Category: Uncategorized

Elizabeth Warren’s many left-wing fans find it self-evident that their candidate is the most intelligent of the lot (probably true) and that her innumerable plans are just the ticket to fix our “rigged” system (a far more debatable point). In their view, concerns about Warren’s viability as a general election candidate are merely inherently sexist “likeability” questions that should be dismissed as a matter of principle. Moderates within the party are therefore urged to get with the program, check their male privilege, and support the best qualified person for the job.

It’s not that simple. The issue isn’t “likeability;” it’s identity politics. And Warren is a potential disaster in a general election in which identity will undoubtedly play an enormous role, given the nature of the Trump presidency.

The question for each candidate is whether he or she can mobilize or sway enough votes to win in 2020. If you view the election as primarily an exercise in base mobilization, why would you choose an elderly white woman over a younger person or a minority, given that these are the two categories of voters whose levels of participation are most easily raised? If, on the other hand, you think the real task is to win over likely swing voters, such as Never Trumpers, white male union members, and moderate suburban women, why would you pick a righteously angry female law professor from Harvard whose views can be easily (if not exactly accurately) described as socialism? And that doesn’t even count her “Pocahontas” red privilege episode.

Yes, Warren is a good debater. Yes, she would likely make mincemeat of Trump on the issues. Yes, given the constraints under which she would be operating, she could be a reasonably good president. But no, that doesn’t make her a winner in 2020 unless the electorate can be persuaded to vote their economic interests instead of their identities, which is incredibly unlikely.

The radical right incumbent won a plurality (not a majority) by appealing to two groups. First, he convinced business interests that he was the only thing standing between them and extreme leftists. Second, he promised his base that he would make his country great again by standing up to foreigners, promoting traditional cultural values, and rooting out ethnic enemies within the state.

Is it Germany in 1933 or America in 2020? Time will tell. One thing is for certain; there is an antecedent for the tax cuts for social conservatism bargain, and it isn’t pretty.

So Modi has turned Kashmir into a vast open air prison–and to what end? To throw red meat to his base? To piss off the Pakistanis? To show Trump who’s the boss in this neighborhood? To put an end to political violence in Kashmir? Good luck with that, seventy years after the partition.

You can’t solve deep-seated political problems in a truly democratic system with pure repression. Frankly, I can only see two models here, and both are troubling. One is Xinjiang, with the surveillance state and the Uighur camps. The other is the West Bank. Is that what India really wants?

In spite of their obvious conceptual and rhetorical differences, there are points of continuity between the two on foreign policy, as follows:

1. NORTH KOREA: Obama built a coalition, but it didn’t change Kim’s behavior. Trump first threatened nuclear war, then decided to rely on personal charm. That hasn’t worked either. ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
2. IS: The Trump secret plan turned out to be the Obama plan. It succeeded. ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
3. AFGHANISTAN: Both men battled the blob to withdraw. Neither has succeeded to date. ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
4. SYRIA: Neither man wanted to make much of a commitment to help the rebels. Now the question is, who wins the peace? ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
5. RUSSIA: Russian adventurism in Ukraine took place during Obama’s watch, not Trump’s. On the other hand, Trump is doing nothing we know of to deal with ongoing Russian cyberwarfare efforts, and he usually appears to be at odds with his own government. ADVANTAGE: EVEN.
6. IRAN/SAUDI ARABIA: Obama built a coalition against Iran, negotiated the nuclear deal, and refused to underwrite Saudi ambitions. Trump scrapped the deal, isolated America diplomatically, and gave MBS a blank check. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
7. CHINA: The “pivot to Asia” was based on the TPP. It could have worked. Trump has relied upon bluster and tariffs, which won’t. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
8. RELATIONS WITH ALLIES: It isn’t clear that NATO can survive another four years of Trump. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
9. LATIN AMERICA: Obama re-established diplomatic relations with Cuba. Trump tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the Venezuelan regime. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
10. INDIA: Both presidents moved slightly towards India. Trump probably doesn’t even know where Kashmir is. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.

There you have it! Not as lopsided as with domestic policy, but Obama is a clear winner here, too

Regime change is hard. If you don’t believe it, just ask the people of Iran and Venezuela.

There are significant similarities between the two. In both instances, Trump has applied the maximum possible economic pressure. In both cases, he appears to expect and want a negotiated solution, albeit one that gives him everything he wants. In neither case has it worked; the result has been widespread misery, but no progress. And in both situations, the regime has retaliated, but not to the point of provoking war.

There are differences, too. Trump’s emotional investment in Venezuela is more limited. America has more diplomatic support on Venezuela than on Iran. The Venezuelan regime is far less competent than the Iranian government. Finally, Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon, and abuts the world’s economic lifeline. The dangers inherent in an Iran war are consequently much higher.

At this point, neither Trump nor the Iranians have succeeded in accomplishing their objectives. An impasse, however, cannot last forever. The Iranian government is not going to collapse without a military push. The ultimate choice for Trump will be war or an embarrassing failure.

Donald Trump has enough of a record as president at this point to compare it to Obama’s. On domestic issues, the competition is lopsided, as follows:

1. THE ECONOMY: Obama and his team saved us from a second Great Depression. Unemployment was slightly over four percent by the time he left office. Trump gave us an unnecessary stimulus and promised it would lead to an investment boom. It didn’t; the growth rate, after a temporary improvement, has returned to a normal roughly 2.5 percent. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
2. INEQUALITY: Obama taxed the wealthy. Trump gave them a huge tax cut. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
3. CLIMATE CHANGE: Obama’s investments in clean technology are a frequently overlooked part of his legacy. Trump thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
4. NATIONAL UNITY: Obama did his best to be a unifying figure, even though right-wing media successfully overcame him on that point. Trump exposes and exacerbates our divisions every day; it’s the only way he knows how to operate. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
5. EDUCATION: Obama’s Race to the Top program had some benefits, and he pushed for transparency and reasonable controls on for-profit providers. Trump hired Betsy DeVos to enable profiteers and fraudsters and make life harder for students with mountains of debt. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
6. CORRUPTION: Obama ran a remarkably clean administration. Trump? Not so much. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.
7. IMMIGRATION: Obama’s efforts at bipartisan comprehensive reform nearly succeeded, but ran afoul of a GOP majority in the House. Trump’s antics on immigration have led to nothing but a national disgrace. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA.

You get the picture. Tomorrow, I will post on foreign policy, where the two legacies are more mixed.

On the Democrat candidate Liz.

Her campaign’s producing some fizz.

But Biden awaits.

He’s barring the gate.

In the end, will she master the quiz?

The concept: In theory, the “revolution”: persuading millions of reactionary workers to vote their economic interests over their cultural prejudices. In reality, hope Warren destroys Biden, inherit the latter’s voters through identity politics, and pray for a recession in 2020.

The challenge: Persuading America that he is really FDR and not Henry Wallace.

The prognosis: The American Corbyn has hit his ceiling. There simply aren’t enough Bernie bros to win the nomination, let alone the general election. Chances of success: 10 percent.

By “the field,” I mean Bullock and Klobuchar. No one else merits any discussion.

The concept: Moderate, qualified Biden replacement with a history of winning in rural areas can beat Trump in 2020.

The challenge: Why won’t anyone look at me?

The prognosis: Either could win a general election, and their chances will improve if they can get on a debate stage with fewer candidates. For the most part, however, it is all steak and no sizzle, which is a loss to the Democratic Party and the nation. Chances of success: 5 percent.

Tucker Carlson says white supremacy is a “hoax.” He essentially thinks that white supremacy is synonymous with Nazis, who would have trouble filling a phone booth in this country, so where’s the problem?

If you deconstruct it, here is his line of thought:

1. America is a white country, settled by white Europeans, with a white culture.
2. People who are not of white European stock cannot possibly assimilate here.
3. We white people have an obligation to protect our culture.
4. Therefore, keeping non-white people out is just a matter of self-preservation.

It’s about culture, not biology; we have no problem with non-white people, just as long as they don’t mix with us and mongrel up our way of life. Therefore, we aren’t white supremacists.

The problem, of course, is that #1 is only partially true, #2 is not true at all, and #3 and #4 must fall for being based on bogus premises. And Carlson and his reactionary ilk, with their fixation on protecting white European culture, are actually white supremacists, whether they acknowledge it or not.

Candidates, pundits, and debate moderators have identified the continuing existence of private insurance as the core issue dividing fundis from realos on Medicare-for-all. The real question is much broader than that–it is risk aversion, as shown in the following questions:

1. I SAW WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE ROLLOUT OF OBAMACARE. I’M OLD AND SICK, AND I CAN’T AFFORD ANY INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE SAME THING OCCURS ON A FAR GRANDER SCALE WITH THE NEW SYSTEM? I would love to reassure you on that point, but, hey, to err is human. In the long run, the inevitable administrative problems will be resolved, but in the long run, we’re all dead.
2. I’VE BEEN PAYING INTO MEDICARE MY WHOLE LIFE. HOW DO I KNOW THAT MY TAX MONEY WON’T JUST BE SHIFTED TO PAY FOR MILLENNIALS WHO NEVER PAID A DIME INTO THE SYSTEM? That isn’t Bernie’s plan, but once the process starts, you can never really know for sure where it will end.
3. I DON’T TRUST THE GOP. HOW DO I KNOW THEY WON’T CUT THE QUALITY OF CARE TO FINANCE SOME NEW TAX CUT? That would be risky and unpopular, but let’s not pretend it couldn’t happen. The NHS gets cut occasionally, and the GOP historically gets away with hurting its constituents for the benefit of the donor class by ratcheting up the culture war.
4. I HAVE EMPLOYER-BASED INSURANCE. HOW DO I KNOW THAT MY EMPLOYER WILL ACTUALLY USE HIS SAVINGS TO INCREASE MY WAGES? That’s the theory, but it actually depends on how much bargaining power you have. If we’re in a recession, or your job can be shipped overseas, there are no guarantees you will see any of that money, and you could wind up worse off financially, after taxes, than you are today.
5. IS A SYSTEM WITH FEW OR NO CO-PAYS TRULY REALISTIC? The Sanders proposal is much more generous on co-pays than other existing single-payer programs. Based on that, you can probably count on them to be increased significantly over time.

The bottom line is that the public has plenty of good reasons to be concerned about the government’s ability to deliver on Bernie’s promises. That’s the hurdle he has to overcome; it isn’t that everyone is in love with private insurance.

The concept: Biden without the baggage. He’s a younger, more vigorous replacement if Biden falters.

The challenge: To be the one who picks up the pieces for realos if Warren destroys their champion. He’ll have lots of competition, including Harris and Booker.

The prognosis: Mayor Pete has plenty of intellect, but no swagger. It’s amusing to think of him ripping Trump a new one in Norwegian at a debate, but it won’t happen, because he just doesn’t have a strong enough presence. Chances of success: 5 percent.

The nation is split over guns.

For violence, we’re number one.

The right thinks we’re blessed

To be stuck in this mess.

With wackos who kill just for fun.

The concept: Millennials! Hold on to Clinton’s voters and drive up millennial participation by offering them lots of free stuff.

The challenge: It comes in three parts. First, she has to pick off as many Sanders voters as possible to win the fundi lane. Second, she has to convince Biden supporters that they should overlook ideology in favor of competence while she is reducing their candidate to a quivering mass of goo during the debates. Finally, she has to overcome just about every identity prejudice possible to beat Trump.

The prognosis: Step #1 is the easy part, although there are plenty of Bernie voters who would choose Biden over her for identity reasons. Step #2 is an exercise in threading the needle; the Biden supporters could easily opt for Booker or Harris over her if she comes across as being offensive. Step #3 is the really daunting part, because Warren is a dream opponent for Trump. He will, for the most part, refuse to engage on any of the ostensible issues and fight his campaign solely on identity, his strong suit; I’ll have more on that in my next Warren’s day post. His tactics will probably work unless we have a recession or an unsuccessful war. Chances of success: 20 percent.

Standing on a debate stage, Elizabeth Warren just radiates righteous anger. She smolders. She seethes. And with good reason! Fighting a rigged status quo is her calling card. She’ll never stop fighting until she wins for America, and the plutocracy is vanquished for good.

The subtext behind this is clear: Barack Obama failed to transform America because he wasn’t willing to fight the powers that be. He was a wimp. President Warren won’t make that mistake.

Here are my reactions:

1. There are millions of us who just want peace in the country–not a war without end.
2. Given what happened just a few days ago, is it really a good idea to increase the temperature of our politics?
3. Anger works for Republicans–it certainly worked for Trump. Democrats, on the other hand, do better with hope. Just ask Obama and Bill Clinton.
4. Obama discovered fairly early in his presidency that he had a better chance of getting things through the system if he didn’t take ownership of them, because the GOP would automatically oppose anything that had his name on it. How would a President Warren fare any differently? Fighting with Mitch McConnell doesn’t make him any weaker or less steadfast.

The bottom line is that fighting can be useful at times, but it can also be futile and even counterproductive. The bully pulpit has been shown throughout recent times to be grossly overrated. Sometimes, you just have to pick your spots. Warren, for all of her intellect, doesn’t appear to understand that.