Category: Uncategorized

So now we’re in the Granite State.

Trump isn’t feeling too great.

Christie and Bush

Need a really big push.

Without it, their hopes terminate.

Several weeks ago, I suggested that it would be a shrewd tactical move for Bush and Cruz to collaborate to take down Rubio and Trump, respectively.  I don’t think that happened; however, today’s NYT has an article in which it is made clear that the Christie and Bush campaigns are working together against Rubio. You could call it the Governors’ Alliance.

Bad feelings will abound when this is over.

Longtime viewers of this blog (to the extent there are any) will be aware that I posted a column entitled “On the Factions Within the Republican Party” back in July.  This column was the foundation of much of what has appeared here in the last six months.  To recapitulate briefly, I have identified four different ideological strains within the GOP, which are as follows:

1.  Christian Democrats (CDs), who are willing to support efforts to increase the size of the federal government in order to help the needy so long as the legislation in question maintains the existing hierarchy and moral standards and is as market-friendly as possible;
2.  Pro-Business Pragmatists (PBPs), who believe that taxes and regulations on business should be kept to an absolute minimum, but who will support increases in federal power that serve their interest (subsidies; tax preferences; bailouts; etc.)  PBPs typically take little interest in other issues involving the size of the federal government and are willing to make deals with the other factions on these matters, and even Democrats where necessary, to get what they really want.
3.  Reactionaries, who are not opposed to government programs which maintain and enhance traditional hierarchies and values and support “their kind of people” (i.e., hard working white Christians), but believe the thrust of government since the New Deal has been to undermine traditional values. Reactionaries consequently support Social Security, Medicare, farm supports, and protectionism, but oppose other forms of redistribution which are perceived to benefit people who are not “real Americans,” and loathe illegal immigration.
4. Conservative Libertarians (CLs) want to reduce the size of the federal government, period.  They decry federal efforts to support business as “crony capitalism.”

While the Reactionary faction is clearly the largest of the four, and has grown markedly in the last eight years, none commands a majority within the party, which means the nominee must represent a coalition of at least two of the factions.  In the recent past, the most popular coalitions have been the following:

1. The Romney Coalition, made up of CDs and PBPs.  Romney Coalition candidates typically are willing to take actions to grow the federal government to support the needy (think “compassionate conservatism”), but also support tax cuts and deregulation for business.
2. The Reagan Coalition, consisting of Reactionaries and PBPs.  Reagan Coalition candidates support tax cuts and deregulation, but also emphasize limiting immigration and spending on social programs and banning abortion.

There are two other potential coalitions that I will address below.

So how do the GOP candidates fit within this framework?  Consider the following:

1. Rubio, Christie, Kasich, and Bush are all Romney Coalition candidates.  All of them support big tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of business, and limits on entitlement programs (all PBP priorities), but all of them pay at least lip service to the needs of the poor.  They are viewed as “establishment” candidates because the last two GOP presidents (Bush 41 and 43) represented this coalition.
2. Trump is a Reagan Coalition candidate.  While his platform includes the usual PBP-friendly proposals for tax cuts and deregulation, he has placed more emphasis on limiting immigration and potential protectionist actions, both of which are concessions to the Reactionaries that do not serve the interest of the PBPs.  He also does not support entitlement cuts, another PBP priority.  It is for that reason that he is viewed with suspicion by the GOP intellectual leadership.
3. Cruz appeals to the Reactionaries and the CLs;  the logical name for this grouping is the Goldwater Coalition.  He takes the CL position on economic/fiscal issues and the Reactionary position on social issues.  The last time a Goldwater Coalition candidate was the nominee was, of course, 1964.

The final potential coalition could be called the Douthat Coalition, since he is the only person I know who advocates for it;  no actual candidates have embraced it. The Douthat Coalition would include CDs and Reactionaries; it would recommend limits on immigration (a Reactionary priority), anti-abortion legislation (a priority for both factions), and tax cuts and social programs targeted towards poor working people in an effort to appeal to the disaffected white working class.

Only one of the Romney Coalition candidates will survive the early primaries. The battle of the coalitions from that point forward should be fascinating.

One final note:  there has been a lot of discussion recently about a deconstruction of the GOP which divides the party into factions based on how “conservative” they are.  Personally, I find this useless, because it doesn’t identify what a “conservative” idea is, or why the factions are at war with each other over issues like bailouts and immigration.  The reality is that the factions actually have different ideologies; their disagreements are not limited to tactics.

The GOP stalwart named Rand.

Things didn’t quite go as he planned.

He thought he could win.

Terror plots did him in.

For his efforts, I’ll give him a hand.

I thought he would fight fruitlessly to the end, like his dad, but I guess he decided to save his Senate seat, which obviously makes sense.  He brought a libertarian perspective to the debates that will be missed (unlike, say, Christie’s action hero persona).  The logical beneficiary of his demise is Cruz.

Spoiler alert:  the title is a pun.

I, and others following me, have analogized the Trump campaign to a bubble. The point of my analogy was that relying on polling evidence of success to actually create victories was not likely to work in the long run.  However, the weakness of the analogy is that it suggests the Trump phenomenon is completely lacking in substance, and will suddenly and mysteriously disappear once the bubble has popped.  I don’t think that is the case.

The Trump campaign is not completely based on winning; it also taps into some real anger on the part of declining middle and working class whites about immigration and globalization, which really are two manifestations of the same issue.  In addition, Trump has damaged his business brand with his campaign, and has burned plenty of bridges, so he has every incentive to fight on, and he will.

In other words, I think a better analogy than the popping of a bubble for the eventual demise of his campaign is a deflated balloon.  It will continue to hang around, and will even capture some victories along the way (e.g., New Hampshire), but it will slowly become less relevant over time.

                  Trump Days Are Over

Iowa

Hit him like a train on a track.

Coming towards him; stuck still; no turning back.

He hid behind pollsters, and he hid on his plane.

He flew to New Hampshire, and there he remained.

In all his worst dreams, he never thought he could lose.

Now he’s behind, staring up at Ted Cruz.

 

The Trump days are over.

The Trump days are done.

The pundits are gloating

That his race is run. . .

 

Parody of “Dog Days Are Over” by Florence Welch/Isabella Summers (Forgive me, Flo)

Note:  This was written months ago in anticipation of a Cruz victory.  In reality, I don’t think Trump is finished yet, but this was too good to waste.  A discussion of the state of the Trump campaign will follow in a subsequent post.

I’m one for one.

Cruz desperately needed to win Iowa, given its favorable demographics and the intensity of his campaign there.  He succeeded.  Trump underperformed, but remains dangerous; the bubble won’t pop overnight.  Rubio put plenty of distance between himself and the other Romney Coalition candidates;  the story behind the story, however, is that the establishment candidates collectively only received about a third of the vote, which should be of great concern to his supporters.

Now, we move on to New Hampshire, where the demographics and the needs of the candidates are completely different.  Cruz just needs a respectable showing; a reasonably strong third would be fine.  Rubio needs to crush the candidates in his lane and finish no worse than second.  Trump needs a win–period.

My guess is that all three will get what they want.  A battle in South Carolina, which is fairly neutral turf, looms very large.

On the Democratic side, a virtual tie, while hardly glamorous, was adequate for Clinton’s purposes.  She will lose in New Hampshire, but her Southern/minority firewall will hold, and she will win the nomination easily.

 

So now for the Texan named Ted,

A Granite State test lies ahead.

His prospects are finer

In South Carolina

If not, then his chances are dead.

Two of the three principal GOP candidates are in desperate need of some mental health counseling.  Trump is a classic narcissist, although, to be fair, some of it may be an act;  Cruz, on the other hand, is filled with barely suppressed anger at a world that he thinks rarely gives him his due and never lives up to his lofty expectations. Rubio, by contrast, appears to be relatively sane, his performance at the last debate notwithstanding.  In that sense, you could call him a “moderate.”

But is he, when you look at his policy positions?  I decided to evaluate the three of them on issues on which they have some measure of disagreement by assigning points to them:  the most extreme gets three points, and the least, one. How do they stack up?

1. Aggressive foreign policy:  Rubio wins the prize here for his enthusiasm for neo-conservative doctrine.  Trump edges out Cruz, who just wants to engage in selective carpet bombing in Syria, due to his advocacy for a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods.  Scores:  Rubio 3; Trump 2, Cruz 1.

2. Tax cut plan:  Rubio’s plan has some small concessions to struggling workers; Trump’s is substantially larger, and is even more skewed to the wealthy; Cruz wants to completely overhaul the existing system and get rid of progressive taxation altogether.  Scores:  Cruz 3; Trump 2, Rubio 1.

3.  Entitlements:  Trump wants to maintain Social Security as it is; Rubio supports cuts for future beneficiaries; Cruz will consider a variety of kinds of cuts and supports partial privatization.  Scores:  Cruz 3; Rubio 2; Trump 1.

4.  Immigration:  Trump’s position speaks for itself.  Cruz basically agrees with him, but in less inflammatory language.  Rubio supported the Gang of Eight legislation, then walked away from it, but still sorta maybe thinks illegals should have some sort of status after he’s long dead.  Scores:  Trump 3; Cruz 2; Rubio 1.

5.  Abortion:  Trump was once pro-choice.  Rubio believes abortion should be outlawed, with no exceptions, but will support an more incremental approach, if tactically necessary.  Cruz, as you would expect, is completely inflexible.  Scores: Cruz 3; Rubio 2; Trump 1.

Final scores:  Cruz 12; Rubio 9; Trump 9.  Cruz is clearly the biggest extremist, but Marco is tied with Trump.  Does that make him a “moderate?”

The senator from my home state.

His Iowa chances aren’t great.

No one will be stirred

If he finishes third.

The voters will decide his fate.

Hawkeye State

Hawkeye state

Trump polling great

Not long to wait

It’s getting late.

 

Through the snow

The press in tow

At last we’ll know

Who’s good to go.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the election to date has been the propensity of some of the prominent candidates to attach faces to our problems and demonize them.  With Trump, it is the immigrants and the Muslims who have to be crushed; for Cruz, anyone with “New York values” does not belong in a decent society; for Sanders, the wealthy (particularly Wall Street bankers) are the axis of evil.

My suggestion is to vote for candidates who talk about issues and solutions, not internal enemies to be annihilated.

Sanders Revolution

You’re calling for a revolution

Yeah, we know

You want to break up the big banks.

You claim that it’s a real solution

Well, you know

I’m just telling you, no thanks.

‘Cause when you talk about Glass-Steagall

Don’t you know that you can count me out.

You know it’s gonna be all right.

 

You say I take their contributions

Well, you know

They don’t love me anymore.

You blame corrupt institutions

Well, you know

We’ve heard this all before.

Believe it or not, banks do some good.

They finance improvements in your neighborhood.

You know it’s gonna be all right. . .

 

Parody of “Revolution” by Lennon/McCartney.

Many mediations fail because the parties are unable to identify a reasonable compromise solution.  That is not the case with the Israeli/Palestinian dispute; everyone knows what the ultimate framework of the deal is.  This is a question of will, not of imagination;  the problem is that the risks associated with a deal, in the eyes of both parties (but particularly the Israeli side) exceed the benefits under current conditions.

Why is that?  Because both sides would probably be facing at least a low-level civil war if they actually come to an agreement.  In addition to that, the Israeli government would have to assume that armed resistance would continue from at least some Palestinians even if they have a binding deal with the PA.  The status quo may not offer any kind of ultimate peaceful solution, but it looks better than this alternative.

What could change that?  The bottom line is that the Palestinians currently have no leverage to force the Israelis to negotiate.  They can’t rely on the US to pressure the government, the Arab world is largely indifferent, and any effort at insurrection would turn the West Bank into Gaza.  All of their efforts to enlist the support of the UN have failed.  Their last card is to dissolve the PA, which would force the Israelis to bear the costs of renewed occupation and administration, but the Israelis are clearly willing to do that if push comes to shove.

I can only imagine two scenarios in which the Israeli government would conclude that the risks of reaching an agreement were lower than the risks of trying to maintain the status quo.  First, there could be some huge blow-up over the holy places that would cause intense outrage among all of the Arab nations and force Jordan and Egypt to provide military assistance to the Palestinians. Second, the potential exists for what amounts to a civil war within Israel’s borders with the Arab population; some of that is occurring today.  Barring one of those two events, there will be no meaningful negotiations for the foreseeable future.

Winners

1.  Donald Trump:  I guess he is a better judge of his opponents than I am.  Nobody made a concerted effort to attack him, and the debate was less interesting without him.

2.  Jeb Bush:  Is it a coincidence that he had his best performance in Trump’s absence?  Probably not.

3.  YouTube Questioners:  They asked very good questions that deserved a more comprehensive response.

Losers

1. Ted Cruz:  His only good moment was on the ethanol question.  He missed the chance of a lifetime to hand Trump’s head to him, looked bad on immigration, and whined about unfair treatment from the moderators (I didn’t think it was unfair).

2.  Marco Rubio:  He might as well have appeared wearing a Ted Cruz mask.  He looked and sounded angry and charmless.  Bush and the moderators got the better of him on immigration.  His repeated efforts to appeal to evangelicals sounded forced and wooden.

3.  Ben Carson:  Was he in a coma?  Why would anyone vote for this guy?

Also-rans

1. John Kasich:  He didn’t say anything memorable.

2. Chris Christie:  More of his interminable terrorist fighter shtick.

3. Rand Paul:  Managed to get in some good shots early, but gave an equivocal and basically dishonest answer to the question about the role of states in regulating abortion.

4.  The moderators:  The videos were a nice touch, but can we please cover some new ground with the questions?