Category: Uncategorized

Assume, for purposes of discussion, that the Saudi government ordered Khashoggi’s murder.  Niall Ferguson asks, so what?  America has to do business with thugs on a daily basis.  Killing a single journalist pales in comparison with the bombing in Yemen.  Anyway, the important thing is to keep a unified front against Iran.

As usual, he’s wrong.  Here’s why it matters:

1.  Killing people on foreign soil who have legitimate claims to be protected by other governments is legally and morally unacceptable.  How is this any different than Putin and his poisoners?
2. This latest episode is just more evidence that MBS has no idea what he is doing.  Do we want to back a loser?
3. I don’t really accept the argument that it is somehow in our national interest to give unqualified support to the Saudis in what amounts to an Islamic civil war.  To the extent that the argument carries any weight, it has to be based on the Saudi government’s willingness to reform and be a responsible international citizen.  This episode damages any moral claims they have against the Iranians.

David Davis had an op-ed in the Sunday Times in which he insisted that the EU will fold if the government holds firm.  It’s exactly what the proponents of Leave said during the referendum campaign.  Is he right?

No.  The EU has to keep a unified position, which means it will reflect the lowest common denominator.  That means a hard line.  In addition, the UK needs good relations with the EU more than the EU needs the UK.  If the government takes the Davis line, it will wind up with a catastrophic no deal, not a better deal.

Imagine that you are one of many Conservative MPs who voted to remain in the EU.  You are hoping against hope that the government can deliver a soft Brexit settlement that will do as little damage as possible.  At this point, however, it does not appear that the government has the votes to get that done.  Then what?

Your alternatives appear to be an election that could well put Corbyn in power, or a disastrous no deal Brexit engineered by Davis or Boris Johnson.  Which choice is worse?  It’s hard to say.

Well, if you ask me, you should be working across party lines for a second referendum.

These are quotes from a real article in The Times.  I am not making this up.

BBC staff have been told to use non-binary pronouns when addressing gender-fluid or transgender employees to ensure that the corporation does not develop a heteronormative culture.

The broadcaster will also review its systems and practices to ensure that they are inclusive of non-binary genders, and will train managers on how to support transgender staff, especially when they are in transition.

In addition, heterosexual BBC staff will be asked to wear badges identifying themselves as straight allies to help their LGBT colleagues.

Honestly, there has to be lots of middle ground between this and being a Trump supporter.

Kavanaugh explained in his WSJ op-ed that his intemperate behavior was motivated by his desire to protect his family.  Like many of his comments over the last week, that was a lie, unless it was vital for some reason for him to sustain the myth within his family that he was a hard-working choir boy during his raucous high school days.  No, he did it for himself, and Judge, and P.J., and Tobin, and Squi, and every other preppie who leveraged his family’s money and connections into financial success and convinced himself he was a virtuous, self-made man who had earned his privileges.  Now, that’s a cause worth lying for.

His profoundly selfish, overtly partisan behavior has damaged the image of the Supreme Court as a fundamentally fair, apolitical body.  Trump won’t care about that, since he enjoys displays of raw power, but the Chief Justice will.  One imagines he will sit Kavanaugh down early in his tenure and suggest that he cool his jets and do his best to undo the damage done over the last few weeks for his own benefit, for the Court, and for the entire nation.

Will he take the advice?  Will he write principled, moderate opinions and try to come across as a healer?  Will he make Susan Collins proud?  Or will he devote the rest of his life to getting even with his left-wing tormentors?  Will he push the Court to dismantle the “administrative state,” go on Fox News every chance he gets, and throw rhetorical bombs to own the libs at every opportunity?  Will he make Collins look like a chump?

Everything I’ve seen in the confirmation process points to (b), but it’s totally up to him.

Note to my readers:  I will be taking a badly-needed break from Trump and Kavanaugh in the land of Brexit during the next two weeks.  Posting during that period will be irregular at best.

Angry White Boy

Hey, guys, we’ve been feelin’ down.

Our enemies are risin’ up all over town.

Are you worried what the public sees?

Will it ruin your reputation supporting me?

 

(Chorus)

‘Cause I’m an angry white boy.

Yeah, an angry white boy.

An angry white boy.

 

So I drive a big black car

And live like a Hollywood movie star.

You know I earned it, every bit.

But the Democrats don’t give a sh–.

 

(Chorus)

 

My right-wing friends, they understand.

Lindsey’s giving me a helping hand.

You see the anger on his face.

We’re occupying the same space.

 

(Chorus)

Parody of “Dirty White Boy” by Foreigner.

Last week’s issue of The Economist included an amusingly ironic article about how the government is cracking down on “Marxist” groups, particularly in universities.  It reminded me of the large picture of Mao that was prominently displayed in the car of our friendly English-speaking guide in Xian in 2012.  What does it mean, and can Maoism make a comeback?

Here are my observations on the subject:

1.  Having a picture of Mao in your car is a form of political dissent that the government can’t stop.  It doesn’t mean the car owner wants to bring back the Cultural Revolution.
2.  It was clear, in context, that the picture was a statement against inequality and corruption–nothing more.
3.  Mao stood for lots of things, including a kind of populism that works outside of approved political channels.  In that sense, Bo Xilai was a “Maoist.”  The system crushed him because the leadership remembers the Cultural Revolution and understandably wants to avoid a rerun at all costs.
4.  There is bound to be an ongoing leftist opposition of sorts that wants to rein in capitalism, but the government is fully capable of making gestures to keep it reasonably satisfied, largely because capitalism is a potential source of instability by itself.  An article in yesterday’s NYT made it clear that the government is currently hurting growth by doing exactly that today.

And so, like most issues, this one comes down to definitions.  If you define “Maoism” as an extreme left-wing ideology based in the thought of the Cultural Revolution, there are far too many vested interests in place to keep it from reviving.  If you define it as a form of populism, the Party is shrewd and determined enough to keep it under control for the foreseeable future.  If you think of it as a moderate left-wing alternative to the status quo, however, it will never go away.

It’s not what you think.

The Kavanaugh circus has been so politically explosive because it taps into no less than three sources of intense resentment in our country.  Men versus women, obviously.  Wealthy and privileged white boy against the rest of us, ditto.  But one of the biggest ones reflects a commonly shared experience in high school– rampaging jock at the top of the social food chain versus geeks, stoners, and losers.

I’ve known countless Brett Kavanaughs, and so, likely, have you.  Fortunately for me, the typical fissures between jocks and the rest of the student body really weren’t present in my high school, but I met him as a drunken frat boy in undergraduate school, and I despised him.  Still do.  That undoubtedly colors some of my feelings about Kavanaugh today.

Kavanaugh could have defended himself in a way that was less politically explosive, but he chose not to do so.  He will be solely responsible for the damage to the Supreme Court’s legitimacy that results when he takes the bench.  Will he try to make amends, or will he make it his life’s duty to throw salt in the wounds once his position is secure?  More on that tomorrow.

Up until recently, Trump has had a bit of a following in China, for two reasons.  First, the Chinese, who pride themselves on their pragmatism, have traditionally found it easier to make deals with businessmen than liberal intellectuals spouting cant about human rights.  Second, some Chinese, like some Americans, actually appreciate Trump’s swaggering nationalism.  And, as far as they’re concerned, his corruption isn’t really a problem;  after all, the use of connections for profit is a big part of Chinese culture.

All of that is starting to change.  The Chinese are slowly finding out that Trump is a very different kind of barbarian;  for one thing, he actually believes all of that rubbish about trade deficits, and he is willing to inflict pain on his own followers to get what he wants.  The government hasn’t figured out how to deal with him yet.  In the long run, however, they probably will, because they have been buying off dangerous barbarians for centuries; there has to be a Mongolian somewhere back in time who behaved a lot like Trump.

Millions of people voted for Trump in 2016 because they bought into his carefully-crafted image of a brilliant, self-made businessman who can drain the swamp and get things done in Washington.  The NYT article was consequently intended to strike at the very heart of his appeal and his self-image.

Will it work?  No, because it’s too late;  everyone has already taken a position on the man based on his behavior in office.  It might have made a difference in 2016, but not now; they’re just preaching to the choir.

The NYT is essentially daring Trump to sue them.  You can be sure the article was reviewed very carefully by their legal team.  I’m guessing he will do some huffing and blowing, but he won’t take any action, because it cuts the legs out from the argument that he should be temporarily immune from defending lawsuits because he is just too busy with his job to be bothered with such flotsam and jetsam.

Besides, truth is a complete defense.

Buddhism had its roots in India, not China.  As a result, it was occasionally viewed with suspicion by the Chinese imperial government.  In the long run, however, it was embraced by the emperors;  even Tibetan Buddhism had strong official support during most of the Qing dynasty.   On an international level, therefore, Buddhism is often identified with China.

The current Chinese government is, of course, officially atheist.  However, it is firmly nationalist, and (unlike Trump) it seeks soft power anywhere it can be found.  There is little about the Chinese political system for a freedom-loving American or European to admire, and Chinese culture, with the exception of martial arts movies and food, doesn’t have much of a following, either, due largely to the difficulties presented by the language.  The Chinese government has consequently promoted Buddhism as a way to project soft power throughout the world.

Will it work?  As long as Buddhism remains out of the religious mainstream in the west, and is popularly identified with the struggles of the Tibetans, probably not.

Soft power has always been one of America’s best diplomatic tools.  International enthusiasm for our culture and our political system has helped us provide leadership in innumerable situations that cannot be resolved by economic or military power.  Even our military leaders would accept that proposition.

Donald Trump does not, however.  His determination to be disliked by the entire world (outside of Israel and Saudi Arabia) and to destroy public confidence in our political system is damaging our credibility throughout the world.  As a result, a recent poll shows that Putin is trusted to do the right thing more than he is.

I’m guessing he thinks soft power is only for girly men.  Tell that to Xi.

Western imperialism was undertaken by mercantilist states, frequently using merchants as agents, to guarantee access to vital natural resources, to establish monopolies in overseas markets, to set up military bases, and to make possible the use of the native population during wars with other competitor states doing the same thing. Is Chinese imperialism any different?

For the most part, no.   China is a mercantilist state; its businesses operating overseas are arms of the government, not independent actors.  It is using its financial resources to buy up valuable natural resources and to make certain that the governments in its near abroad are friendly and stable.  The country’s greatest weakness, from a geopolitical perspective, is its reliance on a supply line that runs through the Straits of Malacca through the Indian Ocean to the Middle East; its investments in infrastructure are clearly intended to provide a realistic alternative that cannot be shut off by unfriendly locals or the US Navy, and it is also buying the right to set up bases around the Indian Ocean.  Sound familiar?

Well, except for the use of native populations during wartime.  The Chinese population is so large, there is no need for that.

Trump has always described NAFTA as a terrible deal;  he will, of course, say that USMCA is a vast improvement.  Is he right?

No.  USMCA helps American dairy farmers and, almost by accident, Canadian dairy consumers.  It will drive up the cost of automobiles and drugs, which is not a plus.  That’s about it.  Whoop-de-doo.

Was this mouse worth all of the strife and uncertainty that we experienced over the last year or so?  Does it really make sense to jeopardize your relationships with your neighbors and allies for such a paltry return?  And is it likely that similar hardball tactics will produce the same results with the EU, the Japanese, and the Chinese, all of whom have more bargaining power than the Canadians and the Mexicans?

Are you kidding me?  What this does is illustrate the difference between being the head of the Trump Organization and the President of the United States.  The former can screw his negotiating partners over and never have to deal with them again; the latter cannot.

The worst case is that the Democrats decide that the new deal is not protectionist enough, and reject it on those grounds.  It could happen.  Stay tuned.

Donald Trump’s idea that trade is a zero-sum game is, of course, inane.   Power, on the other hand, truly is zero-sum, and Trump is not wrong to see China as a significant challenge to the United States, given its size, history, and very different national values.

“Made in China 2025” should be viewed as the first shot in an upcoming tech war similar to the space race with the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s that will have a major impact on both economies and on national security.  The notion that tariffs are going to compel the Chinese to abandon the future and give up on their program of tech promotion is ridiculous.  It’s simply not going to happen.

So what is the appropriate American response to “Made in China 2025?”  As long as we maintain an open society and a market economy, we can’t beat the Chinese by building better barriers, so we need to go the other direction and play to our strengths.  Specifically, we need to actively encourage talented people from all countries to feel welcome here, and we need to increase government funding for basic research.  That’s how we dealt with Sputnik, and that’s what we should do again.

The problem is that large elements of the GOP hate immigrants and oppose additional government spending for anything other than border security and the military.  That has to change, and quickly, if we are to compete successfully over the next decade.