Donald went to the globalist lion’s den (i.e., the UN) on Tuesday. His “Bitch, we’re America” speech somehow didn’t go over well with his international audience. They laughed at him! Imagine that! BAD!
Time to order up some new tariffs. Bet that will stop the laughter. If that doesn’t work, we still have nukes in reserve.
CBS unveiled a new program called “FBI” this week. Under ordinary circumstances, nothing could be more banal than a program portraying FBI agents as brilliant, selfless public servants keeping the country safe; in today’s world, however, any positive picture of the FBI has to be viewed as a political statement.
In light of that, I found myself wondering what kind of programming Fox could run to satisfy Trump’s base. Here are some thoughts:
1. Frackin’ Up! Drama about heroic workers in fossil fuel industries trying to give America energy dominance in spite of government overregulation.
2. Real American Family: A family consisting solely of straight white Christians does battle with politically correct neighbors. Starring Roseanne Barr.
3. Wall Street Blues: Young bankers struggle to survive in New York on a salary of only $1 million.
4. Build That Wall! Game show in which the best wall builder wins cash and prizes.
5. My Favorite Russian: Hilarious comedy about a bromance between purely fictional Russian and American presidents.
6. ICE: Heroic federal agents catch and deport Muslim terrorists disguised as Central American women and children. Starring Chuck Norris.
And, of course,
7. Deep State: Brilliant political outsider is elected president and takes on the smug, corrupt elite. Guest appearances by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and James Comey. Special guest appearance by Bob Mueller. Starring Brad Pitt.
Well, in his dreams, anyway.
So, are you nauseous yet?
The confirmation hearings have been everything I predicted–and worse. Here is a list of what I consider to be the errors on both sides:
And so, the likely outcome is that somehow, magically, all the Republicans find Kavanaugh credible, all of the Democrats find him incredible, he is ultimately confirmed, the GOP loses moderate female votes in November, Kavanaugh is remembered for the rest of his life as a Bill Cosby in waiting by half the population, and the Supreme Court’s reputation for fairness and probity is damaged substantially.
Somewhere, Vladimir Putin is laughing, and not just at Trump.
In the past, when American presidents have imposed tariffs, it has been done for narrow and well-defined purposes. American and Chinese commentators alike have noted that Trump’s tariffs are different; they don’t come with a clear wish list, and no one knows exactly what they are intended to accomplish. What does Trump want?
When he took office, I was fairly certain that his objective was 80’s style managed trade in the interests of reducing the deficit, which is, of course, a weird obsession of his. Today, I’m not so sure. I think he has two other purposes:
What is the likelihood of this happening? As to #1, the Chinese are probably willing to make cosmetic concessions to the barbarian–they have been doing that for thousands of years–but nothing more than that. As to #2, forget it; the regime isn’t going to commit suicide just to maintain access to the American market.
And so, unless Trump changes course and makes a fairly meaningless deal in the interests of chalking up an ego-driven “win,” which is a reasonable possibility, the trade war will go on indefinitely.
Kavanaugh took the extremely unusual step of doing an interview on Fox News last night. The contents of the interview are of less interest than the choice of forum. It would appear that Kavanaugh is trying to rally the GOP base to support his nomination, which would make perfect sense if he were a politician, but he isn’t, at least in theory. He is supposed to be above politics.
The principal objection to Kavanaugh in my eyes is not his sex life as a teenager, but that he will just be a stooge for Trump and the GOP agenda. His record as a partisan political figure prior to serving on the DC Circuit was always of some concern in that regard. The interview with a channel known for its GOP affiliations has only made things worse, and will damage the image of the Supreme Court in the likely event that he is ultimately confirmed, because no one is going to believe he has any interest in giving his political opponents a fair hearing, no matter what he said during the confirmation process.
For Trump, the entire notion of an apolitical judicial system is just so much sentimental hooey, so he probably thinks destroying our illusions is a good thing. It isn’t. Like the markets, the judicial system runs on public trust, not just raw power. If that trust ultimately disappears as the result of overtly partisan judicial behavior, either tyranny or anarchy will follow.
Reactionaries, by definition, revere a mythical past in which traditional values and authorities were uniformly respected, and the country was great as a result of it. Reactionary thought is consequently romantic in nature. It is not based on cold economic self-interest.
For that reason, it is frequently impossible to “reason” with a Reactionary, as we typically use that term. In most cases, appealing to their economic interests, and complaining when they ignore them, is useless. The Democrats may be able to pick off a few here and there, particularly by employing the old labor solidarity narrative with union members, but most of their votes are out of reach, and chasing them won’t be cost-effective.
No, I won’t back down.
No, I won’t back down.
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
Gonna stand my ground.
And I won’t back down.
—–Tom Petty
Commentators from all over the political spectrum have noted that conservative judges are plentiful and fairly fungible, so Trump could withdraw the Kavanaugh nomination and still wind up with a very similar result. The question for today is, will he?
Of course not. Trump has to personally identify with the poor entitled frat boy swatting at the pesky #MeToo monsters like an embattled King Kong. In addition, he learned long ago that backing down just betrays weakness, and weakness is to be avoided at all costs. Be on the attack 24/7/365. That’s what made America great. At least, it’s what made him great.
And so, we’re heading for some awful theater that will combine features of both comedy and tragedy. It will be must see TV. But then, the OJ chase was, too.
Fifty Ways to Fire Bob Mueller
The problem is all inside your head
Jeff said to me.
The answer is easy if you take it logically.
I’d like to help you in your struggle to be free.
There must be fifty ways to fire Bob Mueller.
(Chorus)
A push in the back, Jack.
Send a pink slip, Rip.
No need to be coy, Roy.
Just listen to me.
Leak to the press, Les.
It’s good when they all guess.
Send out a tweet, Pete.
And set yourself free.
Jeff said it’s really not my habit to recuse.
Furthermore, I hope my meaning won’t be lost
Or misconstrued.
But I’ll repeat myself ’cause I know you hate to lose.
There must be fifty ways to fire Bob Mueller.
(Repeat chorus)
Parody of “Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover” by Paul Simon.
The GOP candidates for president ran in fairly clear ideological lanes during the 2012 and 2016 primaries. Mitt Romney and Donald Trump benefited from the absence of meaningful competition within their respective lanes. If you’re puzzled as to why the Republicans nominated a white bread conservative in 2012 and a raving nationalist in 2016, you need look no further than that.
The Democratic race in 2020 will be more complex than that. There are two major schisms within the party: realo vs. fundi (i.e., do you promise the moon and the stars or just the moon?); and identity vs. class. How do the likely candidates stack up? Some of them are not perfectly defined at this point, but here are the ones we know:
Harris definitely falls on the identity side, and I’m guessing she’s a fundi, but that remains to be seen.
Obama and Clinton were realo/identity. I suspect that’s where the sweet spot can be found, but it will depend to some extent, as it did with the GOP in 2016 and 2012, on the number and strength of the competitors within each group.
Donald Trump has assured us on several occasions that “winning” a trade war with China will be easy due to the large trade deficit. After all, we can apply tariffs to far more products than they can. Is he right?
Of course not. First of all, the entire idea that running a trade deficit constitutes “losing” is completely inane–particularly for a decentralized economy that runs on the decisions of economic entities, not the government. Second, it assumes that the interests of consumers are of no importance; only producers matter. Third, the economic and political systems of the respective countries operate to the advantage of the Chinese. The more open American system provides opportunities for both consumers and producers who bear the brunt of the war to complain to their representatives; the state-driven Chinese system, on the other hand, permits the government to compensate well-connected losers and to repress the others in the name of keeping order without appearing to be inept or hypocritical.
And then, of course, there is the question of what, exactly, Trump’s objectives are in fighting the trade war. More on that later in the week.
Like Ronald Reagan, Trump loves to swagger; it’s his stock in trade. Unlike Reagan, however, he spends a substantial amount of his time whining about the “rigged” system, or the “deep state,” or whatever he thinks is afflicting him at any given time. The billionaire son of a millionaire developer clearly believes the system is designed to be unfair to him. He’s a victim, just like his constituents.
That’s pathetic, of course, but it reflects the changing times. When Reagan was in office, the Reactionaries were confident that they were the moral majority. Today, they’re looking for the Benedict option, or for a Cyrus the Great to protect them from the growing hordes of the unholy. As a result, they love Trump almost as much when he whines as when he swaggers; it’s his way of feeling their pain.
Personally, I think the statute of limitations on the alleged attempted drunken rape has expired. Kavanaugh was nominated to be a Supreme Court justice, not a saint, and re-examining his behavior as a high school student is, to me, a stretch. But assume I’m wrong. How would you go about trying to find out whether this episode actually happened or not?
Well, duh. You would have law enforcement do a real investigation, including interviewing all of the possible witnesses. What you wouldn’t do is parade the two protagonists in front of a group of grandstanding politicians who have every reason to play to the camera and who have already made up their minds for self-interested reasons.
What we are going to have is political theater at its worst. The GOP will be trying to destroy Ms. Ford’s credibility without looking like misogynists and thereby losing even more female votes in November. Will they succeed? My guess is that 99 percent of America has already taken sides on that issue, and it won’t matter much.
In the end, it all revolves around Donald Trump, which is just the way he likes it. He barely reads bullet points, let alone books, so you don’t want to give him too much credit for having a coherent political philosophy, but the question is inescapable: does he support liberal democracy in America, or not?
Just look at the criteria in Monday’s post and the record. This is a man who refers to all of the media who do not support him uncritically as “enemies of the people,” who believes that the job of the Attorney General is to prosecute his political opponents, who supports ongoing GOP efforts to suppress voting by minorities, who is bitterly and openly critical of judges who rule against him, who has advocated discrimination against Muslims, and who insists against all of the evidence and centuries of experience that the “deep state” (i.e., government officials who actually comply with the law) has “rigged” the system against him. What do you think?
I know I write about this all of the time, but it will take less than you think to turn the US into an “illiberal democracy.” History shows that public disbelief that the system can change so dramatically will be Trump’s greatest ally if and when the struggle begins in earnest. Heightening consciousness of the problem on a regular basis is, therefore, a necessity.
As we know, Bernie Sanders believes that a class-based “revolution” can inspire millions of reluctant voters to come to the polls to support a much larger welfare state and new controls on capitalists. It didn’t happen for Bernie in 2016, it hasn’t happened in the past, and it probably won’t happen in 2020.
But can Trump’s obnoxious actions and rhetoric about women and minorities result in a different kind of “revolution,” based on identity politics? Texas will give us a clue. If Beto can beat Cruz, there may be something to it.
I wouldn’t bet the ranch on it, but it’s not impossible.
On the Trump nominee known as Brett.
A win’s still a pretty good bet.
The prez has his back
And he’s on the attack.
You wonder how ugly it gets.