villain here is the Chinese government, not the workers and businesses in Hong Kong. I’m not sure this action will cause the government any real pain. It would be a better idea to work the diplomatic phones to get stronger international expressions of support for Hong Kong’s rights, and to provide special immigration status for anyone who wants to leave.

According to Politico, there is a division of opinion among Trump’s advisers as to how to respond to the protests. Mark Meadows is pushing for a base-pleasing speech supporting the police and condemning left-wing violence; Jared Kushner, on the other hand, thinks a speech of that nature will cost Trump African-American votes he can’t afford to lose in November.

In this debate, as you would fully expect, there is no discussion of the national interest; the only truly important objective of Trumpworld is re-election. Here are my thoughts on the matter:

1. Nothing Trump could say to bring peace to the country would be taken seriously by either side. Anyone who calls himself a “bull in a china shop” in his commercials is by definition a divider, not a uniter. It’s the only thing he does well. It’s the essence of his appeal to those who support him. It’s what he does every day, and what makes him roll.
2. In light of that, what is the point of making a unity speech? He should go play golf! It will make him feel better, and he can’t do any harm on the golf course, which is the most we can ever hope from him.
3. The speech that Meadows wants would only make things worse. It probably won’t even win him any votes in November. The base is already plenty motivated, thank you.
4. In short, do us a favor and shut the #@*# up!

Mike Pompeo apparently told a Sunday talk show host that the current version of the Chinese Communist Party is different than the one we knew ten years ago. Is that statement as absurd as it sounds?

Close, but not quite. The CCP has always been determined to maintain complete political control of China, to play the leading role in the country’s economy, and to stifle all meaningful dissent. That hasn’t changed. Two things have, however, changed: first, Xi has been given authority over the country and the party that his predecessors did not enjoy; and second, Chinese economic and military power have increased relative to American power over the last decade. The Chinese government has consequently become more openly assertive in its near abroad, and takes less interest in the opinions of other nations. It believes that virtually all opposition from foreign countries can be overcome through threats of force or the application of economic power. Deng and his immediate successors would never have taken that position, because they couldn’t.

The conventional wisdom is that Trump benefits from the violence. Is it correct?

It depends. If the riots stop relatively soon, and the focus of the nation remains on the initial injustice, probably not. If they intensify and expand, the public may become genuinely fearful, the conversation will change, and Trump’s inflammatory bluster will be received more favorably.

Division is the only card in Donald Trump’s deck. It’s who he is, and what he does. His whole political career is based on the assumption that his base is large enough to win national elections by itself, thanks to the magic of vote suppression and the Electoral College. That’s not what actually happened in 2016, but he thinks it did, and for the purposes of this post, it is his belief that matters.

So how does Biden deal with this? By focusing his ire on Trump, and not his supporters. There can be no “deplorables” in this campaign. He should make it clear that the culture wars will not be unleashed during his administration, and that white Christians are still valued in this country. Just because they don’t have the right to run it purely in their own interests anymore doesn’t mean the gas chambers are the next step in the process.

But, you say, Obama tried to unify the country, and look what happened! That’s true, but things have changed. Obama failed, in spite of his best efforts, because he was the first African-American president, and a large segment of the country simply could not accept it; Biden, on the other hand, is a white man with strong political roots in the African-American community. He’s uniquely qualified to bring the country together. Furthermore, we’ve now lived through the horrors of 3+ years of Trump. That counts for something, too.

It will be a difficult job. Difficult is not the same as impossible. I will address this in more detail in a future post.

I woke up this morning with the thought that Trump would be happy to burn down half of America as long as he gets to be recognized as the leader of the other half.

Flight 93, anyone?

In a new Trump commercial, the man on golf cart stomps grimly towards the camera, chest out, arms swinging, looking like a gorilla. The announcer tells us proudly that he’s “a bull in a china shop.” The message is raw and clear: these are tough times; the world is full of evil, dangerous people who hate real Americans; and we need a strong man to protect us. Wimps wearing masks need not apply.

The message is designed to appeal to angry men with too much testosterone, and both men and women who feel insecure in difficult times. How should Biden counter it?

By showing that Orange Jesus did not keep us safe from the pandemic; in fact, he refused to take any responsibility for it. By providing the visual evidence that the alleged strongman actually sucks up to dictators, and only bullies our friends. By proving that what Trump calls strength is actually bluster, capriciousness, stupidity, selfishness, and mindless brutality. By showing the recent evidence that divisiveness only leads to a cycle of violence, which threatens us all.

Over to you, Mr. Vice President.

The Trump campaign clearly believes it can win a few African-American votes by talking about issues like criminal justice reform. His very public direction for an FBI investigation of the events in Minneapolis should be viewed in that context. It didn’t take long, however, for him to revert to type by calling for the shooting of looters on Twitter. Nothing less would have satisfied his reactionary base.

Which of these two messages do you think will resonate more with African-Americans?

Historically, libertarians conceded that their freedom to do as they please ended with the rights of others. Today, the public face of libertarianism is a white guy waving an assault rifle in front of a state building and demanding the “right” to infect people with the virus if it serves his economic interests. The new ethic combines the concepts of rights and power; in other words, the strong (or, at least, the swaggering) have a right to do whatever they can, and if the weak can’t or won’t stand up for themselves, the government shouldn’t intervene in their favor. That, allegedly, is the American way. Where did this come from?

The new libertarians are actually reactionaries, not libertarians. They feel aggrieved by a government that doesn’t accept their vision of an America dominated by white Christian men, and they resent the loss of economic status that has come with the evolution of the knowledge economy. They have responded with ostentatious displays of toxic masculinity directed at women, minorities, and government. Given power, their supposed libertarianism disappears overnight, as they expand government to reward their friends and punish their enemies. That’s what being a reactionary means in America today.

We know that Trump will rely on his ability to lie during the debates. After all, it has worked for him in the past. It worked for Romney during the first debate in 2012, too. How should Biden respond?

If I were in his position, I would carry a device similar to the one used to count pitches in baseball on stage. I would announce up front that I would be using the device to tally up Trump’s lies. I would then make a big display of clicking it every time he lies, and begin every response to a question by noting and correcting any previous lies.

That would drive the man on golf cart nuts, and hearten everyone who despises him.

Sebastian here. I’ve just returned from one of those big pool parties you saw on network TV. Since the whole world seems to be down on us, I thought I should explain why I think that’s OK.

Three things made this country great: freedom; rugged individuals; and God. The lockdown orders and the wimpy masks are an affront to all three. Their impact on individual freedom is obvious; they just encourage people to be wimps, instead of strong and self-reliant real Americans; and they encourage people to look to the government, not God, for a solution to the virus problem. Hell, you can’t even go to church in some places! Is that outrageous, or what!

I’m just going to keep on exercising the freedoms my ancestors fought to win for me whether you like it or not. That’s what this country is all about. You don’t have veto power over my rights. If I get the virus, I’ll face it like a man, and not count on the damn government to help me out. If you’re afraid of it, and you think I might give it to you, you can just use your freedom to stay at home or wear a wimpy mask. Just don’t expect me, or any other real American, to give up our God-given rights to protect you, because that’s not the American way.