Category: Uncategorized

On Warren and “Pocahontas”

“Pocahontas” is undoubtedly the albatross around Elizabeth Warren’s neck. The questions for today are:

  1. Does it matter?
  2. Should it matter?

The answer to the second question is simple–no. Warren clearly had an honest belief at an earlier age that she was partly Native American. Based on the stories told in her household, the belief was reasonable. She never gained anything by it. Why is such a small mistake a stain on her reputation?

The first question presents more difficulties. During the primaries, she will undoubtedly have a few problems with PC zealots who will complain that she disrespected Native Americans, but that won’t amount to much in the big picture. The general election would be quite another story, however. “Pocahontas” resonates with Trump’s base because it seems to encapsulate everything that is wrong (from their perspective) with left-wing identity politics. Their story is that an allegedly privileged white woman tried to beat the system by making a bogus claim to be a Native American; that is where you end up when you make your arguments for justice and victimhood based on group membership rather than your own individual life story.

Of course, Trump and his base claim to be victims, too, but that’s a story for another day.

Why the Far Left Hearts Trump

Julian Assange and Glen Greenwald are hardly members of the far right, and yet they have consistently defended Donald Trump. Why?

Because they are the exact opposite of neo-conservatives: they believe that America is exceptional in that it is a force for evil throughout the world. Conceived in slavery, imperialism, and sin, America brings death and disorder everywhere it goes in the name of supposed universal values that it uses purely as a cover for material interests. Sure, Putin might be a thug, and his regime might be a kleptocracy, but his imperialism is more restrained than America’s, and he doesn’t try to convince the world that he’s high-minded. He may be evil, but he’s the lesser evil.

Jeremy Corbyn would agree with all of this, and Bernie Sanders probably does, too, although he is unlikely to say so directly in public.

To these folks, there are two things to commend Trump. First, he’s given no indication that he’s a warmonger; he prefers negotiations and economic sanctions to military interventions–at least so far. Second, Trump doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism; to the far left, his absurdly anachronistic version of colonialism and mercantilism isn’t an aberration–it actually is what America does in practice. Trump, in their eyes, speaks for the real America, not the self-deluded one; he’s a truth-teller who exposes the hypocrisy of the establishment by his open preference for economic interests and dictators over liberal democratic values. As such, he is a breath of fresh air, not a menace to be opposed wherever possible.

More on Angry Democrats

As I noted in my last post, the division between uplifting and angry Democrats doesn’t coincide with the realo/fundi split. Why?

Because different Democrats are angry about different things. Warren and Sanders are upset about the allegedly “rigged” American political and economic systems in general; to them, Trump’s corruption is more of a symptom than the actual illness, and his greatest sin was to portray himself as a reformer in 2016, and then to unashamedly pour more water into the swamp. The realos, on the other hand, are less concerned about structural issues with the system, and more about the evils of the individual himself.

I suspect the voters are more focused on Trump than the “rigged” system. We’ll see next year.

On Anger and Uplift

There are basically two ways to run against Trump: you can ignore him and try to sell the public on a vision for a better America; or you can focus your energy on prosecuting him for his innumerable sins. The two approaches are mutually exclusive.

You might think initially that the angry approach would be associated exclusively with realos, and the uplift with fundis, but you would be wrong. Beto, for example, is an uplifting realo, while Sanders and Warren are angry fundis.

Which approach will the Democrats choose in 2020? Historically, they have preferred youthful candidates with an uplifting message, but they’ve never run against anyone like Trump before. My best guess is that anger will play well with the blue base this time. We’ll see, probably as early as the first debate.

On Bret Stephens and the Iran Deal

Bret Stephens predictably thinks that Trump’s decision to break out of the Iran nuclear deal has been successful. Is he right?

Not really. It is true, as he says, that the new American sanctions have made it more difficult for the Iranians to find the money to support their confederates elsewhere in the Middle East, and that the Iranians have chosen to date not to tear up the agreement. It is consequently fair to say that things could definitely be worse. He neglects to point out, however, that Trump’s decision has severely damaged our relationship with our European allies, who are actively taking the Iranian side in the dispute, that the Iranians could change their position on observing the agreement at any time, and that the new sanctions have not, and will not, result in regime change. All the sanctions are doing is making everyone’s lives more difficult, which was hardly the point.

On the Civil War and the Welfare State

Slavery made it impossible for small white farmers to compete with cotton plantation owners on cost. They were, for the most part, left to engage in subsistence farming. Since the Civil War (notwithstanding what you hear from some diehard Southerners) was about maintaining slavery, it would appear that there was no economic reason for these people to support the war. And yet, they did, and they died by the hundreds of thousands. Why?

There were a variety of reasons, but one of them undoubtedly was status anxiety; slavery might have cost them money, but it boosted their self-esteem, because it meant they would never be the lowest man on the totem pole, no matter how unsuccessful they might be. They were willing to go to extremes to protect that interest.

You should keep that in mind the next time you hear someone ask why white workers vote for Republicans who cut their benefits.

On Sanders, Trump, and the Pax Americana

Here are the central tenets of Trump’s foreign policy:

  1. The only things that matter are money and military power.
  2. Values, international law, and international institutions are for chumps.
  3. The quality of America’s relationship with any given foreign country is measured by the size of its trade surplus or deficit.
  4. America has no permanent friends. “Allies” who run a large trade surplus with us are using “shared values” as a weapon to rip us off. They’re every bit as bad as our traditional foes. Use tariffs and sanctions to keep them in line.
  5. History is made by great men, so the solution to most problems is personal negotiations.
  6. Strongmen, particularly of the right-wing variety, are more reliable allies than genuine democrats, because they guarantee stability.
  7. Nation-building is a hideously expensive fool’s errand.
  8. If your military is going to protect another country, make sure you’re paid handsomely for it.

Like Trump (and unlike Obama), Bernie Sanders doesn’t believe in the Pax Americana. However, the only item on this list with which he would agree is #7. Sanders believes that America should cut its defense budget dramatically and rely exclusively on diplomacy, moral example, and, where absolutely necessary, economic sanctions to solve international problems. He identifies the right-wing illiberal democrats and strongmen so adored by Trump as part of an axis of autocrats that should be opposed by an international movement of social democrats. He would, therefore, increase the number of America’s enemies, without providing any additional means to fight them.

Trump’s anachronistic pseudo-realism has been a disaster for America. Sanders’ extreme idealism would just be a different kind of disaster.

On Mayor Pete

Pete Buttigieg seems to be the flavor of the month among pundits. I can’t say I know much about him, but the consensus is that he’s a bright, well-educated, sensible guy with limited relevant experience who operates in the same ideological space as Joe Biden. He also happens to be gay.

The question for the day is, why would I prefer him to Biden? If I were an employer and had to choose between the two, why would I pick the inexperienced candidate unless I couldn’t afford the experienced one?

The obvious PC answer is, because he’s gay. And that’s the problem. I wish Mayor Pete well. I’m never going to oppose him just because he’s gay. However, being gay is not a job qualification–at least not for the most important job in the world.

On America, As Viewed By Boomers and Millennials

It’s an obvious point, but it’s worth stating: your perceptions of America and its role in the world are largely dictated by your experiences. Consider the following:

Boomers grew up with the threat of annihilation by Soviet nuclear weapons. We rejoiced when the wall came down and the Soviet Union imploded. We celebrated the victory in the Gulf War. Millennials either didn’t experience any of that or were too young to remember it. They just remember 9/11, the Iraq War, and terrorism–a litany of American failures.

Boomers saw massive smog problems in LA and a burning river in Cleveland. They applaud their environmental triumphs. Those mean nothing to Millennials, who only see the dangers of climate change and blame Boomers for screwing up their planet.

Boomers drove the Civil Rights Movement and the opposition to the Vietnam War. Gay rights and feminism didn’t exist when they were born. To Millennials, you might as well be talking about the Civil War; they take these social changes for granted. PC is the next frontier.

On the economy, Millennials see stagnant wages, huge amounts of student debt, and rising inequality. Boomers would concede these points, but would also note that it is a great time to be a consumer–a point often missed by the critics of globalization and automation.

Is it any wonder that Millennials see the glass half empty, and Boomers half full? Are you surprised that Millennials call for socialism, and Boomers fear it?

To a large extent, this battle will be fought out during the Democratic primaries, with the Boomers being predominantly realos and the Millennials, fundis. At this point, there is no telling who will win.


The Race Without Biden

Imagine that Biden’s candidacy dies in a blizzard of PC arrows, leaving him looking like St. Sebastian, or a left-wing Jeb Bush. We all know it could happen; Trump’s political advisers are counting on it. What happens next? Who inherits his voters?

Their first stop would undoubtedly be Beto O’Rourke; remember, the Democrats always want to nominate someone who reminds them of JFK in some way. Beto occupies a lot of the same realo ideological space as Biden, as well. The nomination would be Beto’s for the taking at that point if he can prove to the world that he isn’t an unqualified airhead. If not, where do Biden’s voters go?

Booker is realo enough to fit the bill; so, in all likelihood, is Harris. They will be watching warily, and hoping.

On Clinton and Biden

Hillary Clinton ran as the adult in the room–the uncharismatic workhorse who could get things done–in both the 2008 and the 2016 primaries. It worked in 2016, mostly because the majority of primary voters viewed Bernie Sanders as being out of the mainstream of the Democratic Party. It failed in 2008, because there were no significant substantive differences between Clinton and Obama, and the latter was a far more attractive personality.

If Biden runs, he will be assuming the Clinton political persona in 2020. There are, however, three important differences. First, notwithstanding the recent media frenzy, he has far less baggage than Clinton. Second, he knows he’s running against Donald Trump, and can use that to his advantage. Third, and this works against him, times have changed, and left-wing millennials bent on socialism, the GND, and PC nirvana are going to be out for his blood.

Is 2008 or 2016 the more relevant precedent? I honestly don’t know; it depends on whether the average Democratic primary voter is a young activist or someone more like me. We’ll see.