Category: Uncategorized

Having established the timeframes for GOP radicalization, it becomes easier to assign causes for it.  In my opinion, it was driven by the following:

1.  The proliferation of right-wing media:  The number of channels on cable TV has increased substantially since the early 90’s, and then, of course, we had the internet.  The country is now full of right-wing megaphones with a powerful incentive to out-shout their competitors, and GOP voters can get the news without exposing themselves to moderate opinions in the MSM, which was much more difficult previously.

2.  The impacts of technological change and globalization:   Some culturally conservative men who voted Democrat in a different age lost their jobs and slipped into the Reactionary camp.  That is the reason the debate on protectionism now takes place within the GOP, not among the Democrats.

3.  The increasing impact of large donors with specific agendas on labor rights and climate change after Citizens United:  No elaboration necessary.

4.  They really, really hate Obama:  Radicalization only occurs when the GOP is out of power.  We have reached the point where many GOP members will even repudiate positions they held years ago simply because Obama agrees with them.

Can this process be reversed?  Tune in tomorrow.

The obvious choice would be Sarah Palin, which leads to a question:  is it possible for both candidates on the same ticket to go rogue at the same time?

My overall impressions were as follows:

1.  The panel did a much better job.  There were no questions beginning with “Jane, you ignorant slut.”  While they were windy at times and occasionally appeared to presuppose the general correctness of GOP ideology, this was by far the best job of moderating we have seen this year.
2.  All of the candidates who spoke on issues pertaining to inequality reframed the question as one pitting big business against smaller businesses, not capital against labor.  The conclusion was that big government, far from being the solution to inequality, is actually its principal driver, because big businesses can afford expensive lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists, and small businesses can’t. Looking at class issues without including workers is deeply weird, and ignores the lessons of the First Gilded Age, to which larger government was a response.
3. I think we have reached a point of equilibrium here:  the debates are unlikely to change anyone’s mind until the number of candidates on stage has been reduced significantly.  No one really won or lost last night.

Reviews for the candidates:

1.  John Kasich:  Aggressively pursued his “adult in the room” stance–maybe to the point of rudeness.  Had some good moments as the somewhat moderate conscience of the group, but needs to stop talking so much about his Congressional experience in the 1990’s and the Ohio Miracle.

2.  Jeb Bush:  Was more forceful than in past debates, but still looks like a guppy in a shark tank.

3.  Marco Rubio:  Managed to avoid difficult questions.  Was not challenged on the use of his GOP credit card.  Probably got the better of the exchange with Rand Paul on the issue of military spending in the eyes of the audience.  Appears to have some very extreme views about the nature of work and the economy in the 21st Century;  I plan to address these in a future post.  Hates philosophers.

4.  Donald Trump:  Stayed in character throughout the debate.  His uber-realist views on foreign policy will also be the subject of a future post.  Didn’t help himself by arguing that wages are too high, and that the TPP will somehow help the Chinese.

5.  Ben Carson:  Is totally economically illiterate, but do his supporters really care?

6.  Ted Cruz:  Did his usual extremist thing.

7.  Carly Fiorina:  Sounds more like a bean counter than a politician, particularly when she goes on and on about zero-based budgeting.  Most interesting point is to blame the GOP, as well as the Democrats, for our current dystopia.

8.  Rand Paul:  As usual, interspersed arguments that make perfect sense with complete whoppers (Blue state governors and mayors cause inequality?  Huh?)

You need to take this on an issue-by-issue basis in order to give the topic justice.

1. Taxes:  The GOP has always emphasized small government, but it was far more interested in balanced budgets than in tax cuts prior to Reagan.  Even Reagan didn’t consider tax cuts to be the object of religious veneration.  When Bush 41 lost the 1992 election after breaking his promise on tax increases, however, the party concluded that all future increases of any kind were anathema, and that tax cutting was the very essence of being a Republican. Nothing about that has changed since the early 90’s; if anything, the tax cut proposals have become more and more irresponsible over time.

2.  Crime and social issues:  Richard Nixon wrote the playbook on these issues, which haven’t changed much in 40 years.

3.  Nihilistic legislative tactics:  Newt Gingrich was the innovator here.  Ted Cruz and the Freedom Caucus are just his disciples.

4.  Climate change:  John McCain supported cap and trade in 2008.  That seems like a long, long time ago.

5.  Attacks on “free stuff” for the poor:   Some of this came up during the debate on welfare reform during the Clinton Administration, but Bush 43 was a “compassionate conservative.”  Since 2008, we have had “conservatism” without the “compassion.”

6.  Militaristic foreign policy:  Prior to the late 1960’s, it was the Democrats who believed more firmly in foreign military adventures.  That changed during the Nixon Administration.  The parties are still, in some ways, fighting the battles of the late 60’s and early 70’s.

7.  Entitlement cuts:  A serious conversation on this subject started during Bush 43, but has accelerated dramatically since 2008.  Entitlement cuts are now the orthodox position within the GOP.

As you can see, there are a few issues on which the GOP position has not changed much since the 1960’s, but in most cases, its stance has hardened substantially since the beginning of the Clinton Administration, and particularly over the last several years.  I will discuss the reasons for this tomorrow.

The debates have gotten to the point where it is easy to imagine them as a sitcom. The characters are obvious:  the well-meaning but inept Father Jeb; crazy Uncle Donald; sharp-tongued Aunt Carly; sleepy Grandpa Ben; et. al.  Unfortunately, one of these characters is going to have a reasonable shot at running our country next year.

My normal practice has been to lay out the principal issues for the debate, but the NYT did a really good job with that this morning, so I will abstain, with one exception:  Marco and his credit card issue.  Most of the attacks on Rubio’s finances have been fairly lame, and he has turned them to his advantage, but this one could be different, simply because there is a fairly obvious analogy to Hillary and her use of a private server for public business.  Will any of the candidates see the analogy and use it?  We’ll see.

The readers of this blog may be surprised to hear that I am a registered Independent, not a Democrat, and that I have even voted for GOP candidates for President in the past.  I sometimes marvel that I have moved to the left as I have grown older, but the truth is that I haven’t;  it is the Republican Party that has moved away from the center.

What would the GOP have to do to make me take them seriously?  Here is a list:

1. Stop engaging in class warfare on behalf of rich people, and pretending that tax cuts are the solution to all economic problems.
2. Stop pandering to racists and bigots.
3. Stop accepting faith-based “facts” in lieu of the consensus of the scientific community.
4. Stop engaging in nihilistic tactics to bring the government to its knees.
5. Stop turning an imaginary version of Ronald Reagan into a demi-god.
6. Stop insisting that American military power is capable of solving all of the world’s problems.
7. Stop attempting to recreate an idealized version of America in the 1950’s, or the 1920’s, or whatever, through legislation.

Is that too much to ask?  Probably.

The fact is, Republicans were not always like this.  I will be discussing their movement to the right, and what it would take to reverse it, in subsequent posts.

(They sound like a right-wing rock band.  Ted Nugent could play with them)

As far as I can tell, there are actually two branches in the neocon family.  The first group, which predominated during the Iraq War era, believes that American interests (and, indeed, the interests of all people) ultimately require that American economic and political values be transplanted throughout the world, sometimes by force.  The second group adheres to what could be described as a “community policing” model on a world-wide scale; its adherents maintain that American military power is necessary to address issues regardless of whether they impact American core interests because, due to the increased mobility of people and ideas, someone else’s small problem can quickly become our big problem.

Rubio has aligned himself with the neocons, but it isn’t completely clear which of the two branches he favors.  There is no doubt that he wants to make human rights issues a bigger part of our dealings with China and Cuba, which suggests that he wants to impose American exceptionalism on the world, but I haven’t heard him say anything about spreading democracy in the Middle East, possibly because the situation there is so far gone that even bringing back stability may take a magic trick.

The first group has been discredited to the point that its views do not require a rebuttal.  The second group, on the other hand, is alive and well;  I will be addressing their ideas in a later post.  For present purposes, suffice it to say that the activism of a Rubio Administration would result in more American involvement in conflicts around the globe.

This week’s Economist contains an article about the GOP which concludes with the following sentence:  “Political parties, like people, tend to get the reputations they deserve, and the Grand Old Party’s may yet shut it out of the White House next year.”  The same magazine also contains a leader which expresses newfound hope for the party because its “ascendant stars. . .are serious and electable.”  Paul Ryan!  Marco Rubio!  Moderation and good sense abound!

This raises two questions:

1.  Who is being more realistic here?
2.  What accounts for the discrepancy?

As to the first question, I have expressed my opinions on Rubio’s supposed “moderation” on multiple occasions.  I would further note that, even if you assume he is a “moderate,” he is so far behind Carson and Trump in the polls that he can barely see them with a telescope.  No, moderation is not on the horizon.

There are two answers to the second question.  The first one,  the general media desire to split the difference between the parties, has been set out by Paul Krugman so many times it no longer needs elaboration.  The second is that the magazine caters to business people who are natural Republicans; they do not particularly want to hear from the editorial staff that their party is in the thrall of fools and clowns.

Consistent with this, I will be addressing the radicalization of the GOP from several different angles in the coming week.

 

I have the following observations on the decision:

1. Obama clearly didn’t believe the hype from either side about the significance of the decision (for what it’s worth, I didn’t, either).  All of the sound and the fury worked to his advantage in that it created a more valuable bargaining chip.  He could have used it with the GOP to trade for concessions on the budget, but he ultimately decided that he would rather use it to bolster his position at the climate change meeting in Paris.
2. The timing of the long-postponed decision was clearly driven by the outcome of the Canadian election and the upcoming discussions on climate change.
3. If the result of the Canadian election had been different, or if oil prices had not collapsed, I suspect the pipeline would ultimately have been approved.  We’ll never know.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, Keystone Pipeline blues.

Obama turned us down after a long review.

The case is over now; there’s nothing left to do.

Things may be different in a year or two.

 

He doesn’t understand the havoc he has caused.

He doesn’t care about the lobby jobs we lost.

He doesn’t see a car; only the exhaust.

Our profits count for less than the permafrost.

 

I’ve got the blues.

The big pipeline blues.

I always knew those Democrats were bad news.

Our patience has run out; it’s no time to be still.

And when we’re back in charge, it’s drill, baby, drill.

The orthodox position within the Democratic Party is to demand gun control measures on a national level, even though extensive recent experience tells us that they cannot pass.  Sanders, partially as a reflection of the views of his Vermont constituents, and partially for other pragmatic reasons, believes gun control should be addressed on a state and local level.  As one would expect, his departure for orthodoxy cost him in the first debate.

In my opinion, that is unfortunate.  It is undoubtedly true that gun control measures work better on a national level, but, practically speaking, that is spitting in the wind, so legislation on a local level is the best we can do.  In addition, whether we like it or not, guns are an important part of rural culture; the Democrats would be wise to acknowledge and defer to that if they ever want to be competitive in rural areas.

The Deep Bench

Republicans were jubilant

After 2010.

Their future rested in the hands

Of formidable men.

 

Kasich in the Midwest.

Jindal in the South.

Perry in the Southwest.

Christie’s boundless mouth.

 

Where did they all go, you ask.

Trump and Carson rule.

The GOP establishment

Is looking like a fool.

 

Sometimes it’s the message

But sometimes it’s the talker.

Sometimes the star you thought you had

Turns out to be Scott Walker.

Mitt Romney ran a campaign in 2012 that was breathtaking in its cynicism.  Everything about the man’s background in business and politics indicated that he was a PBP, but he insisted throughout the primaries that he was “severely conservative.”  In essence, he was telling the Reactionaries what he knew they wanted to hear, while all the time winking suggestively at the PBPs and the CDs.  It worked:  he got the nomination, and outperformed his party in the general election, even though he didn’t win.

Fiorina’s business background vaguely resembles Romney’s, and her most memorable moments on the campaign trail, other than her confrontations with Trump, have revolved around social issues that resonate primarily with Reactionaries.  Could she pull off the same trick?  Probably not, for the following reasons:

1. As I have explained previously, the GOP always wants to nominate someone who reminds them of Ronald Reagan.  Romney might not have sounded like Reagan, but at least he looked a bit like him.  For obvious reasons, Fiorina fails this test.  She would be well-advised to use Margaret Thatcher, who was also much beloved by the GOP, as her role model.
2. Romney was clearly a successful businessman and had substantial credentials as a politician.  Fiorina’s record at HP is a continuing source of controversy, and she has no qualifications as a political leader.
3. Romney profited from the absence of any serious PBP rivals (Huntsman doesn’t count) and from Rick Perry’s failure to grasp the significance of the immigration issue.  For 2016, the immigration issue already belongs to Trump, and the Romney Coalition lane has several reasonably formidable candidates.

I don’t expect much of substance to be accomplished, but the symbolism alone makes it a good thing.  My point in commenting is to note that, notwithstanding Chinese fears of encirclement, the US government would be delighted if Taiwan could be reintegrated into China through a truly consensual process.  US policy is not to thwart the rise of China, but to prevent changes to the status quo created by the threat of force.

Here are a number of potential approaches, and my responses to them:

1. Raise the minimum wage:  This approach is popular among Democrats because it doesn’t involve any government spending and is therefore more difficult to deride as “free stuff.”  It imposes the cost of the welfare state on employers and consumers rather than taxpayers.

While there are studies which indicate that minimum wage increases do not necessarily reduce employment, these are inevitably tied to specific economic conditions.  I don’t think you can automatically assume that increasing the minimum wage will never have a negative impact on employment, and it is my opinion that the cost of societal choices like this should be borne by everyone, not just employers and consumers.  There is definitely a case for some measure of increase, particularly since the value of the minimum wage has been eroded by inflation over the last decade or so, but this is a blunt instrument that should be used carefully and sparingly, and with an eye to local circumstances.

2.  Wage subsidies through the tax system:  In my opinion, this is a better approach from an economic perspective, but it is more difficult politically, because it looks more like unpopular “free stuff” to both taxpayers and recipients, and it drives up the deficit.

3.  Protectionism:  By all plausible accounts, this is the most inefficient way imaginable of driving up wages.

4.  Minimum income stipends:  I think this is where we are headed in the long run, but the public is not ready for it yet.

5.  Make labor more valuable by shifting the cost of the welfare state from employers and employees to all taxpayers:  I will advocate for this in a future post.