Category: Uncategorized

Some left-wing pundits have observed the similarity between the Sanders and Warren campaigns and wondered if Bernie’s embrace of “democratic socialism” really matters. The answer is yes, for three reasons:

1. At the most obvious level, elderly voters are turned off by the “socialist” label, so Warren’s chances of winning are much better than Bernie’s.
2. Bernie’s Marxist mindset has a big impact on the way he processes information. He views the world through the prism of the class struggle, and sees oligarchs, imperialists, and the exploited masses everywhere. As a result, just to use one example, he lumps Putin, Xi, and MBS together as tools of oligarchy, when they are in fact very different. That would have implications for our foreign policy that I do not care to contemplate.
3. Perhaps most importantly, liberals and socialists have different views about the just society and the role of the state. To a liberal, the objective of society is to free the individual to realize his potential to the maximum extent possible. Excessive levels of inequality are inefficient in this respect, and can present a threat to the proper workings of a democratic system, but for the most part, the role of government should be limited. To a socialist, equality is the overriding objective in a just society, not freedom or excellence. Hence the title of this post.

Most socialist systems over the past century have been characterized by economic failure and political oppression. We’ll give Bernie the benefit of the doubt and assume that his model society is not the USSR, but the UK around 1950. No one went hungry, and everyone had health care through the newly-created NHS, but many commodities were rationed, and life was pretty drab. Is that the kind of country to which we should aspire? I don’t think so.

Left-wing pundits and the other candidates predictably went nuts went it became known that Biden had touted his ability to cooperate with members of the hard right–even segregationists. He’s soft on bigots! Maybe he’s even one himself! He needs to apologize!

All of which is ridiculous. Whether you agree with it or not, the basis of Biden’s candidacy, other than his unique level of experience, is his willingness to work with anyone to improve the condition of the country and get rid of Trump, and his refusal to act like Trump and demonize everyone who disagrees with him. What is he then supposed to say? That the Republican Party as a whole is beyond the pale? That everyone on the right is doomed to PC damnation?

If you want a candidate who thinks that America can be somehow completely transformed if the Democrats get 51 percent of the vote in 2020, vote for someone else. Biden is not your man. Just make sure to ask hard questions about how the transformation is going to survive Republican intransigence, the survival instincts of moderate Democrats, the filibuster, and the Roberts Court before you make that decision.

Twitter, alas, has become a huge factor in campaigns. It leaves candidates with a mostly unpalatable choice. You can work as hard as possible to be inoffensive and avoid the mobs, but then you come across as boring and inauthentic. Or, you can swagger around and either embrace Twitter or ignore it, and face the wrath of the mobs, whose opinions tend to show up in the MSM in short order.

Which is the better approach? It depends on the thickness of your skin, how much you enjoy agitating people, and how well known you are. It works for Trump; for, say, Cory Booker, not so much.

Perhaps the Democrats should nominate Beyoncé. The Beyhive would be more than a match for the rabid right on social media.

I’VE GOT A PLAN FOR THAT

If you can’t escape your student debt.

If your child care needs just can’t be met.

If you’re down and out, well, don’t you fret.

I’ve got a plan for that.

_____________

If you think that Trump distorts the facts.

If you think you’re paying too much tax.

If the system screws you ’cause you’re black.

I’ve got a plan for that.

_________________

If you think the rich have too much power.

If you feel your life is turning sour.

If you need the woman of the hour

I’ve got a plan for that.

The NYT taped the Democratic candidates (minus Biden) answering the same questions–a mixture of policy and personal inquiries–and put the tapes on their web page. The effect of it is similar to a debate, except you can view it at your leisure. If you have an opportunity, I recommend it.

I watched selected responses from most of the first and second-tier candidates. I skipped Bernie, because I’m already completely familiar with his act. Here are my impressions:

1. Booker comes across as being polished and articulate, but he never really seems to answer the questions or say anything really substantial.
2. Harris is effective when she answers questions spontaneously. Mostly, she doesn’t.
3. Klobuchar is refreshingly and openly moderate, but she talks too much, and her panders to Iowa voters are annoying.
4. Mayor Pete gives clear and thoughtful answers to the questions. I can see why he has emerged as a second-tier candidate from complete obscurity.
5. Warren is definitely the best of the lot. She has succeeded in honing her message over time. That bodes well for her performance during the debate.

Have you ever seriously looked at the lyrics for “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”? It’s an abolitionist song, and it’s stark and appalling. The theme of it is that slavery was America’s original sin, that it must be redeemed in oceans of blood, and that the Union Army is the instrument of the Almighty for that purpose. Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Oceans of blood there in fact were. The last estimate of casualties I saw was around 600,000. Imagine the impact that would have had relative to the population at the time. Virtually everyone in the country would have had a family member or a friend who was killed or wounded in the war. The national pain would have been beyond description.

And so, the next time you hear someone with a short memory say that we as a nation haven’t truly paid the debt for slavery, tell him our ancestors already gave beyond his wildest dreams.

Warren and Sanders are undoubtedly going to argue that Biden (and, by implication, Obama) is far too weak on China. Will their arguments persuade the Democratic electorate?

Not if he handles them properly. The Obama/Biden approach to China was to create a rules-based system with the support of our allies–the TPP. What do the fundis have to offer as an alternative? If they don’t like the TPP, that would suggest that they support aggressive unilateral actions–in other words, they agree with Trump, which is hardly a winning argument with most Democrats. If they think the answer is to subsidize national tech champions, isn’t that the kind of corporate welfare that is the hallmark of a “rigged” system?

As I’ve noted before, there are essentially four ways to respond to the rise of China: (a) acquiesce to it, and accept spheres of influence; (b) fight a war of annihilation; (c) engage in the same kind of mercantilist behavior, focusing on subsidies, forced technology transfers, and discriminatory regulations; or (d) double down on what made you great in the first place–an open capitalist system based on international law.

Warren’s “economic patriotism” approach, with its emphasis on subsidies and worker-friendly codes of conduct for corporations, is clearly a version of (c). It sounds a little like Hamilton, or, if you prefer more recent history, an updated version of FDR’s NRA.

Subsidies are probably going to play some role in this process regardless of who wins the election. My concerns about Warren’s plan, from a historical perspective, are: (a) our country is not the economic pygmy that it was in Hamilton’s day; (b) nor is it in the throes of the Great Depression; (c) the NRA was a failure even before it was rejected by the Supreme Court; and (d) it sounds like an effort to create highly-regulated national champions in selected areas of tech, which is inconsistent with her plan to break up the current tech giants, and which would create its own economic and political problems. If you don’t believe me, just ask the South Koreans about the uneasy relationships between their giant corporations and the government.

In short, I don’t think we need “Made in America 2025.” The Obama/Biden approach, which is (d), is more consistent with our system, and will work better in the long run. More on the politics of this issue in future posts.

Any movement that has to rely on its ability to turn out hundreds of thousands of people on a regular basis to block government initiatives is ultimately doomed to fail. And so it is in Hong Kong; the Chinese government is too single-minded, too ruthless, and too strong to lose in the long run. Still, you have to be hugely impressed by the courage and the fortitude of the demonstrators. They are showing the world that liberal democratic values aren’t simply about money, and that some people can’t be bought, even in today’s world.

Donald Trump, for his part, couldn’t care less; after all, it wasn’t about him, and he thinks liberal democratic values are a nuisance.

The images of the demonstrations have gone out all over the world. For the Chinese government, which has invested billions in soft power, they are a nightmare. To which I say: good. Pandas, kung fu movies, and investments in infrastructure only get you so far.

Like David Brooks, the right-wing pseudo-philosopher Ben Shapiro thinks he knows what is wrong with today’s America–an excess of individualism. Unlike Brooks, Shapiro puts this idea in some historical context. He argues that our civilization works best when classical Greek/Enlightenment ideas of individualism and rationalism are adequately balanced by Judeo-Christian concepts of traditional morality. In his view, the Greek part has gotten out of control, the Judeo-Christian part is withering, and America is consequently spiritually sick. Put in more blunt terms, America needs to get back to God, and as soon as possible. It’s a message social conservatives will love.

There is some merit to his concept of the tension between the two pillars of thought. His conclusion, however, isn’t supported by the facts. If you take any of the indicia of societal decay–divorce rates, crime, teenage pregnancy, rampant opioid use, and the like–it will probably be worse in the supposedly godly red states. Where does that leave his theory?

Nowhere, for two reasons. First of all, societal breakdowns are far more likely where popular expectations regarding the economy have been frustrated. Second, traditional values can flourish in the absence of Christianity. It’s happening in the blue states today; crime and the rest are falling, not rising.

Regime change is hard. If you don’t believe me, just ask Juan Guaido.

Venezuela and Iran are similar in that Trump has committed our country to an aggressive course of action without providing a plausible Plan B short of war. In Venezuela, it appears that he is willing to tolerate a slow defeat; Brazil and Colombia aren’t interested in fighting his battle for him, he can’t abide invasions and occupations, and no one would take a nuclear threat seriously, so what other choice does he have? With Iran, however, he has MBS, MBZ, Bibi, Bolton, and Pompeo baying for war, no diplomatic support, and an adversary with a nuclear program, a finger on the world’s supply line, and no interest in negotiations. The result, therefore, will be different.

Three ways:

1. Calling him “Sleepy Joe” doesn’t exactly make the case to swing voters that he’s a dangerous socialist.
2. Attacking him for any purpose encourages Democrats who might otherwise have reservations about him to rally around him.
3. He sets a low bar for consistency and gaffes. Everyone is used to that now. Why should Biden be measured by anyone other than him?

Here’s what a number of prominent figures would say:

1. BERNIE SANDERS: Capitalism. Trump is just the logical outcome of a corrupt system.
2. ELIZABETH WARREN: Capitalists and the regulatory system. The system worked for everyone until Reagan was elected.
3. JOE BIDEN: Trump. Get rid of him and everything will be fine.
4. DONALD TRUMP: Fake news; illegal immigrants; liberals, the deep state.
5. TA-NEHISI COATES: Racism, of course.
6. DAVID BROOKS: Too much individualism.
7. JAY INSLEE: The system’s inability to respond to climate change.
8. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND: Men.

Happy Fathers’ Day, Kirsten!

Steve Bannon sees the thirties as a golden age of nationalism, and wants to bring it back. Bernie Sanders is aware of the analogy, too, but views it as a cautionary tale. In his speech on socialism, he cast himself as a modern-day FDR, fighting oligarchies and the right-wing strong men they use as tools both domestically and abroad. Elect him in 2020, and happy days are here again, it seems.

Is he right? Actually, nothing about his story rings true:

1. Only a Marxist would view Hitler and Mussolini as pawns of business interests.
2. As Tim Cook would be happy to tell you, Trump isn’t a tool of large corporate interests, either.
3. Nor are the grab bag of contemporary strongmen to whom Bernie referred in his speech. Xi works for an oligarchy, all right, but they are Communists, not businessmen. Putin tamed the oligarchs in his country; they work for his interests, not the other way around. MBS is a Peter the Great wannabe trying, in his erratic and despotic way, to free his country from the shackles of Islamic tradition. Duterte is a thug obsessed with crime and drugs; business is not his thing. Orban’s right-wing populism is based on nationalism, not the promotion of Hungarian business interests. And so on.
4. Can you imagine a President Sanders doing his best within the system to prop up the ultra-imperialist Churchill against the Nazis in 1940? Me, neither.
5. While it is true that the GOP portrayed FDR as a socialist, he made it perfectly clear that he wasn’t one, and it is fair to say that most of Bernie’s programs (with the possible exception of Medicare-for-All) were not part of his vision for the country. Sanders is the new Henry Wallace, not FDR.

The bottom line is that Bernie’s speech was a bogus Marxist narrative used for opportunistic purposes, not an accurate description of either America or the rest of the world. It is true that inequality has increased both at home and abroad as a result of globalization and technological change. It is also true that the current wave of right-wing populism in America and Europe is to some extent a reaction to economic failure. It is not true, however, that Trump and the other right-wing populist leaders are simply pawns of business interests, just because Marxist theory says they must be.

My guess is that the tanker attacks were carried out by elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Whether they were specifically sanctioned by the government or not is unclear. On the one hand, Rouhani has less control over the Guard than one might think; on the other, the Iranians are past masters at the use of plausible deniability.

In the end, it probably doesn’t matter; Iranians close to the government will be found at fault, and the regime will have to pay the price. But how, exactly?

I predicted years ago that Trump would go to war with Iran, and that a naval issue like this would be the most likely precipitant. I am sticking to my story, although war over this particular incident is not completely inevitable. The real question is whether the Trump administration will cut the grass, go in some way for regime change, or annihilate the country altogether, given that an Iraq-style invasion and occupation is not in the cards.

I think we will start with a fairly robust aerial assault on the Revolutionary Guard, accompanied by a stern warning that any retaliation will result in the use of nukes. Since nuclear threats are now a familiar part of Trump’s diplomatic tool kit, and nothing has happened, the Iranians will probably blow it off. How does Trump respond when they call his bluff? That’s when things get really, really dangerous.