Category: Uncategorized

Alexander Hamilton supported the federal assumption of the states’ war debt and the payment of all creditors, including speculators, at face value because he knew the United States would never be a great power unless it enjoyed the confidence of the investing public.  He was right;  today, faith in the stability of the United States underpins the financial system of the entire world, and Hamilton is a Broadway star.

Donald J. Trump, the “King of Debt,” has openly mused about requiring the owners of US government debt to take haircuts, because that is what he did in his business.  The impact of such statements on world opinion and financial markets can easily be imagined.

Jefferson and Trump:  who would have imagined them as allies?  Not Jefferson, surely.

Everyone is aware of Trump’s plan to withdraw from the WTO and impose large tariffs on Chinese goods unless the Chinese agree to do something (exactly what isn’t clear, since they aren’t trying to depress the value of the yuan) to eliminate our trade deficit.  The threat won’t work, and will lead to economic disaster, as I have written previously.

There is more to the story than that, however.  Since Trump views Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan as economic competitors rather than allies, it is likely that he will leave them to their own devices, which probably means returning to their previous condition as Chinese vassal states.  In addition, by turning the US into a purely self-interested rogue nation rather than the stable underpinning of the world’s economic system, he will be encouraging the rest of the world to look to China for responsible leadership.

Strangely,  I don’t remember seeing anything about making China great again on his hat, but that is exactly what he will be doing.  But look on the bright side;  our Great Wall will be bigger than theirs.

A conservative is, by definition, someone who distrusts change.  The GOP claims to be a conservative party, but its nominee plans to disregard longstanding alliances, tear up our trade agreements, ignore the looming effects of climate change, and violate international law.

The Trump program promises not continuity, or even moderate change, but chaos.  If you are a genuine conservative, you have to vote for Clinton.

To the extent that there is an intellectually coherent case for Trump, as opposed to nostalgia or blind rage about social change, it revolves around his claim to be a brilliantly successful businessman.  Reasonable people can disagree about whether Trump is, in fact, a tremendous success, and about whether running a business is a fair analogy to running a government (I have doubts about the former, and would adamantly deny the latter).  What is not open to debate, however, is that his particular businesses in no way resemble the federal government.

Trump basically does two things:  build and operate high rise buildings and resorts; and sell his name as a brand.  His companies are run by himself and his family;  as a result, he can change course and make deals at a moment’s notice, without taking input or considering the interests of people outside his inner circle.  That suits his erratic method of decisionmaking perfectly.

The federal government is not like that.  It makes millions of decisions affecting the interests of the entire nation every day.  It is subject to procedural rules that are intended to guarantee fairness at the expense of speed.  Changing its course is a difficult process.  Comparing it to Trump’s organization is like comparing a speedboat to the Queen Mary 2.

Trump isn’t interested in the nuts and bolts of governing;  he just wants to jet around the world, be the country’s dealmaker-in-chief, and get on TV every night. In other words, he would try to run the nation the way he runs his companies. Since that can’t possibly work, the actual task of governing would probably fall to Mike Pence, because, in the final analysis, someone has to do it.

A few words on last night’s debate.

For Clinton, the whole thing was great.

Trump sounds like a nut.

Sure, he lies a lot, but

Insanity’s his biggest trait.

 

All of the discussion leading up to the debate revolved around lying and fact checking, but in the end, that didn’t really matter.  The bottom line is that Trump looked and sounded like an angry, unhinged, egotistical chimp on speed.

I would concede that anyone who believes that the country is rotten to the core, and needs to be blown up, probably approved of his performance.  I can’t believe that anyone who was truly undecided would want him within 100 miles of the nuclear codes, however.

We face a choice between someone who is flawed, but sane and competent, and an angry lunatic.  In the final analysis, it is as simple as that.  God help us all if he wins.

I’ve compared Cruz to a vampire, but it occurs to me that a more apt analogy might be to a bad guy in a Dickens novel:  harshly ideological; sanctimonious; and hypocritical.  Think of a  Victorian era schoolmaster who treats his charges brutally while sucking up to his social superiors–that’s him.

Everyone else is offering advice, so why shouldn’t I?

1.  Don’t lose sight of the ultimate objective.  This isn’t a forum in which to score debating points; you are trying to win over undecided voters.  Do whatever it takes to accomplish that.  If you come across as being unpleasant in winning a battle, you lose the war.

2.  Take Michelle’s advice.  You can’t win a race to the bottom with Trump, so don’t try–go high.

3.  Just the facts, ma’am.  If Trump, against my expectations, plays it straight in an effort to look “presidential,” be cold and rational and expose his ignorance, which shouldn’t be too hard.

4.  Take advantage of wedge issues.  Ask him about his comment during a GOP debate that wages are too high.  Talk about the minimum wage.  Make it clear that he thinks climate change is a hoax, and therefore cares nothing about the impacts of hurricanes to coastal areas.  Make the point that he will be one of the principal winners if his tax plan is approved, and workers will get little or nothing.

5.  Cross-examine wherever possible.  The more you inquire about the details of his ideas, the less substance there is.

6.  Don’t bang on about the wall.  You can’t get anywhere with that issue.  People either believe him, or they don’t.

7.  The best shots are counterpunches.   Don’t be the first one to launch a personal attack.

8.  Laugh off his more ridiculous assaults.  No elaboration is necessary.

One was a living legend who drank every drop from the cup of life and inspired his admirers for decades; the other was a largely unopened box of potential who could have been among the best ever.  Accordingly, we celebrate what was, and mourn for what might have been.

My wife and I spent most of last evening watching a film about Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers on Netflix.  I came away from it with the conclusion that Petty was a seriously underrated, albeit conservative, songwriter.  I say “conservative” because there was no indication that he was ever interested in being on the cutting edge of popular music;  he just wanted to write memorable, simple tunes that would move average people.

It works;  just because you’re not Picasso doesn’t mean you suck.  Consider the following Petty lyric, which is the best, most succinct description of middle age I’ve ever heard:

I woke up

In between

A memory

And a dream.

From “You Don’t Know How It Feels.”

While Petty had issues with his record company throughout his career, it appears that around the turn of the century, he became disillusioned with changes in the music business (including radio) as a whole, and he devoted an entire CD to how things were better in his younger days.  I can sympathize; I’ve always said there is part of me that will always live in the late seventies, and I would maintain to this day that while there were plenty of things that were going seriously wrong in this country at that time, parts of the culture–most notably, popular music, sports, and movies–were better then than they are today.

Why are my memories of things that happened in 1979 more vivid than, say, my recollections of 2010?  I think the answer is that everything is new when you’re younger, while most of what happens when you’re older disappears into a fog of familiarity.  The fact that I remember all of our foreign trips in considerable detail is evidence supporting my hypothesis.

Petty got over it;  his 2014 release, “Hypnotic Eye,” was one of his best.  The message here is that Shakespeare was right;  as you get older, you want the world to slow down and remain familiar, but it doesn’t work that way, so while it is OK to value your memories, it’s a mistake to try and live in the past.

Are you listening, reactionaries?

I predicted months ago that Cruz would ultimately endorse Trump, purely for reasons of self-interest.  It took longer than I thought, but he has finally done it under circumstances that will do him, and Trump, the least possible amount of good.

Free the benighted prisoners of conscience!  They’re really just ambitious, opportunistic slimeballs, anyway.

I don’t apologize for being white; that was my parents’ choice, not mine.  My ancestors immigrated to Pennsylvania and Ohio after the Civil War; they never owned any slaves.  I am confident I never received any benefits that should have gone to a more deserving African-American.  I oppose some forms of affirmative action, and I’m not keen on rioting as a “solution” to problems with policing, at least where the political system is realistically open to change.

On the other hand, I don’t have any trouble understanding why African-Americans have issues with law enforcement in some communities, and with the judicial system almost everywhere.  I can fully appreciate how irritating it would be to be the subject of an unwarranted stop-and-frisk.  I do support some forms of affirmative action.  Most importantly, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that, by every available index, life in America is better for white people than for African-Americans, so I view complaints about the unfairness of the system by white people as being ridiculous and pathetic.

With that as background,  the questions I will explore today are:

1.  To what extent are American reactionaries entitled to our sympathy?
2.  What, if anything, should be done to help them?

Here are my reactions:

1.  Bigots:  No sympathy whatsoever.  There is no point in pandering to racial prejudices, period.

2.  Misogynists:  Ditto.

3.  Fundamentalist Christians:  Give them a break.   While support for gay rights in particular may seem self-evident to some members of the left, we need to recognize that it runs against thousands of years of tradition in the West.  You can’t reasonably expect that to disappear overnight.  Some accommodation to strongly held beliefs, at least for a transitional period, would reduce right-wing Christians’ sense of martyrdom.

4.  Victims of globalization and technological change:  Government support is essential.   The wealthy have enjoyed the vast majority of the benefits of globalization and technological change.  We need to find better ways to compensate the victims.  That is the discussion we should be having today; protectionism and the scapegoating of minorities is not the answer.

As I’ve noted previously, Erdogan puts a much higher priority on crushing the Kurds than he does on defeating IS, which creates a serious conflict with American interests.  I have to assume he takes that position because he believes that IS is an ephemeral problem, while the Kurds will always be there.  If so, he’s probably right.

Due in part to this divergence in interests and in part to his apparent desire to chip away at liberal democracy, Erdogan is flirting with Putin.  Given that the West has far more to offer him than Putin does, one imagines that his ultimate objective is to use Putin as leverage to get a better deal (i.e., extradition of Gulen, less criticism on human rights, and more sympathy with his Kurdish problem) from the West.

Unfortunately for him, the West has options, too.  The NYT ran an article a few days ago in which it was revealed that Obama is considering sending more weapons to the Kurds.  Articles like that don’t appear for no reason;  it was a clear attempt by the Obama Administration to send a message to Erdogan that he shouldn’t try to push us too far.

In all likelihood, when it is all said and done, the parties will muddle through, and both sides will get a little bit of what they want.  The only thing that Putin can give him in the long run is support for his strong man routine, which doesn’t exactly pay the bills.

The Economist ran a short but interesting article a few weeks ago in which America was reimagined as a parliamentary system.  The article divided what I would call the Reactionary faction of the GOP into two parties:  the “Christian Coalition” headed by Ted Cruz; and the “People’s Party” headed by Trump.  That obviously raises a question about my description of the GOP factions:  should the Reactionaries be kept as a single grouping, or divided in two?

I think the events of the last few months have proven me to be correct.  The Christian right has embraced Trump regardless of his colorful personal life, and the Cruz speech at the Republican Convention did not go over well with the rank and file.  In the final analysis, Christian or not, they are all just reactionaries.

A word now on next week’s debate.

We’ve only a few days to wait.

If Trump wins with lies

Countless people will die.

Will that make America great?

As we know, Trump didn’t invent Trumpism; it has existed in Europe for decades.  Today, from Brexit to Duterte, you see evidence of it all over the world. Here are my observations:

1.  Trumpism operates differently in presidential and parliamentary systems.   In Europe, virtually every nation has an anti-immigrant party which gets a fairly stable percentage of the vote, but never dominates the legislature, and is rarely included in the government.  As a result, the problems these parties create are chronic, but not acute.  In the US, the situation is the opposite;  by suddenly taking over one of the existing parties in a two-party system, reactionaries have created the possibility of wielding power with only the law and the judicial system to check them.  In parliamentary terms, it is as if the Conservatives and UKIP were running as a single party, with the UKIP leader as the choice for PM.  It would never happen, but the Brexit vote shows the potential result if it did.

2.  There is an analogy in the French system.  It is widely assumed (in my opinion, incorrectly) that all respectable opinion will coalesce around the moderate right-wing candidate after Le Pen gets the greatest number of votes on the first ballot in 2017.  Clinton is attempting to do the same thing by reaching out to old school Republicans and emphasizing the unpredictability and dangerousness of a Trump Administration in her campaign.  Will it work? That remains to be seen; some prominent GOP members are publicly supporting Clinton, but the vast majority have fallen in line behind their tribal leader regardless of their concerns about his ability to function as President.

3.  Where does Duterte fit in this?  Like the US, the Philippines were enjoying reasonably strong growth, but they elected a thug whose coarseness and disdain for opposition and due process are clearly reminiscent of Trump’s.  On the other hand, Duterte doesn’t have much to say about immigrants, which obviously sets him apart from Trump and the European anti-immigrant parties.  I think his success is due more to a new world-wide impatience with the democratic process that I will address in a subsequent post than to the anti-globalist zeitgeist.