Category: Uncategorized

The Rio Olympics, day six.

Simone shows off her bag of tricks.

Michael Phelps is the boss.

Lochte takes one last loss.

And Ms. Manuel makes Aussies feel sick.

Amidst large demonstrations, some of them violent, Hillary Clinton took the oath of office this morning.  In her speech, she called for unity, emphasized the ties that bind all Americans together, and promised to work with Congressional Republicans to move the country forward.  Her first major policy initiative will be a large infrastructure program with support on both sides of the aisle.

Reactions to the speech were mostly skeptical.  Bernie Sanders supporters expressed concern that the limited legislative program “pandered to Republicans and the donor class.”  Donald Trump called on his voters to continue to demonstrate all over the country against the outcome of a “rigged” election. Mitch McConnell expressed some satisfaction with regard to the moderation of the Clinton agenda, but indicated that his first priority was “to make sure she would be a one term President” and that the best way to accomplish his goal was to obstruct her agenda, regardless of how GOP-friendly it is.  “After all, opposition to Clinton is the only thing that holds our party together, and this approach worked after the 2008 disaster” was his parting remark.

Reform conservatism, in my parlance, is a proposed coalition of Christian Democrats and Reactionaries within the GOP whose primary focus would be on improving the lot of white working class people.  The centerpiece of the program is a tax cut tailored narrowly to workers and middle income people, not the wealthy.  As such, it is anathema to the WSJ and to business interests (i.e., the PBP faction of the party).

The “Reformocons” never had any use for Trump himself, but they viewed his candidacy as a means by which the GOP could wean itself off Reagan and Bush-style tax cuts for rich businessmen.  As things have turned out, however, they have the worst of all possible worlds:  a candidate they view as being dangerous and irresponsible with a tax cut plan that looks like the Bush tax cut on steroids.

Assume, for purposes of argument, that Trump loses big in November.  Is there any future for the Reformocons in the GOP?  I don’t think so, for the following reasons:

1.  Of the 17 GOP Presidential candidates, exactly zero bought into the Reformocon program.  Bush and Rubio incorporated small parts of it in their plans, but they were swamped by huge tax cuts for the donor class.
2.  The WSJ, the Club for Growth, and all of the other GOP enforcers are still out there and baying for blood.  Trump may have defied them to some extent, but he is the exception that proves the rule.
3.  Who is going to vote for the Reformocon program?  To be sure, it would appeal to the economic interests of Reactionaries, but it rejects their nativism, which is more important to many of them than money.  The WSJ isn’t going to fall in line, either.
4.  A big Trump loss in November is going to ignite a civil war within the GOP between Reactionaries complaining about the lack of establishment support and an establishment that attributes the loss to a clearly inadequate candidate.  My guess is that the center of the party will revert back to that old time tax cutting religion, and the Reformocon agenda will be out in the cold.

The Rio Olympics, day five.

Carmelo and friends just survive.

Meanwhile, in the pool

One more Phelps-Lochte duel

And Ledecky’s win streak’s still alive.

It’s early January, 2015.  Donald J. Trump and his daughter, Ivanka, are walking in Central Park, when they run across three men who look like refugees from the Summer of Love.  They appear to be stoned.

DT:  Get out of my way, you losers!  Go get a job!

SM1:  Hail, Trump, King of Casinos!

SM2:  Hail, Trump, King of Reality TV!

SM3:  Hail, Trump, Wall Builder in Chief!

IT:  Dad, these guys are creepy.  Let’s get out of here.

DT:  They may look weird, but they’re right!  I was the King of Casinos!  I’m still the King of Reality TV!  I don’t get the part about the wall building, though.

IT:  Maybe he’s talking about your new high rises.

SM1:  Your fame will soar above the Manhattan skyline.

SM2:  You will be greater, and then less.

SM3:  The media will hang on your every word.

DT:  They already do.  You forget who you’re talking to.

SM1:  The land will be full of terror and trouble.

SM2:  Dark clouds arriving from all directions.

SM3:  Greatness comes from the most unlikely places.

IT:  This sounds like a Batman movie.  Maybe a new Sharknado.

DT:  No, it’s starting to make some sense.  What about the wall?

SM1:  The enemy is everywhere.

SM2:  Beware the land of tacos.

SM3:  A fortress without a moat will never stand.

DT:  I get it!  Only I can save this country from Obama, Hillary, and their illegal immigrant friends!  I’ll run for President!

IT:  What about me?

SM1:  Your children will inherit a great empire, but you are doomed to be sane, normal, and bland.

DT:  At least no one can say that about me.

SM2:  No arguments on that score.

The Trumps head back to Trump Tower.

 

As I’ve noted before, the GOP establishment is essentially treating Trump as the representative of a third party with whom they have a tactical alliance;  he’s not a real Republican, and they aren’t responsible for him.  One of the biggest questions in this election is whether the public will accept that narrative.

Trump is getting more outrageous and authoritarian each day.  That is an inherent characteristic of his strong man candidacy;  once you start down that path, there is no logical place to stop.  The more he deviates from democratic norms, the more plausible the establishment’s argument becomes;  there will be millions of Clinton voters who are supporting, not her or her platform, but the democratic process against an ineffectual would-be strong man.  It is perfectly possible, therefore, that a smashing Clinton win could be accompanied by GOP victories in key House and Senate races, and that Clinton 45 will be confronted by a Congress and an electorate which can reasonably insist that she has no mandate for liberal policy initiatives.

When Bernie Sanders talks about a “rigged” political system, he means that the system is subject to undue influence by wealthy donors.  The remedy for this is the “revolution;”  a movement for and by disillusioned poor and middle-class people to change the Constitution, to vote out the agents of the plutocrats, and to create a larger welfare state.  As I’ve noted on many occasions, this view of the political process is impractical, flawed, and simplistic, but at least it has the merit of being logically consistent.

Trump stole the word “rigged” from Sanders in an effort to appeal to his voters. Being a plutocrat himself, he can’t possibly object to the impact of money on the system, so what does he mean by “rigged?”  Here are some possibilities, and my reactions:

1.  In the most narrow, literal sense, it is impossible for anyone to “rig” a Presidential election, which is run by thousands of state and local officials, a majority of whom are probably Republicans, even in swing states.
2.  It is an article of faith among Reactionaries that they represent a majority of the American people, and that their losses in elections must therefore be attributable to voter fraud–hence, the GOP’s emphasis on voter fraud legislation.  There is not a shred of evidence for this, but Reactionaries don’t believe in letting the facts get in the way of a good story.  It is possible, therefore, that Trump thinks that the federal judiciary is “rigging” the election by striking down voter exclusion laws.
3.  Trump complains constantly that the MSM and the establishments of both parties treat him unfairly.  In other words, he wants the benefits of being an “outsider,” but he doesn’t think the “insiders” have a right to fight back.  In the final analysis, I suspect that is what he means by a “rigged” election:  one in which the public is misled to vote against him by the corrupt entrenched powers and the liberal MSM.

 

The Rio Olympics, day four.

Americans can’t ask for more.

A Magnificent Five

Kept a gold streak alive

And Katie and Phelps slammed the door.

There once was a Donald named Trump.

He’s currently taking his lumps.

The GOP brass

Think that he’s just an ass

And his poll numbers are in a slump.

It occurred to me after my last post that Trump views economic life as a kind of endless version of Monopoly, with the winner finishing with the largest amount of “money.”  The difference, of course, is that Monopoly has rules, and Trump thinks that only fools and losers follow the rules.

Most of Trump’s Detroit speech was just traditional Republican tax cut and deregulation pablum; I will leave that to other commentators.  The more interesting part was the segment on trade agreements, which, notwithstanding his focus on Obama and the Clintons, was actually an assault on the establishments of both parties.

Trump’s views on trade are an outgrowth of his Social Darwinian attitudes regarding life and the world in general.  The syllogism works something like this:

1. Life is an unending series of negotiations in which the strong impose their will on others with the objective, not of reaching a mutually acceptable outcome, but of showing their superiority (i.e., “winning”).
2.  Foreign trade in particular is subject only to the law of the jungle.  Agreements, treaties, and business norms are just a veneer covering power relationships.
3.  For individual countries, “winning at trade” is measured by national surpluses or deficits.

While this line of reasoning is logically coherent, its purported “realism” bears no resemblance to the world as we know it.  Buying and selling is about satisfying the needs of both parties, not “winning.”  The world economy runs on confidence, agreements, and ethical norms, not just on power relationships. Finally, as I have stated before, in a democratic capitalist country, trade takes place on an entity to entity (not a nation to nation) basis, and both parties to every transaction view themselves as “winners.”

The Rio Olympics, day three.

Complaining about NBC.

Our guys in the gym

Knew their chances were slim

But our swimmers are a sight to see.

The Clinton campaign is attempting to persuade Republicans and independents that Trump is unfit to govern, while pushing a very progressive policy agenda for the benefit of the left.  These two themes are in no way logically inconsistent, but they present problems of emphasis and presentation that will have to be handled with great care; otherwise, both sides of the spectrum may come to doubt the sincerity of the message.

Before Dylan, brilliant songwriters who were indifferent singers either wrote for the stage or churned out hits for others.  Dylan persuaded a host of other singer/songwriters to go off on their own, and the stage suffered for fifty years.

Today, there is a renewed interest among established pop stars in writing musicals, which makes sense, for the following reasons:

1.  There is a tremendous amount of money to be made in writing a hit musical.  No elaboration necessary.

2.  Songs in great musicals have a longer shelf life than the average pop single.  Writing for the stage is both a tremendous challenge and a potential gateway to immortality.

3.  Some of the stage shows of our current pop singers look like Cirque de Soleil, anyway.  A Taylor Swift or Katy Perry show looks a lot more like a Broadway or Vegas production than Dylan singing in a coffeehouse.

The Rio Olympics, day two.

Phelps wins a gold–nothing new.

Simone Biles rocks.

Wouldn’t say that’s a shock.

The Joker leaves town feeling blue.