Category: Uncategorized

How to win back Reactionary voters, and whether it is even worth the effort, has been a major topic of discussion among Democrats over the last two years.  Here are my observations:

1.  Don’t expect too much:  You’re only going to nibble around the edges, no matter what you do.  Still, that’s millions of votes that are in play on a national basis.

2.  Faux vs. real populism:  Trump stuffed his cabinet with billionaires and cut taxes primarily for the wealthy, not for working people.  Don’t forget to point that out, repeatedly.

3.  Trump hates labor:  A fair number of Reactionaries are union members.  Make a point of talking about the GOP’s ongoing efforts to destroy unions.

4.  Repeal and don’t replace:  Trump and the GOP tried to take your health insurance away.  Is that really what you voted for in 2016?

5.  Stay neutral in the culture wars:  Emphasize your local roots and your sympathy for rural culture.  Don’t let your opponent tar you as a wealthy, out-of-touch limousine liberal.

Divisive people are disgusting!  Build the wall to keep them out!

In general, you can divide the PBPs into three groups:  big “globalist” businessmen who appreciate Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation, but worry about his tariffs, reactionary social policies, and random interventions; owners of smaller businesses with only domestic clientele who love the man to death; and their wives, who have to balance their economic self-interest against Trump’s deplorable behavior.

There are plenty of votes to be won here, particularly among the women, if you’re willing to forego “socialism.”  Is that tradeoff worth it?  In 2018, it depends on the makeup of each individual district.  The issue will be much more acute in 2020.

In the blue corner, we have “The Sultan!”  A genuine Islamic authoritarian, he’s an economic ignoramus who believes that higher interest rates cause inflation.  Having tried with limited success to play the Russians off against his erstwhile American and European allies, he’s currently holding Americans essentially as hostages in an effort to force the US government to deport one of his political enemies.  He’s a piece of work, to be sure.

In the red corner, we have “The Dotard!”  An inept, corrupt wannabe strongman, he thinks the answer to every foreign policy problem is a war or a tariff.  He thinks he can make America great again by alienating every other government on the planet outside of Israel and Saudi Arabia.  He wants to bring “The Sultan” to his knees, just because, well, he thinks he can.  Swagger is his stock in trade.

LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLE!

And the winners are . . . my UK vacation, which is getting cheaper by the day, and Vladimir Putin, as usual.  Everyone else loses.

It’s a wonderful world.

It would appear that MBS graduated from the Donald J. Trump School of Thin-Skinned, Swaggering Diplomacy (not to be confused with Trump University).  Having unsuccessfully attempted to change the government of Lebanon, blockaded Qatar, and launched an endless and bloody war in Yemen, the Saudis have now started a row with Canada over some fairly inoffensive statements about human rights violations.    What, exactly, is this supposed to accomplish?

(On two related notes, the US government is not taking sides in this dispute, and it turns out that the Saudis don’t just behead people–they crucify them, too!  Bet that goes over well with Trump’s religious fundamentalist base.)

It’s one thing to swagger when you have the world’s biggest economy and most effective military on your side.  It’s quite another to do it when the world is trying to phase out the use of your country’s only real economic asset.  My guess is that Canada doesn’t even buy any Saudi oil.  Why, under those circumstances, would they capitulate to Saudi pressure?

MBS would be wise to take a hard look at his country’s real assets and liabilities, and to conduct his diplomacy accordingly.

The Koch brothers, who basically embody the CL faction, have indicated that they welcome the opportunity to work with Democrats on issues like criminal justice reform.  Is this an opening for 2020?

Not really.  While the CLs and the Democrats share an interest in clean and effective government, the former want to decrease the size of the state for virtually all purposes, and the latter want to expand it.  In addition, there are relatively few CLs to chase.

The Democrats may get a few votes from CLs who can’t stand Trump’s corruption, incompetence, and tariffs, but not enough to make a difference.  It simply isn’t worth the effort.

The internet is ablaze about Sarah Jeong, a young Asian woman recently hired by the NYT.  It appears that Ms. Jeong has a habit of making extremely derogatory remarks about white people on Twitter, often in response to attacks from right-wing trolls.  Some commentators have responded to this by insisting that racial hate speech by minorities should be held to the same standard as similar speech by white right-wingers.  Her defenders have argued, in essence, that her comments were taken out of their ironic context, and that they should be taken seriously, but not literally.

But, you ask, what about Donald Trump?  He uses Twitter to make extreme comments that are meant to firm up his bonds with his base.  If Ms. Jeong’s facially racist statements should be excused on the basis that she was just chatting ironically with her friends, shouldn’t Trump be treated the same way?

No, because: (a) Trump has responsibilities to the entire nation as president that Ms. Jeong doesn’t; and (b) he isn’t just communicating ironically with his friends–he’s also trying to trigger the libs for his own advantage.

If the Democrats are going to win in 2020, they are going to have to peel away millions of Trump voters within the GOP.  How will they do that?  I will be discussing that in terms of the four factions over the coming days, starting with the Christian Democrats.

Essentially everything about Trump and his government–the lies, corruption, incompetence, divisiveness, arrogance, and indifference (even hostility) to the condition of the poor and powerless–is an affront to the CDs.  In exchange for that, here is an exhaustive list of what Trump has done to accommodate them:

Gorsuch.

That’s it.  Getting the CDs to vote for the Democrat in 2020 should be like shooting fish in a barrel.  All you have to do is avoid sounding too overly hostile to Christian values, and try not to talk too much about abortion.  That shouldn’t be too hard.

I read the New Yorker article about the culture at CBS last week.  The allegations against Leslie Moonves were appalling and well-corroborated.  The allegations against the people at 60 Minutes were less serious and less persuasive.

One of my issues with #MeToo is that it relies primarily on public shaming as a remedy, and does not draw clear distinctions between, say, Bill Cosby and some director who slapped the butt of an actress 15 years ago.  Public shaming is a blunt instrument that simply isn’t appropriate in many cases.  In situations involving clearly criminal conduct that, as a practical matter, can be prosecuted, it isn’t enough–the perpetrator belongs in jail.  In situations involving verbal harassment and minor physical contact, the most suitable remedy is a private apology and, if necessary, civil litigation.  Public shaming should only be used for conduct that falls between these two poles.

Based on this analysis, the treatment of Moonves in the article was unobjectionable, and if he loses his job, so be it.  I’m less convinced that the 60 Minutes people were treated fairly.

Pay no attention to Trump’s tweets, his lawyers say.  They’re only “opinions,” not “orders.”  They have no legal significance.

It sounds a bit like the famous scene from the Wizard of Oz.  For some reason, the public insists on paying attention to the man behind the screen in spite of directions to the contrary.

It appears that the GOP has a new hate figure:  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  She thus joins the pantheon of much-loathed, uppity women, which also includes Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.

Will it work?  Fox News will try, but I doubt it.  AOC is hardly as well-known as the other two, and, given her background, she can’t plausibly be accused of being an out-of-touch, wealthy, limousine liberal.  My guess is that attacking her will only further alienate younger people, which will hurt the GOP in the long run.

“Abolish ICE” is the current rallying cry of the left.  It appears to be based on the following syllogism:

1.  Trump is a racist;
2.  His immigration policies are racist; therefore
3.  Abolishing ICE is a good way to fight racism.

While abolishing ICE may be good poetry, however, it is bad prose–just as bad as building the wall.  Sound immigration policy is built on the following principles:

1.  Refugees are protected by international law.  They are entitled to decent treatment, fair hearings, and a liberal understanding of what “persecution” means.  However, people who do not meet the standard have no right to be here, and may be deported.
2.  Given our demographic issues, it makes no sense to reduce legal immigration.  If anything, it should be increased.  We have the right, however, to admit only those people who can make a real contribution to our country.  There is nothing inherently wrong in having “merit-based” immigration;  the real issue is identifying what “merit” means.
3.  There is a theoretical case for deporting illegal immigrants who are here purely for economic reasons.  In the real world, mass deportations are unrealistic and would do far more harm than good.  Illegal immigrants who have been here for a long time (the Dreamers in particular) should be given a path to citizenship.
4. Illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes should be deported.

“Abolishing ICE” won’t even have the support of the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.  Bernie himself has made it clear that he views open borders as a Koch brothers plot to reduce wages.  If the Democratic Party makes this its position in 2020, it is looking for trouble, and will undoubtedly find it.

A real conservative, as I’ve stated many times, is suspicious of change.  When he is forced to deal with it, he assumes the worst, and plans accordingly.  He does his best to make sure that any mistake he might make won’t damage the interests of future generations.

The GOP’s reaction to climate change is precisely the opposite.  Instead of taking small measures now to address a potential future worst case scenario, the GOP believes in living for today, and simply hoping that everything will work out in the long run.

That is their attitude on tax cuts and the deficit, too.  And that is why the GOP cannot be called a “conservative” party under any meaningful definition of the word.

 

The physics of climate change have been understood for a very long time.  The temperature data are unequivocal.   The policy implications are fairly clear and are being felt even today.  The only remaining questions are the precise amount of the temperature increase in the future and the extent to which human activity is responsible.

Climate change imposes costs, whether central government chooses to acknowledge that or not.  They will be borne;  the real issue is, by whom?  From an economist’s perspective, the correct answer would be by the people who cause climate change, and benefit from it.

The following questions are pertinent:

1.  Who benefits from climate change?  The most obvious winners are the owners and workers of fossil fuel industries.  The fact is, however, that everyone who drives a car or uses electricity also benefits substantially.

2.  Who are the parties who will be most affected by climate change?  Residents of areas abutting the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, due to increased hurricane activity;  farmers; residents of the southwestern states, which may become uninhabitable; and residents of western states with major fire issues.

3.  Who currently bears the burdens of climate change?  Taxpayers throughout the country pay for most FEMA operations.  Individual coastal property owners pay for flood insurance, although the taxpayer picks up some of the tab.  Individual property owners also pay for retrofits, sometimes with the help of insurance.  Local governments pay to retrofit threatened infrastructure.

With these facts in mind, it is clear that, if nothing changes, individuals living in the specified areas and local governments will wind up bearing most of the costs, although FEMA operations will become more and more expensive over time.  GOP dogma notwithstanding, therefore, federal taxpayers will be increasingly burdened with these costs whether they are fully aware of it or not.

If the objective is to allocate costs roughly in proportion to benefits, as it should be, the federal contribution should be larger and more transparent.  The obvious way to spread the costs would be through a federal carbon tax.

If you ask Bernie Sanders how he can get his ambitious legislative program through a Congress which is currently controlled by the GOP, and which is institutionally inclined to inertia regardless of who is in power, his answer is “the revolution.”  What he means by that is that the program will have so much appeal to the poor and dispossessed, millions of previous non-voters will register and vote for their economic self-interest, and the blue wave will swamp everything in its path.

Right.  It’s a great theory, but it never actually works.  If you don’t believe me, just ask Bernie why Hillary beat him in 2016.  The millions of new blue voters simply never materialize.

There is an analogous train of thought within the more extreme elements of the GOP, as was demonstrated when Steve Bannon and the RNC started to blast the Koch brothers.  Bannon’s grand strategy for hanging on to power appears to be as follows:

1.  Pump up the base, which consists of the Reactionary plurality within the GOP and any PBPs who are grateful for the tax cut and deregulation.  Everyone else, including independents and disgruntled Republicans, can jump in a lake for all he cares.

2.  Suppress the opposition vote through state legislation, clever gerrymandering, and negative ads.

3.  Hope the Democrats implode and make everything much easier.

That sounds more like a wish list than a strategy.  In addition, it relies on creating and sustaining divisions within the country that are extremely unhealthy.

The fact is that, while Trump’s white working class base gets all of the attention, he won in 2016 because millions of GOP voters who were suspicious of him voted for him, anyway, because they disliked Hillary even more.  Those are the voters who will decide the 2018 and 2020 elections.  Base mobilization, by itself, is not enough to win national elections.