Category: Uncategorized

HOW LONG?

How long has this been going on?

How long has this been going on?

________

Well, your friends, with their nasty persuasion

Won’t admit that it’s part of a scheme.

But we can’t help but have our suspicions

‘Cause we ain’t quite as dumb as we seem.

________

Oh, you said you were never intending

To impose a quid pro quo.

But there ain’t any use in pretending

The whole world already knows.

_________________

How long has this been going on?

How long has this been going on?

Parody of “How Long?” by Ace

The impeachment process won’t end with Trump’s removal from office. Given that he thinks demanding foreign intervention in our elections is “perfecto,” he probably won’t even stop doing it. So what do we gain from this process?

Three things:

1. At least a few GOP senators can be expected to describe his behavior as considerably less than “perfecto.” That can be used against him by the Democratic nominee during the campaign.

2. The rest of them will be exposed as, essentially, completely unprincipled cult followers.

3. If you’re the leader of a foreign country, and you see what is happening with Ukraine, are you going to be eager to comply if Trump makes a similar demand of you? Do you want your dirty laundry to be exposed in the American media? I think not.

Most people would agree that Bernie Sanders is to the left of Elizabeth Warren, particularly after Warren’s decision yesterday to propose a transition period for M4A. And yet, Warren has embraced the concept of packing the courts and eliminating the filibuster, while Sanders is less enthusiastic. Why?

There are two possible explanations, which are not mutually exclusive. The positive spin is that Sanders, with the wisdom of experience, can imagine what would happen if the GOP regained power after these checks and balances are eliminated, and is determined to avoid it. The negative view is that Sanders simply doesn’t have the moral courage to take the risks necessary to bring about the “revolution.”

I don’t have a strong opinion, except that, as a genuine conservative, I’m not wild about making major institutional changes for partisan reasons, either. You decide.

No, this post isn’t about reactionaries and the demise of Christianity in America. It’s about Deval Patrick’s decision to enter the race.

If you read the guy’s biography, he might as well be Cory Booker’s twin. Booker is a worthy candidate on paper, but for a variety of reasons, he is going nowhere in the race. So, the obvious question is, why? What possible chance does Patrick have at this point in the process, with no money or organization?

I understand that the realos are concerned about Biden’s viability. Repeatedly encouraging new moderate candidates to enter the race and further splinter the realo vote is about the dumbest way possible to stop Warren.

It’s 1797. The United States, a new nation with little military strength, has just signed the Jay Treaty with the British. The French are offended, and retaliate by seizing American merchant vessels.

Eager to avoid a confrontation he knows he can’t win, President Adams sends emissaries to France to negotiate a solution. They are told by three agents of Talleyrand that they cannot even meet with the great man unless the US agrees in advance to pay him under the table. The American diplomats refuse and leave; the country is outraged; and an undeclared war ensues.

Sound familiar? Substitute Trump for Talleyrand, Ukraine for the US, and Giuliani and his merry men for XY and Z, and it all falls into place. And like the French, the GOP views Trump’s behavior as business as usual.

Amy Klobuchar isn’t the perfect Democratic candidate, based on the criteria I laid out in a previous post, but she’s reasonably close. She has a record of success in a state that is starting to turn purple. She’s a moderate. She’s a relatively fresh face, without Biden’s baggage. And if she’s not exactly charismatic, she can communicate with average people in a sort of common sense way that isn’t wonkish or condescending.

For me, it’s a winning package. I would be perfectly happy if she were the nominee, and I would expect her to beat Trump fairly easily. The problem is that she can’t get the nomination, because: (a) she doesn’t stand out in a field that contains several other women and moderates; and (b) she has no minority support. Even if she somehow wins Iowa, then what? How can she win in South Carolina, or on Super Tuesday?

She needs a Biden collapse, but she has no way to make it happen. And it won’t.

Donald Trump grew up in New York, not some rural area in the South. He likes golf, not NASCAR. He isn’t a Baptist; in fact, he knows nothing about Christianity. He lies and swears constantly. He has been divorced twice, and boasted about his sex life in the tabloids. He inherited a fortune, and screwed lots of people over to make it larger. He owned casinos. He used bone spurs and connections to avoid serving in the military. He has nothing but disdain for people he considers unsophisticated–just ask Jeff Sessions. And yet, as he says, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight, and his mostly rural and Christian base would stand with him. Why?

Two reasons. First, he projects strength with his swagger, which reassures people who are constantly told by right-wing media that their values and way of life are in imminent danger from the ruthless blue bad guys. Second, he constantly reminds the base that he is on their side by attacking (in pungent language that they appreciate) their common enemies–foreigners, and the condescending liberal coastal elites who send their jobs to China and tell them they’re bigots and idiots. The more he appears to be under threat, the more the “victimized” base relates to him.

All of this is a fraud, of course. Trump’s “strength” is just ignorant bluster, ego, and capriciousness.. He doesn’t share their values; in fact, he despises them. He’s the furthest thing possible from a self-made man. And yet, it all works for him as a result of skillful marketing. Future would-be GOP leaders have undoubtedly taken notice; you can expect more of this style of politics (but without the unique foibles) in the years to come.

It doesn’t get the attention it should, but the real story behind the campaign thus far is the failure of Harris and Booker to convince African-Americans that they have a legitimate chance to win. As a result, there are no serious contenders running as minority identity candidates, and the remaining fissure between the plausible nominees is the ideological split between realos and fundis. That, in turn, is largely a reflection of the generation gap within the Democratic Party. Biden has little or no support among people under 45; the progressives have no support among older voters who do not pine for the “revolution.”

So who wins? It looks like the outcome will be dictated by two unknowns. First, there is the question of how many candidates will remain and divide up the votes within the realo and fundi lanes throughout the primaries (Mayor Pete is a particularly important wild card for realos here); and second, can Warren and Sanders actually get their millennial supporters to the polls? I make no predictions on either as of today.

It’s fair to say that Christianity and dialectical materialism are just about exact opposites, but from a structural perspective, the Catholic Church and the Communist Party have a lot in common. Both have an all-encompassing world view; both consider themselves infallible; both are top down, authoritarian organizations; and both operate through a small cadre of functionaries set apart from the masses.

And so, when I was reading Ross Douthat’s interview with Cardinal Burke, who, like Douthat, essentially believes that Pope Francis is a heretic, I was reminded of the fate of the Old Bolsheviks under Stalin. What do you do when the allegedly infallible institution of which you are a proud member turns against you? Burke is clearly thrashing around, looking for an answer that doesn’t separate him from the church. Unfortunately, he will never find one, because it doesn’t exist.

That’s the problem with authoritarian organizations that claim to have all of the answers.

As anyone who knows me will tell you, I’m a conservative in the true sense of the word. I drive a car that is almost twelve years old. I prefer old, comfortable clothes to new ones. I’m skeptical of change, and when it does come, I want it to be slow and incremental. I’m not in favor of anything that sounds like a “revolution.”

I’m not alone in this. People like me are going to be really important swing voters in 2020. If Biden, or another realo, is the Democrats’ nominee, the choice for us will be easy; Trump’s corruption, authoritarian leanings, and capriciousness threaten our political system far more than any realo Democrat would. If Warren is the nominee, on the other hand, the issue becomes more difficult; we will have to balance the damage Trump does to the political system against the likely negative impacts of a Warren presidency on the markets, and our pocketbooks.

I’ve made it clear in the past that I will vote for Warren if need be, because she will be constrained by the system, and Trump has shown that he won’t be. I also attach more importance to the integrity of our political and legal systems than to my own financial well-being. Warren could make this much easier by showing some sensitivity to the interests of people like me who don’t want to blow up a system that, for all its faults, has produced an unemployment rate of less than 4 percent and record corporate profits. Thus far, however, she hasn’t made any efforts to accommodate us at all.

Joe Biden’s theory for winning the general election is simple and obvious. Trump will mobilize both bases; the key is to win undecided votes in swing states. The best way to do this is through working class identity politics and with a package of moderate reforms designed to provide immediate help to working and middle class families. It’s an approach that can and has worked, most recently in 2018.

Elizabeth Warren’s theory is completely different. She has no apparent interest in moving to the center to win the votes of moderates. She thinks she can prevail by mobilizing millions of non-voters through a series of ambitious spending plans, paid for primarily by wealthy people, that will provide them with clear economic benefits. This approach assumes that: (a) the non-voters can, in fact, be mobilized; (b) they are primarily motivated by economic concerns, and not right-wing cultural values; and (c) they live in swing states, as running up the score with millions of additional millennial votes in New York and California will do nothing to win in the Electoral College.

Warren’s concept is not illogical, but it is facially implausible and unproven. She has the burden of demonstrating that it can work. Thus far, she hasn’t done nearly enough to make her case.

Historically, the Conservative Party has been characterized by a respect for private property, individual liberty, and tradition, skepticism about change, and deference to aristocrats and the monarchy. There is absolutely no populism in its DNA. And yet, the current government is unabashedly populist; it cares about nothing except power and Brexit.

How did this happen? And how long can it last?

Brexit is the obvious answer to the first question. As to the second, you have to believe that the party’s essential character will reassert itself once Brexit is finished, as it must be at some point. There is just no way that Jacob Rees-Mogg, who is such a stereotypical upper class twit that he should be a fictional character played by John Cleese, can be part of a populist government for very long. It just wouldn’t make sense.

At each of the Premier League games I watched over the weekend, there was a brief pregame ceremony involving a moment of silence, and, in some places, a solitary bugler. It was very moving, even considering the fact that most of the players aren’t British.

The NFL games featured far more bombast and military imagery. Why the difference?

Three reasons. First, the NFL needs to brand itself as a bastion of patriotism after the kneeling episodes of the last few years. Second, we Americans don’t do dignified restraint anywhere near as well as the British, because that isn’t who we are. I think the most important difference, however, is that the two world wars impacted everyone in the UK, so there is no reason for anyone in particular to make a display of his feelings. Americans have short memories, and our most recent wars have been fought by volunteers representing a largely disengaged nation. We compensate for that with empty pageantry that probably isn’t even welcomed by most members of the military, because it has nothing to do with their wartime experiences.

Two related campaign stories from the weekend:

1. Elizabeth Warren’s surrogates are arguing that Joe Biden’s attacks on Warren’s “elitism” are sexist; and
2. Amy Klobuchar is complaining that Mayor Pete wouldn’t get a second look from anyone if he were female, given his skimpy resume.

Are these objections justified? In Biden’s case, I think you have to ask the following questions:

1. Would Biden be making the same allegation if Warren were a male law professor from Harvard?
2. Is Biden the first candidate to make the elitism argument?

It’s pretty clear to me that the answer to the first question is yes. For better or worse, Biden is engaged in working class identity politics here, and the elitism narrative works just as well if the target is a man. As to the second question, Klobuchar used similar lines about Warren during last month’s debate, and she can’t reasonably be accused of sexism. In my opinion, therefore, Warren’s complaint is opportunistic, whiny, and baseless.

On the Klobuchar/Mayor Pete front, Klobuchar may very well be right, but calling out the electorate, as opposed to a candidate, for being sexist is counterproductive. You can’t sell cars to customers by griping about their bad taste; you just have to find a way to work within the system and move on.

Iraq is characterized by the following divisions:

1. The sectarian one between Sunni and Shiite;
2. Supporters of an independent Iraq against proponents of an Iranian satellite state; and
3. Supporters of various Shiite faction leaders.

The “solution” to this has been an extremely weak state that doles out benefits to the well-connected, and tries desperately to balance the interests of the United States and Iran. As you can see from the action in the street, it isn’t working, which is hardly a surprise, given the Lebanese precedent. But what is the better alternative?

I predicted years ago that Iraq would end up as a military dictatorship–the lite beer version of Saddam’s regime. In the long run, I still think that is where the country is going. In the meantime, for our purposes, it is pointless to try to force Iraq to actively take sides against Iran, because that simply won’t happen; if pushed to its logical conclusion, the outcome would be another civil war that would be even worse than the status quo.