Category: Uncategorized

I don’t know of any conservative columnist or publication that has anything good to say about Donald Trump.  The Economist bashes him on a weekly basis. National Review devoted an entire issue to pieces attacking him.  David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Michael Gerson, George Will, and Jennifer Rubin clearly all despise him.  Even Charles Krauthammer, a dependable source of thoughtless hard right-wing tripe, has been critical.  And yet, there he stands.  What are the pundits to do?

The first thing you need to realize is that, unlike other GOP politicians, conservative columnists are unlikely to pay much of a price for their disloyalty. It is unlikely that many strong Trump supporters read the NYT, or even the Washington Post, so it isn’t as if Brooks, just to use one example, is likely to lose his job for his apostacy.  Being a Trump opponent might reduce the number of parties to which you’re invited, but that’s about it, particularly since even the insiders reconciled to Trump obviously have concerns about him, as well.

If I were in this group, I would avoid commenting directly on the election and just write in the abstract about conservative principles, which is exactly what I think they will do.

Talk radio is a completely different story.  More on that at a later date.

Use your imagination to add the great Lindsey Buckingham guitar solo at the end.

Go Your Own Way

Backing you

Isn’t the right thing to do.

How can I

When you’ve so betrayed me?

If I could

I would turn back the clock.

Give money

To the Bush Super PAC.

 

You can go your own way.

You’re just another loser today.

You can go your own way.

 

Tell me why

Everything turned around.

Building walls

Busting balls is all you want to do.

If I could

Baby, I’d find another guy.

Goodbye now.

I’d pick Clinton over you.

 

You can go your own way.

You’re just another loser today.

You can go your own way.

 

Parody of “Go Your Own Way” by Fleetwood Mac.

It has been a big week for the UBI.  On Sunday, a referendum in Switzerland failed, although the mere fact that the issue was on the ballot was viewed by its supporters as a victory in the long run.  The NYT, The Economist, and Vox.com also had several opinion pieces on the subject.

The pros and cons of the UBI are not much in doubt; many of them are opposite sides of the same coin.  Here they are, in a nutshell:

Pros

1.  If the amount of the stipend is computed properly, it will put a huge dent in poverty.  No further elaboration necessary.

2.  The universal nature of the benefit turns it into an entitlement program, builds a broad constituency for it, and makes it harder to cut.  Just like Social Security, and unlike many other anti-poverty programs that have been vulnerable to GOP cost-cutting plans.

3.  It is relatively cheap to administer, unlike most anti-poverty programs, many of which could be eliminated.  Again, in that respect, it is similar to Social Security.

4.  It avoids the poverty trap.  Because it doesn’t decrease when wages increase, it doesn’t discourage higher paying work in the same way as, say, the EITC.

5.  It leaves more room for individual choice on issues of consumption than most anti-poverty programs.  As a result, it has some support from libertarians.

Cons

1.  Because the benefits are universal, not targeted, the program is extremely expensive, and would result in enormous tax increases.  Adoption of the UBI would, in fact, make the US look like Denmark in terms of the amount of public spending as a percentage of GDP.

2.  It discourages work.  Someone has to produce the goods and services on which we rely.  The robots haven’t taken over yet.

3.  It makes immigration an even more fraught issue.  The notion of paying the UBI to immigrants would be very troubling to most.

My reactions are as follows:

1.  This is the kind of debate about the future of the welfare system that we should be having.  I would have more interest in Bernie Sanders if he made the case for the UBI instead of, for example, his bogus proposal for free public college.

2.  The politics of this issue would be very painful.  Most of the right in this country believe the left just represents a moocher class.  This proposal would do nothing but reinforce that opinion.

3.  The relationship between the UBI and Social Security is uncertain.  Logically, the UBI could replace Social Security at some point, and thereby actually save some money, but there is no way that is going to happen for current beneficiaries, who largely believe that they are being repaid the money they put into the system.  Operating both Social Security and the UBI during a transition period would drive the costs up even more.

4.  We haven’t reached the point where technological and demographic change makes the moocher argument irrelevant.  Ten years from now, however, we might–we just don’t know right now.

5.  The UBI does nothing to address the problem of stagnant wages.  As I have indicated before, stagnant wages are a bigger political problem than increasing inequality or poverty.

6.  It would work best if it is adopted throughout the West.  Otherwise, capital will flee to countries with lower taxes.

On the whole, therefore, my attitude towards the UBI is that it is an idea whose time has not come yet, and may never come.  On the other hand, it has some real merits, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we see it on the table for real in 2024, or possibly even 2020.

 

There was never any doubt that Ryan would endorse Trump; he couldn’t very well run the convention as his declared opponent.  On the other hand, Ryan fancies himself a principled conservative, and he undoubtedly views Trump as an apostate, an obstacle to his agenda and future ambitions, and a likely electoral disaster.  The relationship between the two, therefore, was always going to be tricky.

I would describe Ryan’s approach to Trump as “love the sinner; hate the sin.” Ryan clearly believes he can square the circle in the eyes of the public by formally endorsing Trump, but making public his disagreements with him, and thereby keeping what he thinks is a safe distance.

I don’t know if it will work or not, but it might.  In any event, I think it would make a good template for our relations with friendly Third World dictators.

The GOP Speaker Paul Ryan.

His conservative heart must be cryin’.

His embrace of the Don

Seems a little bit wan.

If he tells you he’s happy, he’s lyin’.

1.  I need a job, and I might as well go to the very top.  Fortunately, I don’t know of any candidate meeting this description who ever made it anywhere close to the White House.  2016 example:  Carly Fiorina.

2.  I have a calling to be President.  Most people who feel this way do so practically from birth, and live their lives accordingly.  2016 example:  Ted Cruz.

3.  I don’t care about personal ambition; I’m just a vessel for an ideology that will help the country.  2016 example:  Bernie Sanders.

4.  It’s all about me and my ego.  I’ll be the most important person on the planet!  There’s just nothing like having the band play “Hail to the Chief” when you pop out of Air Force One.  2016 example:  Too obvious to mention.

Trump praised Ali on Twitter yesterday.  I guess that proves that even an African-American Muslim can be OK if he’s enough of a winner.

One thing is for certain:  when it comes to clever and imaginative trash talk, Trump is nowhere close to being in Ali’s league.

As Bernie continues with his quixotic campaign, the only important remaining questions revolve around his ultimate objectives.  Here is my best guess:

1.  Influence the platform.  In the final analysis, platforms don’t mean that much;  if you don’t believe me, watch and see how much deference Trump pays to the GOP platform this fall.  I think the Clinton and Sanders camps can probably agree on a formula that essentially says that the Clinton incremental approach is appropriate for the short term, but Bernie’s vision is the long term goal.

2.  Bernie for VP?  This makes more sense that you would think at first glance. Bernie has a large constituency and a vision that could help the Clinton campaign, and I don’t doubt that he would be a powerful voice against Trump. He is also qualified to be President, if necessary.  On the other hand, I think he has drawn too much blood during the campaign to merit serious consideration; everything he said about Clinton and Wall Street, for example, would be thrown back at both of them by Trump and his partisans.  His age would also be an issue, and Clinton doesn’t need his help to carry Vermont.  On balance, I don’t see it happening.

3.  Bernie Prime Time.  I suspect Clinton will agree to give him a prominent speaking role at the convention as long as he limits himself to providing his vision and attacking Trump.

4.  Where does he go after Philly?  It has to have occurred to him that the best chance for his “revolution” would be a Trump victory, followed by a failed presidency.  I don’t think he is cynical enough to give into that temptation.

Personally, I would like to see him try to mobilize his supporters into a force at the state and local levels, and I would also suggest that he take his message to red states and see if he can make any headway with Trump voters.  After all, the ultimate challenge he faces with his program is not with the rest of the Democratic party; it is with Republicans and Independents who despise the idea of “socialism.”

Another day, another icon dies.  That’s 2016 for you.

They called him “The Greatest,” and he actually was:  an amazing amalgam of speed, power, grace, and trash-talking.  Many have attempted to emulate him, particularly in the trash-talking department, but none has fully succeeded, and probably none ever will.

All three were geniuses who died prematurely, but I think their stories are fundamentally different.  Robin Williams strikes me as a man who fought bravely against his personal demons virtually all of his life until they finally overwhelmed him;  comedian or car salesman, his fate ultimately would have been the same.  Michael Jackson was doomed by issues in his upbringing and his inability to deal with the pressures of fame;  his life was in a downward spiral years before he died, and the outcome seemed inevitable even at the time. Prince, on the other hand, was living the way he wanted to, and there was nothing inevitable about his demise;  he just made a stupid, fatal mistake with his pain medication.  There is nothing more to it than that.

The Robin Williams suicide affected me the most, because it is so easy for me to see him as an essentially noble character in a tragedy.  The death of Prince is a loss to all of us, because there is no telling what music the world will never hear as a result. With Michael, the story of his life from roughly the middle of the 1980’s was just kind of sickening.

That’s my opinion.  I could be wrong.  If you disagree, don’t hesitate to say so.

 

The British and Irish have made significant progress towards resolving the Northern Ireland issue over the last 20 years.  I would say that the membership of both countries in the EU has been helpful in that regard, for the following reasons:

1. The fact that both countries are members of the same political entity makes the Ireland/Northern Ireland boundary look like an absurd anachronism;
2. The other EU members provide a potential resource for mediation; and
3. The influence of the Catholic Church over the Irish government has clearly diminished in recent years.  While there are numerous reasons for that, I have to believe that the day-to-day connection between the Republic and a variety of more secular countries within the EU has played some sort of role in the process. That change, in turn, makes the ultimate acceptance by Protestants in Northern Ireland of a united Republic more plausible.

Brexit would put all of this at risk.  It would harden the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland and make unification more difficult.  For that, and other reasons I will discuss in the future, Brexit should be rejected.

Historically, the GOP has been the party of free trade, due to the strong influence of its business constituency.  It is now poised to nominate an avowed protectionist as its standard bearer in 2016.  What is the likelihood that it will return to its roots after the election?

Jeb Bush was the only candidate that I can remember making any significant attempt to defend free trade during the debates.  By the end of the campaign, you would have to say that all of the candidates were on board in differing degrees with Trump’s opposition to trade agreements.  As a result, I can only see two scenarios in which the GOP would revert to its previous position in 2020:  a catastrophic Trump defeat in 2016; or an even more catastrophic Trump presidency.

If I were a cartoonist, I don’t think I could resist depicting Trump as a gorilla, given his penchant for chest-beating and obnoxiously aggressive behavior.  It is only fitting, then, that he had lots of opinions about the incident involving the gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo.

The elephant is too passive a symbol for today’s more assertive GOP.  The gorilla would make a perfect replacement.

About a week ago, I posted a column on Trump and the Ryan budget in which I noted that anyone voting for Trump on the basis of his promise not to cut entitlements was making a serious mistake, given his, shall we say, flexibility with the truth.  Right on cue, the AOL News ran an article on Monday in which unnamed sources indicated that Trump had indicated a willingness to cut Social Security in his meeting with Paul Ryan; he just doesn’t want to talk about it during the campaign, because he knows it will hurt his chances of winning.

The bottom line is that Trump’s attitude towards selling himself in politics is the same as it is in business–the entire voting public is, in a sense, a customer base for Trump University.  The difference is that his interests have turned from money to power.  And that’s really, really scary.

 

The GOP nominee Don.

He wants the establishment gone.

It’s all plain to me.

Is it so hard to see

That the emperor has no clothes on?