Category: Uncategorized

After disposing of the North Korean nuclear program, Trump quickly turned his attention to China, whom he had identified as his principal adversary.  While the ostensible cause for concern was the fill islands, the real issue, in his eyes, was the trade deficit, although he had no realistic ideas on how to address it.

The crisis started when Trump, without warning, announced a blockade of the fill islands.  The Chinese leadership, believing that time was on their side, did not relish the thought of a confrontation with the US, but, with emotions running high on the internet, felt obligated to choreograph a response.  For his part, Trump sent a private message to Beijing to the effect that what he really wanted to do was to talk about trade.

The world watched in horror as Chinese ships attempted to ram American vessels and used water cannon to try to break the blockade.  The two nuclear powers appeared to be on the verge of a shooting war.  Neither side used lethal force, however, and the war was averted.

In the end, the issue was apparently resolved when Trump lifted the blockade and agreed to stop sending weapons to Taiwan in exchange for quotas on a variety of imported goods.  In keeping with his usual practice, however, Trump privately promised the Taiwanese government that he would ignore his written commitments and continue the arms sales.  The Chinese government, no strangers to cheating, had anticipated this and nullified the effect of the import quotas simply by selling through middlemen from other countries.

The crisis accomplished nothing.  America was blamed for it throughout the world, and was universally viewed as a rogue nation.  American prestige had never been lower.  From all appearances, Trump did not care.

Barack Obama is fond of referring to “the arc of history,” a phrase he apparently lifted from MLK.  “The arc of history” is a purely Western concept, born in the Enlightenment; medieval Christians would have found it incomprehensible.  The gist of it is that mankind, either by God’s plan or simply through the benefit of experience, is destined to become wiser, more prosperous, and more free over time.

Marxism is based on dialectical materialism, a theory of change over time that is completely consistent with the “arc of history.”  To a Marxist, as to us, time is linear.  The Chinese calendar, on the other hand, runs on a twelve year cycle, which suggests that, rather than improving, the human experience simply repeats itself over and over in different forms.

Leaving aside the fundamental contradiction inherent in a supposedly Marxist state with a cyclical idea of time, the calendar has significant implications for China and its relations with the rest of the world.  China is a very old civilization with periods of greatness, attributed by its people to strong government, interrupted by periods of weakness and anarchy.  The belief that time and events are cyclical undoubtedly made the man-made disasters following the Chinese Revolution easier to bear, because the people knew that things would inevitably turn around at some point.  Furthermore, the Chinese clearly and reasonably believe that the wheel has turned in their favor, and that their nation is bound to regain the predominance it enjoyed prior to the 19th Century, because that is the natural order of things.  It will not be easy for Trump, or anyone else, to persuade them otherwise.

With that, a happy new year to all who observe the Chinese calendar.  In keeping with past practice, the next week will be devoted to topics pertaining to China.

 

I think the time is right to republish this.

                    Another Brick in the Wall, Part Infinity

We don’t need no transfer union.

We don’t need no refugees.

No desperate children at our borders.

Leaders, keep them people out.

Hey! Leaders! Keep them people out.

 

All in all, we’re just another brick in the wall.

All in all, we’re just another brick in the wall.

 

Parody of “Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2” by Pink Floyd.

Perhaps our biggest advantage over the Chinese, in the long run, is geography; China has Japan, India, Vietnam, the Koreas, and Russia as neighbors, while we have Mexico and Canada.   While our relations with these countries have not always been completely smooth, they have not presented a threat to us for over a hundred years.

Trump’s provocations towards the Mexicans could very well change that equation.  Anti-American feeling is going to become a major consideration in Mexican politics.  Cooperation on refugee and drug issues is likely to wither, and possibly disappear.  The decline in value of the peso will create hardship in Mexico and encourage more illegal immigration.  A leftist with an anti-gringo platform could well win the next presidential election.  We will consequently be faced with a new, serious, and unnecessary problem right on our doorstep.

Surveys have shown that Trump’s core supporters didn’t really believe that he would build the wall, get Mexico to pay for it, or deport millions of undocumented immigrants.  The irony, then, is that the king of “truthful hyperbole” had the opportunity to walk away from his campaign promises in order to maintain the peace, but he has decided instead to take himself both seriously and literally, and the nation will be the worse for it.

Historically, when the US has effectively taken ownership of a failed or failing state, we have tried to fix the problems by throwing huge amounts of resources into the creation of a liberal democratic state.  The results, to put it kindly, have not been very impressive.

Trump doesn’t believe in “nation-building.”  If he is confronted with the need to take military action against a country that harbors terrorists, his plan of action is likely to look like this:

1.  Engage in massive and indiscriminate bombing in order to turn the offending nation into an ash heap.
2.  Give the keys to whatever is left to a local strong man, give him a little bit of moral and material support, and walk away.

In other words, we will be following Putin’s example in Chechnya.

Trump and Reagan have plenty in common:  both were old white guys with a background in show business, limited interest in policy specifics, and an apparently burning desire to recreate an imaginary idyllic past.  Their differences are more significant, however:

1. Reagan was a “shining city on a hill;” Trump is “American carnage.”
2. Reagan didn’t have a thin skin; Trump is defined by his.
3. Reagan’s views were based on a clearly defined ideology; Trump’s only ideology is self-love.
4. Reagan respected liberal democratic values; Trump doesn’t.
5. Reagan had a sense of humor and a grace that even people who didn’t agree with him could admire; Trump doesn’t.
6. Reagan supported our traditional alliances; Trump doesn’t.
7. Reagan’s administration was filled with competent people; Trump’s is a chaotic mess.
8. Reagan didn’t have Twitter and Fox News; Trump, alas, does.

And so, Reagan had “Morning in America,” and Trump–well, you read the title.

The ex-KGB man Vlad Putin.

The ex-USSR he’ll be lootin’.

To befriend him on terror

Is likely an error.

It’s a concept that calls for refutin’.

The EU and NATO, of course, are grounded in the European experience of the 20th Century.  The EU was an attempt to avoid future wars and to promote prosperity and liberal democratic values, while NATO was designed to provide a shield from the totalitarianism and military might of the Soviet Union.  The US was a member of the latter organization and strongly supported the former.

To Trump, this is all ancient history, with no relevance to the contemporary world.  In his eyes, Russia presents no threat to Europe, America, or their shared values;  the EU nations, on the other hand, take advantage of our military protection while beating us at trade.   In addition, their democratic systems and liberal values make them wimpy, ambivalent allies in the war against Islamic extremism. Trump would ask “what have you done for us lately?” and answer “not very much.”

Trump is going to put America for sale to the highest bidder.  If Putin has more to offer than the EU in terms of fighting Islamic terrorists and providing a counterweight to America’s adversaries, then so be it.

Let the auction begin.

Take up the white man’s burden.

Hispanic folks must pack.

America is ours again.

White beat brown and black.

Our people built the promised land.

They made the country great.

I hope Trump turns the ship around.

I pray it’s not too late.

Brad DeLong has a lengthy article on Vox.com which absolutely demolishes the notion that bad trade agreements are a major factor in the decline of American manufacturing employment.  His graphs showing American and German manufacturing employment as a percentage of total jobs from the 1950’s to the present are particularly persuasive.  It should be required reading for Trump, but, of course, it’s way too long for his attention span.

David Brooks had a column in the NYT last week in which he argued that chaos in the Trump Administration should be more of a concern than authoritarian behavior.  In this, he was following the lead of his colleague Ross Douthat, who proposed a graph with an axis running from chaotic to authoritarian.

Both of them have missed the point.  There is no doubt that the Trump Administration will be chaotic;  Trump likes chaos, because it makes him unpredictable and increases his freedom of action.  Given his short attention span and lack of interest in ideology, I am also convinced that he has no plan to institutionalize repression.  What I do expect, however, is that chaos and failure will lead to unpopularity, which in turn will cause Trump to lash out at his critics periodically in ways that only a man on golf cart could admire.  And so, it is perfectly possible that Trump can be both authoritarian and chaotic;  he just can’t do it in a systematic way.

Trump has directed the military to come up with a plan to destroy ISIS, which leads to the following observations:

1. What is the point of this exercise if he already has his own secret plan?  Could it possibly be that the “secret plan” was just a lie?
2. The military already has a plan, and it’s working.  The “caliphate” won’t survive the year.

Trump probably expects his Press Secretary to be his alter ego, but he’s a tough act to follow.  No normal person could be expected to concurrently charm, lie to, and wage war on the MSM on a daily basis.

The only person who could pull it off, to my knowledge, is Alec Baldwin, but I don’t think he’s available.

When our beautiful Australian Shepherd was a puppy, we took him to herd sheep just to see how he would do.  He confronted the sheep with more energy and enthusiasm than discretion.  When he was done, the guy in charge said that he had good instincts, but was “too rough with his mouth.”

That, in a nutshell, is the conservative case for Trump.  Yes, they say, he can be a bit coarse at times, but that is just a symptom of the strength of his commitment to the cause;  at heart, as the story goes, he is just a conventional Republican.  A Mitt in wolf’s clothing, if you like.  To the extent he might be tempted to veer off the rails, he will be kept under control by our wise and brave GOP legislators, like Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio.  And, if all else fails, the judicial system will make sure he doesn’t turn into a man on horseback.

Let’s examine each of those arguments, in order:

1.  Trump is really a conventional Republican:  Really?  Does a conventional Republican call for tariffs, berate businessmen who are just doing their job, describe our alliances as “obsolete,” cozy up to Putin, attack non-politicians on Twitter, and lie all of the time?  Would a conventional Republican refer to the current state of the country as “American carnage?”  I don’t think so.

2.  GOP legislators will keep him under control:  Marco Rubio just announced that he’s going to support Tillerson in spite of his reservations about the man. What does that tell you about his willingness to take on Trump?  And that is before the big regressive tax cut for which Paul Ryan would happily sell his mother.

3.  The judiciary will maintain order:  Trump thinks following rules is for chumps.  His disdain for the judicial system was openly displayed during the campaign.  Judges don’t have an army behind them.  Who is going to stop him if and when he flouts court orders he doesn’t like?

No, I can assure you, the sheep are in for a very rough four years.

WHO NEEDS THE TPP WHEN YOU’VE GOT NUKES?