Category: Uncategorized

In addition to reading books about the Tudors and watching the draft on TV, I’ve been rediscovering my record collection. A few days ago, I listened to three Bruce Springsteen classics: “Born to Run”; “Darkness on the Edge of Town”; and “Born in the USA.” Here are my reactions:

1. There’s so much you can say about “Born to Run.” It’s an American version of “Quadrophenia,” but much better. It could work as a musical. Every individual song is as vivid as a movie. It does for New Jersey what the Beach Boys did for California. Mostly, it’s perfect, and timeless. It sounds as fresh today as it did in 1975. I wouldn’t change a single note.
2. “Darkness” is brilliant, too, but different. It’s much more raw, and edgy. You hear a lot more of Springsteen’s snarling guitar. The biggest change is that it isn’t timeless; it’s rooted in the apparent decline of America in the late 1970’s. The lyrics are largely about the decay of a way of life.
3. “Born in the USA” is the least of the three, but outstanding in its way. After I listened to it, I went back and found that I was right; the songs were actually written during the depths of the 1982 recession. They are even more downbeat than the songs in “Darkness.” The combination of the apparently patriotic album cover, the glossy production, and the release of the record during “Morning in America” in 1984 gave it an optimistic meaning to stupid people that was completely unintended.

Why am I writing about this in a politics blog? Because the states that Springsteen was singing about in the late seventies and early eighties recovered. New Jersey today is a prosperous bright blue state. Pittsburgh is an attractive center for medical research, not a steel town. Destruction can be followed by creation; you just have to be smart and persistent and patient. Whining about how the government has screwed you over in favor of people who want cuts in line, screaming for tariffs, and voting for Trump doesn’t get it done.

At some point in the Hilary Mantel trilogy–I’m afraid I don’t remember exactly where–Cromwell observes that his job is to anticipate Henry VIII’s wishes even before the king does, and notes the danger involved if he misreads his capricious boss. It’s foreshadowing, because that’s exactly what happens, and he pays for it with his head.

If you think this is a lesson with no contemporary relevance, consider the plight of Brian Kemp, who thought he was doing exactly what Trump wanted, only to see the man on golf cart unexpectedly saw off the limb on which he was precariously perched. Kemp isn’t the first such victim, and he probably won’t be the last.

Like virtually everything, the stay at home orders divide the factions, as follows:

1. CLs: Ugh! Freedom of association is a God-given right! If I infect myself and others, so be it–life is less precious than freedom!
2. PBPs: Sure, we’d love to open up as soon as possible, but the customers won’t come. Do it slowly, and subsidize us in the meantime.
3. CDs: Preserving lives is the highest priority. Money doesn’t matter at times like these.
4. Reactionaries: The virus is an urban thing. It’s killing lots of people who aren’t real Americans, which is a plus for Trump. For the rest of us, let freedom ring!

So what would the constitution of the Reactionary States of America (RSA) look like? Here are some ideas:

1. Oklahoma City would be the capital of the RSA, for several reasons: it is located more or less in the center of the country; it is a thriving oil and gas hub; and it was, of course, the site of the famous bombing. McVeigh is no longer viewed as a terrorist; he is now seen as a sort of John Brown figure, and a founding father of the RSA.
2. The constitution leaves most powers to the states, but, of course, bans abortion and requires gun ownership.
3. Taxes are extremely low, and are regressive. The economy of the new country relies primarily on cheap labor and the exploitation of natural resources. Infrastructure is poor, and education is, by USA standards, horribly underfunded. The country’s GDP per capita is a small fraction of that of the USA, but hey– money isn’t everything! We’re free!
4. There are religious, property, and racial tests for office-holding and voting.
5. There is no welfare state as such; welfare is left to religious institutions. Due to popular demand, however, a form of Social Security is maintained for white Christians.
6. NASCAR is the national sport, followed by college football and hunting.
7. Radio stations are required to play only country music and religious programming. Fox News is the state TV channel.
8. The national anthem is (choose one): “Dixie”; “Free Bird”; “God Bless the RSA”; or “Born in the RSA” (just kidding about the last one).

Sounds great, doesn’t it?

It is the central paradox of American politics: blue state voters support a robust national welfare state; the welfare state results in massive transfers of wealth from blue to red states; and the red states respond by electing representatives who do everything in their power to reduce the size of the welfare state that sustains them. Call it the institutionalization of ingratitude, or cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And so, we are treated to spectacles like Mitch McConnell, senator from a state which relies heavily on transfers from blue states, opposing “blue state bailouts.”

You occasionally hear about efforts in red states–particularly Texas–to secede from the Union. Perhaps that should be encouraged! Maybe the rugged individuals in McConnell’s Kentucky should have to stand on their own two feet! Wouldn’t that be great!

I can see it now: the red states become a new country, called the Reactionary States of America (RSA). What would the RSA look like? For that, see my next post.

Men who seek public office don’t have to be saints, particularly with regard to their relationships with women. Furthermore, what we frequently call “character” is not indivisible; it is perfectly possible, for example, to be an honest coward. As a result, character issues aren’t disqualifying, to me, unless they reach the point of being embarrassing, and making it impossible to function properly in the job. Telling thousands of documented lies in office, paying off porn stars, and urging people to ingest Lysol meets that standard.

I thought Blasey Ford was credible, but her testimony against Kavanaugh didn’t interest me, because she was talking about an episode that allegedly occurred during high school. Kavanaugh only lost me when he responded to her statements in an angry, partisan, Trumpian way that was inconsistent with the demands of the job he was seeking. By contrast, I don’t believe Tara Reade for all of the reasons I described in a previous post, and because I don’t feel compelled to “believe women” any more than I believe men. But even if her allegations were true, a single incident that occurred 27 years ago wouldn’t prevent me from voting for Biden, particularly when the alternative is Lysol man.

Fox News follows everything he says, so I think Sean, Laura, and Tucker should be the first to volunteer for the new virus treatment.

Recent polls show Biden winning fewer young voters than Clinton, but far more of the elderly. The questions for today are:

1. Is that surprising?
2. Is the trade-off a positive or a negative for Biden?

The answer to the first question is no. The elderly, by and large, are looking for peace and security; Trump has given them constant chaos, a pandemic, and throwing grandma from the train to save the economy. In addition, Biden is an elderly white guy, so identity politics won’t be an issue this time. He would be wise to cultivate this cohort, particularly with a plan to strengthen Social Security, as much as possible.

As to the second question, it’s a positive, for two reasons. First, the elderly vote in larger numbers than the young; and second, they are distributed in a way that helps Biden with his Electoral College problem. Winning younger voters in blue states doesn’t produce electoral votes; flipping elderly voters in Florida, Arizona, and the Rust Belt does.

Electing Biden will return our relationship with Russia to a frosty normal. There will no longer be mixed signals sent from the White House. It will be all bad cop, all of the time.

Will Biden push the pendulum too far? After all, Putin is a problem, but he’s not the devil, and we have to do business with him on occasion. My guess is that the answer is no; Biden is an adult, and he’s used to dealing with the world as it is, not as he would have it be.

The Trump administration has two completely different approaches to Russia: Trump himself consistently sucks up to Putin, while the rest of his government treats the man as a dangerous adversary. Which thread would prevail in a second term?

That one is easy. The adults have long since fled the room, and Trump has debts to pay and scores to settle. I will be surprised if he doesn’t lift all of our Ukraine sanctions as quickly as possible. It will cause a furor, but, at that point, what will he have to lose?

We can take it for granted that Trump will run the most xenophobic, divisive, racist campaign in my lifetime, because that may actually be his best shot at winning under the current circumstances. That’s bad enough, but it’s only the beginning. You can expect Fox News to amplify his anti-Chinese message on a daily basis, and the internet is going to explode. Anyone who says or writes anything in any way measured about China is going to get pilloried by right-wing trolls. That’s the way it is in America today.

All we can do is hope that it doesn’t work.

For most Europeans, Biden’s election is like old home week. The US rejoins the Paris Agreement, starts talking to Iran again, and drops the obnoxious tariffs. The future of NATO is no longer in doubt. Virtually everyone breathes a sigh of relief.

The governments of Hungary and Poland are the exception. Biden makes it clear that he does not approve of illiberal democracy. Fortunately for them, he correctly views their situation as one primarily affecting the EU, not the US. Whether the EU finds a solution to the problem they present is the topic for a different day.

If there’s one thing we know for certain about Trump, it’s that he really, really hates the EU. Would he swallow his pride and anger and make nice with the Europeans for the overriding purpose of containing China after the November election? Or would he continue to maintain that the Europeans are just as bad as the Chinese, and double down on “America First?”

Given that the Trump campaign is going to be all about the yellow peril, you would think he would be compelled to pick the first option, but that isn’t necessarily the case. Trump believes that he can concurrently abuse the Europeans and demand their allegiance; all apparent contradictions dissolve in the face of his overwhelming awesomeness. The Europeans, of course, don’t see it that way. At the end of the second term, the EU may well be closer to China on trade issues than to us.

Mitch McConnell has no qualms about shoving hundreds of billions of dollars at businesses, because he knows an economic revival is essential to Trump’s re-election campaign, and because most of the recipients are loyal Republicans. He draws the line at state and local governments, however. Anti-government ideology, and disdain for blue states with high levels of service in particular, prevails over electoral pragmatism in this case.

He may well live to regret it. Exacerbating the economic problems in swing states like Florida and Ohio isn’t going to help Trump in November. Even Texas may need help, given the amazing decline in oil prices. And red state residents like having their garbage picked up and their roads repaired, too. Civil servants aren’t parasites; they’re service providers, and valuable ones at that. McConnell would be wise to remember that.

Barr has apparently answered my question. He reportedly indicated that the DOJ would consider getting involved on behalf of businesses objecting to quarantines. The basis for this would have to be the commerce clause.

Go for it, big boy! If the litigation is unsuccessful, it’s a finger in his eye, and Trump’s; if he somehow wins, it will give Biden, or some other future Democratic president, enhanced powers to implement a left-leaning agenda. It would split the GOP wide open. The Democrats can’t lose.