Category: Uncategorized

Matt Taibbi has a column on rollingstone.com in which he rips David Brooks for cynically feeding the masses red meat for the benefit of plutocrats and refusing to accept the Trump and Cruz ascendancy as a consequence.  I think the column is completely unfair to Brooks, who writes reasonably and soberly, but not to the GOP media as a whole.

If you persist in telling your audience in the shrillest tone possible that Obama is a socialist because he wants to increase the maximum income tax rate from 35 to 39 percent, what do you think is going to happen?  These people need to look at themselves in the mirror if they want to know what went wrong.

The likely response of the Reactionaries in the electorate:  Who are you, and why should we care?

It’s a nice try, but what the establishment really needs to do is put millions of dollars into negative ads pointing out how Trump really isn’t a “winner,” and how profoundly he has deviated from conservative orthodoxy in the past. Putting a manifesto in a magazine that only conservative intellectuals read isn’t going to cut it.

Our core interests in the Middle East are as follows:

1.  Keep the oil flowing; and
2.  Prevent terrorist attacks on us and our allies.

Our values must inevitably take a back seat to our interests when the two conflict, as they sometimes do (think of our support for the governments in Bahrain and Egypt), but should be observed in other circumstances.  They are:

1. Prevent human rights violations in the area; and
2. Encourage the growth of liberal democratic principles (respect for property rights; freedom of the press, religion, and association; truly free elections, etc.) Please note that these two items are related, but not identical; while it is unlikely that a truly democratic state will engage in human rights violations, many authoritarian governments respect some or even most civil rights, and may be better than any plausible alternative.

That’s it.  It isn’t any more complicated than that.

Some of the items that are not included on the list are as follows:

1. Unconditional support for Israel when it acts in a way that is inconsistent with our interests.  For example, when the Israeli government tried to use its clout in Congress to force us to go to war against Iran for no obvious American benefit, the President was wise to resist.
2.  Supporting the interests of either side in a religious civil war.
3.  Providing military support for Saudi efforts to establish hegemony over the area. Our relationship with the Saudis should be based solely on Interest #1 above;  it is not premised on any commonality of values.
4. Refusing to do business with Iran.  Heaven knows we are dealing with decades of bad history, but as long as the Iranians are willing to act in a manner consistent with our interests and values, there is no reason to treat them as pariahs.

In short, it is a mistake for us to act as if we have some sort of moral obligation to “cut the grass” for Israel, or to serve as the tip of the Saudi spear, just because we have had common interests and enemies in the past.

Sarah Palin is as close to a pure Reactionary as you could hope to find.  Trump doesn’t go that far;  his tax cut plan is as PBP and WSJ-friendly as the Bush plan.

It would be interesting to hear what she thinks of the various GOP proposals to give more money to billionaires, but, in all likelihood, no one will ever ask.

            You Can’t Always Beat Donald Trump

I saw you today in New Hampshire.

Speaking at a town hall.

You predicted a win, but you didn’t sound sure.

Your chance of success is really small.

 

You can’t always beat Donald Trump.

You can’t always beat Donald Trump.

You can’t always beat Donald Trump.

But if you campaign hard

Use all your charm

You can beat Rubio.

 

I saw you today on the TV.

Addressing a small crowd.

While the voters flocked to a big Trump rally.

And man, they were being really loud.

 

You can’t always beat Donald Trump.

You can’t always beat Donald Trump.

You can’t always beat Donald Trump.

But if you campaign hard

Use all your charm

You can beat Rubio.

 

Parody of “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” by the Rolling Stones.

On Sunday, I posted a column in which I suggested that the election was, in its essence, just a very public job interview process.  I identified three criteria that an employer would consider in an interview:  job experience; personal skills; and business plan (ideology).

For today’s purposes, I’m going to ignore ideology and focus exclusively on the other two criteria.  I would grade the candidates as follows:

Resume Quality

Kasich:  A.  Lengthy legislative experience; successful governor of a purple state.

Clinton:  A.  First Lady; Senator; executive and international experience as Secretary of State.

Christie:  B.  Reasonably successful governor of a blue state.

Bush:  B.  Experience is similar to Christie’s; scores lower because the GOP dominated the Florida Legislature.

Sanders:  B.  Senator; has executive experience in Burlington.

Rubio:  C.  One-term Senator with experience at the state level, but has never run anything.

Cruz:  C.  Same as Rubio.

Trump:  F.  Cutting deals for developments with local governments is not analogous to dealing with Nancy Pelosi, let alone Putin.

Personal Qualities

No one gets an A here.

Kasich:  B.  Intelligent and compassionate, if a bit whiny.

Clinton:  B.  Masters policy details easily; mostly good people skills; is used to intense scrutiny.

Bush:  B.  Qualities that make him a lousy candidate (temperance, thoughtfulness) would help him as President.

Sanders:  C.  Open and honest and has little ego, but a bit of a curmudgeon.  Sees the world in overly simple terms.

Rubio:  C.  Impressive political skills, but lacks gravitas at this point in his career.

Christie:  D.  Shouting at teachers may play in New Jersey, but not in the country as a whole.

Cruz:  F.  Obvious intellectual abilities, but the most personally disagreeable candidate within my memory.  Radiates  ambition, negativity, and anger.  Even his ideological allies in Washington view him as a user.

Trump:  F.  Every day with him as President would be a roller coaster ride.  You could imagine him pushing the button just because Putin said something to piss him off.

You can draw your own conclusions.

The NYT has run a number of articles on the spouses of various candidates, including Cruz and Christie, over the last few weeks.  Based on the information in those articles, it is unlikely that our next First Family will be a traditional family with a male breadwinner and a homemaker mom, regardless of whether the next President is a Republican or a Democrat.

That is absolutely OK;  we’re not in the fifties anymore, Toto.  My point in writing this is that what were perceived to be unusual characteristics of the Clinton marriage 20 years ago are much less so today, and anyone on the right who feels the need to comment on their relationship would be wise to STFU.

I (and, to be fair, others) have observed that the fundamental premise of the Trump campaign is that he is a winner.  The evidence most often used to support this comes from polling numbers.  Ergo, when one of his opponents challenges him on a policy issue, his standard response is to swat the matter away by calling the challenger a loser, and by citing the most recent polls to prove it.

I honestly can’t remember anyone ever campaigning like this, but in economic terms, what Trump is attempting to do is to create a bubble, and we all know from recent experience how that is likely to end.  “Vote for me because lots of other people have said they will vote for me” is not a message that will survive repeated defeats.

At least it isn’t a Ponzi scheme, which was my initial reaction.

 

A few months ago, I posted an only slightly tongue-in-cheek column in which I predicted that Palin would be Trump’s running mate due to their personal and ideological similarities.  Consider my opinion confirmed.

David Brooks has a column in today’s NYT in which he calls for a “Republican Conspiracy,” which is actually the Christian Democrat agenda.  If that ever happened, I would start taking the GOP seriously again, but it won’t, for the following reasons:

1. The PBP enforcers won’t permit it to happen.  Does anyone believe the WSJ will ever support a tax cut plan that doesn’t give most of its benefits to the wealthy?

2.  It sounds too much like Bush 43’s “Compassionate Conservatism.” “Compassionate Conservatism” was discredited by the failures of the Bush Adminstration.  Compassion is out;  anger is in.

3.  The GOP would have to admit that its worship of the fictional “Ronald Reagan,” who saved the country with his across-the-board tax cuts, isn’t a viable basis for governing in the 21st Century.  Old habits die very hard.

Incidentally, it is becoming clear that, among the CD columnists, Brooks and Gerson are burning their bridges to the Trump and Cruz campaigns, while Ross Douthat is keeping his options open.  My guess is that Douthat will support either one as the nominee if and when push comes to shove, because abortion, in the final analysis, is the only issue that matters to him.  I think he would support Saddam Hussein if he promised to end abortion.

His music lives on, which gives a different meaning to the famous line:  “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

Cruz famously read from “Green Eggs and Ham” during one of his filibusters, so he should appreciate this:

You’re a mean one, Mr. Cruz.

Little children fear your name.

There’s an icebox where your heart was.

You’ve got cobras in your brain.

Mr. Cruz

The only question is, which of your parents is to blame?

 

You’re a foul one, Mr. Cruz.

Your list of friends is blank.

You’re as cuddly as a rhino.

You stink like a septic tank.

Mr. Cruz

The three words I hope describe your poll numbers are as follows:  sink; sunk; sank!

 

You’re a monster, Mr. Cruz.

You’ve a bank vault for a soul.

You’re as warm as the Antarctic.

You’re as bright as a black hole.

Mr. Cruz

Come on people:  let’s put him on the dole!

 

Parody of a song performed on “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” by Dr. Seuss.

P.S.  To be fair to the guy, at least he is starting to make the arguments against Trump that the establishment should have raised months ago.

Start spreading the news.

Ted’s leaving today.

He just can’t stand our values here.

New York, New York.

 

Conservatives few.

The culture is gay.

He hates the very sight of it.

New York, New York.

 

He wants to wake up far away

From Times Square.

He’ll be the king of the hill

Just not there.

 

The city’s too blue.

Red’s melting away.

Ignore the voters living there

In old New York.

 

He can’t take it there.

Can he make it anywhere?

No thanks to you

New York, New York.

 

Parody of “New York, New York” as performed by Frank Sinatra.

The New Yorker ran an article about Rubio about six weeks ago in which he was asked to identify some regulatory barriers to economic growth.  If you read his response carefully, he was talking, not about federal rules, but about state and local occupational requirements that make it difficult to become, say, a hairdresser.

This is an agenda for which both the left and the right should be able to show some sympathy.  Personally, I think Marco, given his energy and talent, would make a great mayor; it would give him some executive experience, and the need to make pragmatic choices would draw some of the ideological poison out of him. I would take him more seriously as a Presidential candidate if he had this experience first.

 

1. The NBC moderators did an excellent job.  Lester Holt in particular managed to highlight the differences of opinion among the candidates without engaging in useless confrontations.

2. Campaign contributions from wealthy people aren’t as big a problem as Sanders makes them out to be.  Yes, the rich have disproportionate influence on the system, but campaign contributions are a small part of that–otherwise, Jeb Bush would have a commanding lead in the GOP race.  Most of the public opposition to Bernie’s agenda is driven by honest differences of opinion about the role of the state and by identity politics, not by PAC money.  Does Bernie really think that Alabama would be a blue state but for campaign contributions?

3.  Clinton did a decent job of identifying her practical objections to single-payer, but her argument still needs work.  It would have helped if there had been more of a discussion about Vermont’s failed experiment with single-payer. Now that more details of the Sanders plan are known, the debate should come into better focus.

4.  All of the candidates (understandably) were pandering for minority votes.  I don’t dispute that Black Lives Matter has a point about institutional racism in the judicial system (and elsewhere), but we are electing a President, not an absolute monarch;  virtually all of these problems have to be addressed by local leaders, not in Washington.  Since minority votes are absolutely critical to all three candidates, however, no one was going to say that.

5. The parties don’t even agree on what the issues are.  Do you recall any discussion about climate change, or police shootings, at the GOP debate?  Me, neither.