Category: Uncategorized

Red states, on the whole, tend to be poorer than average, and receive more federal government funds per capita than blue states.  The Trump budget will have a disproportionately negative impact on them.  How can that be?  Why would Trump cut benefits for his own supporters?

There are three explanations for this phenomenon.  First of all, plenty of the red state benefits go to poor minorities who are loathed by the GOP;  to that extent, there is no contradiction.  Second, as I have noted previously, the welfare state in the US typically only enjoys strong support even among its beneficiaries when the wealth redistributions appear to be “earned.”  Third, the sense of tribalism, based on issues of culture, is frequently stronger than economic self-interest. And so, it would not surprise me to see large numbers of poor white working people in red states decrying cuts to government programs that help them, but insisting they will continue to vote for the GOP.

 

Donald Trump made it quite clear during the campaign that he despises “nation-building.”  That’s hardly a surprise;  nation-building is long, expensive, thankless, and frequently unsuccessful work.  It’s hardly something that would appeal to a man with the patience of a gnat.

Unfortunately, you can’t just blow the Taliban to hell and be done with it as long as they have a refuge in Pakistan.  That leaves you with two choices:  give the Afghan government the resources to fight and then tell it to sink or swim; or escalate the war and try to strengthen Afghan political institutions for an indefinite, and probably infinite, period.

Obama preferred the first option.  It appears that Trump, prompted by the generals, will probably choose the second.  Another name for Option #2 is “nation-building.”

Life in the time of Trump

Corruption really stinks.

A million lies

The truth has died

We don’t know what to think.

If you dare to contradict him

He’ll just call your words fake news.

Will we become our enemies?

The nation has to choose.

A few days ago, Trump spokeswoman Sarah Sanders felt compelled to tell the press and the world that “The President is not a liar.”  Sanders, like everyone else, obviously knows better, so that statement itself was a lie.

Trump’s entire career can be viewed as a rebuke to Kantian ethics.  The questions for today are:

1.  What are the origins of his attitudes towards spoken truth?
2.  What purposes do his lies serve?
3.   What impacts do they have on the US government as a whole?

My responses are as follows:

1.  His father must have taught him at an early age that the world was a sort of Social Darwinian dystopia, and that anyone who believes in concepts like truth and the law is just a sucker.  The powerful rule, and the weak and foolish drool.
2.  Some of his lies, like most lies, are intended to deceive.  Others are an attempt to bind his supporters closer to him.  Most of them are just projections of power and ego.
3.  Consider this example:  Jim Mattis recently gave a speech to our Asian allies in Singapore in which he indicated that the Trump Administration wanted to maintain a rules-based international system and that Trump would never trade their vital interests for Chinese assistance with North Korea.  No one doubts that Mattis himself agrees with those propositions, but they fly directly in the face of Trump’s behavior, which makes Mattis look like a fool or a liar.  This goes on every day and damages the credibility of both our country and all of its individual agents.

The Comey affair has, predictably, shown off many of Trump’s worst characteristics:  most notably, his complete indifference to democratic norms. The question now is, what does it all mean?  Will his base desert him?  Will he be impeached?

The inconvenient truth is that this episode has only confirmed what everyone on both sides of the aisle already knew about Trump.  To his detractors, it proves that he is utterly unfit to be president;  to his base, it just shows how powerful and malignant his enemies within the “deep state” are.

He’s not going to be impeached or indicted–at least not over this.  Where it matters is in the legislative process;  if you’re, say, Susan Collins, and you’re told that you have to vote for AHCA because the GOP needs to win one for the Trumpster regardless of its impact to your constituents, you’re probably that much less likely to go along.

You just have to believe that Theresa May loathes everything about Donald Trump.  She needed American support in a post-Brexit referendum world, however, and she has undoubtedly read all those articles about how Margaret Thatcher managed her relations with the, shall we say, less intellectually astute Ronald Reagan, so she chose to suck it up for her country and provide overt support for the Trumpster.  In some respects, it seemed to be working.

Unfortunately for her, it didn’t go over well with the British public.  I suspect those pictures of her holding Trump’s hand inspired lots of young people to go out and vote Labour.  Who could blame them?  I probably would have done it, too.

On the ex-FBI man named Comey.

You could say that he isn’t Trump’s homie.

Just one of them lied.

You can tell if you try

For just one of them’s full of baloney.

Thanks again to those Obama bugs and cameras, we know what really happened during that Comey/Trump meeting:

Comey enters the Oval Office.  Trump is there with Jared Kushner and Jeff Sessions. Comey kneels before Trump, who deigns to let him kiss his hand.

DT:  OK, I need the two of you to leave now.

JS:  Why?

DT:  I’m going to be discussing family business with Jim.

JS:  But I thought we’re all family here.

DT:  That’s not how it works.  Sessions leaves; Kushner lingers.

DT:  Why are you still hanging around?

JK:  I’m your son-in-law.

DT:  Only blood relations are involved in the family business.  You don’t count.  If Ivanka were here, it would be different.  Kushner leaves.

JC:  Why did you call me here, Mr. President?

DT:  Do you remember what I told you when I said you could keep your job?

JC:  Something about performing a service when you demanded it?

DT:  Exactly.  It’s time for the service.

JC:  What is it?

DT:  Mike Flynn is a good guy.  I hope you can back off him.  If you know what I mean.

JC:  I can’t do that.  It’s an ongoing investigation.  I have obligations to the American public.

DT:  You don’t understand.  Your obligations are to me.  I am the American public.  That was decided in November.

JC:  But my position is independent of anyone in power.  That’s why I have a ten year contract.

DT:  No.  You work for me, and you owe me complete loyalty.  Period.  That’s the way it was in my business, and that’s the way it is now.

JC:  I’m doing my best to work with you, but I can’t ignore my oath of office.

DT:  Either perform the required service or face the consequences.

Comey leaves.  A few days later, Trump fires him.

As a result of yesterday’s election in the UK:

1.  The Conservatives vastly underperformed and lost their majority.
2.  Labour overperformed, but is still nowhere close to winning a majority even after seven years of opposition.  They are also saddled with a leader who is almost universally viewed as being unfit for high office.
3.  The SNP lost seats.  Scottish independence seems a long way away.
4.  The Lib Dems lost their chance to become the primary opposition to the Conservatives.
5.  UKIP no longer has representation in Parliament.
6.  The UK will have a weak government at a time when it cannot afford one.
7.  Merkel and Macron will not have a reliable partner with whom to negotiate.
8.  Donald Trump’s best friend in Europe (other than Putin, of course) has been badly weakened, and may have to resign.

I don’t see any winners here, except possibly Putin and Xi, who don’t care that much.

It’s decision time in the UK.

Will the Brits vote for Corbyn or May?

For a man from the past

Who will leave us aghast,

Or a woman without much to say?

The issue:  Did Trump obstruct justice in the investigation of Michael Flynn?

What we know:  Trump took weeks to fire Flynn even in the face of evidence that he was vulnerable to blackmail.  He then asked Comey in a private setting to stop the investigation.  He also made it clear to Comey that he expected “loyalty.” When the investigation continued, Trump fired Comey for stated reasons that were obviously specious.  He subsequently admitted that the firing was prompted by the Russia investigation.

What we don’t know:  Motives and nuances are important here, and we weren’t in the room at the time.  The most damning thing I have heard to date is that Trump cleared the room before he discussed the Flynn investigation with Comey, which strongly suggests awareness of wrongdoing.  Of course, he may deny that, but if he does, no one will believe him, since he lies about everything all the time.

My analysis:  This certainly sounds like obstruction of justice, but I suspect the Chris Christie defense will work:  the man is just too stupid to understand the consequences of what he was doing.

Sam Brownback believes in the GOP bible almost as much as the real one, and if it’s clear about anything, it is that regressive tax cuts, spending cuts, and deregulation lead to explosions of economic growth.  It’s in the book of St. Ronald, Chapter 1, Verse 1.

In the real world, faith tends to yield to experience.  As had always happened in the past, there was no upsurge in growth–just a yawning deficit.  Brownback and his allies tried to plug this with more cuts to essential services, which, according to the likes of him, was just fine and dandy.  After all, the public schools are just “government schools” pushing secularist propaganda, and truly productive members of society don’t need to use the roads–they have private planes and phones.

Even the Republicans in Kansas have had enough.  It would appear that the apostates are now in charge.  Is anyone in Washington listening?  Don’t bet the farm on it.

Having received some pretty stiff criticism, even from his own side, for a previous column giving a half-throated defense of LePen, Ross Douthat doubles down in today’s NYT, arguing that Corbyn is almost as appalling, but no one is freaking out about him.  The implicit suggestion is that the lack of concern about Corbyn is the product of hypocrisy, left-wing media bias, or both.

I don’t agree.  Here are the differences between the two:

1.  LePen was in a position to do more damage than Corbyn.   A LePen victory could well have destroyed the EU.  Corbyn couldn’t do that; the UK is already leaving.

2.  Regardless of the polls, there was more uncertainty about a LePen victory.  Given the surprises of Brexit and Trump, could anyone really be sure that the French polls were correct?  Would the disgruntled far left abstain, vote for Macron, or cast an anti-establishment vote for LePen?  There were reasons to be concerned.  The British election, on the other hand, is far more “normal” and predictable.

3.  A Prime Minister Corbyn would be subject to far more constraints than a President LePen.  Even without much support in the National Assembly, LePen would have had more freedom to operate on her own than Corbyn, who has no hope of winning an absolute majority, and who has very limited support within his parliamentary party.

The issue:  Were Trump and his agents conducting their own foreign policy, at odds with official governmental policy, between the election and the inauguration?

What we know:  Flynn and Kushner held meetings with Russian officials during this time.  Kushner apparently wanted to create a back channel that would be invisible to US intelligence.

What we don’t know:  What, if anything, did Trump personally know about this? What was discussed during these meetings?  Why was it important for Kushner to communicate outside the scrutiny of the US government?

My analysis:  When it’s all said and done, the record may show that Flynn and Kushner violated the Logan Act.  Since some degree of communication with the Russians was probably inevitable, and maybe even desirable, during the transition period, the legal consequences of this will be somewhere between minimal and nonexistent.

While Ronald Reagan gave his PBP supporters tangible benefits in the form of huge, regressive tax cuts, by any objective standard, he didn’t do much for his Reactionary constituents.  He wasn’t even a consistent churchgoer.  No matter. By his clever use of language, they knew that he shared their vision for the country, and they loved him for it.  They still do.

With the partial exception of the Gorsuch nomination (even a CD like Bush might have nominated him), it would appear that Trump is largely headed down the same road:  tax cuts and deregulation for wealthy businessmen, and shiny objects for Reactionaries.  His rejection of the Paris Agreement is a classic example of a shiny object.  It proves that Trump is on their side without bringing them any meaningful economic benefits.

The problem is that this particular shiny object comes with a very high price: diplomatic isolation and the vast potential political and economic implications of climate change.  By any reasonable analysis, it wasn’t worth it.