Category: Uncategorized

Ain’t no sunshine when he’s gone.

You can deconstruct the Trump presidency into those three components, as follows:

1. RHETORIC: Trump sounds like a pure Reactionary. He divides the world into three parts: real Americans, consisting of white Christians, mostly from rural areas; the liberal enemy within, who is everyone else within our borders; and the enemy outside. He constantly reminds his supporters through his pungent tweets that he is on the side of the real Americans, and that, like them, he fears and despises everyone else. In spite of the fact that he is a thrice-married millionaire developer and former casino owner from New York, they believe him.

2. POLICY: In domestic matters, notwithstanding the Reactionary rhetoric, Trump follows the traditional Reagan Coalition line: tax cuts and deregulation for business and right-wing judges for social conservatives. His foreign policy is largely idiosyncratic, and is based on enthusiasm for right-wing dictators (thought to bring stability and order to a world that needs it), mercantilism, and suspicion of our traditional allies. Trump has put more money into the armed forces, but does not believe in war or nation-building; his weapons of choice are tariffs, which he uses indiscriminately to get attention and reward his friends, and economic sanctions.

3. PERSONALITY: We all know what the man is like by now. His narcissism, corruption, suspicion of experts, capriciousness, irresponsibility, lack of regard for legal norms, and invincible ignorance of policy are a huge part of his legacy.

So what parts of the presidency will outlast him? His GOP successors will undoubtedly be more consistent, attractive personalities. The explosive and divisive rhetoric has been shown to “work” in a fashion; expect to see more of it in the future. Will future GOP leaders be “national conservatives” who are largely indifferent to business interests? Will they carry forward Trump’s mercantilism, enthusiasm for dictators, and loathing of the EU? My best guess is that the answer to both questions is no, but I could be wrong.

The Democrats resolved their dilemma with the inaptly-named “stimulus bill” by supporting it, with appropriate changes, even though its success would aid the Trump campaign, because it was necessary to mitigate pain, not score political points. While the bill will help, however, the unpleasant fact is that, to a large extent, the assistance is likely to be too little (particularly with state and local governments) and too late (because of inevitable bureaucratic snafus). That is on the administration and the GOP, not the Democrats.

The weaknesses of the bill will inevitably lead to pressure for a new wave of compensatory bailouts. Having satisfied Trump and Mitch and the rest of their henchmen on one occasion, however, the Democrats should play hard to get the next time. Don’t be afraid to make sweeping demands in the future, because, unlike the GOP in 2009, you’ve already met your moral obligations to the public. It’s a no-lose proposition: either you get something you really want; or you damage the Trump re-election campaign. That’s the opposite of a dilemma.

I guess we have the answer to that question now, don’t we? Dirtbag lefties, please take note.

My wife introduced me to Fountains of Wayne. They reminded me of Squeeze; their songs were memorable, literate, and just a little bit short of being great. While Bruce Springsteen wrote songs about working people and teenagers that turned them all into heroes of a sort, the characters in FOW songs mostly sounded like hapless middle-class people in an NBC sitcom. That may not be Beethoven, or the Beatles, but it’s certainly a lot more interesting than most of the material you hear on the radio today.

In all likelihood, Schlesinger will only be one of numerous prominent musicians who will die in the pandemic. Please tell Dylan, McCartney, Jagger, Townshend, et. al. to stay inside, OK?

As Trump sees it, everything will be back to normal by June, repressed animal spirits will be set free, the economy will come roaring back, and it’s morning in America in November. Is that likely?

No. Some restrictions on movement are going to continue until we have a vaccine. The trauma of hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of lost jobs will not be forgotten quickly. Much of the missing production will never be replaced. The crisis will continue in large parts of the rest of the world even if the problem is largely solved here. World trade will slump; industries reliant on exports will struggle; and many small businesses won’t survive, even with government help. Some Republicans in Congress will probably make matters worse by demanding spending cuts as soon as possible. It isn’t going to be a pretty picture.

The economy will not be a winning issue for Trump in November. Expect him to run as the heroic virus buster who stood up to China, instead.

That’s a joke, of course.

Back in FDR’s day, public works projects were about brawny men with shovels, so they were a good way of providing jobs to the unemployed. Today, they involve lots of permitting and specialized expertise in the operation of sophisticated machinery. As a result, they aren’t a great way of putting the unemployed to work; the public works component of the 2009 stimulus was a failure.

There are plenty of good reasons to support an ambitious infrastructure bill, but providing jobs in a crisis is not really one of them. I just don’t think the timing is right for it; the emphasis today needs to be on simple measures that temporarily alleviate pain while the economy is in a coma.

The bottom line is that you can expect plenty of GOP senators to display their tattered bona fides as deficit fighters on this issue, so it probably won’t happen, even if Trump and the Democrats somehow reach an agreement, which seems highly unlikely.

Ross Douthat correctly notes that conservatism puts more emphasis on responsibility and government controls than personal freedom, and spills lots of ink trying to figure out why so many prominent members of the GOP are blowing off the virus. It’s really not that complicated:

1. THE GOP ISN’T UNITED, EVEN IN THE BEST OF TIMES, ON ISSUES OF FREEDOM AND GOVERNMENT CONTROLS: CLs are always opposed to expansions of the federal government; PBPs resist government regulation of business; and Reactionaries are suspicious of giving more powers to a government which, in their view, only uses them to oppress real Americans and promote the interests of patronizing elites, lazy minorities, and illegal immigrants. Restrictions on personal freedom are, therefore, a tough sell.
2. TODAY’S GOP IS A TRUMP POPULIST PARTY, NOT A CONSERVATIVE PARTY: There is nothing “conservative” about a party that changes its public positions on a dime, often in the face of all of the evidence and against expert advice, to follow the musings of its fearless leader. Trump’s greatest victory has been to convince the vast majority of GOP members that he is entitled to their unconditional support, regardless of how often he deviates from GOP orthodoxy, because the alternative to him is the end of the world.

In a way, we should be grateful for this state of affairs; without the divisions in the GOP and Trump’s lack of real leadership, we might be turning into Orban’s Hungary. Now, there’s an April Fools’ joke for you.

You can expect to hear a lot about the following issues over the next few months:

1. Millions of mortgage payments won’t be made this month, which ultimately threatens the health of the banks. They say they are in much better shape than they were in 2008. Can they handle a downturn of this magnitude? We’ll see.
2. State and local governments are required to balance their budgets. The virus means their revenues will fall far short of the projected figures, which in turn will lead to substantial cuts in staffing and services in the near future. The stimulus bill provided some aid–was it enough? I doubt it.
3. Soaring unemployment in our system means tens of millions of workers are going to lose their health insurance, which is a catastrophe under the current conditions. They will be applying for Medicaid. Can the bureaucracy handle the vast influx of applicants? Is there enough money in the system, even with federal help, to deal with the virus? I doubt that, too.

On a related note, Bernie Sanders argues that we would be in far better shape to deal with the virus if we had M4A. It is a claim that should be taken seriously. I will be addressing it in a future post.

Did you ever wonder how America would have been governed under the Articles of Confederation? You’re getting a glimpse of it right now. The battle against the virus is being fought on a state-by-state basis, not from Washington. Trump, who should be making clear statements and taking the lead on creating and allocating essential medical resources, is preening and lying at press conferences, sending out mixed messages about the severity of the problem, taking credit for any (mostly illusory) successes, and attributing failures to Democrats and state and local officials.

That’s the way federalism works in the Trump era: continuous, undeserved, fawning praise for the man on golf cart; and hard work and criticism for the people in the trenches. Credit flows up, and blame trickles down.

Joe Biden is telling Sanders supporters he agrees with Bernie on the ends, but not the means. Is he right?

Mostly, yes, but not completely. Here is my analysis:

1. Some disputes are not about ends or means, but whether the goal is realistic. M4A is a perfect example. Biden, like Obama before him, undoubtedly would agree that single-payer would be the best available system if you could start from scratch. The best way of funding such a system is not the issue–it is whether you could actually get the system through Congress. In Biden’s eyes, the answer is no, and there is no point in trying, regardless of its merits.
2. The Sanders/Warren wealth tax is a good example of a dispute over means. Biden accepts the proposition that we need to reduce inequality and provide a better safety net through tax increases on the wealthy; he just doesn’t think a wealth tax is the best way to get there.
3. Some foreign policy questions could be described as being more about ends than means. Biden clearly envisions an America that is more engaged with the world, and has a stronger military presence, than Sanders.
4. It is probably fair to say that Sanders wants America to look like a much larger version of Denmark, while Biden wants America to be a more just and equal version of its current self. The difference is one of degree, but it relates to ends, not means.

It is ironic, I suppose, that such a large and diverse pool of candidates should dwindle to two old white guys. For some identity-oriented Democrats, it is worse than that–it is a tragedy. Should they be so concerned?

My advice is to be patient, because things will be very different in 2024. Sanders will be too old to run then. If Biden wins in 2020, it is unlikely that he will choose to run for re-election, and we already know he will have a female VP. If he loses, he will be out of the picture in any event, and the field will be clear for Harris, Klobuchar, Booker, et. al.

And, of course, AOC will be eligible to run by then. She has a good chance of being the nominee if we have to suffer through a second Trump term.

So does the Class of 2016 have a chance in 2024? I would say no. Rubio will still be young enough, but he was emasculated by Trump in 2016, and no one is goin to forget it. Cruz has been completely (and painfully) loyal to Trump since the election, but he will always be remembered, and never forgiven, for his apostacy at the convention. The younger generation will have learned all of Trump’s tricks, and will use the ones that work for them. One of them will prevail.

With his shiny, shaved head and goggle eyes, Rick Scott looks disconcertingly like a shark. He has the personality of Ted Cruz, minus the charisma. He has plenty of legal and ethical baggage from his days in the private sector. He may very well be the worst public speaker I have ever seen at any level of government. He barely managed to scrape out three victories in Florida. And yet, he clearly plans to run for president in 2024, based on the fact that he is running pro-Trump commercials in states outside of Florida. One imagines he is doing this because he is used to being a CEO, and the role of junior senator from Florida bores him spitless.

Scott appears to be trying to make a name for himself on a national level by attacking the newly unemployed. Under the current circumstances, it’s hard for me to see that issue as a vote winner, even four years hence.

Does he have a chance to win a national election? In a word, no. He spent plenty of his own money to make a name for himself in Florida, but that won’t work on a much larger scale. Michael Bloomberg could tell you that, and Scott doesn’t have anything like Bloomberg’s money.

Historically, no single faction has represented a majority of the GOP, so contenders for the nomination have been compelled to create coalitions. How will this work in 2024? Here are the likely contenders:

1. Romney Coalition (PBPs and CDs): Marco Rubio.
2. Goldwater Coalition (Reactionaries and CLs): Ted Cruz; Rick Scott.
3. Reagan Coalition (Reactionaries and PBPs): Tom Cotton; Josh Hawley.
4. “National Conservatives” (Pure Reactionaries): Cotton; Hawley.

As you can see here, the real question is whether either Cotton or Hawley would have the nerve to reject PBP-friendly tax cuts and deregulation (and the campaign contributions from business that follow them) in favor of an economic plan that favors workers. I have my doubts, but we’ll see.