Category: Uncategorized

If identity meant everything in politics, Bernie Sanders would poll well among senior citizens. In point of fact, Sanders does very well with millennials, but poorly with elderly voters. Why?

Two reasons. First, socialism has a very negative connotation to the elderly, based on their experience during the Cold War, that isn’t shared by millennials. Second, the elderly (correctly) see themselves as being at the mercy of the government; they can’t afford to take any actions which could put their benefits at risk. In their eyes, Sanders is proposing precisely that.

Bernie would respond by saying that his Medicare for All plan is more generous than the current Medicare program, so seniors have nothing to fear. If you simply accept what is on paper on its face, he’s right. The problem is that most seniors simply don’t believe the government can take on so many massive new responsibilities without screwing up, and that the real world effect of the Sanders platform will be to increase their taxes and divert their benefits (which, in their eyes, they have already paid for) to millennials. Given the fairly horrific experience with the rollout of Obamacare, who can say with absolute certainty that they are wrong? In the real world, therefore, their position makes perfect sense. Bernie will never win them over.

A note to my readers: I will be on vacation until Tuesday, July 9. Posting between now and then will be irregular at best.

I’ve been sort of a disappointed cheerleader for Harris over the last several months–touting her presence, intellect, and prosecutorial background, but complaining about her inability to pick either the realo or the fundi side. Well, her talents were all on display last night, and everyone noticed.

Biden wasn’t exactly doddering, but he looked old, gave meandering answers, and struggled to find the right words from the very beginning. Harris clearly smelled blood, and pounced. It looked a little like one of those predator and prey scenes on a nature documentary.

My guess is that African-Americans will now see her as a plausible winner, and will reconsider their support of Biden. It is an opportunity for her, not a complete victory. If she wants to win, she needs to, once and for all, identify herself as a realo, not a Sanders or Warren wannabe, because that’s where the most votes are. And she needs to be prepared to respond to attacks on her record. She got a pass last night, but don’t expect that to continue.

One other note: Biden wasn’t the only old guy who looked tired and irrelevant last night. Bernie just shouted and kept repeating his one grumpy speech about class warfare, even as the landscape around him changed in real time. I think he is on his way out, too.

Upon leaving the Ben Franklin Museum in Philadelphia about a month ago, my wife observed that Ben was a “Renaissance man.” I somewhat pedantically responded that, technically speaking, he was more of an “Enlightenment man.” The question for today is, what is the difference?

In a nutshell, it is the difference between art and science. The Renaissance was primarily a leap forward in the visual arts, prompted by the fortuitous rediscovery of classical artworks and fueled by growing Italian economic prosperity. Leonardo and Galileo notwithstanding, it was not a great time for science, and the reason is suggested by Galileo’s fate; the Catholic Church had already decided how the universe worked, and wasn’t open to second opinions. The Enlightenment, on the other hand, was born of the bloody failures of the subsequent religious wars. If you couldn’t impose a godly order on everyone, or even decide for all time what that meant, you could put metaphysical issues aside and use your senses to better understand the tangible world. That is what Franklin did, to the benefit of all of us.

With her jaw clenched and her eyes glittering, Elizabeth Warren stood up in front of the American people and promised to fight. She would fight them on Wall Street. She would fight them at the border. She would fight Mitch McConnell in the Senate. She would fight big business and big tech and rogue capitalists and lobbyists and pharma and China and Vladimir Putin and everyone else who stood in the way of the benighted American people. Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight.

If it all sounds like a souped up version of Hillary Clinton, it should. Clinton’s advisers consistently told her that talking about “fighting” polled well. How did that turn out?

When you think about the presidential candidates who won two terms over the last 40 years–Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama–not one of them talked constantly about “fighting.” There is a message in that.

Fighting constantly is exhausting. Sure, it has to be part of Warren’s populist persona, but she needs to be more balanced. I just don’t see how she can beat anyone who exudes warmth and optimism when the contest is one-on-one unless she provides more variety in her tone. And don’t tell me that’s just sexism; men with the same simple combative message are just as tiresome.

Observations as follows:

1. The large number of minor candidates guaranteed that it would be a shouting contest, and hard on the ears. And so it was. The MSM made it even worse by declaring winners based on the amount of speaking time, which only encourages more shouting. Expect more of the same tonight.
2. Joe Biden won hands down, because nobody attacked him.
3. Booker and Klobuchar were smooth, moderate, and reasonably restrained. To me, they were the best of the lot.
4. Warren’s closing was good, and she was plenty punchy, but to me, she sounded angry and shrill for the most part, and the nuances in her position understandably disappeared, given the time constraints. In the long run, it will be important for her to sound different than Bernie Sanders; on this occasion, she could have been his twin.
5. Beto meandered. He was the big loser of the night, to the extent that there was one.
6. In the big picture, I don’t think this debate changed very much, because no one stood out that much, either positively or negatively.

There was no such thing as a single national market at the time the Constitution was written and ratified. The vast majority of products were consumed locally; the few manufactured goods that existed were typically imported from Europe.

How different it was from today! How many local products do you consume on a daily basis? Practically none.

The creation of the single national market was largely a product of technological change, of course, but while it seems obvious and inevitable today, it was not. Without John Marshall and his expansive view of the federal power to regulate commerce, it might never have happened; railroads, for example, could have run into dead ends at state lines. At the very least, the development of our country would have been significantly slowed.

For that reason, you can easily make the argument that Marshall has as much claim to be the godfather of American capitalism as Hamilton. That is the case which is implicitly made in an exhibit at the National Constitution Center, and it has merit.

The case for Joe Biden is simple and persuasive: America just wants incremental change and to be freed from Trump, not a revolution; and he can win by picking off male blue collar workers who were put off by Hillary Clinton, Never Trumpers, businessmen worried about tariffs, and moderate suburban women. The polls suggest that a large plurality of Democrats agree with this approach. But what about Warren? What is her theory, and how does she win, using 2016 as a baseline?

Warren’s theory (against the evidence, including the 2018 election) is that Trump’s victory was driven by a hunger for radical change that he has failed to meet. Here is where she stands with groups of potential difference makers:

1. INCREASE MINORITY TURNOUT: Clinton had a deep and longstanding connection to African-Americans; Warren doesn’t. Not happening.
2. MALE BLUE COLLAR WORKERS: Warren makes no concessions to them on cultural issues. Like Sanders, she is effectively hoping that a purely economic message of solidarity will work magic. It won’t.
3. BUSINESS INTERESTS: Are you kidding me? Anyone who worries about Trump’s tariffs and erratic behavior will vote for a third party candidate.
4. GENUINE CONSERVATIVES: Ditto. They’re not voting for a watered-down version of Bernie’s “revolution.”
5. YOUNG PEOPLE: Lots of potential here. But will they come out and vote in much larger numbers? History says no.

As you can see, it is possible for Warren to win in 2020, particularly if the economy goes sour, but her path is much narrower than Biden’s, and is almost completely dependent on her ability to mobilize millennials.

It’s easy to identify European historical analogies for Trump, but American analogies are harder to find. You could make a case for George Wallace or a right-wing Huey Long, but the best choice, in my opinion, is Aaron Burr. How do the two stack up?

TRUMP VS. BURR

CONTESTED ELECTION Trump–2016; Burr–1800.

FAMOUS ANCESTOR Trump–Dad; Burr–Jonathan Edwards

MILITARY SERVICE Trump–Bone Spurs; Burr–War Hero

MOTIVATION Trump–Narcissism; Burr–Ambition

TALK ABOUT SHOOTING Trump–Fifth Avenue; Burr–New Jersey

AND THE WINNER IS . . . Trump. Burr is the more attractive figure in a lot of respects, but he didn’t win the presidency, he killed Hamilton, and he intrigued for some sort of an empire in the west. Trump hasn’t done anything that bad–yet.

Here’s a long term approach to the Palestinian issue: climate change will eventually make the land uninhabitable, anyway. Call it the no state solution.

It will probably work better than the Trump/Kushner plan.

1. WILL WARREN SHINE? She is the only first-tier candidate speaking on the first night. Can she make a strong impression by sounding both wonky and punchy? After seeing her on tape, I think the answer will be yes.
2. RIGHT VS. LEFT: Since Warren is behind in the polls and has a history with Biden, expect her to get personal in her criticism. Bernie, the following night, is more likely to stick to his own talking points. Biden will have the advantage of having a day to consider his responses to Warren; he will have the delicate task of swatting away her arguments while continuing to keep the focus on beating Trump. Can he pull that off in his limited speaking time? TBD.
3. CAN KAMALA CRUSH IT? Harris has the personality and the talent to command the stage. This may be her last, best chance, so she had better take it.
4. WHICH SECOND-TIER CANDIDATE WILL EMERGE? One or two of the lesser-known candidates are bound to impress with their zingers and become bigger factors in the race. The rest are just doomed to obscurity and an early electoral death. For these candidates, as they say on reality shows, the stakes have never been higher.
5. WILL TRUMP’S TWEETS OVERSHADOW THEM ALL? Very possibly. It’s going to be a very strange dynamic, but it may well work to the advantage of his targets–most likely to be Warren, Sanders, and above all, “Sleepy Joe.”

Apart from the Intolerable Acts, which were a harsh and unfair form of collective punishment, it’s hard to make the argument that the American colonists were much oppressed by the British government on the eve of the Revolution. There was a reasonable case for Parliament to tax them for their defense, they had their own assemblies, and for the most part, their rights as British subjects were respected. So why did they rebel?

For several reasons. First of all, many of them were the descendants of people who fled what they viewed as religious persecution in Great Britain. They consequently had no reason to love the mother country. Second, some of them weren’t even British by ancestry. Third, Britain might have kept a light footprint in the colonies, but that meant the mother country wasn’t doing much to help them. Most of the protection they needed from Indian attacks on a day-to-day basis they were providing themselves. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it was clear that the British government was going to be an obstacle to progress in the long run, both through protectionist legislation and by preventing the colonists from moving west and taking Indian lands.

And so, in spite of the risks, a large majority of Americans supported the patriot cause. If that had not been the case, the Revolution probably would have failed.

Imagine that you are President Rouhani of Iran. You desperately want to avoid war and escape sanctions, but the country is far from united behind you. The Revolutionary Guards are basically a state within a state, and the Supreme Leader blows hot and cold. You can’t rely on controlling either of them.

You can’t realistically expect to win a clear military or diplomatic victory in this latest confrontation with the Great Satan. Given Trump’s track record, however, it is plausible that you could do a USMCA and sell him on insignificant changes to the initial nuclear deal. He needs something he can call a “win,” so give him one, as long as it doesn’t affect your interests in any meaningful way.

The problem is that, while Trump himself can easily be bought off, he is surrounded by people who are panting for war: Bibi; MBS; MBZ; Bolton; and Pompeo, just to name a few. In addition, your strategy of mobilizing the Europeans against America isn’t working, because Trump doesn’t care what they think. He is far more interested in Tucker Carlson’s opinion than Angela Merkel’s.

You could run to Putin for protection, but you know what a cynical bastard he is. He would sell you out in a heartbeat for something he really wants, such as a free hand in Ukraine. Xi is more promising. He needs Persian Gulf oil, he’s more reliable, and he’s not on your border.

And so, my advice is as follows:

1. Internationalize the conflict to the maximum extent possible. Try to get the Chinese involved in some grand diplomatic solution that could be spun as a “win” to Trump and the American public.
2. Do your best to keep the Revolutionary Guards from killing any Americans.
3. Send out the message, over and over again, that war with Iran will look like the war with Iraq. Carlson clearly believes that, and his opinion matters. Trump is afraid he will lose his base if he launches another Iraq War.

Will any of this work? Unfortunately, events are more powerful than you are. There are no guarantees. The odds are worse than even. But the situation is not completely hopeless.

“Hamilton,” the musical, is a huge hit with the American public. How would the current GOP feel about the man himself? Here’s how:

1. CLs: Expanding the size of the central government and subsidizing industry–ugh! Tommy J all the way!
2. PBPs: The founder of American democratic capitalism–he da man!
3. CDs: Mixed bag. Love the late blooming enthusiasm for religion and traditional values; hate the womanizing.
4. Reactionaries: Also a mixed bag, but for slightly different reasons. We don’t approve of his enthusiasm for immigrants, but we also appreciate the belated appreciation for religion and traditional values, and we like the protectionism and the emphasis on making America great.

How would he fit in a Trumpian world? Not well, I think.

For a Conservative Libertarian, freedom from government regulation is an overriding value. Government measures that attempt to maximize the overall welfare of society by redistributing wealth or limiting choices are to be avoided at all costs. If the price of that is a grossly unequal society, that’s ok, because regulation is a slippery slope, governments often make bad trade-offs, and 1984 is never very far away.

CLs typically portray themselves as defenders of the Founders’ view of the Constitution as a device to limit federal power. That is patently incorrect; they are, in fact, the heirs of the Anti-Federalists, and their adoration should logically be directed at the Articles of Confederation.

Liberals, like CLs, believe in limited government, but for a specific purpose–to maximize the potential of individuals. They believe that dogmatic libertarianism in practice inevitably leads to concentrations of wealth and power that were not contemplated by the Founders. These concentrations lead to distortions of the political system, successful rent-seeking, and oligarchy. Government action is (regrettably) necessary on a regular basis to fight the natural trend towards oligarchy and to provide the less fortunate with a reasonable chance to refine and use their special talents. That, in turn, increases the overall amount of freedom (in both the positive and negative senses) and maximizes individual excellence, to society’s benefit.

The two groups see society as being a collection of individuals. As such, they stand apart from the collectivist elements (Democratic Socialists for the Democrats; Reactionaries and Christian Democrats for the Republicans) in their respective parties. The difference is that the liberals represent the majority of the Democratic Party; CLs are a small minority within the GOP.

In the Bagehot column in the latest Economist, the author notes that Plato considered the most important qualities of a statesman to be truthfulness and expertise, and the worst flaws to be narcissism and self-indulgence.

Recent experience certainly tells us that Plato was right, doesn’t it?