Category: Uncategorized

Historically, Labour was a left-leaning party grounded in the economic interests of the working class, the Conservatives were a right-leaning party dominated by the middle class, and the Liberals and Lib Dems were, well, not Labour or the Conservatives. It was easy to tell what they didn’t like, but hard to identify what they stood for in a positive sense that set them apart from the other parties.

Today, the Conservatives have become a thuggish populist party with less interest in protecting the UK’s institutions and traditional values than in power and Brexit, while Labour has a anachronistic program that makes Michael Foot look good. The Lib Dems, on the other hand, have a position on Brexit that is both firm and sensible, and they have an opportunity to become an identity-based, left-leaning alternative to Labour which actually makes sense in a country that is no longer primarily divided by class.

Barring tactical voting on an absolutely massive scale, the Conservatives are going to win the election. The real question is whether the Lib Dems can become the largest English party in the opposition. Pray that they do.

Steel and aluminum tariffs on Brazil. Are you kidding me?

This makes no sense whatsoever from a geopolitical, ideological, or economic perspective. It can only be understood as a raw exercise of power for its own sake–he can, therefore, he must. And so he does, as the rest of the world watches in bewilderment and disgust and wonders what fresh hell comes next.

Welcome to the club, guys! We feel your pain!

Generally speaking, most historical bad guys have had a few reasonably decent qualities that at least slightly redeemed them. With Trump, it’s hard to see any redeeming virtues; it is his other vices–egotism, laziness, and ignorance–that have saved us from living in an authoritarian state up until now. We should be grateful for them, I suppose.

The next comparably popular reactionary is likely to be a different story. He won’t be lazy or ignorant or capricious or completely corrupt. He’ll probably have an Ivy League education and glittering business or military credentials. He’ll be grimly determined to “impose the order and orthodoxy” of the white Christian minority on the majority of the country, regardless of the cost to our liberal democratic state. He’ll be far more Franco, and less Falstaff–a man on horseback, not golf cart.

The bottom line is that we have to hope that Trump’s weaknesses and failures will completely discredit the authoritarian project in this country before it really takes root. Will that happen? I really don’t know, but we had better hope so.

Information from Iran is sketchy, but it appears that the government has put down an uprising of sorts with considerable loss of life. Is this the precursor for the end of the regime? And will it cause the Iranian government to pull back outside its borders?

The answer to the first question is almost certainly no. Revolutions only succeed when the government is divided, doubts its own legitimacy, and is consequently unable or unwilling to use massive amounts of force to protect itself. In this case, the regime honestly thinks it is ordained by God, and the Revolutionary Guards have strong ideological and economic interests that are at risk. Finally, the violence seems to be localized. It will take far more than some burned-out gas stations to genuinely endanger the regime.

The second question is murkier. All I can say is that the hardliners tend to benefit, both economically and politically, when things go bad, so my best guess is that the regime will double down instead of turning tail.

As William Barr (among others) is eager to tell you, American Christians are a beleaguered minority whose values are constantly under attack by sinister secular forces working through government, rogue elements of the judiciary, and the media. Given that premise, religious reactionaries should be strong supporters of Catholic immigrants fleeing oppression in Central America in order to help balance the scales, right?

Umm. . . no. That tells you that genuinely religious people are a small minority on the far right. But you already knew that, because they were Cruz voters in 2016, and you know how that turned out.

TRUMP CAMPAIGN: America has been playing the world’s policeman for the last fifty years. What did we get for it? Nothing! Not even gratitude! Just a lot of dead soldiers and wasted money!

From now on, it’s no more Uncle Sap! It’s all about the Benjamins, baby! If you want protection from us, pay the man! If we send our military to the Middle East, we take the oil! And no more nation-building and worrying about democracy and human rights. They’re just covers for so-called friends who take us to the cleaners every day.

America first!

RESPONSE: That’s great until you need help with some urgent foreign policy problem. Then you really will be home alone.

Note to my readers: I will be on vacation until Sunday. Regular posts will resume on Monday.

To summarize, Elizabeth Warren:

1. Initially said relatively little about health care, and seemed to be open to a variety of plans to expand coverage;
2. Then embraced Bernie’s plan without indicating how she would pay for it;
3. Then came up with her own implausible plan to pay for it;
4. Then proposed an interim plan with a public option and suggested that the quest for M4A would be postponed until the latter stages of her term.

#4 is reasonably consistent with mainstream opinion within the Democratic Party, and is not logically ridiculous. But how will these changes of position play out politically? Will supporting both a moderate interim approach and M4A give her the best or the worst of worlds?

There is no doubt that any kind of retreat from M4A will cost her some votes on the left. Those are votes she can afford to lose. The real question is whether moderates will feel more comfortable with her as a result of the change of course, or whether they will continue to focus on the problems associated with the ultimate M4A goal and her lack of consistency on the subject.

Warren was better off when the thrust of her campaign was on bashing billionaires and curing capitalism. M4A is a distraction from that message. In this case, I think the journey is the destination, and health care is going to be an albatross for the rest of the campaign, and into the general election if she is the nominee.

TRUMP CAMPAIGN: America, you’re probably wondering what we have to offer for the next four years. The answer, of course, is more of the same! The first tax cut was a huge success, so we’ll have another one! It’ll be even bigger and better than the first one! We’ll finish the wall! We’ll use tariffs to impose fantastic new trade agreements on our so-called allies! And, of course, we’ll get rid of Obamacare once and for all and replace it with something that’s far better! It’ll be great! Believe me. Believe me.

RESPONSE: None required.

I watched some YouTube video of Biden’s 2012 debate with Paul Ryan. Some of the same verbal tics are present, but they are much more subdued. I think there is something else going on here.

My best guess is that it is mild short-term memory loss. I have experienced this myself, and I’m younger than Biden. The good news is that, if I’m right, it doesn’t impact his ability to process information, which is really the bottom line for him as a candidate and potential president.

An article in The Atlantic attributes Joe Biden’s verbal tics during debates to his history as a stutterer. I was not aware of his condition, since he doesn’t advertise it, and it makes me feel somewhat better about his performance to date.

It would be interesting to compare video of him in debates in previous campaigns to the present to see if this is a new problem. If I can find any material on YouTube, I will let you know.

TRUMP CAMPAIGN: America, you’ve never had it so good. Unemployment is below 4 percent. Wages are rising. Most importantly (at least to us), the markets are at record highs. It’s all due to the big tax cut and deregulation.

All of this will be destroyed if you elect a Democrat in 2020. They’re all socialists, you know, and they don’t appreciate the value of business and the importance of individual initiative. If I lose to one of those clowns, the markets will plunge and unemployment will soar. Is that a chance you’re willing to take? Are you willing to risk everything you own just to get rid of me because I’m a little rough with my mouth?

RESPONSE: There is a tiny bit of truth to this one. The markets won’t respond well to a Warren victory, even though she understands the economy far better than Trump does, because investors believe that Trump is on their side, and she isn’t. It’s the financial equivalent of identity politics, and it works to the benefit of right-wing strongmen everywhere.

In the long run, Warren’s predictability and willingness to follow the law may look better to the markets than Trump’s ignorance and capriciousness. It’s hard to tell at this point.

The argument about the tax cut and deregulation, of course, is mostly b.s. The biggest long term problem with our economy is the reduction in demand associated with demographic change and the hollowing-out of the middle class. The latter is due to increased inequality resulting, in part, from GOP taxing and spending policy. Trump and his regressive tax cut have only made this worse.

TRUMP CAMPAIGN: America, the world is full of thugs who are out to get you. Illegal immigrants are coming by the millions to rape you, kill you, and steal your job. Foreigners with friendly handshakes are really here to rip you off. Terrorists are everywhere. Criminals abound in our cities. And what do the wimpy liberals want to do? They want to open the doors and let the foreign bad guys in and the domestic criminals out!

I alone am tough and clear-sighted enough to fight back. I will protect you from the bad guys. If I seem a little unconventional and rough, that’s what it takes to survive in such an evil and violent world.

RESPONSE: In reality, Trump has done nothing to make Americans safer. He has damaged our alliances, sucked up to dictators, and behaved so capriciously that no one can trust him. Only someone foolish enough to believe that bluster is strength will buy into this. Unfortunately, there are tens of millions of Americans who fit that description.

Likud can break the political logjam, avoid an election that no one wants, and guarantee itself a share of power by ditching a leader who is under indictment and making a deal with Blue and White. You would think that would be an easy decision, but it seems not.

If, under the circumstances, the leadership makes the deal, you can say that Likud is a normal political party. If they ignore the interests of the entire membership, let alone the nation, solely to assist Bibi, it is a cult.

BANG AND BLAME

If you could see yourself now, Nancy

It’s not my fault.

I used to be so in control.

You’re going to roll right over this one.

Just roll me over, let me go.

You’re laying blame.

Take this as no, no, no.

_______________

(Chorus)

You bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

Blame, blame, blame.

Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

It’s not my thing, so let it go.

(Repeat)

____________________

If you could see yourself now, Nancy

The tables have turned.

My whole world hinges on your swings.

My secret life of indiscreet discretions.

You turn the screws, and Twitter screams.

Don’t point your finger.

Ukraine is not my thing.

________________

(Repeat chorus twice)

_______________________

You look a little worried.

I know it all too well.

I’ve got your number

But so does every kiss and tell

Who dares to cross your threshold

Happens on your way.

Stop laying blame.

Ukraine is not my thing.

________________

You bitch at me

Jump on me

Shout at me

Hit on me

You laugh at me

Scream at me

Threaten me

You impeach me

You impeach me.

Parody of “Bang and Blame” by R.E.M.

The Woke King, a/k/a Ta-Nehisi Coates, predictably raised my blood pressure by tepidly praising what he calls “the democratization of cancel culture” in today’s NYT. The rest of the column, however, was not that bad. Coates admits that PC Twitter mobs are “suboptimal” and directs most of his attention to the dispute between Colin Kaepernick and the NFL.

My reactions are as follows:

1. I have always sympathized with Kaepernick, but it has to be pointed out that the NFL has been motivated more by greed and cowardice than spite, because it fears offending the millions of football fans who are decidedly unwoke. In that respect, there is no moral difference between the NFL and the NBA, which responded in the same self-interested way to Chinese anger about the Morey tweet on Hong Kong protesters. I don’t recall ever reading a Coates column on that issue.

2. The legitimate point that Coates should have made, but didn’t, is that PC Twitter mobs may be obnoxious, but you can avoid them simply by turning off your phone. It is a horrible mistake to equate people who have been attacked on social media to the victims of actual lynchings.