Category: Uncategorized

Here are the differing positions of the party factions in a nutshell:

The GOP

1.  Reactionaries think the purpose of the state is to advance the interests of white  Christians.
2.  PBPs think the purpose of the state is to advance the interests of businessmen.
3.  CDs think the purpose of the state is to advance everyone’s interests.
4.  CLs think the purpose of the state is to do as little as possible so as to secure  freedom.

Naturally, there are points of overlap here, but there are conflicts, too.  That is the principal reason why the GOP majorities in Congress find it so difficult to actually govern.

The Democrats

I have described the Democratic Party as a “victims coalition” made up of groups that view the state as their only possible protection against the legal, social, and economic power of the white Christian patriarchy.  These groups (ethnic minorities, the gay community, working women, and non-Christians) have a common sympathy for each other and do not typically compete for resources.  As a result, the Democratic Party tends to be more cohesive than the GOP, but has difficulty competing in states that are dominated politically by white Christians.

On the DOJ head known as Jeff.

To the hints he should quit he’s been deaf.

The right’s on his side

But there’s no place to hide.

So just how many days has he left?

Most people, including myself and Barack Obama, would concede that single-payer, probably financed by a VAT, would be the way to go if you were designing a national health care system from scratch.  We aren’t;  every American has a vested interest of some sort in the current system.  And so, the questions for today are:

1.  Will the Democratic platform in 2020 include single-payer?
2.  Should the platform include single-payer?

My thoughts on this are as follows:

1. It depends largely on how successful the Republicans are in dismantling Obamacare.  I have seen quotes from multiple GOP members of Congress to the effect that Obamacare repeal is necessary to stave off single-payer, but that strikes me as being exactly wrong;  if Obamacare is destroyed, the Democrats will have no compelling reason to stay wedded to it, and are much more likely to go straight to single-payer.
2. Remember the failures of the Clinton health care plan, the problems getting Obamacare though the system with large Democratic majorities, and even the difficulties the GOP is having with Obamacare repeal today.  Then consider that single-payer would be opposed ferociously by:  (a) virtually all of the GOP; (b) the insurance companies, who would be losing a huge amount of business; (c) most health care providers, whose negotiating leverage would be diminished; and (d) millions of Americans with employer-based plans, who might well wind up with a plan that is worse than the one they have today.

In short, a pure form of single-payer, based on our historical experience, is a pipe dream, and a more plausible incremental version of it (such as the public option) is not really single-payer.  Regardless of the views of the Democrat nominated in 2020, in the real world after the election, the debate is going to be about a much more moderate program than true single-payer.  And that’s OK with me.

Make no mistake:  Sessions is a terrible, awful Attorney General.  He is the tip of the reactionary spear.  Everything he says and does is intended to recreate a dreamscape of small town America in the 1950’s.  It won’t work in the long run, but it will cause enormous pain in the trying.

Sessions does, however, have one minor redeeming quality–a sense of professional ethics.  Trump has no use for that;  to him, personal loyalty is all that matters.  For either personal or political reasons, he can’t bring himself to fire Sessions, so he is running around making it crystal clear in public that he wants him to quit.  Sessions, for his part, is either so wedded to his agenda that he can’t bring himself to bow out, or he thinks the support of the Fox News crowd will cause Trump to reconsider.  As a result, he is ignoring the unprecedented rain of abuse that is coming his way.

Should we feel sorry for him?  It reminds me of a test question I had to answer about “Twelfth Night” many years ago:  was Malvolio treated unfairly?  My response at that time was no, and I would have to say the same thing about Sessions today.  He knew, or should have known, the character of his boss, but supported him anyway;  he shouldn’t have misrepresented his communications with the Russians; and he can stop the abuse any time he wants.

Assume, for purposes of argument, that Trump’s protectionism in the White House turns out to be far more bark than bite.  How will the Democrats respond, in light of their desire to win back the votes of the white working class? Will they attack him for being too much, or too little, of a protectionist?

Protectionism doesn’t poll well with the blue base.  In addition, everything that Trump touches is going to be toxic with Democratic primary voters, who will associate closed borders with bigotry.  As a result, my guess is that the Democratic platform in 2020 will contain a nod towards the use of existing tools to promote fair trade, but will otherwise reject Trump’s “America First” rhetoric.

As the head of his own business, Donald Trump was accountable to no one but himself.  He could screw people over as long as he didn’t break the law.  He could demand complete loyalty from his subordinates.  He could be completely unpredictable, and change positions on a dime, without repercussions.  There was no such thing as bad publicity.  He was truly the master of his own domain.

Trump was elected largely on the basis that he would run the country as efficiently as he did his business.  He has, in fact, maintained the same management style in the White House.  How’s that working out?

Only Trump could make a speech to the Boy Scouts about himself and his endless string of victories.  Wait until he has to play comforter-in-chief after some sort of natural disaster;  he’ll spend the entire time talking about the election, Crooked Hillary, and the fake news.  Believe me.  Believe me.

Elements of the “Better Deal” are likely to be incorporated into the Democrats’ platform in 2020, so they bear reviewing now:

1.  Increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour:  Politically, this is a shrewd move, because, as I’ve noted before, Americans will support welfare programs as long as the benefits appear to be “earned,” and a minimum wage increase is a great wedge between Trump’s white working class supporters and the GOP.  Is it good policy?  In San Francisco, just maybe;  in Nebraska, not so much.  If adopted (which it won’t be), it would increase unemployment and drive businesses to relabel their employees as “independent contractors.”  An enhanced EITC would make more sense and could win bipartisan support.

2.  The big infrastructure plan:  It will be sold as a jobs program, but we don’t have a huge issue with unemployment at the present time, and the Obama stimulus shows us that infrastructure projects ain’t what they used to be when it comes to creating jobs.  The infrastructure plan makes sense, however, as a down payment on future economic growth in light of the current low interest rates.

3.  Stepped-up antitrust enforcement:  This appeals to Sanders voters who despise big business and economists alike.  The down side is political;  if handled improperly, it could cost the Democrats the support of tech businesses.

4.  Lowering drug prices:  Americans currently pay much higher prices for drugs than anyone else in the world because the manufacturers, who have great connections in Washington, insist that high US prices are a necessary tradeoff for innovation.  Is it worth it?  I would say no, but it is a debate worth having.

On the whole, the “Better Deal” appears to be a reasonably successful synthesis of ideas from the Obama and Sanders wings of the party, which is a significant accomplishment in and of itself.

As we know, the GOP has significant structural advantages going into the 2018 election;  it is defending far fewer Senate seats, and the combination of natural population distribution and shrewd gerrymandering means a minority of voters can elect a GOP House majority.  In every other respect, barring a successful war or a terrorist backlash, 2018 looks like a disaster for the Republicans.  The election is going to be a referendum on Trump and his follies, and the man won’t even be on the ballot to mobilize his supporters.  A Democratic House majority, in spite of their structural disadvantages, is a very real possibility.

The Democrats can simply run against Trump in 2018;  it would be a mistake to try to spend too much time and money putting forth an alternative program, when the party is completely unified on the immediate need to do something about the man on golf cart.  That option will not be available in 2020, however.  I will be posting on the issues surrounding the 2020 Democratic platform throughout the week.

As I understand it, the Charlie Gard issue involves a child in the UK whose parents want to use a large sum of private money to provide him with highly experimental treatment with a very poor chance of success.  Like most Americans, I suspect, I don’t see an overriding public interest that justifies any infringement on the parents’ freedom to do whatever they can for their child.

A related hypothetical question would involve the use of public funds under the same circumstances.  To me, that is also an easy question;  as a taxpayer, I would not approve of the use of public funds when there is no reasonable chance of success.

The closer, and more interesting case, is if Charlie were an American, and if the proposed treatment could plausibly succeed.  The four GOP factions would respond to that scenario in completely different ways:

1.  Christian Democrats:  The preservation of life is an overriding objective.  Charlie gets the money.
2.  Conservative Libertarians:  The protection of freedom from a large and overreaching government is the overriding objective.  Hard cases like this are the unfortunate price of freedom.  Charlie dies.
3.  Pro-Business Libertarians:  It’s all about being popular and staying in power, so we can keep our tax cut.  This case is a cause celebre, so we support paying for the treatment.  If it weren’t, we wouldn’t.
4.  Reactionaries:  If Charlie is the legitimate son of two salt-of-the-earth, married, white Christian parents, he gets the money.  Otherwise, the world is better off without him.

This hypothetical should show you why it is so hard for the GOP to agree on anything, and particularly issues relating to medical care.

Bret Stephens had a column in Friday’s NYT in which he gave Trump’s foreign policy a report card from a variety of ideological perspectives.  His analysis was pretty accurate, but he somehow missed my opinion, so here it is:

1.  North Korea:  C (so far):  If you ignore the threats and the bombast, Trump has behaved pretty conventionally on North Korea to date.  That obviously could change, and disaster looms, but it isn’t here quite yet.

2.  China:  D.  Trump put way too much faith in Xi’s willingness to cooperate on North Korea, made it clear that he was willing to bargain away the security of our allies in exchange for that cooperation, and then reversed course in an extremely clumsy way.  He complains about the enormous trade deficit, but offers no plausible solutions.  A trade war is around the corner.

3.  Middle East:  D minus:  On the one hand, he has agreed to serve as the tip of the Saudi spear;  he growls at Iran, bombs Syrian airfields, and shoots down Syrian planes.  On the other hand, he has cut off funds to the Syrian rebels in order to make Putin happy.  Is he just trying to keep everyone off balance, or is this simply incoherence?  Who can tell?

4.  Russia:  F.  No elaboration necessary.

5.  Promoting American values:  F.  Having no regard for liberal democratic values at home, it was never likely that he would promote them abroad.

6.  Promoting American leadership in the world:  F.  “America First” means gratuitously offending our allies all over the world, dropping out of the TPP and the Paris Agreement, and threatening a trade war.   In the eyes of the world, it is now “China First.”

It’s not a pretty sight, and it’s probably going to get worse.

It’s hard to see anything but darkness in Theresa May’s future.  She’s behind in the polls, her party is badly divided, and her job security is shaky.  Her government is, by all accounts, adrift.  Realistically, the only reason she remains PM today is the lack of an obviously better alternative.

Imagine now, if you will, that you’re Jeremy Corbyn.  You don’t really love the EU, which you essentially view as a club of big capitalists, but circumstances have made you the leader of the battle against Brexit.  What do you do?

If I were Corbyn, I would promise a second referendum on the basis that the public has much better information on which to make a decision than they had in 2017.  It would split the Conservatives even further, and what does he have to lose?  If he doesn’t win the election that has to be coming in the next year or so, he’ll never have to deliver on the promise.  If he wins the election, and the referendum is approved, the biggest problem on his plate will disappear, and he can get on with the nationalizations and the other stuff that really interests him. If he wins the election and the referendum fails, the country won’t be much worse off than it is today, and he can just accept the will of the voters and move on.

The ex-White House press man named Spicer

Thought a job somewhere else would be nicer.

Lying for Trump

Turned him into a grump.

It’s like sticking your head in a vicer.

 

And so, the man with the second-worst job in America is gone.  Sanders lies with more gusto, anyway.

On its face, McConnell and Trump have very little in common.  The latter is a wealthy, bombastic, narcissistic outsider with no knowledge of policy and no obvious political skills except the unrivaled ability to mobilize his base;  the former is a canny, understated insider with a demonstrated ability to wrangle votes to obstruct Democratic initiatives.  The interesting thing, however, is that on Obamacare replacement, they are in exactly the same position;  both of them simply want a win, and neither has any apparent interest in the contents of the legislation.  Why?

In Trump’s case, the answer is obvious;  his ego demands victories regardless of their impact on the American people.  With McConnell, there are a number of possible answers, including personal ambition, but the most plausible one is that he thinks losing on Obamacare replacement is a greater threat to the GOP majority in the Senate than the adoption of hideously unpopular legislation that will cost millions of GOP voters their health insurance.

In other words, McConnell probably believes that screwing over red voters will cost him fewer votes than breaking longstanding promises about replacing Obamacare.  I think he’s wrong about that, but American politics are so tribal today that the correct answer is not self-evident.

There once was a leader named Mitch.

He’s looking for votes he can switch.

His party’s confused.

The next vote’s his to lose.

But he just can’t help scratching the itch.